User talk:Michaelfavor

Welcome!

Hello Michaelfavor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 19:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, rjfjr, come back anytime. - Michaelfavor 19:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

ruminations

suddenly i seem to have a new tab called "move", between the "history" and "unwatch" tabs. i wonder where that came from? has it always been there, and i just didnt notice, or have i been granted a new privilege?

Hi, I just happened across your talk page, and noticed this comment. Hope you don't mind me answering, heh. The "move" option is disabled for unregistered and the newest registered users. So you've been granted a new privilege, in the sense that your account is now "old" enough that it's unlikely you're a User:Willy on Wheels!. This is probably very late in coming... but that's what that's all about. :] --Keitei (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

another month older, and what have i done? one question is ended, and a new one's just begun. it's nice to know didn't just imagine the new tab, but now wonder what strange path brought Keitei to such a quiet talk page? --Michaelfavor 11:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Holland_hexigon.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Holland_hexigon.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 06:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well-founded news in 'our' GPS/GSM-tracking matter

(...) I invite you to read the rest of the page and then update the Wikipedia entry. You will remember, for linguistic reasons I prefer not to do these things myself. (...) - Michael Laudahn

The article is not "my" article. If you think it needs changes, you should make them yourself. Your English language skills are certainly good enough. If you want to discuss the article, please post your comments on the "talk" page for the article, not here, thanks. --Michaelfavor 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Hexagon

This is a quick try at it. Let me know what you think.(I'm not 100% happy with it, but then I rarely am) Can you suggest any improvements? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GPS Apps split

I was splitting the article while you were making your GPS edits; sorry about that. Since you labeled them as length reduction, I didn't automatically migrate them to the new article. However your edits definately can be applied to the new GPS (applications) article if you feel they still appt. - Davandron | Talk 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I'd prefer to avoid any split as well; so lets try it. I will be editing as well.

On a constructive cristisim note, as I read your comment you didn't give a reason why applications shouldn't be split; instead you gave multiple reasons why something else should be done. It doesn't build your arguement. Instead of grasping at multiple things that could be done instead of a split, focus on why a cohesive article is better; why a split is detrimental.

Hopefully those observations make sense and will help with future discussions. -Davandron | Talk 20:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GPS Edits, and GNSS

You are spending a lot of time claning up the GPS article, but it needs a complete restructuring to come in under GNSS with Galileo and GLONASS. See the talk pages for more info. I don't want you to wast a lot of time on window dressing, when the whole house needs renovation.

Preview versus Save

Michael, can I offer some advise so others don't get too mad? Try to only hit "SAVE" once you've done a bunch of "PREVIEWS." If you need to hit save a lot, try performing the edits in your sandbox / user pages first, and then transfering the content over when you are finished. - Davandron | Talk 20:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)s[reply]

Support: yes, it is very hard to check your work because you are making so many edits to the GPS page. Also check the MoS on deleting content. It is OK to remove unnecessary words and redundant content, but you should not delete content without discussing it first, because what you consider irrelevant may be important to others. At a minimum, you should move this content to a talk page, if you don't know where to put it. Dhaluza 00:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of comments

I do not appreciate your editing of both of our comments in the GPS talk page. While your edits appear honest in origin, this is very upsetting to see, especially when you could have asked first. - Davandron | Talk 19:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left a similar comment on the GPS talk page, [1] so I hope you won't mind if I reply to both comments here. First, I want to appolgize for upsetting you. I've been upset by Wikipedia editors a few times in the past, and I don't wish it on anybody. You seem to be an honest, intelligent person with good intentions, and I really hope we can work smoothly together. My edit was a step backwards, and I want to try to make some ammends here.

Let's consider what actually happened. You posted a comment under the topic "sorting comments by date" with a "sidebar" paragraph about archiving. I posted a two-paragraph reply, one paragraph for each topic. A minute later I saw that it made more sense for your sidebar paragraph and my reply to be under the existing archiving topic, so I moved the two paragraphs, intact, to the other topic on the same page. I didn't remove any of your words. I didn't misrepresent you, or change the meaning of what you said.

I suspect you may actually agree that my edit improved the organization of the page, since you said my edit appeared to be "honest", and suggested I thought "it would make more sense". Although you would have preferred to have been asked before I made the change, if you thought the change was wrong, why didn't you simply revert it? On the other hand, if I had asked you in advance, and you had replied that the change was a good idea (as I would have expected), it seems to me that just fills up the talk page with a lot of fluff about us agreeing with each other.

Your initial comment on the article talk page mentions "unacceptable behavior", and the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines against editing comments, but I think that has to be understood in the context of other guidelines. For example, you are a member of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, which recommends "Refactor talk pages when they get too long or tangled", referring to Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages. My only purpose for moving those two paragraphs was to "untangle" them. Furthermore, is not just my opinion, it is also official Wikipedia policy that a strict interpration of any particular guideline should not be used keep us from improving Wikipedia. As confusing and contradictory as it may sound, the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset suggests Ignore all rules under the heading of "Safe Behavior".

I understand this was upsetting for you. I appologize for my part in that, and want you to know I did not intend any offense. Although I agree my edit may have been in a bit of a gray area, my intentions were honorable, and I believe I was following the spirit of the guidelines. I can only suggest that we both try to keep Wikipedia in perspective. I wish this for myself as much as for you. No Wikipedia edit is worth getting upset about. It's an obvious, simple statement, but after almost a year I'm still absorbing it. Wikipedia is a dynamic, living document, and any particular edit is ultimately just water under the bridge. I hope WP:IAR gives us permission to be a little more flexible, less legalistic, warmer and more forgiving of each others' foibles during these cold winter months. And, as time goes on, I hope that we can learn to trust each other better, and work together more easily on our common goal of improving Wikipedia. --Michaelfavor 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology appreciated. Reiterating, next time ask before editing my comments and know that such edits carry weight. - Davandron | Talk 21:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'd urge you not to edit other people's comments, even to improve their spelling; you may end up putting words in their mouth. - Davandron | Talk 05:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to GPS' Archives

When you add a new item, you only need to add it to the main talk page. It will me moved to the archive when a clean-up is performed. I've deleted your addition to the archive page. - Davandron | Talk 05:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Annie Bidwell school girl.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Annie Bidwell school girl.jpeg. 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) 04:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TruStudio Foundation

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article TruStudio Foundation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of TruStudio Foundation. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]