User talk:Lewis R
Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.
Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.
P.S - I like messages. :) -Ravedave 20:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- hrm from your user page it looks like you have probably been welcomed and blanked your talk page. Oh well, welcome again! -Ravedave 20:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, mate, I see that you are interested in Eurovision. Would you like to be involved in connecting with more eurovision wikipedians to do up the eurovision pages in a more coherent manner? I have come across the Eurovision wikiproject page, which seems to have been dormant for over two years. It may be an idea to have a look there and see how we could improve the eurovision coverage. I have done up the Congratulations (Eurovision) page so far and put notes about it on the pages of those who performed there. Best regards from Australia, Blnguyen 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yugoslavia in Eurovision
[edit]Dear Lewis,
Thank you for your contributions to the Eurovision Song Contest article. I must query something, which is not quite clear. You "corrected" my map - the one with the former Yugoslavia in red, so that the red area just included FR Yugoslavia (Serbia & Montenegro), stating that they were the first to participate. Why exactly did you do this, removing Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia from the red area? The purpose of the map is to show which countries were included in the country known simply as "Yugoslavia", in the Contest. That country did not only include Serbia & Montenegro: it also included HR, BA and SI. In fact, the Winner from 1989, Riva, was from Croatia - competing under the flag of "Yugoslavia". Can you please explain your logic to me; why you changed the map? Thanks. EuroSong talk 15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Replied on Eurosong's talk page -- Lewis R « т · c » 21:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Okay.. I see what you're saying now. However, I disagree with the change because my original purpose in presenting the participation maps in 1992 and 1994 was to show the difference that the new Eastern bloc made: not to specify exactly which part of the former Yugoslavia entered under the name "Yugoslavia" in 1992, particularly. I could very well have made a map from 1989 instead of 1992, where Croatia would have been the entrant. The fact is, in 1992 the country which entered the Contest was called "Yugoslavia", and in Eurovision terms, this included HR, BA, SI, CS(YU) and MK. Therefore that whole bloc of states is highlighted, no matter from which particular state the songwriter came in any particular year. Do you understand what I am saying? :) EuroSong talk 00:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Yugoslavia in 1992 might have been different from that in 1989, but in Eurovision terms it was still just competing under the title "Yugoslavia". If you look at such lists as Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest (not just that in Wikipedia), then the entry from 1992 is included in the same canon. It is not a separate country. Just like Germany and West Germany: after reunification, the "Germany" which was entering in the Contest was not the same as the West Germany which entered before German reunification. But still, no-one has ever split up the list, saying that there was one Eurovision country called West Germany which entered from 1956-1989, and then another, separate, new country called Germany which entered from 1990 onwards. No: they're lumped together as the same country, because that's the flag under which they're participating at the Contest. Conversely, when Serbia & Montenegro started entering in 2004, they were considered as a new country - even though, as you say, they had entered before in 1992. The difference is that in Eurovision terms, back in 1992 they were still participating under the flag of "Yugoslavia": the same flag under which the entrants in 1989 had participated. It's all about the names of the country in Eurovision terms, and the flag under which they participated. And in 1992, the Yugoslavian flag was shown on the screen. I hope I have made myself clear. I do understand what you are saying to me - that 1992's Yugoslavia was different to 1991's Yugoslavia - but the purpose of my including that map in the article was not to specify which parts of Yugoslavia entered in 1992 particularly; but just to show "Yugoslavia" as a whole, as a Eurovision entity; as the country which had been participating under that name all those years. See? EuroSong talk 11:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. It's good that you have got involved in this issue, because it just goes to show that two heads are better than one: you have told me something I did not know before, and therefore the article here will be all the better for it! I was not aware that the flag shown on the 1992 scoreboard was the starless one: although still the name was "Yugoslavia" and the 1992 entry is included in the Yuglsoav canon. Nevertheless, I shall take your suggestion and mention the point about FR Yugoslavia. With regards to your comment about Slovenia and Macedonia being coloured red... Slovenia WAS already coloured red: it is Albania and FYR Macedonia which I did not colour in, in that region. The reason I originally left out FYR Macedonia is because, in the 1993 pre-selection, only HR, BA and SI were included (and not MK), that rather led me to believe that MK was not a part of anything until 1998. However, with further consideration I see that you have a good point: I have just been talking about the whole entity named Yugoslavia, and MK was a part of that, so yes, it should be included. Tell me though - as you seem to know more about YU at Eurovision than I do - in which years did a Macedonian artist perform, under the banner of "Yugoslavia"? This page says that they were represented, but does not specify which years are which. Any ideas? EuroSong talk 12:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the info on Macedonia. I had seen that EuroBosnia page before, a long time ago - but it's a good thing you reminded me of it. I checked the article again just now to ensure that it's still accurate, and it is: in the "participation" section, I simply mention that "different consitituent states represented the country in different years"; and on the 1992 map detail, I say that 1992 is the last year in which the country known as "Yugoslavia" participated under that name. So, yes... good, all is as it should be! I'm glad you like the blue areas of the maps: I thought it would be much better to show the sea properly, because before it was coloured white: the same colour as non-participating, non-eligible countries. It made the maps look a bit confusing. I'll investigate about the Tunisian attempt in 1977 - thanks for bringing it to my attention. EuroSong talk 19:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. It's good that you have got involved in this issue, because it just goes to show that two heads are better than one: you have told me something I did not know before, and therefore the article here will be all the better for it! I was not aware that the flag shown on the 1992 scoreboard was the starless one: although still the name was "Yugoslavia" and the 1992 entry is included in the Yuglsoav canon. Nevertheless, I shall take your suggestion and mention the point about FR Yugoslavia. With regards to your comment about Slovenia and Macedonia being coloured red... Slovenia WAS already coloured red: it is Albania and FYR Macedonia which I did not colour in, in that region. The reason I originally left out FYR Macedonia is because, in the 1993 pre-selection, only HR, BA and SI were included (and not MK), that rather led me to believe that MK was not a part of anything until 1998. However, with further consideration I see that you have a good point: I have just been talking about the whole entity named Yugoslavia, and MK was a part of that, so yes, it should be included. Tell me though - as you seem to know more about YU at Eurovision than I do - in which years did a Macedonian artist perform, under the banner of "Yugoslavia"? This page says that they were represented, but does not specify which years are which. Any ideas? EuroSong talk 12:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Yugoslavia in 1992 might have been different from that in 1989, but in Eurovision terms it was still just competing under the title "Yugoslavia". If you look at such lists as Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest (not just that in Wikipedia), then the entry from 1992 is included in the same canon. It is not a separate country. Just like Germany and West Germany: after reunification, the "Germany" which was entering in the Contest was not the same as the West Germany which entered before German reunification. But still, no-one has ever split up the list, saying that there was one Eurovision country called West Germany which entered from 1956-1989, and then another, separate, new country called Germany which entered from 1990 onwards. No: they're lumped together as the same country, because that's the flag under which they're participating at the Contest. Conversely, when Serbia & Montenegro started entering in 2004, they were considered as a new country - even though, as you say, they had entered before in 1992. The difference is that in Eurovision terms, back in 1992 they were still participating under the flag of "Yugoslavia": the same flag under which the entrants in 1989 had participated. It's all about the names of the country in Eurovision terms, and the flag under which they participated. And in 1992, the Yugoslavian flag was shown on the screen. I hope I have made myself clear. I do understand what you are saying to me - that 1992's Yugoslavia was different to 1991's Yugoslavia - but the purpose of my including that map in the article was not to specify which parts of Yugoslavia entered in 1992 particularly; but just to show "Yugoslavia" as a whole, as a Eurovision entity; as the country which had been participating under that name all those years. See? EuroSong talk 11:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Okay.. I see what you're saying now. However, I disagree with the change because my original purpose in presenting the participation maps in 1992 and 1994 was to show the difference that the new Eastern bloc made: not to specify exactly which part of the former Yugoslavia entered under the name "Yugoslavia" in 1992, particularly. I could very well have made a map from 1989 instead of 1992, where Croatia would have been the entrant. The fact is, in 1992 the country which entered the Contest was called "Yugoslavia", and in Eurovision terms, this included HR, BA, SI, CS(YU) and MK. Therefore that whole bloc of states is highlighted, no matter from which particular state the songwriter came in any particular year. Do you understand what I am saying? :) EuroSong talk 00:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Citizens of Lovely flag?
[edit]What's up with the Citizens of Lovely flag? Your svg file is clear and doesn't show up as a flag shape on the userbox, unlike the original png file. --Renice 11:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, your svg's background is transparent, while the png has a pale grey background that is very nearly the same color as an infobox background. Btw, I'm using Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7 -- and I do see the bkgrd as white when I view the page with IE6. (I don't know if the flag bkgrnd should be pale grey or white -- I only know that the original file was pale grey and showed as a flag shape on a darker grey while the transparent bkgrnd does not.) --thanks, Renice 12:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Looks great now... I learned something about designing for IE. Too bad it works that way -- it would be nice for svg's transparency to work across browsers! --Renice 21:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Lewis R. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:JESC12pts.PNG) was found at the following location: User:Lewis R/New JESC article. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
-2007-05-14T05:12:00.000Z-Image:JESC12pts.PNG){kind=link}
Hello, Lewis R. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:JESCLogo.png) was found at the following location: User:Lewis R/New JESC article. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 10:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
-2007-05-16T10:05:00.000Z-Image:JESCLogo.png){kind=link}
Hello Lewis R, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Winnermariaisabel.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Lewis R/New JESC article. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
-2007-05-19T07:32:00.000Z-Image:Winnermariaisabel.JPG){kind=link}
Fair use rationale for Image:Alina_Eremia.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Alina_Eremia.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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
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 non-free media 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. MER-C 12:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoops
[edit]A quick note, while fixing backreferences I just accidentally edited a page in your user space, User:Lewis R/New JESC article, and replaced {{SPA}} with {{ESP}}, since {{SPA}} was deleted back in august and {{ESP}} was the correct one. Cheers. --slakr\ talk / 06:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DealUKLogo.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:DealUKLogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Miljoenenjacht (disambiguation)
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Miljoenenjacht (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
- disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
- disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
"Eurosong '93 - Kvalifikacija za Millstreet" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eurosong '93 - Kvalifikacija za Millstreet. Since you had some involvement with the Eurosong '93 - Kvalifikacija za Millstreet redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The article Pet Hate has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Nothing to establish notability other than unreliable sources such as Discogs and forums.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)