User talk:Danorton/Archive 2008 October

Date formats after autoformatting

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

You recently contributed to a poll on date formats.[1] The option you supported won the poll but is now an option in a final poll to test support against the current version.[2] The poll gives full instructions, but briefly the choices are:

C = Option C, the winner of the initial poll and run-off. (US articles have US format dates, international format otherwise)
R = Retain existing wording. (National format for English-speaking countries, no guidance otherwise).

If you wish to participate or review the progress of this poll, you may follow this link. --Pete (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alida Valli.jpg

No credible assertion of fair use, eh? Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 04:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I was not aware that it was copied directly from the original, since it was created by User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, an editor whom I am in close relations with. Since that is the only real problem with the image (see talk), why don't you simply upload a lower res of the image? I would, though my computer is so darn old. :) Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 13:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part about Copyright is owned by photographer Michael Plass. can't you read? The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I believe that we share the common goal of improving Wikipedia and that I presume your good faith. I ask that you please show me the same respect. All of the issues I raise are not about whether the claims you make would be valid claims if they were true, but in most cases you have not provided any evidence to support your claims. In many cases, the evidence you provide has been vague and indirect. In this particular instance, for example, you claim that one "Michael Plass" is the copyright owner of the image in question, but you simply provide a link to a page that "Michael Plass" manages on a tribute website. That site makes no claim that Michael Plass owns the copyright to that image, nor is there any claim that its copy of the image is licensed or otherwise permitted by the copyright owner. --Danorton (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the image talk. It says that it is courtesy of him on another page. Reporting Blofeld to the AIV was a very poor decision on your part. Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 20:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]