This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, Thank you for your comments about my work on the invention page. Please understand that it is a work in progress, very far from finished and I can only work on it part time. I am not able to work on it full days. I happened to find a number of fascinating quotes that I feel give a lot of insight into invention and the process of inventing. I am totally aware of the fact that there are too many quotes on the invention page now. But I left them in for now because the page is a work in progress and very far from finished. As a work in progress, the invention page is in my view better off in its current state with the quotes supporting than without them. Frankly I am hoping that someone else or maybe multiple other people start contributing content to the invention page too. If you read over the Creativity page you will see a dramatic comparision. I am not adding any original content to wikipedia. Much of the information I wrote on the invention page is taken directly from a very good website which is the site of the Invention and Innovation Center at the Smithsonian Institution here in the USA http://invention.smithsonian.org/home/. If you are not familiar with the Smithsonian Institution please take a look at it. It is truly a wonderful resource. The site provides a ton of information about invention including lots of interviews with many inventors. As I continue on the Invention page over whatever amount of time it takes, and hopfully with the contributions of other people to this page, the problem of having too many quotes on it will get resolved and the information on the page will get more substantial. I have met a number of people who are very knowledgable about subjects related to the inventive process who I may be able to talk into contributing to wikipedia. Thank you.--Sara USA (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the quotes is just one aspect. It simply is not even close to looking like an encyclopedic article and if you are using a lot of information from the smithsonian site you should be linking to the specific places on that site which serve as your references. Frankly, I think the current state of the article is verging on unsalvagable and really do recommend that you read the wikipedia style guidelines as I suggested. GDallimore (Talk) 11:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Kindly look at the content you just deleted from the Invention page more carefully. It is all taken directly from this book which I cited and you deleted: Patenting Art and Entertainment by Gregory Aharonian and Richard Stim, Pub. Date: Jun 2004, Nolo Press, ISBN: 9781413300321. You can find this book online and even read excerpts from it online. Anyone can look at this book and see that the information I added came directly from it. The book describes inventions in art, design and architecture, as well as inventions in other arts. I do not agree with your deletion of the content I just added to the Invention page from this book. I think that if you look at the book yourself you will change your mind.--Sara USA (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia guideline I referred you to and add the information and the reference in line with those guidelines. GDallimore (Talk) 13:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

...for fixing the vandalism to Mousepad. That will teach me to look at all four digits on the IP. I thought Rollback would fix it. My bad. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. That's the thing with all these special anti-vandalism tools - you never know quite what they're going to do when you use them! GDallimore (Talk) 09:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Alphabet song.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like ((PD-self)) (to release all rights), ((self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL)) (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a nice idea, but ultimately too cluttered. I think a link to the list article is probably better. Graevemoore (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the full version will get too cluttered for normal article use, but the mini versions such as ((Hugo Award Best Novel 1946-1960)) wouldn't be and could be added to the end of the relevant novel articles. I've just added the full template for nor to show people the work in progress and try to get some support in implementing it.

I think it would be useful to be able to easily get an immediate picture of the larger historical context in which a book won the award, rather than just the immediately preceding and succeeding ones. Have a look at how well it works here: [[1]]. The Academy award templates were the basis for my templates. GDallimore (Talk) 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Just a note to let you know that I will do more work on the Invention page to make the references more specific, according to Wikipedia standards, as you noted. I just need to do this as you suggested, more slowly. Although I have recently been able to spend a lot of time working on the Invention page, I am not able to do this now. I will finish the work on the Invention page slowly. All the best. --Sara USA (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

GD, my gratitude for your input to I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. It demonstrates the collaborate nature of WP, which is a marvelous thing. I appreciate editors who actively improve articles, especially my pet projects which always need a non-biased look. Keep it up! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi GDallimore - thank you for your input on the DYK debate. I have proposed this new wording - please let me and others know what you think. Vishnava_(talk) 17:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's all well in hand. Good luck! GDallimore (Talk) 18:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

On 24 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Uncommon Sense, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Olaf Davis | Talk 09:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry it took me a while to respond to your suggestion about the DYK template. My answer's now on my talk page. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 16:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, re your recent edit to Song cycle, did you have a peek here?.

interesting userpage, btw. Re Did You Know, I was recently startled by a reference to "jarring seeds" in Purcell's Hail Bright Cecilia in what I had once ignorantly thought of as the age of caloric theory. Sparafucil (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops. No, I hadn't seen that. As it happens, I disagree - the plot is so vague that I think both shows qualify. That's the problem when you start getting unreferenced lists of things that various people think sound like they fit a particular category. Two people disagree and there's no way to resolve the problem.

I'll take a look at those articles you mention. Sounds interesting. Thanks! GDallimore (Talk) 07:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I realize the mistake that I did earlier, though I had referred to a few articles like Sonicwall and Websense. Will it be possible for someone to review the page I create on my sandbox, and comment on the acceptability of the content, before I can actually submit it this time? Regards Sachinpurohit (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If I recall, those sites confirmed info about firewalls in general, not about safesquid in particular. I'm sure you can find someone to review a draft article, but the easiest thing to do is to ignore what safequid say about their product to start with and instead build an article based on what OTHER people have said about it. Blogs or minor reviews are not good enough per WP:Notability. PC World articles or something like that are what you need to be looking for. Once that's done, a small section based on the safesquid site could serve as the basis for a short section and the products capabilities. GDallimore (Talk) 11:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Do you think these links are good enough? - SafeSquid Log Analyzer, SafeSquid HowTos, Technology Partner, news, Freshmeat Project Page, ClamAV Wiki, Article by David Burt. Sachinpurohit (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you please check my sandbox and comment on the article? Thanks in advance Sachinpurohit (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Still reads a lot like an advert. I've highlighted two of the better refs that are in there. Refs need to do more than just mention the software - they need to describe what it does or what's good about it. I suggest starting from scratch and just describing safesquid and why people use it based on the text in those refs. Then you can comment that there are lots of technological partners (eg Novell), then you can put SOME of the info about safesquid from their site, but there's no point repeating all of it. Good luck. GDallimore (Talk) 11:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I followed your advise, and re-edited the whole article, starting from scratch. Kindly advice if it looks ok now. Also, if it looks ok, can I just re-start the SafeSquid page? Regards Sachinpurohit (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you can just re-start the article now. It still needs work, but it's a start. Once you've recreated it, find some Wikipedia computer action group and see if anyone's willing to help. SafeSquid does seem to be widely used, so I'm sure someone will want to help make the article better. I'm not the person for the job, I'm afraid. GDallimore (Talk) 10:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your support and guidance. I will ask for help in improving the article. Regards Sachinpurohit (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for rectifying my slip-up Sachinpurohit (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did you change the redirect? The original one makes more sense to me and I was going to change it but then noticed that that would just be reversing your edit so I thought I'd ask you first. It Is Me Here (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed it because the article it linked to didn't establish notability so I voted it for deletion/merge with the Weebl article. That problem has now been resolved (just barely) but I may have missed some of the redirects. GDallimore (Talk) 09:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved on User:GDallimore/Sean Ellis. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi GDallimore, I came across an article Paradise Lost (2006 film) and I think it lacks sufficient references to be notable under Wikipedia:Notability (films). Before I PROD it I wondered if you, as creator, would like a chance to add some refs. Regards and happy editing. --triwbe (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget it, I see your article was a redirect, some one else has been modifying it. Sorry to bother you. --triwbe (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

You reverted my edit (as an IP) to software patent (in the introductory paragraph). I absolutely respect your decision to do so, and having looked a bit more into the detail, think it was better than my edit.

However, my concern is that the introductory paragraph of Software Patent is a little annoying for the layman - for I would come to the page for a definition, explanation and a bit of elaboration, and the opening sentence ("there is no universally accepted definition") doesn't further wikipedia's aim of being an encyclopedia (although it is 100% correct). Therefore, I would have thought something explaining the most popular schools of thought in the introductory paragraph would be to everyone's benefit.

I have no expertise whatsoever on the subject, and since you are the "patent attorney", I would have thought you would probably know best how to do it.

Anyhow, thanks and hope I'm not causing too much of a storm in a teacup,

--BarryC _(talk) 20:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, there is no popular school of thought and the opening sentence is compeltely accurate when it says "there is no universally accepted definition". At present it gives the opinion of one (anti-) group. It could probably do with a second definition, perhaps from the US Patent Office. Or we could include a definition of a computer-implemented invention from the European Patent Office. I'll think about it, unless you can track down some words from either of those groups. Remember that few legal bodies use the term "software patent" since it is a loaded term and typically viewed as derogatory so make sure to preface any definition with the precise terminology of the term they say they are defining. Perhaps you begin to see the difficulties. GDallimore (Talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See also Talk:Software patent#Opening section. --Edcolins (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Dabredlink‎ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. swaq 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You gave me some kind of warning about a post I believe I made many months ago--

Also, what do you mean by 'platform for my ideas?' (not trying to argue with you but I am trying to understand and also explain my position).

My motive was just responding to other peoples comments about relevance/irrelevance of the Steorn article.

My posts were simply directed at the issue of whether or not the (entire) Steorn article should be removed--

I have no 'ideological agenda' or any other agenda to push.

Also-- I do think that any scientist who tries to get the entire Steorn article removed is taking an unreasonable position.

My first, ('apparently' speculative statement) will be shown below (in the Second Point) to tie directly into the debate of Steorn article cancellation.--

First, it is scientifically irresponsible to say that something "is impossible". The responsible statement is that "it is not known to be possible" (these are very different statements).

Second, deleting entire articles because they discuss "the scientifically impossible" is contrary to Wikipedia standards--

The article is relevant because A) scientific impossibility is a scientifically unprovable and absolutist statement

("Commonly believed by scientists to be impossible") is an accurate statement by contrast (by Wikipedia standards).

This may look like I am attacking science-- but I believe whole-heartedly in science-- and am merely trying to preserve the article on Steorn.

B)As I also stated (long ago, the post is still visible) in the Steorn Discussion area--

"Steorn is a media phenomenon, and therefore is a relevant wikipedia article subject".

(This comment, placed long ago and still there, demonstrates pattern of intent that is focused on debating the merits of an article subject rather than "using wikipedia as a platform for ideas".

For these reasons I ask that my posts be left alone.

I also think you need to explain your own positions better (you should explain why you are deleting something rather than just 'labeling' someones comments as having one intent or another.

I have NO anti-scientific agenda whatsoever...

Sean7phil (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The position is simple. Talk pages are for discussing the article, not the topic. You were and, with your comments above, still are discussing the topic. Nobody is deleting the article so everything you say about that is completely irrelevant. GDallimore (Talk) 22:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On 24 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Community design, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Congrats on the article! Alansohn (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, GDallimore. You have new messages at Travellingcari's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

On 16 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Beast that Shouted Love at the Heart of the World (short story), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Kept for comic value...

Please review and pass the following article for GA class. It is well referenced article of brilliant prose and both the Rambling man and user talk:Jimbo Wales agree it should be a Good Article. Last king of Frisia (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You wrote aboiuut the Air Mobility Command Museum saying "no third party sources, intro reads like an advertisement. Also, majority of the article is about the planes, not the museum, so should be merged with relevant articles." I removed the items that made the page look like an add, like the operating hours. I do not think that this page or the museum belongs on spisifice aircraft pages any more that the items in the National Air and Space Museum belongs in anouther catagory. The aircraft located in the museum are acutual working items and are viewable to the public for hands on interaction and aircraft in the museum is the museum. Many of these items are one of a kind and not duplicated in any other museum. Please give me inforation on how I can recreate or modify the page so it is better. Davidedgeworth (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What is needed is to reflect in the article what people other than the museum say about the museum. And I'm not talking about personal comments, but things like newspaper reports. This goes for the museum itself and the exhibits. So, if a newspaper commented on the importance of a particular exhibits, then that deserves a mention, but not otherwise. You should be careful judging the quality of your article by comparing it with others, since there is nothing to say that those other articles are any good. Try to find some relevant guidelines. Is there a guideline somewhere about how articles about museums would best be written? I don't know. But a good guideline to start with should be WP:Verify.

Also, it's not perfect, but the British Museum looks pretty good. It talks more about the history and importance of the museum, since that is the topic of the article, rather than the history of the exhibits, which should be discussed in articles about those exhibitsspecifically. Nevertheless, particularly important exhibits like the Rosetta Stone are mentioned. The Air museum article will not be anywhere near as long since it is not as large nor as old, but I think this BM article is a good template. GDallimore (Talk) 18:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try to russle up some newspaper items and look at the BM page. Davidedgeworth (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck. GDallimore (Talk) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification regarding patent law. No, I am not saying the source is not reliable, and in fact I have added a duplicate footnote to clarify that the sentence about the expiration of the U.S. patent for LZW is sourced to the same source as the sentence immediately after it. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fondness for beetles.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Inordinate fondness for beetles display.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Inordinate fondness for beetles display.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

On 24 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Let the Right One In (film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 10:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why you removed this [2]? An error maybe? Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. I thought I added it back in! Sorry. GDallimore (Talk) 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

On 2 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article G 3/08, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Mifter (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi GDallimore. Is there still a need for Category:Articles nominated for DYK? -- Suntag ☼ 16:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably not since everyone seems to want the process to stay as it is despite criticism from some sources. GDallimore (Talk) 21:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything against this site???--Kozuch (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a petition. It has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Anyone can set up a petition and create their own website to promote it and there's nothing to suggest that it's a reliable or useful source - the fact that is was started by a former board member of the ffii is not a point in its favour. If there were a petition makesoftwarepatentsareality.org started by a former Microsoft employee, I would cut it out just as quickly. GDallimore (Talk) 16:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work on this DYK candidate... Not an easy one it seems. And, just wanted to let you know, I completely support your view on WP:CRYSTAL. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, 66.208.26.115, who expanded ten-fold in re Bilski, teaches at the GW law, and was somewhat bitten (WP:BITE) when editing the article derivative work. See User talk:66.208.26.115. I took the liberty to mention your name as a potential source if he needs any help. --Edcolins (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On 15 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article In re Bilski, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 02:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your levelheadedness in the recent discussions. I noticed that you're working on Let the Right One In. I have access to some subscription-only databases for newspapers and magazines. Do you want me to see if I can find anything useful? Keep up the good work! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. If you can find anything (particularly interviews or production history info) for Let the Right One In, that would be great. You don't speak Swedish, do you? :) There's loads of foreign language stuff but the automatic online translators are a bit crap. GDallimore (Talk) 15:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)