User talk:Raime/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Raime. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
February 2007
Hello and welcome to the wikiproject - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards --Mcginnly | Natter 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
April 2007
License tagging for Image:Empire World Towers.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Empire World Towers.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images. For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:4519.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:4519.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
May 2007
Image:Empire World Towers.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Empire World Towers.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Strangerer (Talk) 19:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
June 2007
Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:80 South Street 3.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:80 South Street.jpg. The copy called Image:80 South Street.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 00:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Boston's tallest
Thanks for the table of historically tallest bldgs, and your other work on the page. I think you missed one entry, though; see Ames Building. Or maybe not. It depends upon interpretation, I suppose. Church steeples may have outranked skyscrapers in those days. Hertz1888 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm really confused about the Ames Building wikipedia article. It couldn't have been the tallest in Boston until 1919, as the Custom House Tower , at about 150 meters, far surpassed any building in Boston at the time due the city's height restriction of 38 meters. Therefore, if the Ames Building was Boston's tallest, it would have been surpassed in 1915, not 1919. Furthermore, the building would likely not surpass the 72 meter steeple of the Church of the Covenant. But, do you think the building should be added anyway? And should I change the Ames building article from 1919 to 1915? Raime 16:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think Ames at least deserves honorable mention - outside the table - as "Boston's first skyscraper" and tallest non-church building during the appropriate years. The Ames article needs work. No one can argue that Ames was claimed to be Boston's tallest building in its day, as the citation is right there on the picture postcard. Also it seems unchallenged as the highest non-steeple structure in town for some period of time that, as you point out, ended no later than 1915. Inconveniently, the article gives no height figure other than the "13 stories". In round figures, I wouldn't estimate more than about 150 feet/45 m. Best wishes. Hertz1888 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm currently in the process of writing an introduction for the article, and will mention the Ames Building there as the tallest non-steeple structure. And I'll fix the article.Raime 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think Ames at least deserves honorable mention - outside the table - as "Boston's first skyscraper" and tallest non-church building during the appropriate years. The Ames article needs work. No one can argue that Ames was claimed to be Boston's tallest building in its day, as the citation is right there on the picture postcard. Also it seems unchallenged as the highest non-steeple structure in town for some period of time that, as you point out, ended no later than 1915. Inconveniently, the article gives no height figure other than the "13 stories". In round figures, I wouldn't estimate more than about 150 feet/45 m. Best wishes. Hertz1888 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the new graphics, tables & text. The page looks stunning. I made a few more tweaks and hope you like them. Hertz1888 03:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:125 High Street3.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:125 High Street2.jpg. The copy called Image:125 High Street2.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 11:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Worcester
Regarding your comments at Talk:Worcester, please do not confuse things by making replies in the middle of long-closed discussions (e.g. from August 2006). If you want to restart a debate, then it's best to do it at the end, preferably in a new section. I have responded to the subject of your comments on the talk page in question. --RFBailey 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry; I didn't even think to check the dates from the old conversation. I'll definitely be sure to do that in the future. I'm taking from your comments that you think that restarting the discusion in a survey is a bad idea? Raime 23:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The same point can be made about you resurrecting an old debate on Talk:Plymouth about exactly the same issues. DDStretch (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Plymouth was not an old debate. User:DuncanHill immediately responded to my posts on June 24, and then User:Stevebritgimp responding on July 2. Furthermore, most users posted comments in February and May, which is not too far off to respond in a debate. Therefore, the same point cannot be made at all. The Plymouth debate, while not as active as the current Worcester debate, was in no need of "resurrection", and still is not. So, while I should have started a new debate with Worcester, it was not at all necessary with Plymouth. Raime 21:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:Raime. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |