User talk:Ilmari Karonen/archives/4

Thanks re:Rob E. on Google cache

Thanks for your help on the whole Google cache mess. As of now (15:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)), it looks like the cached version of that page is gone[1]. - jredmond 15:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Google servers still have it; it may or may not appear as you reload the page. But I expect it won't take long for it to be purged from Google entirely. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude

I cleaned up some pages which do not work and make no sense, so check first before vandalising and reversing, plan english, simple enough? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.1.185 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

...wot? I mean, I'm certainly grateful. I just don't recall doing anything much about the reference desk templates except for one minor edit and voicing a few opinions on the talk page. But thanks, nonetheless. After all, who am I to complain? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchfilter script

Hi, I've been looking at your watchfilter.js. Would it be simple to make a script to filter out a given user from the watchlist? If so can you give me some pointers... Thanks. Rich Farmbrough 01:24 27 March 2006 (UTC).

Fairly simple, yes. The major difficulty is extracting the contributor's name from each line in a reliable manner, but that's certainly doable. There's a catch, however, in that this would simply hide all pages last edited by that user from your watchlist; it wouldn't be able to show any previous edits to those pages, since the watchlist does not contain that information. If that's what you want, though, I'm sure it can be done. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have to learn a little more javascript. Rich Farmbrough 12:36 28 March 2006 (UTC).

Thanks

Thank you for converting the pictures to JPG format. Although I prefer PNG, as JPG is the recommended format, I think we should stick to JPG. - Alan 01:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NIH Pregnancy

Sorry I didnt note any tag - appreciate the note. I uploaded them assuming they were NIH licensed, before I noticed that NIH images may be proprietary. IIRC, I uploaded these to the commons so any local versions should be deleted, and any copyright issues dealt with at commons. Someone also edited a couple images to reformat them. Definitely something to look at. -Ste|vertigo 18:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A strict definition might even want to assume that they are not PD, ATP. :( I found the original site - it is http://www.4parents.gov/topics/pregnancy.htm (not under NIH, but HHS.gov).

NIH site says : "Most of the information on our site is in the public domain and can be used without charge or restriction. There are a few exceptions. For example, some resources, such as the interactive health tutorials found on NIH's National Library of Medicine Website, and images on the www.nih.gov and http://health.nih.gov/ have been licensed from a third party and are restricted in their use. Generally, copyrighted materials will include a copyright statement. If in doubt, please write to the contact point for that site."

HHS disclaimer doesnt have any such mention of using third party materiale. Hope that clears things up a bit in favor of keeping. -Ste|vertigo 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Terms of Use page for that site quite explictly says the images are licensed from the National Physicians Center and are not PD. Anyway, I've asked the NPC if they might be willing to release the images in question under a free license, and they've said they're looking into it. So the situation ought to resolve itself one way or another fairly soon. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licking

Could you please look at this version of licking: [2] and decide if anything else from it can be recovered? Musical Linguist did a very deep revert on the article and voted in the AfD to delete the artlce and then used her admin privs to protect the AfD page. That is not fair! -- 71.141.34.34 23:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANUS PICTURE

MY CHILD WAS LEARNING ABOUT THE HUMAN ANATOMY AND HE RAN ACROSS THAT ANUS PICTURE, IT IS DISGUSTING AND OFFENDING.

Please note that, per official policy, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. If you want your child to learn about human anatomy without seeing a picture of an anus, I would respectfully advise you to teach him or her yourself, using sources you have personally examined and found appropriate. In any case, the article is titled "Anus"; one should not be surprised to find in it a picture of one. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Blockiptext

Thanks for fixing this, I tried once before, but apparently had the syntax wrong. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. For future reference, the syntax is {{fullurl: page | parameters }}. If there are multiple parameters, they are separated by ampersands just like in the actual URL. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy Image

Hi, I am pretty annoyed that the stages of labour diagram was removed without any discussion. I spent some time on making it appropriate for publication. It was a US Government image and therefore not a copy-vio. Could you please explain why it was deleted. Maustrauser 23:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the section #NIH Pregnancy above. The image was a derivative work based on [3]. The Terms of Use for that site state that "anatomic graphics on the 4Parents.gov website are copyrighted by the National Physicians Center for Family Resources, Inc." I contacted the NPC to confirm this and to request permission to use the images under a free license; they have confirmed that the copyright indeed belongs to them, and stated that they do not wish to allow commercial redistribution of the images. This makes the images, and any derivative works based on them, unsuitable for Wikipedia.

If it makes you feel any better, I too spend quite a lot of time on Image:Pregnancy.gif, which was even nominated for featured picture status. I'm kind of sad to see all that work go to waste, too, but sometimes one just has to accept it and move on. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larger image

Do you think it is possible to get a larger version of Image:CARuleComparison18-18R.png? That would be awesome. - John

Do you mean more cells or bigger cells? The latter is easy, just scale the image up as shown on the right. If you want more cells, I'm pretty sure I have the script I used to create these around here somewhere. It's a simple Perl script that outputs the image in PBM format (a really simple image format), which I then converted to PNG with the GIMP. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. You can run it like this:

capbm.pl rule[R] width height [ line1 [ line0 ] ] >output.pbm

where:

rule is the Wolfram code for the rule, with "R" appended for second-order rules,
width and height are the dimension of the output image in pixels/cells,
line1 is the starting configuration as a string of zeros and ones, padded by zeros on both sides if necessary (default = "1"),
line0 is the previous generation (for second-order rules) in the same format as line1 (default = ""),
output.pbm is the name of the image to create,

and square brackets denote optional parameters. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and here's a bigger image. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

superscripts thing

Hi Ilmari, nice solution for the superscript thing. When I first encountered that problem, I was only thinking about the texvc-generated HTML, but obviously you're right, if entering the equation by hand the <span> tags will fix it, because HTML tidy no longer has an excuse to get confused. I have written up your solution at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Superscripts and subscripts. Dmharvey 18:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Village Pump

Hi, you answered my question on the Village Pump, but I have another there could you take a look? J. Finkelstein 22:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:64.9.27.98

This is a school IP (probably shared). Three months seems a bit much. Femto 10:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive94#3 month block of 64.9.27.98. I'd be inclined to leave it blocked until the end of the semester unless someone complains, but I won't object if someone unblocks it. Note that the previous two-week block by Hall Monitor seems to have had no adverse effects. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP Address Banning

Ilmari, IP address blocking originated during the days before DHCP and NAT, way back when everyone connected to the Internet had a dedicated IP address. The very structure of the Internet has changed considerably since then. The vast majority of Internet users do not have static IP addresses. It's current use almost always hurts several innocent users, and and occasionally hurts literally thousands of innocent users. In short, it's become akin to duck-hunting with nuclear weapons. While that may satisfy the power-hungry, it does little for the environment in which ducks, humans, and others live. I've provided more detail, including far better alternatives, under A Detailed Response.

Of course, while the concept of IP address based blocking probably does predate DHCP and NAT, it should be noted that the MediaWiki implementation thereof is much more recent. It's not perfect, of course, but it's the best we have — the only alternative would be to make registration mandatory and require enough proof of identity to make registering duplicate accounts difficult. That in itself is quite difficult these days — an e-mail address is no longer worth anything as an identity token, thanks to services such as Mailinator — and in any case would be contrary to the core principles of Wikipedia.

As for the specific IP mentioned above, it appears to be an HTTP proxy or a NAT gateway serving a single high school. Even if we could identify and block individual workstations at the school, this would presumably do us no good since the kids who used to vandalize Wikipedia from that school could just use a different workstation. The only way to achieve more fine-grained access control in this particular instance, barring draconian registration requirements as described above, would be to visit that school in person and watch the computer lab until the vandals themselves showed up. While this would not necessarily be a bad solution, it would be best implemented by the teachers or other students of the school — and if, as it appears, no-one there is interested in legitimately editing Wikipedia from school, they're not likely to bother. In fact, in the instances where schools have actually been contacted with such a request, and a response has been received, it has as often as not been that they prefer having the school IPs blocked from editing. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

godmode-light.js

Hi Ilmari, would you know why when I look at user contributions with pages that are marked "top", I see something like [Shlomke&token=672f12101e0688891f5525599480bc5d">rollback] but I cant rollback. This is only by registerd users, by IP's I do have the rollback botton. I'm using this {{subst:User:Ilmari_Karonen/godmode-light.js}} subst. Thanks, Shlomke 11:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilmari? Is this the wrong place for this question? If yes could you direct me to the proper place, thanks Shlomke 19:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just haven't had time to look into it. Sorry. I'll take a look at the script tomorrow and see if I can figure out what's wrong. (Please keep in mind that it's not my script originally, so I'm not that familiar with its details.) I'd look into it now, but it's midnight local time and I need to go get some sleep. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I`ll test it too, if this fault replicable. If've a fixed (xml-parse-bug mentioned in de:) version. I getting also sometimes a fault for a none founded link.node. Tomorrow. --Olliminatore 16:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. Shlomke 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works now? Can you take/ support my multilingual, fixed User:Olliminatore/godmode-light.js version? Admins don't need it :-p --Olliminatore 10:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, still has the same problem as above.--Shlomke 18:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Question

I am have recently joined wikipedia. Therefore I am not sure how to answer your question regarding pictures of St. Joseph Cathedral in Hartford. If there are any questions, go to their website and email whoever is running the site. i will try to fix this problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dvdlm (talk • contribs) 01:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have sent mail to the address listed on the website. We'll see how they'll respond. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Siamese fighting fish

Hello, you protected Siamese fighting fish for me tonight and while thanking you for that, I also would like the page reverted to the one I did tonight if possible. The Internet pest I spoke about tonight once again deleted those sites and now uses the name biopsy.

Thanking you, Goldenblue 12:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the Siamese Fighting Fish discussion, it would appear that Goldenblue is the serial pest/vandal in this case, and page edits/history will show this.

Matthew 11:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcomed to look at the history of both users and see I have allowed Betta Forums to co-exist with AusAqua, where "Matthew" has deleted AusAqua to eliminate any competition with his sites. I am all in agreeance with the Discussion forums all being removed and the one reference being the IBC. Goldenblue 16:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

I'm new to Wikipedia. I'd like to put a photo on an existing Wiki page. I don't know the rules for doing this, or how one goes about it. Can you help?

Thanks! Wandering Star 01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Josiah Rowe has already answered the technical aspects of this quite well on your talk page. I've left you a note there regarding Wikipedia's fair use policy; unfortunately, it seems your photos probably aren't covered by it. (P.s. I'd prefer that you respond on your own talk page rather than here; that way, the discussion isn't spread out over so many pages.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ilmari!!!! Wandering Star 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of User:Lol

Thanks for the note, I knew I'd forgotten something. I went with 999 days as I felt there was enough history to demonstrate that it was a vandal-only account, but I'll defer to your judgment and act further if needed. Thanks again. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beak and Feather Disease

Howdy,

I have been closing non-controversial DRVs for a longtime on my authority as an ordinary editor, because we have had a backlog. In order to make that closure, I assumed that copyvio matter was outside of the scope of DRV (they are in most cases, anyway) and that any interested party could make a request for history undeletion later. If I had seen consensus for a history undeletion at the discussion, I would have left the matter to someone qualified. All that I can competently say is that no one objected to the content now present, so there was no reason for the DRV to remain open. If you can't find a copyvio in the history yourself, it is for your discretion whether you wish to undelete the history, pending a formal compliant from Petaholmes. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few identical phrases, the size and the mobility of Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease made me think it was a copyvio, the author insists its' not, and it is suffesciently differenct from the source material not to matter now.--Peta 23:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for restoring my Christian userbox. Much appreciated. --Chris Griswold 23:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, great job. I can't believe it got speedy deleted in the first place. Seems there are as many kids running around Wikipedia as my daughter's kindy. We're all very grateful for the restoration that you did.--DreamsReign 05:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit odd, but...

Howdy,

I'm not exactly sure where or how to post my feeling over the Christian Userbox debacle (which feeling are, in short, that the entire affair was disgraceful.) From the above message, and your comment at AN/I, I take it that you have been a leading exponent of sanity on this question, so I report to you. If there is a best place to express mortification at administrators "playing" with religious symbols, and more voices are needed in that cause, let me know. Placing a spinning crucifix on the pages of hundreds of self-identified Christians is a grossly disrespectful act, irrespective of any other qualifying circumstances. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I don't really know of any such place. The point has mostly already been made, and the best one can do now — besides working on the underlying userbox issues — is to wait and see what will come of it. If this thing ends up before the ArbCom, as I rather expect it will, it may be worthwhile to sign your support. But even then, what this discussion now needs most is clarity. Having it turn into a rambling flamewar or "pile-on" is in no-one's interest (except maybe of those who started it all, and I rather doubt even that). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might you provide a good link so that I may offer my own opinion? Thanks! Please post on my page. Dr1819 07:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]