Jump to content

User talk:RobertMfromLI/Archives/2010/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Legend of the Seeker: Darken Rahl.

While you are correct that Darken Rahl is Richards older brother in the show, you also said he was Richards brother in the books. That isn't correct. In the books Darken Rahl is indeed Richard's father. Trust me. Seekeroftruth469 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, you are correct... I can only explain that error on a lack of coffee and having watched too much LOTS (catching up) and hearing Darken Rahl referring to him as "brother" when I made the revert. Apologies for the incorrect edit summary. At least the edit itself was accurate. :-)
RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 04:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian RfC

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Robert. For what it's worth, welcome to Wikipedia! Please don't feel that you should restrict yourself to reverting vandalism if you have legitimate contributions to make. (Remember, Be bold!) No one should be made to feel that they should avoid an article because someone is exhibiting WP:OWN-type behavior over it, which is precisely what that policy is supposed to prohibit. I recently requested an Arbitration case be opened to have Asgardian indefinitely blokced. Your insights into the Thor article may be very useful to the those participating there once it's opened. Nightscream (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

EInsiders Not an Aggregator

A couple of answers have been left on the talk page. Thank you. Pharaway (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I know who to come to....

Well I know who to come to for copyright/DMCA/fair use questions. :P Thanks for weighing in on the whole Einsiders.com debacle. :) —Mike Allen 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem

All is well. Have also just tweaked the additions at Mjolnir so they are encyclopedia standard, and used a better example of molecular manipulation, which is what the negative particle example was. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  • By the by, yes, I agree with you about the Living Tribunal. Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I've been trying to dig out that comic... it has been a while, but that's still the way I remember it. And I think during Warlock's tantrum, he seemed bored, was totally unaffected and then finally raised his hand and said "Let order be restored to these proceedings" - once I find the issues, I will let you know how senile I may or may not be. ;-) RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 05:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted content?

OK, now I see what's missing. No, I didn't. When did that get edited out? 842U (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, I see what is gone now. No. I did not remove that. That's very strange. I'm not an admin -- I don't have the right to actually "remove" stuff. You see the DIFF on my next edit. What's going on?842U (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

How is that possible? I've gotten edit conflicts before, but I can't say I remember getting one recently. I have no problem with any of that material. She did a whole lot of scrubbing at one point. It's fine with me if that goes back; again. I've got no problem with it. 842U (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We can just do this on my page!842U (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Panzer I

The Panzer I article is already listed in the Category:Tanks of the interwar period, which is the subcategory of Category:Armoured fighting vehicles of the interwar period, so it is redundant for Category:Armoured fighting vehicles of the interwar period to be listed in that article. Aldis90 (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just realized that in checking the edits. Either way, we have problems as other places in the current and previous revisions have been vandalized...
RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 04:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Koenig

Thanks for your note. Please convey to the family that my prayers are with them for a happy reunion with him. I was led to the Wikipedia article by a post of a friend of his on the Four Word Film Review, who posts by the nickname Sludge. You can see his post here. I think everyone joins me in my sentiments. Our great love and respect to his parents. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks, I have done so and forwarded your post to them. Thanks again!
Best, Robert
RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome

I will keep an eye on his page. My thought and best wishes are with you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection for Josh Andrew Koenig article

As you can see, Josh Andrew Koenig‎ has been protected against IP vandalism until Feb 27. Upon expiry, please consider asking Ged UK protect it further. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Anna! Will do. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 06:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Andrew Koenig's Page

To all the editors, Admins and anons who have tirelessly reverted the vandalism of Andrew Koenig's page in this trying time, I have been asked to thank you on behalf of (myself and) his friends and family. (and thank you to the admin who protected it)

Thank you all!!!

Best,

Robert Mauro
Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2
Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 06:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. Please convey my thoughts and prayers to the family. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Reporting the news before the family could be notified is certainly not "vandalism." But yes, thank you for giving them an extra day to believe that Andrew was still alive. 200.166.248.132 (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, I should not rise to the bait you have left... but I'm in a rather bad mood at the moment. The family is aware of the circumstances. Instead of allowing people to add uncited information, and then (as will be the case) add speculation to it as well, it only makes sense to wait for the official announcement so ACCURATE information can be posted to Wikipedia.

Or of course, certain editors (such as anons like you), can just post whatever you want, and who the heck cares about the affect such will have on an already grieving family.

Maybe I'm being more snippy than I should be - and if so, I guess I apologize (or will have intended to in a few days) - but the son of a friend of mine, a friend of the Star Trek Phase 2 production - has just died and I am a little upset.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 00:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar endorsement. You know, one of the things that annoy me the most here are the people who sit around waiting to pounce on articles this way like vultures going after carrion. They don't stop with legitimate reports, but move in on rumors and internet fraud. They've managed to kill off Johnny Depp, Bruce Willis, Ben Stiller (frequently) and the list goes on and on. To me, jumping the gun on this was a show of disrespect. My sympathies to you and the whole group for your loss. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi, RobertMfromLI, and thank you for writing. Only the admins involved in an Arbitration need to be fully versed in the nuances; we can just follow their instructions — I've found Arb admins to be constructive; knowledgeable and helpful. And I have posted a proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence that I think might help, and to which I hope other editors can sign on there.

His fellow editors need a "probation officer" admin to whom they can turn, who has veto power over Asgardian's disputed edits and unilateral changes to Project MOS. In addition, we need a reinstatement of the probation he was under in, I believe, 2008, in which he could make only one rv (either via "Undo" or by a multitude of edits essentially comprising an rv) a day. That last probation lasted a year; as his behavior did not change, bringing us to this point, this probation reinstatement should last two years. Given that at least one other editor is calling for a ban, this probation seems a less drastic and more productive solution.

--Tenebrae (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tenebrae, will do so as soon as I get a chance (tonight with luck)... heading out for an onsite and wont be back till late. Best, Robert RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Uploading photo

If you look on the left side of the page, you'll see a link that says "Upload file". Click on it and follow the directions. You will probably have to click on "The work of someone else, who has given permission to release it under a free license or it is already under a free license" or "Entirely my own work - I created it, own all the rights to it, and have not used anyone else's work in making it". Note that you will have to release the photo under a free license to keep it from being deleted. That would the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. You can't release to Wikipedia only. I hope this helps. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... what would be the correct thing for "The work of someone else (STP2) whom I have the authority to grant permission for it's use"?
Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
If they have granted you the authority, then I would think it would be the second:
"The work of someone else, who has given permission to release it under a free license or it is already under a free license"
The thing is, Wikipedia pages are copied freely across the internet and Wikipedia makes no limitations on where something published here can be used elsewhere. Be sure to read the section at that link to understand the free license and determine if this is what the owner of the photo has given permission for. Hope that helps. Best, Abrazame (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Kinda helps. I dont think we care so much who uses the picture. And I am authorized to authorize it's use... but I may not be authorized to authorize it being released into the public domain. I am checking to ensure that none of the other producers care if it gets released into the public domain - in which case, then I can authorize that too. :-)
RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Pardon me for jumping in, but I'd like to point out that the images would not necessarily need to be released into the Public Domain. You're also able to choose any of several free-use licences that allow reuse on Wikipedia and elsewhere, while still maintaining certain copyright protections (such as attribution) for the image owners. The guide at WP:ICTIC is worth a read. Rob T Firefly (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. I've got one image in mind that the family has given us (and anyone else) permission to use. It's the one of Andrew with long hair that everyone has been using over the last week or so, which Walter gave permission for anyone to use because of this situation. At the least, I can post it with a permission statement. Kinda definitely against calling Walter right now to ask what free use license he is willing to release it under at this point of course.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 20:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny that, I was considering using the free use he granted at his website to actually upload that photo for here. It can certainly wait until you can ask him. It's a great photo. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Be glad to. Have you uploaded it yet? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just did... Abrazame seems to have already gotten to it and fixed it. Seems one does not use the file tag for jpg files? Well, I still have a lot to learn. Time to play some more in the sandbox... :-)

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would probably use a CC license instead of a PD-self license. It reserves some rights. I'll try to change that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, and thanks again! RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Andrew-350x521.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Andrew-350x521.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 207.69.137.25 (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Robert you will probably just need to show an email or letter of Walter writing "I give Wikipedia permission to release the image under CC-AS 3". —Mike Allen 04:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I can do so, in a week or so when it is more appropriate to get such an email from Walter... in the meantime, I will trust the judgement of other editors on the matter. There is (and I will dig it up tonight or tomorrow) the blanket permission Walter gave for it's use though, which I believe was on his site.
It is kinda funny that an anon (User_talk:207.69.137.25) has a page full of multiple warnings, yet decided to chime in on this.
Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 05:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Original blanket permission is given here, which may apply to Wikipedia as well:
http://walterkoenigsite.com/blanket.html
blanket permission is granted to use this photograph to publicize this story.
("courtesy of walterkoenigsite.com" if you need to site a credit for it.)
Will that work?
RobertMfromLI | User Talk 05:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
IMO, yes that should obviously be enough permission. We'll see what others say though. I've taken a screenshot of that website, just in case it goes down before this is settled. Oh, and yes there's a lot of things "funny" about this anon... —Mike Allen 06:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RobertMfromLI/Archives/2010/February&oldid=1088860848"