User talk:Guppy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Guppy, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Angela 06:18, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)
Guppy, thanks for taking the initiative on Arthur Ashe! I had a similar reaction to yours shortly after coming here when I found that Maya Angelou had no article. I appreciate having worked with you on Arthur's article (hope you didn't mind my intrusion!) and look forward to your contributions in the future -- Jwrosenzweig 06:23, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
P.S. Angela knows what she's doing and will be a far better resource for you than I will, but if you feel like tossing me a question, I'm more than happy to help. :) Jwrosenzweig
Thanks for the heads-up, Guppy. I have blocked the vandal. Leave it to you to revert his damage. Best -- Tannin
Contents |
[edit] Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)
[edit] Illegal immigrant
There has been a fitful discussion on the talk page of this article about moving it to "Illegal immigration". That move would entail a bit of re-writing. Since I see you are doing some revisions now, would you be interested in making the move and the attendant edits? Thanks for all you do. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:26, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
-
- What's up with these? It seems like a straight merger/redirect could be done. Right now the two articles don't realte well, and the Illegal immigrant talkas about immigration. Are you still working on this project? -Willmcw 23:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be okay with redirecting the "illegal immigrant" article to the "Illegal immigration" article. I'm not really working on it anymore. Sorry. Guppy 04:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Coca-Cola Company
I reverted and restored that which you deleted without providing any justification, namely the CokeFacts.org link. It was the sole link providing any balance to the anti-Coke links. Isn't it customary to provide commentary/justification when you delete something from the article?
It is ridiculous to claim that article is "pro-Coke" in any way - at least half the article is dedicated to criticism of the company. There is nothing at all about the company's or its founders/leaders' philanthropy which has been considerable, particularly in Atlanta. Without the link you deleted, there is practically no representation of Coke's side or position on any of the criticism that is in the article and repeated in multiple links.
However, in the future, rather than revert named users such as yourself, I will edit as necessary to try to maintain the NPOV of the article. Autiger 19:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, Autiger, I did not delete the link. You should have looked before reverting - I put it just a couple lines above in the general link section. Thanks for attempting to keep things NPOV. I never asserted that the *article* is pro-Coke - but that your actions reflect such a bias. In fact, my consistent point has been that that article is a ghetto remaining from the white-washing that users like yourself committed in editing the Coca-Cola article. Guppy 04:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] in the news
you are in the news: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13269186/
"A former administrator known only as "Guppy" has repeatedly contended that Wikipedia's coverage is too pro-Coke. In fact, Guppy on May 5 flagged the Coke corporate entry as potentially biased -- ostensibly in favor of Coke."
