User talk:Roguegeek/Archive20080414

M1

That was indecently quick!

The M1 in the Rossi era can only be accurately represented in terms of its substantial and significant history in that period. I'm sure you'll agree, that most instances of the M1 being noteworthy in the 2006 season (and there were many) were intrinsically linked with Rossi, and I think Wikipedia users deserve more than a one liner about such an important Motorcycle, in such an important season, in such an increasingly popular sport. - playbike 01:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Block threat for supposed abuse

Bah. Do we have to be utterly humourless when we do such boring work as (constantly) reverting spammers? Isn't your precious time best spent threatening blocks on said spammers? You didn't actually think I was being abusive with my little quip? Please lighten up. I've never gotten worked up in any edit I've made, I just like to make strongly and directly, so there's no confusion. It's all a matter of style. Are you part of the new, emerging, band of personality police around here? Maybe it's cultural relativity. I come from a part of the world where we don't accept abuse and we say what we mean. It may be that you come from a totalitarian state where unless you toe the line it is not tolerated. I think with a little good will we can all understand each other's point of view. Darkov 11:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your 8 word reply is a little cryptic. Can you expand a little? Darkov 22:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Honda Fit

Look, you asked me to put in sources, so I reverted the article and put in sources. And now I'm going to revert it back and phrase it as "A hybrid electric version is rumored to be in development for sale in late 2007, according to Japanese newspaper Nihon Keizai Shimbun."

I hope that satisfies you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ng.j (talk • contribs) 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

In the year that the article was written, Honda has decided to go with an all new model and will not produce the Honda Fit Hybrid. So ends our discussion.

Ng.j 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Suzuki Hayabusa

I just thought I would inform you that you have put the performance data in incorrectly, they both state 60-80 mph is 3.31mph and 3.13mph. This makes no sense to me. Can you please correct this? Also, I completely agree with your plan to revert it back to a more reliable test. - Century0 03:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you caught that. Definitely a typo on my part. The second time is suppose to be from 80-100 mph. Looks like another editor already picked up on the problem and fixed it. Roguegeek (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Uli Kunkel

Hi Roguegeek, the above user just reported you for vandalism at AIV. What you are doing is not vandalism (obviously) but if the user is being unreasonable, I find the best thing to do is give them another option (eg I told him about the {{main}} template) rather than threatening them with 3rr. People don't tend to react well to that :) Thanks, – riana_dzasta 02:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

SWG Edits

I am not the first person to raise issues of verifiability and neutrality on this article. I'm the most recent in a long list of people with the same concerns. Where in the Wiki policies does it require that I provide a "long and detailed" justification for adding {{pov}} and {{unreferenced}} tags? It just says you should discuss the reasons on the talk page, it doesn't say that the initiator has to provide "long and detailed" justifications. Am I missing something here? Jonawiki 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with your point of not having enough sources. I'm just thinking we need to be more specific about what sources for what parts are lacking. Roguegeek (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved your comments. You're the one now deleting all my past edits to the talk page. Magonaritus 02:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest people reading this to take a look at User talk:Magonaritus to see what kind of feedback they are receiving from other editors. Roguegeek (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars Galaxies

I see you're having some difficulty with Jonawiki (talk · contribs) and Magonaritus (talk · contribs). I've been dealing with "them" for over a year at Upper Canada College. I say "them" as I've reported both as sockpuppets. Please feel free to contribute comments or evidence if you wish. Thanks. --G2bambino 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up that proper investigation - I wasn't aware of that process. I've since added my comments to it. I do, however, remain somewhat unknowledgeable about these matters, and so wonder what the next step is. The template you left at Jonawiki's talk page links to this page, which states "If the accuser hasn't requested CheckUser for ten days, you are allowed to remove the notice from your page." Does this mean you must, if you haven't already, request a CheckUser? I suppose I should notify you that I made a CheckUser request against Magonaritus back on March 8, which was deemed unnecessary. --G2bambino 15:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Source or Spam

I note you removed the contributors URL from a number of images today with the comment "removed spam" (e.g. [1] [2]). I note that you have a URL to your website on many of the images you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as RichN. Could you explain how this is different? -- Patleahy 02:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

External Link and IP image

Hi Roguegeek, regarding:

... It looks ok, but it should be submitted through the Open Directory Project link listed in the external links section. Roguegeek (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

on the Honda S2000 discussion page, how do I submit this exactly? I couldn't figure it out by poking around the Open Directory pages. Thanks.

Also, regarding:

Those are excellent images of the S2000. If you are able to shoot more, we are in desperate need to get nice free use images of the interior and IP. Is this something you think you could get? ...

I can post more images, but what exactly is IP?

Template Chevrolet

- My friend who is a GM mechanic of 10 years with saw your revision of my edit to the template and wishes to confirm that the Corsica and Beretta are in fact mid size vehicles. You can contact him on yahoo messenger at whitewolf_17862.

I owned a 1994 Corsica (mid-size) until last year and I currently own a 1998 Prizm (compact) and I can assure you the Corsica is not even close to the same size or cabin space an the much smaller Prizm. My mother owns a 2005 Cavalier (compact) and it is also much smaller than the Corsica. These cars are not in the same class.

Government website listing the Corsica as a mid size. [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass/Midsize_Cars1991.shtml

Also the Prizm was sold as a subcompact from 1989 to 1992 in 1993 a new larger body style was introduced and the car was from then on marketed as a compact. K_Watson1984

Lucy Deakins

Google searching, and confirming info with revised searches. Example: One Google search showed her at an event. I google the event and add her name. The resultant info gives me more info about her, or confirms other info that didn't have citation. Most of the info exists of various fan sites, but it was all verifiable. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC) (who had a major league crush on her and Diane Lane as a kid)

Suzuki TL1000R

Have tried to add one source and clarify another in the Reputation section. The widow-maker term is frequently found in forums, but they are not "verifiable". An alternative term is "handling problems", also easily found with Google. If it is still suss, why not delete that section, as belonging to a TL1000S article. Suzuki said at the time that there was no fault, but added a steering damper to subsequent bikes. This was before the TL1000R was released. Seasalt 05:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

PanoTools vs Panorama Tools

The PanoTools group was created in April of 2003. Prior to that, Helmut ran the Panorama Tools list. The NG group is using our group name and domain name as a shortcut to kicking of their new group. The word "original" is being used in the correct context. John Spikowski 22:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets leave the one line as it is and give it a break. The NG group has dominated the page so the reader has more then enough info to make his/her own choice as to where they want to point their browsers. If they want to join the Panotools forum then great. If they find a mailing list is more their cup of tea then that fine also. I'm just trying to continue on with what I started 4 years ago and get past the nasty split of the group. John Spikowski 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Panorama Tools developemnt is maintained on SourceForge with a home page and mailing list of it's own. The only other group that is actively involved in the Panorama Tools project is the Hugin group. The PanoToolsNG group is a Yahoo Groups mailing list about general panorama photography. As I mentioned before, there hasn't been a reference to the Panorama Tools library or viewer in months. Why should this new group take credit for the work of others? John Spikowski 03:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the developers recommend those mailing lists and wiki. This is shown to be referenced correctly through the source I have cited in the article. It's a verifiable fact. Roguegeek (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell Thomas and Carl to let other have some say to what is 'legal' and what isn't. Everytime we make progress and it looks like we have come to a middle ground, Thomas or Carl will delete the PanoTools group link and it starts all over again. John Spikowski 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thomas (NG facilities manager, list moderator and owner) is user:wuz . Carl (NG list moderator and owner) is user:Einemnet

> Also keep in mind I didn't delete your link. I, in fact, have always recommended it should stay. > Thanks !

Defender of the Wiki

Rogue - some time ago you deposited a barnstar on my talk page. I figured it was about time I got round to thanking you. So - cheers for the barnstar! --G2bambino 15:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Date formats

Hi Roguegeek. In this edit, you reformatted dates to yyyy-mm-dd format, supposedly "per WP:MOS". I looked at WP:DATE, though, and it specifically suggests not using that format: "new users and unregistered users do not have any date preferences set, and will therefore see the unconverted ISO 8601 date." (WP:DATE#ISO date formats). Can you clarify your reasoning? Powers ^T 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What looks like spam? Golden Gare Bridge

Did I offer to sell something? The pictures are unique and very special. Many people are interested in these phenomenas, but do not know where to see them. You offer it for discussion and we'll see.--Mbz1 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1 You telling me to be civil? You called it a spam! Of course I do not know English as well as you do, but what in world it has to do with spam? I agree discuss the section, but do not remove it because the discussion ends.--Mbz1 04:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

• • • What about using the word "Spam"?--Mbz1 04:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
      • • It is very complicated. I'm still not sure what category of spam the section was under. Advertisements masquerading as articles, External link spamming,Source soliciting,External link spamming with bots,Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another,Canvassing? Which one of them? Can you, explain it to me please?--Mbz1 05:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
          • Hello, Roguegeek. I removed the section from the GGB page not because I agree with you(I do not), but just because I'm too tiered to fight over it. If you do not remove it now, somebody else will later. I guess it is how Wikipedia works. I believe that at that point the dispute is resolved and I do not expect to get a reply from you. Regards--Mbz1 17:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
            • I just copied and pasted your own exact words from the talk page you have created to discus the section to explain why it was removed. If yo believe your own words were not "civil", sorry I cannot help you. I'm really not interested in getting any more of your messages. If you like, you could report me to an administrator, or better yet please request the pictures to be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm not going to foght it either.--Mbz1 02:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Attribution

Hi, Roguegeek. Here, you revised a sentence to remove a direct quotation from MMORPG.com and replaced with a generic "Some media organizations" phrasing (retaining the reference to MMORPG.com). Can I ask why? It seems that it's best to quote a specific source when making references such as this, rather than to rely on "Some media organizations." Powers ^T 16:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your desire to keep it NPOV, but my understanding was that the preferred method of doing that was to assign the statement to a specific source. I may be misinterpreting "avoid weasel words", though I'm fairly sure I saw that written somewhere. =) I'm also not too worried about POV in this case because the MMORPG.com quotation itself was careful to say "probably". I don't think anyone's really disputed that SWG really has invoked more controversy than any other MMORPG (though the uncertainty inherent in any attempt to measure "controversy" necessitates the use of words like "probably"), so there's really no opposing view that we need to worry about presenting. Powers ^T 01:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Hello there. I have reverted your undo on the 675 page due to incorrect source information. Please check out the policy on original research and how it defines a secondary source:

*Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. An International Herald Tribune analysis and commentary on a United Nations Security Council resolution is a secondary source. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians.

Sport Rider and Motorcyclist are most definitely secondary sources according to this definition. The only way we could present the primary source (manufacturer claimed info) is if we can find reliable secondary sources that will back up the claims. I've just done a quick look at other sources and they all claim approximately the same info as SR and MC. I you disagree, let's discuss to avoid the possibility of an edit war. We can request advice from an admin on this issue if you would prefer. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sport Rider is definitely a primary source. They do not analyze, generalize or comment on other people's data, they present their own measurement results. They measure dry weight differently from the manufacturer (simple arithmetics - 417-389=28 lbs - exactly the weight of 4.8 gallons of gasoline), that's why their results are different. --Itinerant1 05:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of points and questions from your last comments:

1. Can you explain why you consider publications like Sport Rider and Motorcyclist are primary sources and not secondary sources? From my point of view, it seems very clear they are secondary sources due to them (1) not being the manufacturer themselves, (2) don't use first-hand material, (3) are offering original interpretation through editorials in their reviews, (4) do their own analysis through product reviews in their publications, and (5) present their own claims of the subject in question. The actual means of their testing, whether it's to a certain standard or not, don't have any weight on defining what kind of source they are classified as.
2. Even though it doesn't have any bearing on defining source, are you able to identify a source that shows how Sport Rider and Motorcyclist take their measurements? I just want to make sure what you are claiming is true.
3. Are you just disagreeing with weight claims or is it horsepower/torque claims as well? I'm asking because you didn't make mention of it in any comments yet and I was simply not sure.

Respectfully, Roguegeek (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of their material is secondary. But they are primary with respect to information that comes out of tests they conduct: "a primary source is a document, or other source of information that was created at or near the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described." They definitely do measure things like dry/wet weight themselves: [3] "Test numbers used here are generated by the Motorcyclist staff using a Dynojet 150 or Superflow CycleDyn (noted in red) rear-wheel dynamometer, Intercomp SWII digital scale and Los Angeles County Raceway's quarter-mile strip utilizing a Chrondek timing system."

Regarding HP measurements - I'd like to have both figures in the article - manufacturer-claimed engine horsepower of 123 bhp and tested wheel horsepower of 110 hp. --Itinerant1 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Could use someone with more understanding of secondary sources to help clarify my understanding of the subject. For the purpose of organization, I have consolidated the entire conversation above. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources are ones created after the event by someone who did not witness it, see Secondary source for more information. GDonato (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

1991 Camaro models

I really like 1991 Camaros. They are so cool. I always wanted one of those and I will probably buy one someday. I would like to know, in a few words, what is the difference between the RS, the Z28, the IROC-Z and the IROC-Z28. I am not an expert and I would like to be able to tell the difference between the various models offered.

ICE77 -- 84.222.102.37 21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

186mph

did you actually read the source I provided for the statement? anyway, since you clearly own the article, I won't bother you again. it's generally considered polite to leave a comment for people when you're reverting their edits. your mileage may vary, of course. 69.143.136.139 21:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

GSX Hayabusa

Just wondering why you added the GSX Hayabusa to the GSX-R range after I removed it

Replaceable fair use Image:Honda_RC212V.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Honda_RC212V.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:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. 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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Do you have Adobe Photoshop or another image editing program that can rotate images? If so, I invite you to name any image that would be the best for use in the article except for its angle, and I can get you the original uncropped version. (I have PS, but for the life of me I can't see what the concerns are with some of the photos that have been criticized, and haven't had any success when I tried to fix the ones I did notice.) Let me know if you can and would be willing to help. I'm also extending this offer to User:Daniel J. Leivick, as he also brought this up on my Talk page. IFCAR 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Uploading over leaves a lag time in which there's a massively uncropped image appearing in articles. Also, I'd prefer the differently-cropped and -rotated version be uploaded in addition to the original. If I could email them, I think that would work best. IFCAR 11:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

PanoTools Deletion Process

The deletion process for the this page has already started and your not a administrator to make final judgment. John Spikowski 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

John Spikowski

This is incredible news! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! You made my day! --Wuz 21:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick decision. Thanks for making Durova aware of the situation. Thanks again! --Einemnet 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He still seems to be able to edit. At least his talk page (containing the reasons for his block) is blanked again. --Einemnet 06:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call indeed. Insulting me I don't mind that much. Guess I am used to it. :) Legal treats on the other hand call for immediate blocking. Garion96 (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

auto templates

nice find on the conversion templates! (from the 675 daytona page) Do you happen to know if there are any for other internationalisation stuff (e.g. terms, spelling etc). NathanLee 16:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, but here are all of the conversion templates and automobile specific conversion templates. Roguegeek (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars Galaxies

You recently reverted a large amount of text at Star Wars Galaxies. Could I ask why? I know I requested help, but I wasn't sure that it all needed to be removed. just wanted to ask. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 11:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I should have started a discussion before the edit. Sorry about that. Started a discussion topic on the talk page. Roguegeek (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Android_(disambiguation}

Thank you for bringing my long-winded explanation down to a point. I like your version actually better than mine - well done!

HagenUK 13:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Some more conversion templates you might like

Since you're fighting the same battles with tidying up bike pages.. L to gal template for the tank sizes. e.g. {{L to gal|16.6}} doc is here The Gal to L one I can't seem to get working properly (for US bikes etc I'd want to put US measurements first).. e.g. should be {{Gal to l|12}} Doc seems incomplete: here. Anyhow, just figured it might be useful to you. NathanLee 21:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Very nice! When I have a little bit of time tonight, I'll try and put a little effort into helping you getting it to work properly. Roguegeek (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Open Handset Alliance

Roguegeek, I reinserted a cited paragraph to the Open Handset Alliance. In your last revert where, based on your comment, you intended to removed unsourced info about the OS, you also removed my edit which was about the OHA-compliant handsets and was properly sourced. Hope that explains it.N2e (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've condensed the info about the OS and kept it to more of a summary tone. If you want to expand on the OS, maybe you should add the info into the proper article. The OHA article is specifically about the OHA. Roguegeek (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Roguegeek, slow down and read my note, and my two, very small, single-paragraph edits to the OHA article -- carefully. I put NO information into the article about the OS. The article subject is OHA, the Alliance. The Alliance includes the Handset manufacturers and the Mobile Telecomm companies. It is, in fact, quite appropriate for the article to have the information about the handset announcements. That is what I added to the article. That's all.

I say all of this assuming good intent on your part. But if there is an issue with an article, it should be talked out on the talk page and slow down on the article edits

Having said that, I have no time to get involved in an edit war on this subject, so I will stay out of the article for a few days and hope other editors get involved as the OHA further develops. N2e (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Apple-iPhone.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Apple-iPhone.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 14:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ExifTool

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of ExifTool, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 23:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I could care less if anyone copies my home page word for word (and many, many other sites do!). I suppose that technically the ExifTool home page falls under the GPL and Perl Artistic license since it is part of the distributed package, but this should, I believe, allow for the text to be copied for use here. If not, I give my permission explicitly. (Phil Harvey, ExifTool author) Boardhead (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied here. Roguegeek (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for re-creating the ExifTool article. In general, I have problems with editing articles involoving my own work because of Wikipedia's "no original research rule", however I have edited the article to add the exiftool web site URL. Boardhead (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I just checked the ExifTool history and see that you deleted the URL on purpose, presumably to prevent CorenSearchBot from doing its thing. But the article really does need a link to the home page, so hopefully there is another way to keep CorenSearchBot happy. Boardhead (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of ExifTool

A tag has been placed on ExifTool requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Coastergeekperson04^{'s talk}@12/04/2007 05:20

Image:KTM 1190 RC8

why do you keep changing the licencing of Image:KTM 1190 RC8.jpg? the picture is Copyright free when mentioning photographer it says so on the source website.

I asked if it was ok to use it at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#KTM Images and I was told to tag with {{attribution}}

Re: FZ6 external link deletion question

Hello Roguegeek,

I saw that you had deleted an external link I had edited onto the Yamaha FZ6 page, and you cited the Wiki External Links rules as your reason for doing so. I was under the impression that the External Links section was specifically for linking to resource pages relating to the subject matter. I did read through the Wiki EL page and I can't understand which section you are deriving that interpretation from. Can you please clarify? - Marke14

The link I removed was to a forum. #11 of links to be avoided as per WP:EL says:

11. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.

Another argument against having that site listed is #7 which states:

7. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.

Hope this explains the edit. Roguegeek (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:HRC-logo.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Hrc.png. The copy called Image:Hrc.png 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 (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HRC-logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HRC-logo.jpg. 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject:Motorcycle Racing

I have started a discussion about Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycle Racing, which you recently created, at WP:MOTOR. I invite you to contribute to the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Trademark on "Superbike"

Hi Roguegeek, I have reverted your edit on Sport bike regarding Ducati holding the trademark on the term "Superbike". This seems like a major claim and I don't think its appropriate that this should be in the article without a source. This is especially true as this claim involves the commercial interests of Ducati and anyone who wants to use the term, and the claim is disputed by other editors. Please only reinsert the claim once you have a source. I spent an hour or so last night on Google and combing through the Ducati website and couldn't find any such claim - that doesn't mean that what you wrote is untrue, just that it is harder to source than I would have expected. Thanks, Gwernol 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Dmoz

Hello. I see your vote at the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_15#Template:Dmoz. I agree with you.

Best regards, nejron (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W100

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W100, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Layout on Chandelier article

Hi Roguegeek. I have read the links to MoS you include in your edit summary, and it seems clear that we are to avoid trapping text between images. It also creates a difficult reading path. CApitol3 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true. There's also guidelines on how the image content should not overwhelm text content. Roguegeek (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roguegeek. I do not see the Red Room chandelier, the only wood chandelier shown, to be pushing it over the dizzy limit. Your interpretation is a subjective call. I think we need to appeal to a third party. Thanks. CApitol3 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NASCAR 09

After that edit I did go to the wiki-project video games page and post on their discussion page that the article should have some kind of protection (not sure if that was the right place, but if not I'm sure they'll know what to do. And I know I should probaly calm down, but those idiots that do stupid stuff like that should also grow up and realize that what they are doing is funny to nobody but themselves. Personally I think a lot of this kind of vandalism would stop if this site was changed to where you had to be registered to edit articles, I mean if you are too lazy to take a minute or two to register then why should you be allowed to post, you know what I mean?. Fisha695 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Knight Rider (2008 film) - removal of quotes from citation

As is stated in the edit history, the quotes are not needed in both the prose and reference section only a few lines below. Either one or the other is fine but to put it in both places is overquoting and unnecessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: VWVortex

I don't know what just happened, but the VWVortex page has completely disappeared from Wikipedia. If you have administrating capabilities, you need to replace it immediately so we can have an actual discussion. If you don't have those capabilities, please inform me of the administrator you contacted so they can replace the page.

It sounds like you issue may not be one of spam but rather one of notability. If that is the case, we can certainly have that discussion. Also, if you read the template carefully, you'll note it only tells the original author of the article that they can't remove the template.

Additionally, Wiki is generally quite good at removing spam expeditiously. The fact that this article has existed for many years suggests a de facto acceptance of the page by the community.--Analogue Kid (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It met speedy delete criteria and I wasn't the only one who thought that. Roguegeek (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that it wasn't deleted on the grounds of spam, but under A7 (failed to assert notability for web content). _GB^T/C 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's interesting. I thought notability wasn't considered a criteria for speedy delete, but I guess when dealing with web content, it is. Learn something new everyday so it seems! Roguegeek (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok...(i) definitely spend some time reading WP:CSD, and feel free to shout if you've got any questions, and (ii) I've replied here on the on-going issue regarding this page's deletion. _GB^T/C 22:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Camaro Edit Question

Just curious as to why you removed the caption. Not upset, just wanting to understand so I know for next time. Thanks. Gelbza (talk) 06:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ghosts I-IV External Links edit

You removed a link to the liner notes for the Nine Inch Nails album Ghosts I-IV. Just curious as to your rational. The reason I'd posted that link originally was the main Ghost site does not actually link to that content. I'm not sure how that page was found but I read about it on a forum. -Jmcbns (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The domain is redundant. There is already an external link in the section from ghosts.nin.com. I'm attempting to find the policy right now, but I know it exists somewhere where it states redundant domains are to be avoided. Let me keep searching. Roguegeek (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see the exact wording. I'll try and find it myself, and let you know if I do. This is sort of a weird case because while they both have the same domain, the main site linked does not contain a link to this other page anywhere on it. I even checked the HTML for the site to make sure I wasn't missing it. -Jmcbns (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'd place it back up simply because I also remembering that policy stating the reason for removing redundant domains is because you can link to it through one domain. That doesn't seem to be the case in this circumstance, so I'd place it back in. I'll do it right now and send out a help to find that policy/guideline. It very well could have been changed since the time I viewed it which would have been months ago. Roguegeek (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} See above conversation. I remember reading months (maybe even years) ago about a policy/guideline about the "External links" section and how links with redundant domains are to be avoided. I can't seem to find that wording anywhere. Did it ever exist? If so, was it removed or still around? A link to it would be nice and any other light that could be shed on this subject. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be thinking of WP:EL. I'm not aware of anything that explicitly forbade redundant domains, but your logic makes sense that they are most likely unnecessary. Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The only reference to this I can find is on WP:EL→Important points to remember section: "3. Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." I would think that since this content is not linked by the currently externally linked website, it would be acceptable. -Jmcbns (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. That's what I read. Even with that guideline, it still makes sense to place the link back into the article unless it can be found from the main page. Roguegeek (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What would be the best way to reference this Talk when replacing the link? I want to make sure anyone else who might object to its placement has the background and a place to comment on it. Should I link here or repost this section on the article's talk page? -Jmcbns (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Image:Land Rover LRX.jpg

Could you please explain http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Land_Rover_LRX&diff=195620784&oldid=193242327 ? Is it so that there cannot be images of cars as cars are copyrighted by the manufacturers or what was the failed fair usage? (The image was taken by myself - I thought the source:self-made in the image would imply this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimoTM (talk • contribs) 22:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It fails because the manufacturer has a copyright on it. You did not take it. Roguegeek (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather bold statement.. I have the original at Flickr: http://flickr.com/photos/metsala/2241392069/ - the one I uploaded here was cropped from that one. TimoTM (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CD21-2001g.gif

Hi Rich,

nice to meet you. I'm new in the wikipedia and I have to learn a lot how it works and which are the best ways to communicate or give a contribution to this great web. I offen use this tool privatly. Now I started to upload some of my artworks and the feedback is very different. About the drawing above my understandiung is that is would be nice for the wikipedia users to see clearly all details from this great motorcycle. You are true that it is only an artwork and not a CAD-drawing from the manufacturer or a foto. But I had done my best to be sure that all details are realy shown as possible. My feeling is that such an arwork gives the wikipedia a living style. What are you thinking?

Best regards boris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lux Boris (talk • contribs) 07:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Motorcycle/doc

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Motorcycle/doc&curid=14913521&diff=199399743&oldid=199075331

Hi. Maybe this and the other automotive infoboxes you have in mind would benefit from the aligned format, as otherwise don't you think the information as it appears when editing the page looks like... a dense impenetrable blob? Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Sardanaphalus. My understanding is that optimizing while editing should be done as much as possible. The edit listed above saved 186 bytes. I know that's not a lot, but considering how many pages this template and other like it appear on, it could be considered less demanding for the Mediawiki engine to render, not to mention that there is no difference on a rendered page. Personally, I like utilizing as much space as possible, especially on rather large articles. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As regards optimizing editing to the extent of crowding information (such as in the example above and, if I recall correctly, on many of the military-related pages I happen to've passed by) then I just don't buy it. I can see how the memory/microseconds saved was significant in the earlier days of computing, but I'm thinking of at least twenty years ago. I can also see how some folk wanting to contribute to the encyclopedia might be put off in the face of overly dense-looking code, i.e. folk not already comfortable with dipping their toes into computer programming. I guess the bottom line would be whatever the Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Mediawiki/etc technical folk would say (or already have said?). Is there a particular page where we might find out? Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

ExifTool

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of ExifTool, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Silly bot. Boardhead (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of ExifTool

A tag has been placed on ExifTool requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kateshortforbob 21:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)