User talk:Jacobolus/Archive 2008

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Harvard shield-Law.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Harvard shield-Law.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. -- BJBot (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC) [Ed: emphasis mine]

Done. --jacobolus (t) 21:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not showing up on the Harvard Law page...any thoughts? Cjs2111 (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm confused about that. I tried clearing the cache a few times, but that didn't work, so I'm not exactly sure what the deal is. --jacobolus (t) 10:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I converted it to a .jpg...a bit messier, but it works. Cjs2111 (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's certainly not a great solution. Then someone will still come delete the png file for being an orphan. --jacobolus (t) 04:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Baltimore Sun.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Baltimore Sun.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, [... so was deleted.] BetacommandBot (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DaveBrubeckQuartetAtCarnegieHall.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DaveBrubeckQuartetAtCarnegieHall.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. [...] BetacommandBot (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Indexed color article completely rewritten

Hi. I think this would make you happy. Please, rating requested. Yours. -Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your Barnstar! I still expanded and rearranged a bit the article and related... We're in the way to A-class rating... X-D. Some more ideas? The next milestones I marked myself are 8-bit color and Color Lookup Table, but the Wiki activity is time consuming. In other hand, I retouch a bit the "Color depth" template. I hope it will like everyone, but I'm not satisfied with the "¹/₈ byte" notation for the 1-bit monochrome case myself. Suggestions welcome. The last thing: I was considering to join the Color WikiProject, but after some available (and productive!) days, I'm afraid that I'll left Wikipedia for a long; the job calls me again, you know. See you, and thanks again! -Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rating requested for Palette (computing)

Hi. The article is now far from being a stub. Dicklyon (talk) and me are now trying to give it a more definitive edit. Your rating will be appreciated.

In other hand, Dicklyon and me were engaged in a "war of editions" recently (at some point, up to 3RR). But it seems that we are collaborative right now, after some mutual agreements. I know both of us won barnstars from you. Maybe you want to be a thrird opinion (3O), in order to avoid to become tense again. Note, not a formal asking, actually; to be 3O is up to you, of course. Yours. Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RGB color model article improvements

Hi. I did many expansions and reordering in the RGB color model article, also following some of your suggestions. Take a trip and enjoy! You can also help me with typos and parlance. The article is near complete now; it only lacks basic info about scanners, I think. I tried to focus the article for a non very specialized audience, so I slighty departed from Dicklyon's approach (while keeping his contributions). Please, help us to reach Class-A quality (I specially hate the "citations needed" tag), and perhaps a future "featured article" candidature... RGB is a very popular topic, and I think the current edition is nearly a root input for this. Yours. Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I already added a "scanners" section too! :-D Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Help in color articles

I'm sure Ricardo and I would welcome more help from you in RGB color model and gamma correction, so we don't have to fight it out ourselves. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We're pretty stuck in both, still, or again. I'm tempted to revert all his nonsense again, but I don't think we'd make net progress that way. Can you weight in with some talk or some edits to help? Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo request

Please photograph The Old Spite House in Marblehead, Massachusetts for spite house. I believe that it is on Orne St, perhaps at Orne St & Gas House Ln, Marblehead, MA 01945. Also, if you would photograph Hull Skinny House at 44 Hull St, Boston, MA 02113 for that same article, I would be most thankful. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, please photograph the O'Reilly Spite House located at 260 Concord Ave, Cambridge, MA 02138 if you are in that area. GregManninLB (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fresh Air.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fresh Air.png. The media description page specified that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it was orphaned, so was deleted. BJBot (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fresh_Air.png. 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. [...] Thank you. Melesse (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. This image was deleted, then undeleted, in the last few days. I added a nominal fair use rationale. I'm not sure about what exactly all the protocols are for such rationales, nor do I have time now to figure it out. If someone wants to expand that, feel free. It should be pretty self-explanatory. --jacobolus (t) 03:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fresh Air.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned. NotifyBot (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No it's not orphaned. —jacobolus (t) 18:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

California photo requests now by County

I just spent the past few days moving all the California photo requests into County categories to make it easier for photographers to locate requests in the locations where they take photos. Please consider monitoring and adding your name to the list at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Los Angeles County, California and the other So. Cal. counties. GregManninLB (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm living in Boston during the school year, so I won't do that just yet. --jacobolus (t) 16:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

City of Ganca

Hello Jacobolus. Per our conversation with Golbez, I redirected Ganca to Ganja (city). I think it should still redirect to the city bypassing the marijuana stuff. Let me know what you think. --Kimse (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Color temperature

Hello, Jacob. Do you think any of those ELs contain information—related to this article—not already mentioned? I think the article overshadowed them long ago. The "further reading" is just the list of references that existed before I added citations. Perhaps if the entries contained page and chapter number that specifically addressed the topic I'd understand, but as it is they are not helpful. (Respond here, if you like.)

--Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 04:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

HSB in RGB color model article

Hi. You stripped away twice my HSB example in the RGB color model article. Yes, it's merely an example, but it's an interesting one 'cos its geometric representation isn't a cube, but a cone. Your proposals Lab and YUV have cubes as their geometric representations, the same as RGB. So please, "rescue" again the HSB example in order to cite al least an 3-component color model that don't map to a cube. Yours. Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adobe LiveMotion.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Adobe LiveMotion.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comet

If you plan to rip out the majority of an article, please take it to the talk page. Thanks. --jacobolus (t) 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've justified each one of my edits. Please, don't bulk revert-me. If you object any specific removal, just let me know. --Damiens.rf 20:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagre with you Damiens, it seams you have a habit of pushing through your point of view. Giving a reason for an edit is not automatically a justification. I suggest to continue on the article's talk page and discuss further changes. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you refuse to continue a discussion on the talk page. I'm quite willing to entertain suggestions for (even drastic) changes to the article. It's only chopping out the major part of it, while providing limited and rather unconvincing justifications, that I oppose, particularly considering I wrote the majority of the article. Please explain more specifically what you find wrong with it, perhaps one section at a time, so we can improve the article. If you keep reverting to the chopped-down-to-useless version, however, I will have to assume that your aim is disruption, not article improvement, and I will seek out some administrator to block you. That would be wholly unnecessary though, if you leave the main article as is for a bit, and work to reach consensus on the talk page instead. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 10:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't looked for consensus before turning that article in a huge advertisement of your company and your friends. You haven't even used edit summaries (do you believe it would have passed calmly if you had been sijncer enough to write summaries like "Adding quotation in big font from my friend Ales", or "Adding link to my website"...)

Thankfully, someone is already working in the article by now. --Damiens.rf 16:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we move on. Instead of being driven away by personal attacks, would you be interested with your technical knowledge to comment on the outstanding technical questions? There seams overlapping between AJAX/push/pull technologies and I also think the article introduction would benefit from a rewrite, see article talk page. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

From a technical perspective I have done my best to contribute to the Comet article. Frankly there was a big amount of promotion, I think with the cleaned up article developers can finally understand what Comet is and possibly contribute to your project. One big question remains, should the article stay or be merged with push technology or Ajax (programming), it would be great if you could comment on the talk page. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? The Comet article now has no technical content whatsoever. —jacobolus (t) 06:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be so because "Comet", as an independent technical concept, adds very few to other pre-existing technical concepts (that are themselves linked in the article)? --Damiens.rf 11:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Those linked articles also have almost no technical content, so I would say no, that's not the reason. —jacobolus (t) 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article as of today links primarily to Ajax, Push technology and web technologies. Jacobulus you have been caught lobbying for Comet, you redirected and deleted about 5 articles despite objections from others and constantly are hiding the fact that Comet is more or less Ajax. I understand that you are frustrated that your article has been changed, but when adding material to Wikipedia you should be prepared to face a peer review. You are very well entitled to express your opinion, perhaps an online magazine or blog would be better suited to write about your project. If something is technical wrong or if related articles lack content please help with your knowledge. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well put. For writing commet-promoting articles free of peer-review, your blog cometdaily.com, and not Wikipedia, is the best suited place. --Damiens.rf 16:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The articles about “Ajax” and “Push technology” are very poor by Wikipedia standards, with barely any sources, confusing incomplete descriptions, full of technical jargon, and almost incomprehensible for readers not already familiar with the subject. I'm not sure what “more or less Ajax” means, but I certainly have no interest in “hiding” that “Comet” is closely related to “Ajax.” There is apparently no remaining reason to express my understanding (even with a plethora of sources), since the three of you have decided it worthless. Cheers. —jacobolus (t) 22:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article on "Comet" that you single-handed wrote was also extremely "poor by Wikipedia standards". You should know that these standards include (above anything), a neutral point of view, attribution to reliable sources and no original research. The articles you mention are, at least, more welcoming for new contributions than the beast you created.

Please, consider putting your technical knowledge at the service of these articles. Based on your edit history, I'm reluctant to believe you're here just for self-promotion. Please, don't prove me wrong. --Damiens.rf 00:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A) You should stop the personal attacks. B) You should stop making false accusations. C) You should take a step back, take a deep breath, and chill out. D) You should attempt to work collaboratively. This is an encyclopedia project, not a 1st-grade playground. —jacobolus (t) 17:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Jacobolus, you said that the article about Ajax is "very poor by Wikipedia standards", however the Ajax programming article has been in fact listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All that means is that one editor thought it was good. The process for becoming a “good article” is nearly meaningless. The Ajax article has nearly no sources, is full of normative statements, and would be quite difficult for a layman to understand. This article on Comet would certainly have become a “good article” if the same reader who promoted the Ajax article had judged it. Re-reading the Ajax article, it clearly fails criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6 of WP:GACR. —jacobolus (t) 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

When you started edit warring to preserve your article I decided based upon your long edit history to try my best to keep discussion civil and prevent this from escalating up the dispute ladder; I am finding this increasingly difficult. I allowed your version of the article to remain for several days in order for you to address our concerns, I have tried to engage in calm discussion on the talk page and have taken things slowly giving you time to respond. I intend (although real life sometimes drags me from wikipedia) to give what help I can making the comet article respectable and working on improving the mess that area is in on wiki. If you would like to help in a non-disruptive manner I will continue to attempt to have the other editors forgive (or at least not react to) your past problems with this article. Otherwise; feel free to edit some of the many other articles on wikipedia. I know it sucks when consensus is against you and something you have put work into is destroyed, but you have to accept the wikipedia system. I do not appreciate being accused of vandalism or being canvassed against, if you continue in your current vein I do not think I will have any alternative but to get a neutral* admin involved. You've been on wikipedia long enough to know how COI conflicts usually go, try to look at it from my point of view and think about how you would view your actions.

• Neutral as in not one either of us have previously interacted with. If you're surmising from this footnote that I no longer trust you not to get some admin-friend of yours to come in on this you're dead right.

Restepc (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have remained civil, engaged in discussion on the article talk page, stopped the edit warring (despite it being IMO more than justified, as the edits I was “warring” with were purely destructive), certainly have not been disruptive in the manner you suggest, and I have not undertaken any canvassing, nor have I accused you of vandalism. I find the accusations insulting, and I suggest you stop with them. As for “I intend (although real life sometimes drags me from wikipedia) to give what help I can making the comet article respectable and working on improving the mess that area is in on wiki.”, I would like to see such actual help. I haven't seen much if any so far, but you and anyone else are encouraged to work on these articles constructively. [Edit to add: You seem despite your lack of experience with the subject to have good intentions at least, so I trust that once you have researched it more fully you will recognize that what I wrote is accurate, valuable content.] Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Three points:

[1] seems a lot like an accusation of vandalism to me.

I realise by now you're not going to agree, but the massive change in the article recently was a large part of the help to make the article respectable.

Accuracy wasn't the problem; it was an overly long article written like a magazine article rather than an encyclopedic article with NPOV problems, some vanity aspects, and massive amounts of synthesis original research and unsourced statements; all written by a highly COIed editor. The article as you wrote it wasn't wrong, and would probably be considered very valuable on a website like cometdaily, but was completely unsuitable for wikipedia. Restepc (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First, you will note that I was not responding there to you. Your second point equates "nothing" with "respectable". If so, Wikipedia continues to get less respectable every time any content is added. Your third point is exaggerated and frankly mostly wrong. The greater part of the article as I wrote it was simple explanation and factual statements. Some of them were poorly sourced, to be sure, but much less so than 99% of similar-subject articles on Wikipedia (i.e. those about web technologies, etc.). The arguments provided on the talk page don't even close to justify the absolute butchery that has taken place. I would still appreciate an apology for your baseless accusations, but at this point I have mostly given up expectations of common courtesy. --jacobolus (t) 04:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think we're going to agree on this, I'm going to continue to watch over that article for a while, and I still say you're welcome to help, but you would be more than optimistic to expect your version to ever be restored. Restepc (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be civil, saying that people are pushing for an articles destruction/vandalism/mangling or calling them jerks isn't helpful Restepc (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I find this statement incredibly comical. Listen, at this point, I don't care. If you and Damiens would like to insist on having a stub of an article, riddled with inaccuracies, go ahead. It is not worth my time to attempt to work with him, and your good-cop bad-cop double-team, despite the comic relief it provides, is not productive. I hope that you both do research and write a decent article. Unfortunately, I peg the odds of that at about 0%. Good luck! —jacobolus (t) 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No original research on wikipedia; that's one of the main problems your version of the article had and why it had to go. I would suggest that if you 'don't care' there's no need for you to continue to interfere. Restepc (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into one step forwards and two steps backwards, I'll come back to this tomorrow as I feel you are making work on the article impossible, I hope the situation can resolve itself soon without the need for some sort of action. Restepc (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My version of Comet

Well I took a look at the Comet talk page and I'm not about to get in the middle of that debate. However, I am working on making a separate version of the article on my user namespace, located here. You can contribute if you want to. I'm not going to show that on the talk page, though, because I'm afraid I'd have an edit war on my own namespace. Notice it currently lacks a history section, because that seems to be what half the arguing is about, so I'm going to omit it until I read a reasonable portion of the debate. Again, you can contribute if you would like, I just don't want to start another edit war on my own page. Thanks. — ^FatalError 04:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like someone beat me to it. Cheers. — ^FatalError 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

31-star US flag

Jacobolus -- As you know, Wikipedia's wealth of images includes a graphic you created showing the American flag with 31 stars.

As it happens, I found your work posted on the article about Matthew C. Perry. Curiously, it turns out that in 1853-1854 when Perry led the Far East squadron into Tokyo Bay, his flag was configured in a unique design, markedly unlike any other American flag flying anywhere else in that period. For further details, please consider what is posted here. You'll note that the in-line citation is linked to a Honolulu Star-Bulletin article. If you click on that link, you'll discover a photo showing that a replica of Perry's unique flag has been mounted on the veranda deck of the USS Missouri, now docked at Pearl Harbor.

I wonder if you might be persuaded to modify your work to create a "new" flag which is configured in this non-standard manner? Off hand, I can think of a number of articles in which posting your "new" flag would be a plausible enhancement.

I've located a relevant photograph in the National Archives. The Perry flag is clearly visible in the background of a photograph showing the Supreme Allied Commander speaking at the ceremonial signing of the instrument of surrender. --Tenmei (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Comet (programming)/Sandbox

Your dedication to watching over this article is impressive in its own way, but I recommend that rather than simply reverting other editors (which is frustrating for everyone), you try to find some middle ground. If someone removes content that you thought was useful, don't just immediately return it to the article. Instead, take half an hour to edit that chunk of material and make it less objectionable. I don't believe that the article should be reduced to a stub, but it's not currently perfect. There is not a single passage that couldn't use more work. Canderson7 ^(talk) 19:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Jacobolous shouldn't edit at all on this article ('conflict of interest' and 'ownership'). - 213.115.160.70 (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Box around the footnotes

I disagree that there are no advantages at David Vitter; it makes the article significantly shorter and thereby more readable, more easily navigated. This page is well footnoted and the box is justified here. Who exactly is going to print this page? Should Wikipedia give priority to those who prefer hard copy? Unless you strongly object, I'm going to return the box. Please respond here. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 23:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don’t understand your statements. How does making footnotes take up less space at the bottom of the page make the article more readable? How more navigable? It still has the same amount of text either way, and while the article is being read on screen, the footnotes remain neatly out of view at the bottom. How is the box “justified”? No “justification” has been given. Yes, I object, as I have seen no reason to add such a box. —jacobolus (t) 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The footnotes take up 25% of the screen acreage, making the page appear more "massive", possibly to some overwhelming (looking at the smaller browser scroll bar). To navigate beyond the substance of the article to sister projects, categories and succession boxes, the reader must scroll through all the footnotes. The appearance of a longer article puts unnecessary pressure to fork sections out of the parent article or worse, a hesitancy to footnote as extensively.

Your only complaint is that a user can't print out the page without making some effort of (say) cut and pasting or temporarily removing the box. Neatly tucking away the footnotes provides a higher quality page (both aesthetically and physically) than this rare disadvantage. There is no loss to the functional use of footnotes (clicking the footnote number scrolls the footnote box automatically). Finally, this technique is used on many pages in Wikipedia that are similarly well sourced (with footnotes exceeding 100-150), so this isn't a trailblazing effort. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone who wants to get below the footnotes can easily scroll to the very bottom of the page with a single click of the mouse or keyboard shortcut. This is not a significant problem. Who is hesitant to footnote, or pressured to split the article? Do you have evidence? or is this anecdotal? or merely an empty assertion?

Has there been discussion of this technique? Perhaps a relevant policy recommends it? Personally, I remove such boxes on every page I find that has them. —jacobolus (t) 02:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:CITE#Scrolling_lists: “Scrolling lists, for example of references, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers.” (my emphasis). —jacobolus (t) 02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comet talk page

Regarding your comments on Talk:Comet (programming): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Attacking an editor's contribution as "FUD" is an unnecessary tactic to discredit or scare him away. [2] - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That’s absurd. Go read through the commit history of the article in question. —jacobolus (t) 23:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is another example [3], attacking a person's opinion will not make you "win a debate". On the talk page you have been told multiple times to stop attacking others, that you are confrontational and difficult to talk to. Please think about it a moment and if you want to continue this way. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read the context? My comments are rather mild in comparison to the accusations leveled by those I am responding to (the specific accusation in this case was that I was making the article intentionally misleading in order to further some personal agenda, a personal attack which I found extremely insulting, far more so than my response which was that my accuser should assume good faith). And *extremely* mild in comparison to the poorly justified butchery of the Comet article, which has been rendered limp and uninformative. Also, please notice that attacking an argument is quit different than attacking a person; the example you cite falls firmly in the former category. Anyway, as far as I can tell, you are the one being confrontational (indeed, threatening) right now.

Finally, who is it exactly that finds me “difficult to talk to”? What is the difficulty? You should feel free to ask whatever questions you like, and I will do my best to help you out. The difficulty comes at the point where editors begin to make accusations and vague misleading statements unsupported by evidence. My pointing this out and asking for evidence is indeed confrontational, but such confrontation is an essential part of Wikipedia’s mission. —jacobolus (t) 08:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So is this the core of the problem, you feel personal attacked by others editing the Comet article or "butchering your article"? You should accept the idea that Wikipedia articles have a life on their own, articles you started don't necessarily have to reflect your personal opinion. If you constantly feel personal attacked by edits that are not targeted at your person and reflect those emotions back by accusing and confronting editors with alleged problems (e.g. FUD, misleading statements) instead of seeking for collaboration (asking friendly for explanation or elaboration)... then something is wrong. You said I am threatening you with this message, can you please explain how?

There is no right or official policy of being confrontional to other persons, by contrast you should respect your fellow editors even if you don't agree with them and practice conflict resolution. Be civil, avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks and seek for consensus. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You should go re-examine the page and talk page history, and take a look at the edit summaries along the way. Your interpretation of events is quite skewed. I don’t feel personally attacked by edits, I feel personally attacked by statements which imply, without evidence, that I am acting in bad faith. I think you completely misread the words, tone, and intent of my own responses. I have asked dozens of times on that page for friendly explanation and elaboration, and have attempted to be helpful far beyond the extent any reasonable person in my position would (the common reaction would be to cuss heavily, and then abandon Wikipedia altogether, but (un?)fortunately I believe in it as a project). You quoting back policy pages at me is condescending and unnecessary. Your tone is utterly patronizing. And the only result of this discussion is to move me from indifferent to angry at you, which I doubt is your intent. Please be respectful yourself, and desist. (as for threats, your first message contains a clear threat “continued personal attacks will lead to blocks”. Notice that the vast majority of personal attacks here have been leveled at me, including those leveled by you yourself) —jacobolus (t) 11:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did read the history and somehow I don't believe our discussion has been a step forward, you are not listening. More than one editor has raised concerns about your verbally aggressive attitude, let me know if I should I dig out examples to make this message more convincing? Everything seams to be centred around defending each side's personally favoured Comet article, mentioning ownership, advertisement or conflict of interest immediately heats up the talk page. Continued personal attacks will lead to blocks as a consequence of actions, not as a thread against your person. In most disputes there is not only on side contributing to the problem. A possible conflict resolution strategy could be to meet the others in a IRC chat and talk things out, including what everyone has contributed to the problem and to vent frustrations there. Hope this helps. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I’m not quite sure what I’m supposed to be listening to. But you are right, your messages here add little positive to the conversation, because they are time-wasting meta-discussion. Stick to the content (rather than, as here, calling me abusive and self-centered), and there will be little problem. (Nearly?) every one of my recent attempts to keep the article accurate and comprehensive has been reverted without cause. Discussion of content is futile as Damiens and other editors refuse to discuss content. My attempts to answer technical questions have been rebuffed as Damiens, and perhaps others, have no real interest in understanding the subject. I don’t gain any benefit from continuing to justify myself to you. Feel free to respond, but it is likely a waste of your time; don’t expect a response back. —jacobolus (t) 01:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Helicobacter Pylori Urease.png

Image:Helicobacter Pylori Urease.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Helicobacter Pylori Urease.png. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Helicobacter Pylori Urease.png]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Los Angeles Times.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:Los Angeles Times.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Returning from a long wikibreak, I have replied to your comment on my talk page at User talk:DHowell#Los Angeles Times logotype copyright. DHowell (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Harvard Graduate School of Design

I have nominated Harvard Graduate School of Design, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard Graduate School of Design. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. 16x9 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)