User talk:HammerHeadHuman/Archive Jun 2007

Adoption

Hi, User:VanTucky here. I was just browsing the list of those offering to adopt and I thought you might be a good candidate. I have been around since August 06 and have just over 5,000 edits. I mostly do article contribution to a select few, but I also do some RC and RP patrolling. Recently I have initiated a massive image cleanup of cat and dog breed articles (people tend to use them as pet galleries). I have a good beginners grasp of policy, but I often need help with technical things, like wikimarkup (not to mention making my user page, well, usable). Feel free to check out me and my contributions, and drop me a line on me talk page! VanTucky 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself adopted (if your still interested)! - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 18:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castelseprio Mediation

How are we doing on this? Johnbod 23:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation here is currently at a standstill. I have never received a reply from the other user involved in the dispute: Attilos(?). I was hoping to hear back from him sooner. I will send him another message today, and if he doesn't respond by the end of the week I will consider his objections lifted and close the mediation debate (I will of course offer my opinion before closing in case the argument continues). - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 18:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BirthOfANation.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BirthOfANation.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, as you know, the image was in use on The Birth of a Nation where it would certainly constitute fair-use so I need not explain myself there. And naturally, once you had removed it from that article it became an orphaned image (so I won't respond to the message below)... But, if you think it contributes nothing to that article I will not object to the image's removal from that article, nor with its removal from Wikipedia. In the future though, before posting warning templates on my talk page, I would appreciate it if you would talk to me directly about your concerns (there is something very impersonal and patronizing about those auto-warnings). - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 18:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:BirthOfANation.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BirthOfANation.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks!

Glad you responded, especially since I already have a conundrum that's annoying me. As I believe I mentioned, I recently cleaned up many unencyclopedic images and galleries from dog and cat breed articles after a discussion on Wikiproject Dog. For the most part I have encountered little in thw way of real resistance, as I have framed all my edits around a clear set of goals born of WP:NOT. However, when I moved on to the cat articles, User:Ramdrake went about contesting many of my edits. Most have resolved themselves, but we continue to disagree on Snowshoe (cat) in regards to a rather large and completely unencyclopedic gallery section I removed. I feel that this gallery is a dumping grounds of user's personal pet pictures that serves no informative purpose, especially considering the article is a small stub. For now I am leaving it be in order to comply with the 3RR, but in the next 24 hour period I definitely intend to delete it again. Ramdrake has not once outlined any reasons for why the gallery is encyclopedoc, and simply responds that I am not allowed to make bold edits without "consensus". I think he/she may have violated the 3RR, but as I wasn't sure I didn't post to the list of violators. In order to achieve greater consensus, I have placed a Third Opinion request and an RFC, both have failed to get any attention. Not sure where to go from here. Thank you! VanTucky 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to look into it in detail sometime tonight (US EST), and I'll get back you. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 22:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help. As you could see, just after the asked for your help someone from Third Opinion came by to back me up. I usually don't do that edit war nonsense, but it was frustrating because I've never been in a situation where consensus has to be reached between just two editors. I'll keep those policies in mind next time. VanTucky 17:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castelseprio

Sorry, maybe I missed to read or was busy with other. My opinion is that the article is exactly good as it is. Ciao and thanks. --Attilios 20:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is the version he has constantly reverted to! Re the archive of discussions, a large chunk of it - sections "G'day" through "Leveto", inclusive, are not related to the dispute - they are discussions on other issues relating to the details of the fresoes & how to describe them, not involving Attilios & now all settled amicably.

Much of the initial dispute related discussion was on the form of a single article on both frescoes & village together. Now I think Attilios is the only one to favour this - Javits & myself want to split them (originally I did not), & a number of editors in the poll favoured this from the start (mentioning it spontaeneously, although they were not asked about it).

User:Adhoc has just now taken it upon himself to set up a seperate version at his own title Frescoes of Castelseprio, which I have strongly objected to given the mediation is in progess, but for the moment have given up reverting (though it most certainly needs wikifying - I would ignore it as irrelevant).

So I think the remaining question is the title of the 2 articles, which is what later discussions concentrate on, and in particular, which should have the plain "Castelseprio" title, given the international fame of the frescoes vs a local government area with a population of 1,200, the great majority of whom live in a different village called "Vico Seprio". That is the only remaining issue as I see it. Johnbod 03:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing to mediate; hopefully we'll finally reach resolution on this. I'd just like to confirm that Johnbod and I are in agreement. Two articles are necessary, one for the extinct city & modern architectural park (preferably titled simply "Castelseprio") and one for the modern Italian administrative unit (preferably titled "Castelseprio (comune)"). The former article would include information on the history, esp. Lombard, of the extinct city; and on the monuments/ruins contained within the present-day archaeological park, including the famous church with its frescoes. The latter would include the demographic data, coat of arms, info-box, etc. relating to the modern administrative unit. It is important to note that the two "towns" are neither geographically contiguous, nor do they share a continuous history; they share only a name, which has led to all the confusion in the first place. So the only real question regards proper naming of the articles, which should hinge on notability. The extinct city was historically notable as a center of Lombard culture and politics, and artistically significant as the site of an extensively decorated early medieval church; the modern administrative unit is little more than a hamlet. The "Frescoes of Castelseprio" article is indeed worse than irrelevant, it's an annoying & unilateral interference in an on-going discussion. The title is insufficient to embrace the historical and topographical information which has already been gathered regarding the extinct city as a whole (not just a set of paintings). Best, --Javits2000 09:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Javits puts it better than I do! Johnbod 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

I am relatively new and I have quite a shaky record. On the adopt a user you said you are ready to adopt now. I have searched the list and you seem like someone who can help. --Chinese3126 01:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the slow response... I see that you're now adopted by a user. If you find you need additional help please don't hesitate to ask... - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 17:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk

u are stupid. go back home u loser. dumdum. i will keep editing ur page especially. dont tell me wat do do ur weird retard.!!!!

*EMO*^{u emo?} 03:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is where you are wrong. I am not stupid, only ignorant. I am home right now, so there is no need for me to return. Go ahead and edit; I will revert, and you will be blocked. I didn't tell you what to do, only what not to do. Oh, and I'm not a retard, but I'm certainly weird... - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 05:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage has been vandalized

Just wanted to warn you. MrMacMan^Talk 08:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 17:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkup

User:VanTucky

Good so far. Recently I removed a whole bunch of unencyclopedic quotations from the articles to Garth Nix's The Keys to the Kingdom book series. They had little promotional quotes for each book at the top of article, and it made it look like a fansite. So far no reversions (knock on wood). There's been a problem with a new user placing a blatantly false quotation from the Colbert Report on the Sam Harris (author) article linked to the show, but the webcast of it shows no such mention of the quote by Harris after multiple viewings. After majority consensus has been reached that it doesn't belong and they still revert it every so often I am getting to feel it merits definition as vandalism. Besides the fact that even if he actually said what he said, they are placing it in a context that makes it original research. After reading a recent New York Times article on the "sport", I also created a separate article for Finching and added it to Unusual Articles. Before it was just a redirect to the bird subspecies used. VanTucky 19:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, quick question...I just noticed new user User:Terrysu, and on my way to welcoming them I noticed they have done nothing but place external links for this site. Is this spam? Should I warn them? VanTucky 00:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, it is spamming. I would give the user an informal warning first, perhaps just pointing out WP:spam, and showing them how not to be a spammer would do the trick. In my experience most users do not even realize they are doing anything wrong, and most will like the personal touch of a quick pseudo-warning. On a side note, nice job with Finching! - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! VanTucky 00:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sbfenian1916

Everything's going great, and yourself. BTW, I have a question for you, when I make edits, is there anything else I should say besides why I made it? Sbfenian1916 00:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's good here, a little slow lately (wikipedia wise) with summer's dawning and graduation from university. But, I imagine that will change as I get more and more bored as I search for a job (Wikipedia tends to be my favorite procrastination excuse). Other than that things are good... As for your question, Edit summaries are very important in both reviewing edit histories, and in resolving some disputes: see this link for a detailed description. If you find yourself entering the same thing in the edit summary over and over a helpful site is the WP:ESL, I have basically memorized that page as I have used it so often. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 17:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoptee looking for Adopter

--Goldiesmoon 08:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)I thought i would try again to leave you a quick post about wanting to be adopted. I have alot different interest and have really enjoyed finding my way around Wikipedia but could sure use some help. If you are still open for to Adopting? I Am? --Goldiesmoon 08:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you have been recently adopted by another user. If your still interested though, I am avaliable. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 20:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castelseprio

Yes, this seems to be resolved. Thanks for your help. Johnbod 21:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Help!

I am having an issue with an editor over style guidelines on the the PETA and Animal Liberation Front articles. They do not understand that a "further reading" header is for a section of additional published books or papers (possibly links, not always though) not used as sources, and that "external links" is the necessary header for a section that includes links to sites that are not additional published works. If a links section contains things that are not "further reading" (i.e. not published works, just websites) then the header should be external links. Two separate sections is fine, but if it includes any non-further reading, it must be external links. Right?

Also, in case you were interested, I'm having a debate with some editor and Angela Beesley over inclusion of her name (and the fork wikis of Wikitruth and Conservapedia) in Template:Wikipediahistory. More of her (a public figure no less) trying to keep a low-profile, and give fodder for attacks on Wikipedia. VanTucky 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On issue 1

You may have to back off on this one, according to WP:CITE#Further_reading.2FExternal_links if the items in a further reading section include both online and offline references then the further reading tag is recommended over the external links tag. I saw that the Animal Liberation Front article did contain both, I don't remember if the PETA article did...

Oh poo. I think that's silly. Wikipedia doesn't have a "you are leaving this site and we don't endorse them" warning, so it seems really important (at least to me) to make sure people are aware that external links are just that. VanTucky 23:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 2

I'm not familiar with Angela's story, but I like the way you've handled things there. Stand your ground buddy.

- HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 06:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, after reading what the other guy was saying and seeing how irrationally aggressive he was being, it made me want to be more civil than I usually am in such debates. The basic run-down is that Angela (used to be a member of the Wikimedia board, is still on the advisory board, and now runs Wikia) is constantly trying to delete all mention of herself from Wikipedia, including her bio. To Wikitruth it looks like more censorship by what they call the "God-Kings of Wikipedia". I actually left a little note for Jimbo saying he might want to get involved. Other than simply thinking he woul be interested in the topic, I thought he would be smart enough to understand that edits like the ones Angela is proposing just feed the flames of criticism against Wikipedia. Sadly though, he just ignores the previous issue and proposes something equally childish...deletion of Bomis. Christ, I can see the Wikitruth/Conservapedia headlines now. "King Jimbo deletes mention of his former porn cash-cow from Wikipedia history template!" VanTucky 23:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]