This is an archive of past discussions about User:ClickRick. 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.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article TERMiTE (terminal emulator), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Hello ClickRick. Articles have to be notable and veriable. With respect to TERMiTE, its notability conform WP:PRODUCT has to be secured. Since it is quite old, it might be that renowned magazines containing articles on it were in paper form, and are not electronically available on the web. These are also OK, although electronic is of course more convenient and easier to check by others.
If notability cannot be established for a stand-alone article, it may go as a section into the article on the company (provided it is verifiable and not of undue weight in the article). Then the present article can be changed into a redirect. Best regards, -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Which just leaves the question of whether it would be appropriate to put a hatnote on Termite such as {{otheruses4|insects|the terminal emulator|TERMiTE (terminal emulator)}}
Hi. Please be sure to establish notability for the pages you create, see e.g. WP:CORP. So include some references to news articles (does not matter how old, in print or electronic: once notable, "always" notable). Otherwise someone sometime may nominate them for deletion. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Image licensing terms
{{helpme}}
I uploaded an image the other day
Buncefield015.jpg
and am fine with that resolution being freely available for wider use as long as I'm credited for it. The GFDL has so much to it, though, that I'm lost. e.g. does it require people to credit me with being the author of the picture when they use it? What sorts of "adaptation" other people can do to it? Clearly resizing it downwards would be acceptable, but does it also include incorporating it into a larger, possibly composite work? What about upsizing? And can I licence only at that resolution and retain all commercial control over higher resolution versions?
I'm not precious about this picture, but am considering the question in relation to other pictures I'm considering using.
--ClickRick (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Howdy. If you choose to release your copyright on the image under the terms of the Creative Commons "attribution share-alike" licence, then anyone will be able to use the image in any way - copy it, change it, etc - but they will have to mention the name that you specify. That's what the 'attribution' part means; they have to credit the originator.
So, to answer - yes, it includes copying it into another work, but they would have to mention you as author. You wouldn't have control over the resolution, other than the version that you make available (in the resolution you choose).
The license I am recommending above is "CC BY SA 3.0" - that is, the creative commons attribution (giving your name) share-alike (others using it have to agree to the same terms of attribution etc). Full details here; [1]. For details on what creative commons is all about, see Creative Commons. Chzz ► 16:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
That's more like it - thanks!
What about my final question, though, about saying that higher resolution versions are available but retaining commercial control over them?
Under the terms of the CC, you can only give a name - that's it; you can't give a website, company, etc. So, no, no way to specify that under the free license.
{{tn:helpme}}
Would it be generally beneficial to wikipedia to look for instances of units of measure which ought to be {{convert}}ed rather than hard-coded, for consistency of coding and formatting? I've noticed examples where editors have changed the correct km2 to km², and the correct m to mt(for metres). In particular, what's the downside of having a bot (running in user mode, not on auto) find and suggest such changes to articles, given that the benefit is consistency and improved readability for users?
There is nothing wrong in your using a program to search and to make changes; Auto-wiki browser is capable of doing such things. Please do feel free to get that hooked up with a suitable regex expression and go on a 'unit-fixing spree'.
Regarding this edit:
Please do not "prettify" fractions with sup and sub tags. If you must reformat inline fractions to make them look better, use the {{frac}} template.--Srleffler (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your help fixing the formatting of List of former territorial authorities in New Zealand. Just thought I'd better let you know that while doing so, somehow Kāwhia Harbour got changed to K?whia Harbour. Please be aware that many place names and proper names in New Zealand use macrons (such as seen in the ā of Kāwhia) to indicate a long vowel sound; and the difference between a short and a long vowel can completely change the meaning of a word. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that! One of my external editing tools does that, so I do try to be extra vigilant when copying them back for exactly that reason, but evidently missed one. —ClickRick (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
About Ambrose Burnside
Thanks for the good eyes. I instinctively reverted to a version by a known user. Seems that the infobox and the lede dates have disagreed for over a year. Amazing nobody caught this until now. Always can use an extra set of fresh eyes. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It's good when the collaborative nature of WP comes together like that. I wanted to get every parish in Norfolk up to having at least the basic information in place so I'm unlikely to come back and add anything more detailed myself, but some more fleshing out of more general aspects of the village still wouldn't go amiss, if you have anything else to add to it. —ClickRick (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, the collaborative stuff like this is good. I am planning to add more general information to the entry when I have time. For now, I just wanted to get the ball rolling, so I'd be reminded to come back to it. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello ClickRick, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Sabrina Terence - a page you tagged - because: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest resurrecting the question on the talk page? I'm sorry I can't be of any more help here. I'm not involved in the maintenance of that template or its many sub-templates - I was merely trying to offer some pointers which I hoped might have helped in some small way. ClickRick (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Just wondered...
Hi ClickRick,
I just wondered if you know anything about using the OS Grid Reference to work out/generate the distance from one place to another?
My rationale is that "london_distance=" etc is not used nearly enough by {{Infobox UK place}}; perhaps the OS Grid Reference could automatically calculate the distance to London etc? I understand there is a formula somewhere that can work it out.
I have always thought this would be pretty demanding work, but I have been wrong about these things before. I'm confident that if anyone can work this out, it would be somebody like yourself. :) --Jza84 | Talk 23:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hah, you might have unjustified faith in my abilities! That said, it is something I've thought about before. I'm not sure it's within the capabilities of the current mediawiki software, unfortunately (though I've been amazed at just what it is capable of), but I know there have been suggestions which would allow for some really advanced scripting, and those would definitely make it achievable. In short, though, I don't think it's possible within the mediawiki software at present, and would take a custom bot to do it for each article. Yes, I could do such a thing, but I'm not sure it would be an appropriate direction. "Distance between two places" is a far more widely-useful function than just what you say, so I suspect the more general solution might be the way to look in the longer term. Incidentally, freel free to come on IRC and you can talk to me on there. —ClickRick (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, another just wondering ... while you were going through the articles with {{Infobox UK place}} if it was possible to detect if there is also a {{coord}} template on the page with the display=title parameter set as I keep coming across articles with two sets of co-ordinates in the title area. Keith D (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It's entirely possible to recognise articles where that is the case. The difficulty will be in resolving any conflicts between them. Considering the variety of different combinations which might exist, I'm not sure it could be done automatically, though I could probably knock up something to find them and assist me to resolve them manually. Not a small undertaking, but we could probably also move to something more sensible like thousandths of a degree rather than 5, 6 or 14 (really!) decimal places of a degree. That'd need discussion somewhere else before we attempted to do it, but kick it off and we'll see what can be done. ClickRick (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I was not thinking of changing the articles automatically just getting some sort of list that could manually be checked and then remove the {{coord}} template if not required. On the decimal places I prefer to put in 6 places as that is just a cut and paste from the streetmap conversion routine. Keith D (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason I suggested three decimal places or a degree is from the advice in Wikipedia:GEO#Precision, which points out that that is precise to within around 100 m, normally good enough for identifying a village. I shall see about generating the list you describe - it should be easy enough for AWB to get the intersection of the list of articles which transclude those two templates. ClickRick (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The main problem of the query is that the infobox template transludes the {{coord}} template so you have to get the {{coord}} template in the text of the article not via a transulsion. Keith D (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
This list of articles contains both an Infobox UK place template and a coord template. It may contain articles where the coord template has been commented out, and I've not filtered at all on whether the infobox has latitude/longitude specified, but I guessed they would probably all need attention.
Let me know if you'd like that list refined in any way, or what processing you think might be better automated, and I'll see what I can do to help. ClickRick (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the list. I will work my way through, though may take some time as cannot seem to get AWB to connect at the moment for some reason. Keith D (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know I have been through the list and fixed about half of them where the title area had 2 sets of co-ordinates. The rest are commented out, do not display in the title area or have no co-ordinates in the infobox. Thanks for producing the list it was a worthwhile exercise as there were significantly more than I expected. Keith D (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That didn't take you long! Any comments on the bot's next tasks, btw? The more constructive feedback at this stage the better. ClickRick (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I did spot a number of strange usages of the infobox 1 which might cause problems with the sizing of the image, it had an upright image set to 200px and the caption on the right, rather than below the image. Cannot remember which one apart from it would be about 200 in the list and one I did not change. Keith D (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll count that as a show-stopper - we don't want to go upsetting people, this was purely about improving articles wherever possible. Can you put a note on the infobox discussion, please, and we'll re-evaluate. ClickRick (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Thanks for the note. I only have intermittent internet access for a while but I intend to be back to finish the job as soon as I can. ClickRick (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Elinchrom cmyk x30.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Hi ClickRick, I have just seen your comments on the above talk page regarding changing the icon for bots on trial and think it's a great idea. If you want to raise awarness or contribute any more, please do so as I feel it is a good idea. If you decide to add a {{editprotected}} tag there, all the better! Once again, a very good idea. Cheers, Cj005257 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowserCheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
