User talk:Diderot's dreams/archive1
2008 User Talk
Hello! Thanks for your explanation. I think that will be fine; go ahead and make that change (but this time, please make the metric and imperial units line up; last time you wrote that it was only 38.8 metres high). I was basing my facts off of a quick Google search (and the heuristic that metric != imperial), but as it turns out, Google's "definitive answer" for "height of the space shuttle" is actually based on a page mirrored from Wikipedia! So, go ahead and update the information.
For some reason, the current numbers are for the SRB, which is a bit odd. If you update it, I think it's best if you copy the numbers from the "System Stack" portion unless they are clearly wrong (in which case that should be fixed too). Thanks! nneonneo talk 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Westlake Center Station fixes
[edit]I like your version much better. Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Air America ratings
[edit]If I remember correctly, I used ratings for every station I could find data for at radioandrecords.com. —phh (t/c) 16:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I see you added back a link about video clips. I normally remove those because mere video clips typically do not meet WP:EL standards. The site in question seemed to offer a bit more information than mere clips. Perhaps a better description would help. DreamGuy (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- First, thanks for removing the other links. They don't belong and we sure don't want a bunch of junk links crudding up the article. My personal interest is references. "Citation needed" tags that have lingered for many months. I often delete those quickly. More ominously, I have found cases where people added citations that don't support the statement sourced. Sometimes they say the opposite. On the lighter side, sometimes I find just unreliable sources used. My favorite is someone who used a MySpace page to back up a statement! :-P
- Anyway, I think video clips from Big Picture TV belong because they don't violate copyright and impart useful information, including what you can learn by seeing someone talk about a subject rather than just reading what they wrote. There's no rule against including them (WP:EL is a guideline except for copyvios), and having them makes the article a better source of information.
- I did remove the "free" from the description of the link. You're right to be suspicious of anything that has that word in it. Maybe I'll add some more description. Or you can if you think of anything. Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you decided to delete the photo of the Kobe high voltage DC line terminus and call it POV. Then you replace it with a photo that was originally licensed under CC A-SA 2.0 and re-license it under CC A-SA 3.0. 1) I don't understand how a photo can be POV 2) I don't understand why you don't give reference to the original photographer under a license that requires attribution to the author under the license. 3) I don't understand how you can change the terms of that license granted to you. 4) I don't understand why you did not post the photo under wikimedia instead of wikipedia. This way it could have been used in other projects. 5) I don't understand how you now take credit for this photo by calling it a self-published work. Just because you photoshopped it does not mean it's your work. Kgrr (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Image:High voltage transmission towers and lines.jpg missing description details
[edit]
- I added back the information block which you deleted and filled it in properly for you. Please check my work.Kgrr (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I deleted the empty information block because it generated two incorrect warning tags. I never filled it in at all. The information was provided elsewhere in the summary. Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
File source problem with File:High voltage transmission towers and lines.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:High voltage transmission towers and lines.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Kgrr (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- In the information block I provided the link to the original work so that it can be checked, the author's name, the date the image was created and some additional information. Please check my work correcting the source problem.Kgrr (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Image permission problem with Image:High voltage transmission towers and lines.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:High voltage transmission towers and lines.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kgrr (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I corrected the licensing of the picture. The license is extended to you. It's not a new license. Please verify my work on correcting the licensing for you.Kgrr (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- After researching the details of U.S. copyright law about what specifically constitutes a derivative work, I agree that the changes I made to the picture is does not make it a derivative work and therefore you are correct. I have not checked international copyright law, I suppose it is the same. For all practical purposes it is irrelevant, since even if the modified picture was a derivative work, I would have to release it under the same terms. My rights to it would be the same-- basically none. And I did say that I didn't take the picture. I didn't credit the owner of the picture because I thought he didn't provide his real name. I must have missed a link to a profile. Again, my bad. I'm really not trying to own the thing.
- This is quite minor to create such a fuss. I don't mind a little "Wikipedia rigor" applied to my actions here, in fact it's a good thing. But I am surprised you effectively added six warning tags over me not specifying who at Flickr created the photo, including an incorrect label on the Pickens Plan page about it being a picture for speedy deletion, which it wasn't. One simple warning on my talk page and a warning on the picture's upload page would have sufficed. I am happy to make the correction.
- And about my references. I will, in the future, use inline references (a bit more about that later on your talk page). However my references were legible and perfectly usable to verify the cited information. That you did not correctly check my reference before adding "citation needed" tag worries me a bit. And saying I was changing the article's reference format is odd as I changed no one's references. And the subsequent edits you made making minor corrections to the article's references gives the false impression to someone looking at the article history that I was doing just that.