User talk:AlbertR/Archives

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 03:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Investigations (Voyager episode)

Hi. Just FYI I have put up a request for undeletion of this article, which was speedied earlier today (I don't know if it was by you, but you indicated it in the VFD). There is plenty of precedent for Star Trek episode articles, and I feel this was speedied before anyone had a chance to notice it was up for deletion and expand it. There are numerous other episode articles lacking content in this way, but they will be all expanded eventually. Cheers. 23skidoo 18:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't speedy it -I'm not an admin. I merely closed the discussion after someone else speedied it. AlbertR 18:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Montréal-Mirabel International Airport

I just deleted the table of airline service. The contents were pretty much already in the paragraph anyways. Feel free to revert if you do not agree. -maclean25 00:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think losing the table isn't a problem. As you said, the information was already in the paragraph. AlbertR 00:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up (in case you aren't aware of it), but recently several people have noted POV problems with the article. As of now, I am not familiar with all the details concerning the airport, and would like to know if you will revisit the article and fix the problems. Otherwise, someone might nominate this article for FA removal. Pentawing 00:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, this article is up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article review#Active reviews --maclean25 09:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Bcferry.png

I am sorry, but I did not appreciate the message you put on my talk page warning of an image about to be deleted. Such warnings intimidate me and cause my wikimood to decrease. Please see my request for comment for more information. Denelson 83 09:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know that you were a new user, and thank you for the apology. Denelson 83 03:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Atlantic logo

Thanks for the alert about the VFD. No probs - new one is much better! I'll try to get around to rewriting the main article at some point. Plasma east 00:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tag

Sorry, for my mistake, and I assure you that it will not be repeated. - Vaikunda Raja

Soviet COA image..

When I uploaded the image I didn't notice the discrepancy that the hammer and sickle need to be over europe and africa, I liked the image because it was clear and high-ress. Maybe instead of deleting the image, you could just revert to the other older version (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/6/62/20050319032017%21Soviet_coat_of_arms.png)? --Berkut 01:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very good catch by AlbertR, when I looked at it for the first time I didn't notice the discrepancy too. I think, that it was one of the revisions (probably before 1958, or after 1971-this is much less likely, as I know it didn't experience major changes after 1971), it would be very interesting to get more inf. on that revision, if this is true. I really don't want to believe that guys here http://www.gerb.bel.ru/pages/russia/ussr.htm used Photoshop. Cmapm 18:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Soviet coat of arms.jpg

Heya, are you sure you want Image:Soviet coat of arms.jpg deleted? The image under that name on commons doesn't exist anymore (I can't check if it was the same one, I can't see deleted pages there). By the way, for future reference: images now on commons aren't speedy deletion candidates, it's best to use {{Nowcommons|Image:newfilename}} instead. --fvw * 13:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The new image in Commons is Image:Soviet coat of arms.png. I uploaded Image:Soviet coat of arms.jpg in a moment of weakness and I would like it deleted, please. Alr 18:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So it is, when I checked this afternoon it wasn't there, I might have typoed though. Moved to commons isn't a speedy deletion candidate by the way, you should use the nowcommons template for that. Still, as you're the only person to edit the page, you're entitled to a speedy delete of it, as it would appear has already happenned.

On a marginally unrelated note, I notice the version you uploaded to commons is significantly smaller in dimensions than the previous version is. Is that on purpose? --fvw * 23:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

No it wasn't on purpose. I just uploaded the first version of the image to replace the incorrect, though better looking version uploaded by User:Berkut. I didn't really check, I'm afraid to say. Alr 23:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Thanks for helping out with the maintenence of this page by deleting those 2 articles, but for future reference, the ones that get removed for having too few votes are taken to the /Removed subpage. Thanks again. Mallocks 07:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

I wanted to inform you that I removed your RFA a little early due to the piling on of oppose votes. I encourage you to run again in a few more weeks, as the main issue brought up by the opposition was your account's age. Acetic '^Acid 03:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Marine Atlantic maps

Egoless. If we want the wikipedia to be its best we should be egoless. Still, it was an unpleasant shock to see one of my images slated for deletion. I try to be careful, when I create an image, to put an appropriate tag on it. It took me several minutes to determine that this deletion was not due to neglecting to tag the image, but to your idea that your image had rendered mine obsolete. Don't you think that this is something that should be subject to a discussion?

Your image is highly stylized. You eliminated St Pierre and all the other smaller Islands. You eliminated all the fjords. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a question of aesthetics. Personally, I don't like the approach you chose.

In your image you made the same mistake I did in the first version I created -- you have put some of your text right on top of the boundaries on the map, making it hard to read.

There are guidelines for creating wikipedia maps. My maps don't follow those guidelines in all aspects. There are certain colours that are recommended. The primitive tool I used doesn't make it easy to change colours. But I don't think you used the recommended colors either.

Since I put some effort into this map, and since I think yours uses the silhouette of the shoreline from the one I created, may I suggest that both common sense and common courtesy would suggest that we should have a discussion as to how to replace the image I created with a better image? -- Geo Swan 21:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating my invite to discuss how to make the best map

We both made maps. Neither is ideal. I don't agree your is superior to mine. Are you going to talk about it? -- Geo Swan 17:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Licensing

I know that image licensing is important on this site, but I do put down on most of my logo pics as Fair, because they are logos of CFL teams. However, I will admit that I did forget to write it down. User:Bestghuran 15:24, 16 OCtober 2005

List of Kilkenny people

Hi, I'm no great fan of lists but I've added some content to this. Would you like to have a look at the result? Dlyons493 Talk 06:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating another of Diliff's wonderful images. Raven4x4x 04:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop moving big white ski resort around

It is named Big White Ski Resort! There is a redirect from big white! Hamedog 01:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COTW Project

You voted for Lee Smith (baseball), this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Image:The Raccoons TV Series.png

Hi there. I am the uploader of Image:The Raccoons TV Series.png. I got it from a scan of the box of Volume 1 of the release of The Raccoons on DVD. It is a crop of the upper portion of the front of the box, I removed quite a bit of noise and other artifacts. That is why it was listed as being a DVD cover. Qutezuce 01:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Pearson International Airport

The GTAA offical name is Toronto Pearson or Toronto Pearson International. However, the NAV CANADA offical name in the Canada Flight Supplement (CFS) (as of 22 December 2005) is Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport and that needs to be in the article as with other airports that have more than one "offical" name. See Montréal-Mirabel International Airport or North Peace Airport. Of course if on the 16 February 2006 the CFS has a different name then I would change it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NAIAT3.jpg

I've removed the CSD tag again, although you attached the tag on 7th Jan you didn't fill out the tag parameters properly [1], hence anyone not familiar with wikipedia, looking at the resulting text would not have known when it was tagged or when it was eligble for deletion. It was corrected on 12th Jan, so I suggest we let in run from then. If you disagree please tag it for CSD again and I'll leave it to another admin to decide. Thanks --pgk^(talk) 21:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air Rhodesia Viscount picture

AlbertR. I thought that was quite a dramatic picture. As it dates from the 1960s and is widely used on various internet sites, is there any copyright problem concerning it?. I suspect it was a publicity shot done for the airline, which no longer exists. Bob BScar23625 17:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlbertR. Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. I have checked into the provenance of the image. It is actually the black & white photograph of a painting commissioned by the airline in 1965. The picture itself was hung in the boardroom of the airline office - although I do not know where it is now. The photograph was widely used for promotional purposes (eg the cover of brouchures and timetables) through to the 70s. I have inserted its URL source on the Image narrative. The term "Fair Use" is a new one on me. But it seems to correspond to the British term "Public Domain". If a picture has been widely used over a number of years, then there is no copyright to it. Am I OK to re-insert the link to the Rhodesia page?. Bob

Apartheid sign pic

Hi. Thanks for picking this up. I am the copyright holder and I give all permissions implied in the licence option I chose. Guinnog 21:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that your objection to the "minis" image in "Expo 67" is an opinion of based on your own idea of ugliness. I do not think this is sufficient reason for its deletion & have reinstated it once more. Whereas I and several others think that the image underlines the light mode that existed during Expo 67. I hope that this is not going to be a battle of opinions. Regards DonJay

Re: image:Minis.jpg As this image was scanned from a newspaper, there can be no URL. Also these are not require in defining a source. Please do not again remove this image. Thank you DonJay

Coquitlam, British Columbia

This is a broadcast message for users that voted to select this article as the Canadian collaboration. It has been selected for the February 2006 collaboration period. Congratulations! Mind matrix 19:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure took long enough...Alr 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 23:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macanese pataca

Hi, I see that you added a new table to Macanese pataca. Have you consider something more detail like the ones on New Taiwan dollar or Renminbi? --Chochopk 15:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I have implemented such format on South Korean won, Malaysia ringgit, and Japanese yen. --Chochopk 05:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you removed a lot of information from Macanese pataca on your edit of 3 February 2006. Is there a particular reason why they are deleted? Are they not true, not verifiable, or ....? --Chochopk 07:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fmt on Big White Ski Resort

I saw your comment in history. What are you refering to? --Hamedog^Talk|@ 12:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Havana

Earlier, you deleted a section with the comment "Wikipedia is not a travel guide". However, that section includes much that is relevant, and not just a travel guide. (e.g that Habana Vieja is a Unesco world heritage site). Further, as a major tourist destination, some tourist information is justified (compare San José, Costa Rica with sections on nightlife and attractions, and London, with Places of interest.

-- Beardo 23:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Beardo.

Furthermore, I think it would have been nice if you had brought it up on the discussion page before deleting material.

Erland Lewin 07:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Indonesian Rupiah.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Indonesian Rupiah.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sanbec 15:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Convertible Peso

You recently deleted a clariffication I made containing valuable information regarding the money exchange rates in Cuba, saying that's not necessary... I think this clariffication should not be deleted, 'cause it helps people to know the different options they have to exchange with CUC. So it is desirable that you post that text back into the article. Thanks Alex

I need help from you

I am not sure how to edit timelines, so I would like to ask you for help editing template:Timeline of Alberta Premiers so that it is reversed in order so it goes chronologically from top to bottom starting with the earliest with the latest (now) at the bottom. That has been request at the FLC page for List of Alberta Premiers. Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riyadh

Hey there, thank you for taking your time to try and make the Riyadh article look the best. I see that you make the images all aligned in one line at the left side of the article, while I think it's nicer to place the pictures near their sections, for example the Historical Castle should be in the History section, and the Population graph is really out of context if placed outside of the Population section, Also I don't understand why you reverted the edit I did to the Masmak Castle link, I changed the link to link it to it's page and now you changed it back to make it a red link. --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expo 67

In deleting the "Trivia" paragraph, you have given the reason as "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The Oxford dictionary gives the definition of the word "Encyclopedia" as "Book giving information on many subjects, or on many aspects of one subject." By this definition, your opinion of what constitutes 'indiscriminate' aspects would for many others be considered as important complementary information. You are, therefore, acting as a censor rather than a critic. I therefore request that you do not delete for this reason. I would also suggest that instead of deleting, you edit, preferably by adding material if you feel there is a lack. DonJay 11 July 06

Image:The Raccoons TV Series.png

For some reason you decided that your suspicion that the above image was not from a DVD cover was enough reason to put the image up for speedy deletion (using the lack of fair use criteria as a reason does not work, you could easily have written one yourself in the same time it took you to add the speedy tag). Luckily I was around and paying attention and removed the speedy tag before it could get deleted. I scanned the image myself from the DVD cover, why do you not believe me? I stated it right on the image page. Qutezuce 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]