User talk:SCEhardt/A3

Deletion of article on Harold Tichenor

Please explain why you deleted the article I created on Harold Tichenor. Thank you. Martin Tichenor user:tichenor

The article Harold Allen Tichenor was deleted because another user and myself did not think it met the standards at WP:BIO. Since the article was speedy deleted, you are free to recreate it if you can assert the notability of the person. -SCEhard T 15:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting the reply to my query. I appreciate you taking time to do that. In regard to the WP:BIO which states in relevant part "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?", Mr. Tichenor published in 1988 an exhaustive genealogy titled "Tichenor Families in America" (google it), which not only appears in Amazon.com, but in libraries, genealogical and historical societies in virtually every state in the Union and is considered by many in the genealogical community as a primary reference in that field. I posted the article (which I had intended to update with more information about Mr. Tichenor and his work) as a service to any of your users who might have had an interest in genealogy and history, which Mr. Tichenor made a large contribution to by self publishing his 735 page work for the benefit of those interested in not only the history of one of the most senior European families on this continent(we arrived on this continent 130 years before the revolution), but history of the nation in general. I don't know who you are or the other user who made this decision, but I am sure your wisdom far exceeds mine in this regard. I am sure I have misconstrued the intent of Wikipedia and the open source movement in general. I wish you good fortune in your endeavors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tichenor (talk • contribs) .

Sarcasm noted. I will recreate the article since, based on the information you just provided, it would no longer meet speedy deletion criteria. Please remember to cite your sources as you work on the article. -SCEhard T 05:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intended no sarcasm. I apologize that my statements were interpreted in such a manner. I am not very literate in matters of computers and the internet, and intended my comments in humble deference to your knowledge and expertise. Please accept them in that regard. Thank you for your efforts in restoring the article, and please let me know if my future additions violate Wikipedia standards. Sincerely, Martin Tichenor

Martin - I also apologize. I failed to assume good faith. I have left some links on your talk page that should be helpful as you get to know Wikipedia better. -SCEhard T 04:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!!

Thanks for contributing your recording of reggae! I just listened to it and the sound quality is great, though you made it a little sillier than I would have :-) -SCEhard T 01:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Wikipedia is great! I see you're also interested in biking, have you ever done any bike camping or touring? WAZAAAA 01:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More spoken wiki! WAZAAAA 03:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL that is absolutely awesome! I can't believe you made a spoken version of my user page!

My friend and I gave bike touring/camping a try a couple summers ago. It turned out to be a really dumb idea because it was miserably hot, so much so that we only stayed out two nights because in southern Texas even the nights are too hot and humid to sleep comfortably during the hottest part of the summer. However, I'm hoping to give it another try during a better season. Have you ever tried it?

Also, the more I think about it, the more I really like your idea of putting more emotion into the spoken articles. Most of them (including bicycle lighting done by me) end up horribly monotone. -SCEhard T 05:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! I've done a couple overnighter bike camping trips, I thought they were a great time. I'd love to try to do a longer trip sometime. A great resource is Ken Kifer's Bike Pages (http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/), if you haven't seen it already.

Image:Lamborghini6.jpg

Holocron - Where did this image come from? You wrote that you created it yourself but it looks like there is a commercial watermark on it. -SCEhard T 15:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, I meant to hit the copyright button. Feel free to delete it.--Holocron 15:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, how did you find my user page? The only people who go there are people who vandalize it. I bet it was the page move I just made.--Holocron 15:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'll take care of it. I found your user page because I had Street Sweeper on my watchlist after I split it from street sweeper a while ago. There are a couple problems with some of your other images, mainly license tags. I'll list them here in a minute along with suggested fixes. -SCEhard T 15:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :)--Holocron 15:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Opr022OW.jpg - I have changed the tag on this image to {{promophoto}}. Also, if it is not used in an article, it will be deleted after a week (see {{or-fu-nr}})
Image:Opr022OWsmall.jpg - same as above
Image:Nighttrees.jpg - If you took this picture yourself, it should have one of the following licenses (your choice): {{PD-self}}, {{GFDL}}, or a Creative Commons license.
Image:Thegorge.jpg, Image:Thegorge.jpg and Image:Image-thelake.jpg - Did you take these photos yourself? They are unusually small for personal photographs.
Image:Assault riffle HK.jpg - This image needs a source (Who owns the copyright?) and an appropriate license (probably fair use, but only if you are going to use it in an article. Fair use images cannot be used on user pages.)
Image:Protecta.jpg - This photo's tag should be {{Fairusein}} and you will need to make a short explanation of why you are claiming fair use (such as "There are no available free use photos of this gun")

If you have any questions, please ask! -SCEhard T 16:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nighttrees, thegorge, and thelake were all taken with my camera. They were too big to fit onto my userpage so I had to size them down. BTW, could I use this image? It's a privately owned car and there is a button beneath the photo to print it out (which makes me wonder if it is CR).

Sorry, but a bunch of stuff has come up - I'll get back to you tonight around 9pm EST. -SCEhard T 19:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the images you took yourself, there is no problem with those. For future reference, the normal procedure is to upload the full-sized image and then use the wiki software to resize the image (see Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Resizing). This way, the larger image is available if someone needs it later. Of course, you may choose not to upload the larger version of your image if you want to retain full rights to the high resolution version.

Regarding the image here, the copyright is still owned by the person who took the photo. In order to use it on Wikipedia, you would need to contact them and ask them to release it under one of the free licenses mentioned above. If they agree, it is fine to go ahead and upload the image with their statement of permission placed on the image page. -SCEhard T 22:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchy peanut-buttery goodness

Joy - Thanks for the info you added to Reese's Pieces. I think it helps the article quite a bit, but could you please cite your source(s)? Thanks! -SCEhard T 00:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll cite. I ran out of time and had to leave for dinner: husband was standing over me asking "Can we go now? How about now? Are you finished yet?" Thanks for the note. Joyous | Talk 03:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten :-) -SCEhard T 05:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken article upload instructions

While we're discussing spoken things: I wanted to ask about your simplication of the project page. First off, Great! It's less confusign to just add the tag into the template. Here's what I was wondering: When you are uploading the file, you have the description, where the template info goes, right? Then, just below it is a licensing box. Since the box was available, I just assumed that the {{gdfl}} tag instructions were outdated. Do you know why we'd need to include it if we select "GDFL (self-made)" from the drop-down box? Ckamaeleon 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm; I never use the drop-down box so of course I forgot about it :-) I think we should make one of the following changes:

Leave off the gfdl part from the copy and paste part and change the intro to
- On the upload page, paste the following template, and fill in the appropriate information. Select the GFDL license.
Leave the copy and paste part as-is and change the intro to
- On the upload page, paste the following template, and fill in the appropriate information. (Leave the license drop-down blank)

{{GFDL-self}} wouldn't really fit since all spoken recordings are a derivative. What do you think about the two possibilities above? -SCEhard T 03:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Is it OK if I add a picture fom a site that actually lets you download them as a background image for your computer?--Holocron 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the picture has been released into the public domain or under a free license. Most such sites do not allow for-profit use. See {{copyrighted}} for what is not allowed. -SCEhard T 19:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found one! [1]--Holocron 19:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... The site says:

Our Collection of Royalty Free Images and Photographs are a great resource for students and are ideal for inclusion on Non Commercial Websites on the Internet. Copyright-free-pictures.org.uk are the sole copyright holders of these free graphics and free pictures, unless otherwise stated. As Copyright holders we are pleased to give our permission for the non-commercial free use of our royalty free graphics, provided users comply with our fair terms and conditions of use. [2]

I realize this is frustrating, but we can't use photos licensed for noncommercial use. See {{noncommercial}}. -SCEhard T 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn...--Holocron 03:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Convicts.jpg

I think the information that I have now given should be enough to justify keeping the picture. Bobby1011 21:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a note about where the image was published, who drew it, or something to indicate its age? While it is clear that the subject is old, the drawing could have been made more recently. Thanks -SCEhard T 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site doesn't offer that information. Bobby1011 22:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem, I will email the contact on the website about it. -SCEhard T 22:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musk lifesavers

They really do exist, although they're foul. Joyous | Talk 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... after reading Musk is the name originally given to a perfume obtained from the strong-smelling substance, secreted by the testicles of the musk deer at musk I thought it had to be a joke. Thanks for dropping me a note! -SCEhard T 02:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I keep running into you at candy-related articles) Some people swear by them. I'm more likely to swear AT them. A review on the page I linked says they taste like "sucking on a French teacher." I leave you with that image. Joyous | Talk 02:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pizza jonsullivan.jpg and Image:Lasagna jonsullivan s.jpg

Hi,

It seems the photo was taken PD source and is authored by Jon Sullivan and released by him into PD. See http://pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pdef&pg=7529

The same applies to Image:Lasagna jonsullivan s.jpg but it would be better to re-upload the original larger version. Please see http://pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pdef&pg=6645

Best regards,
Kpjas 07:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kpjas - Thanks for getting back to me about these! I've properly tagged Image:Pizza jonsullivan.jpg and I deleted Image:Lasagna jonsullivan s.jpg since there is already a larger version at Image:Lasagna jonsullivan.jpg. -SCEhard T 16:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me-

Thanks for telling me about the picture. I found out the information, and affixed it to Pwsafarijacket.jpg. Michael 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Trenchcoatinuse.JPG; Michael 14:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC) here. I found out the source info, what there was for the above mentioned image, also. You can delete Jamth.png if you want, It doesn't show up well enough in some people's browsers. I don't have that problem with the image...[reply]

Michael 14:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael - Thanks for getting back to me about these! I am confused as to why you have placed {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} on the two jacket photos. This tag has essentially the same meaning as {{PD-release}}. Did the authors waive their copyrights? -SCEhard T 16:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael 17:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC) here.[reply]

I think so... I am reasonably sure about at least the safari jacket, because once a photographer's work appears, it becomes Public Domain after a certain period of time. The Trenchcoat, I am sure is okay to use, because it was found illustrating an E-Bay auction...

Michael 17:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding how copyright laws work. Take a look at Public_domain#Expiration. Unless the work was published before 1923 or the author has been dead for 70 years, the work is not in public domain in the United States. Also, placing a picture on an eBay auction does not mean the author has released it into public domain. -SCEhard T 21:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DCP 1455bsd.JPG

I have reuploaded this file and have clarified that I took the photo. Please remove the deletion tag from this item. Jtmichcock 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this myself. Jtmichcock 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that! -SCEhard T 01:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian O'Driscoll Picture

File:Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg

"I hate pictures!!" - Adolf Hitler

I've clarified this image. Not to be completely offensive, but are you the copyright nazi?

Love,

Rowlan 01:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for citing a source, but now the photo needs a proper license. If you want to keep it on Wikipedia, you will need to make a fair use claim by placing the tag {{Fair use in}} and writing below why you think it qualifies for fair use. Am I a copyright nazi? Perhaps, but I love pictures when they're free. Violating copyrights compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. -SCEhard T 02:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've placed the correct licensing thing on it. Seeing as correct citing makes you happy, I won't stand in your way. So here's a clown. Have a nice day.

Rowlan 14:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for contacting me about copyright images. The boating photo I've used on my user page (kevinboating.jpg.) is owned by self, not much luck however in tagging it as such, please go ahead and tag it for me as GDP or whatever , the other photo kevintidy.jpg. please delete. Norwikian

Thanks for getting back to me! Should all be taken care of now. If you have any questions about tagging images in the future, feel free to drop me a note! -SCEhard T 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TBM

I am concerned about your deletion of this article. I don't really see how it meets any of the CSD, and it looks like it was worked on by a variety of editors over a fairly long period of time. I think you should consider restoring the article and using the AFD process, but I would like to hear your thoughts about it. -SCEhard T 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's the thing.

I read through the history, and I read non-WP information about it, and - in my opinion - it should have been deleted soon after creation. It's a non-notable Blockland mod. It's been the subject of quite a few edit wars, mostly between those who created TBM and puff it up, and those who are saying that it's dangerously flawed and that the guy who runs Blockland has pretty much equated it with a virus and said that no one should use it.

Normally, to resolve edit wars by simply deleting the article is not done. But in this case, I felt that it would be the most appropriate solution to the problem. DS 03:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK; Here's my thought: I don't know anything about the subject of the article, but I don't feel that is necessarily relevant. My problem with the speedy deletion is that the article clearly means something to several established editors, who have put a substantial amount of time into it. I don't think it is civil to speedy delete such an article, even if you are sure it would not survive a AFD debate. -SCEhard T 03:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am very tired right now. I'm not going to undelete it, but if you choose to undelete it yourself, and put it through a proper AFD, I would have no problem with that. Don't forget to mention that (as per http://www.blockland.us/index.asp) the maker of Blockland has described it as a security risk, and has officially recommended that no one use it, ever.

(I hadn't ever heard of it before this evening either.) DS 03:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken Wiki Project

When you record a new spoken article, please add it to the list at Category:Spoken articles. Thanks! -SCEhard T 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm listening to your FFR article now and it sounds great! -SCEhard T 13:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, thanks for the feedback! I'll add both of my spoken ones to the category. Those first two I did were just kinda test runs of mine, the real test of my voice will be Douglas Adams Which I'm recording today, before it hits the main page for FA status. Let me know if you have any other comments/suggestions regarding my recordings. Cheers! --light darkness^(talk) 16:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cheetos

please stop deleting valid information from wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. I go to harvard; I should know, techie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.175.126 (talk • contribs) .

The information you are adding to Cheetos appears to be nonsense. If it is in fact a common usage, cite a source. If it is not common enough for you to find a source, it does not belong on Wikipedia (WP:NOR) -SCEhard T 17:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Voyager Talk

Use of sockpuppets such as you did on Talk:Plymouth Voyager will get you banned from Wikipedia. -SCEhard T 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that I just have strong feeling they should remain separate articles. -Bavaria 15:14, 12 Febuary 2006 (UTC)

Its OK; we all make mistakes. A good rule of thumb for making comments is to only sign them with ~~~~ as it is generally also not a good idea to sign your username while you're not logged in as you did on your most recent comment at Talk:Plymouth Voyager. If you're not signed in when making comments, we don't know for sure it is you! Thanks! -SCEhard T 15:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sorry again. Bavaria 15:37, 12 Febuary 2006 (UTC)

The next time you pretend to be more than one person on a discussion page, you will be blocked. -SCEhard T 20:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did I do that? I took your advice and used ~ ~ ~ ~. Forgive me if I did but I did I might have been signed in wrong. Bavaria 23:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Plymouth Voyager you made two comments and designed them to appear to be coming from two different people (one from this user name and one from your IP address). -SCEhard T 23:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I thought that ~ ~ ~ ~ meant anonymous. I'm sorry for the final time. I'll only use my user name whenever I edit of talk on Wikipedia. I thought this was "The Free Encyclopedia" but never mind. Bavaria 23:36, 12 Febuary 2006 (UTC)

Ok - "Free" does not mean "free to do anything." If you remember to do the two following things you shouldn't have any more troulbe of this type:

Only edit Wikipedia while signed in as Bavaria
Sign your comments by using ~~~~

Happy editing! -SCEhard T 01:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that this was also attempted on User_talk:ApolloBoy. Airline 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've made a note of it there. -SCEhard T 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parys

Parys blanked an image copyright tag you put on her discussion page along with several others. She's already been banned once for blanking tags and warnings. Crumbsucker 04:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! -SCEhard T 04:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugo Fano Photo

Regarding the image at this article, I have deleted it because it appeared to fit the criteria at the {{permission}} template. If you have evidence that the image is released under a free license, it is fine to re-upload it with that noted, or let me know and I will do it for you. Thanks! -SCEhard T 16:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting weird. Really Kafka-esque. I am not a huge fan of UGO Fano but I randomly look here and there (and I am a physicist) so I went to the trouble to contact the U of Chicago when I found the photo posted there. They own it and sent me permission to put it back. I included a quotation from the chap who gave permission, Steve Koppes in the U of Chicago News Office in my summary-of-edit. I include the full text of the e-mail with his telephone number below (except I blanked our names, as I prefer to keep Mr. Kafka at arm's length.) I also included a credit to the University of Chicago in the caption! Lord knows where and when Mr. Kafka roams these pages, does not read descriptions of edits and prompts Mr. SCEhardt to make idle edits.

Received: from relay01.uchicago.edu ([128.135.12.136]) by sccrmxc24.comcast.net (sccrmxc24) with ESMTP id <20060216151709s24008pla9e>; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:17:12 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [128.135.12.136] Received: from [128.135.248.120] (gazette.uchicago.edu [128.135.248.120])by relay01.uchicago.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k1GFH7HR017061; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:17:08 -0600 (CST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <p06230906c01a47107001@[128.135.248.120]> In-Reply-To: <009701c632c8$da48a600$6401a8c0@HP23272232602> References: <009701c632c8$da48a600$6401a8c0@HP23272232602> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:17:05 -0600 To: (name suppressed) From: Steve Koppes <s-koppes@uchicago.edu> Subject: Re: photo Cc: "prof at Yale " (collaborator with Fano!name and e-mail suppressed) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowe Dear Prof. (name suppressed), You may fearlessly repost the photo. The U. of Chicago News Office holds the copyright to this photo and we grant permission for this photo of Ugo Fano to be reposted on Wikipedia.

Best Wishes,

Steve Koppes U. of Chicago News Office 773-702-8366

Carrionluggage 17:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are really a smarty! I tried to restore the previous version but the photo has apparently been removed from ALL versions. Neat work! So I hope you know how to fix it up, and do so.

Here is another mail approving what I did - straight from the U of Chicago:

At 5:00 PM +0000 2/16/06, (e-mail suppressed) wrote: >Steve, >Thanks again, but it's already reposted and it should be OK as is. >I quoted some of your words of permission in the description of why >I was making the change, and there's no obvious way to change that >part (I suppose a Wiki admin. could). It's best to solidify such >changes because the Wiki landscape is chock full of busybodies who >alter things too much sometimes. Point well-taken. This looks fine! Steve >Sorry if I put in too much {my middle name is "Overkill" :-) } - see > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugo_Fano > >Your text per se won't show up unless somebody does a "history" or >has a watch on the page. (signoff suppressed)

So the U of Chicago approves not only using the photo but the way I edited the stuff.

Can't the devil find better work for your idle fingers? For assistance contacting him see [3] (it includes 18 names) Carrionluggage 17:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease making personal attacks. I am working on a way of keeping the photo, and I will be back with you momentarily. -SCEhard T 17:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read {{permission}}?? I am not out to get this image - here are the ways we will be able to keep it:

{{promophoto}} - Is this image released for resue by the media? If so, we can use it with this license.
Free licenses - Alternately, the copyright owner may release the image under a 'free license' such as {{GFDL}}, {{cc-by-sa}}, or {{public domain}}. -SCEhard T 17:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the image file does not reside in the article, so if an image file is deleted (or restored), it will show up that way in all the old versions of the article also. -SCEhard T 17:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you seem fascinated with the details of Wiki lore and procedures . I am not and I am almost ready to quit fooling with it (for the second time), after the present apparent waste of effort. I fish for the source of the photo, get permission, and watch you send it to the "memory hole" again. I am too old to learn all this stuff - I did just learn syntaxes. You invite personal attack by your intrusiveness, but the remarks about "idle hands" have some content - this stuff you are doing, removing photos without reading credits - does seem to indicate that you migt better find a way to contribute to subject matter. ~~~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carrionluggage (talk • contribs) .

I did read the credits, noticed you had placed them there, and that is why I contacted you. As far as the permission you got for the image, it has been written on high by our Creator that images with permission for use only on Wikipedia shall be deleted. -SCEhard T 22:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X scientist -> X scientists

I just worked hard to eliminate all references to my recently-introduced (mistakenly) X scientist categories (mad scientist, evil scientist, evil genius) in favour of the plural versions. Why is it wrong to completely eliminate these now-useless categories? I'd like to revert to my delete this versions but will wait a bit, hoping for an answer. --David.alex.lamb 00:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I didn't notice that you had just created the categories. I'll go ahead and delete them. Generally, when a page has been around for a while, it makes more sense to redirect it rather than delete it to keep things from getting lost. If you are requesting a speedy deletion due to a recent mistake, it's a good idea to mention that to avoid confusion. Thanks for your good work! -SCEhard T 00:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your question (for green energy and public transit but against recycling)

I happened upon your user page (in the usual way people happen upon things on Wikipedia), and while reading it I noticed that you are for green energy and public transit but against recycling. I'm curious to hear your reasoning on the matter. -SCEhard T 23:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping someone would ask. :) The userboxes, of course, oversimplify my POV, but that's the point of a userbox. So let's start by assuming that conservation of natural resources is "good" (I could prove this, but it would take forever). Since it takes money and time, both of which are scarce, to improve our conservation methods, we should focus on the best ones. Now pre-consumer recycling (for example, turning the waste at the paper mill into more paper) is very efficient. But post-consumer recycling is rather wasteful -- a truck has to come pick up all the recycling and haul it somewhere, and b/c of how the industry is set up right now, very few communities have trash and recycling pick-up on the same truck. That use of gasoline would be OK if we recovered lots of resources at the recycling plant. The problem is, it only takes a few people messing up -- food boxes spoiling the paper, #5 plastic contaminating the #2 plastic, broken glass that's useless -- to really ruin the efficiency of the plant.

That's where robotics comes in. The newest plants have robot detectors figure out what's what and push it into the correct pile. B/c post-consumer recycling rarely is profitable, though, little money is going into improving these robots (it might even be an orphan technology. So where do we get the money? From the municipal recycling budget! See, if we get the sorting technology to be REALLY good, then you & I will never have to sort our recyclables again, and the trash collectors can just pick up all the "trash", confident that their machines will sort out the reusable materials. Yes, this makes me a technocrat, but I think it would be a great investment. Here's some articles [4] [5] about people building humanoid robots to recycle. I'd be fine with a series of intelligent conveyor belts and cranes, but hey, if it looks cute, bonus.

Sorry to be so longwinded; I hope that answers your question!--M @r ē ino 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In the meantime, I do recycle my own trash.--M @r ē ino 05:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well while I wouldn't call myself against recycling, I agree that it could be made much more efficient than it currently is. However, if all the trash was sorted offsite and the recyclables removed, wouldn't almost all of the paper end up contaminated by food waste anyway? I would like to get a look at whether most current recycling programs are losing money, breaking even, or making money. -SCEhard T 15:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. I need to read more about Processed Engineered Fuels and decide whether this is a possible solution to the paper contamination problem, or whether it would just lead to those contaminants being burned and turned into air pollution.--M @r ē ino 16:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Loud Howard icon.jpg

{{image source}} - CLW 10:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly from a Dilbert TV show/film but I don't know which one, so I deleted it. -SCEhard T 13:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for blocking the MB article main page vandal!Rlevse 10:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Scoutng project coordinator[reply]

Glad to help! -SCEhard T 13:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response re: your edit to my talk page

Hi, You posted this on my talk page: Image Tagging Image:Space buddy2.gif {{image copyright}}

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MilesD."

This image has been around on the internet for at least 6 years on many free clip art pages, websites, etc. as both a jpg and an animated gif. Here is one free clip art website which lists it: [Space Dog]

Could you please tell me how to modify the image so it reflects that it is a free use image? Thanx very much. |||Miles.D.

|||^{02-25-2006 17:21 (UTC)} 17:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we will be able to use this image on Wikipedia without an author. I have listed it at WP:PUI. Please have a look there to see my reasoning and make any comments you have about its use on Wikipedia. Thanks! -SCEhard T 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA format

I noticed that you 'fixed headers' at my recent RfA nomination. You may want to comment on the new format at Template talk:RfA -SCEhard T 06:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not the first time I jumped the gun and made an error :-/ Tintin (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I see exactly why it happened (and could have happened to anyone) -SCEhard T 06:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinkhole

I saw you moved the better sinkhole photo to the top of the sinkhole article. That photo was nominated for Featured Picture status a week or so ago, and since you haven't voted, I thought you might like to. The candidacy ends in like a day and a half, so voting soon would be awesome. Dave 05:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it is the best photo in the article, I'm somewhere between neutral and oppose for it being a featured picture because of the massive amounts of trash strewn everywhere. -SCEhard T 13:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of red link on electrical insulation

Why remove my link so quickly? I was just about to start an article on Arcing horns--Light current 23:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Light current 23:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion! I removed it and then realized you had just recently added it. -SCEhard T 23:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK No problemo!. Just created page now.--Light current 23:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - I didn't know about those. Now all we need is a photo of one! -SCEhard T 23:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I will try to edit on of my earlier photos to show them.--Light current 23:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User actions

Conserning User:Carolaman, removal of PUI tag at Image:Elton John 2.jpg and vandalism at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#March_3, any actions needed? I already warned on the PUI removal issue. Thanks in adv. feydey 01:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he's been blocked for similar actions. Someone should keep an eye on his contribs after he comes back, but other than that there isn't much to do. If he keeps ignoring/abusing image copyrights he'll find himself permanently banned. Thanks for the note. -SCEhard T 04:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narrator?

Are you a narrator?--Tdxi a ng 陈鼎翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 05:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about Spoken Wikipedia? I recorded bicycle lighting a long time ago, but recently I've been working more on the organizational aspects of the project. -SCEhard T 05:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tags

Hello, I've added source information for the image. Please check. sikander 05:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thanks! -SCEhard T 05:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tuyayuya.jpg

What exactly is the question about copyright infringment? KV 05:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the image was published in a book with a copyright of 1987, the image is still copyrighted. Just because the mummies are very old doesn't mean the photo is PD. If you want to keep the photo, you may make a {{fair use}} claim on the image page. -SCEhard T 05:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pic matlock.jpg

This image came from Nancy Stafford's webpage, under the pictures section. I was unsure of how exactly to tag it.--JamesR1701E 06:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me about this! I have tagged it with {{promophoto}} since it appears to be a press release photo. Please remember in the future that images you find on the internet are, for the most part, not free. Typically the only applicable licenses are {{promophoto}} or a variant of {{fairuse}}. If you tag 'unfree' images with 'free' licenses this causes trouble for Wikipedia as well as other people who may think they can use the image under the terms of the {{GFDL}} license when it is in fact copyrighted. If you have any questions about other images, just let me know and I'll be glad to help! -SCEhard T 15:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not being so delete-happy. I didn't see the {{promophoto}} option, nor did I know about it when tagging the image. --JamesR1701E 17:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kendo images

Hi.

I removed the tag from the Kendo image you had marked. I personally sent User:Nightryder84 to Houston last saturday to take those images with my camera. (and you might wanna take a look at his message he left for me on my talk page). Also, you can further verify this by looking at the camera info at the bottom of the page of all 3 files he uploaded on the Kendo page. They all come from the same source. Thanx again.--Zereshk 12:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks! -SCEhard T 15:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spychanger Prowl Images

You complained about the Spychnager Prowl images. What is the proper copyright tag for a person who takes a toy they own and takes a picture of it? user talk:Mathewignash

I think Public Domain should be fine for those. What was unclear is who took the photos. You can mention that you took the photo yourself and/or use the {{PD-self}} tag. Thanks! -SCEhard T 15:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA/Christopherlin

Thanks for the nomination and support on RfA. Unfortunately this time, consensus was not reached (22/11/8). I hope you'll keep me in mind in the future. --Christopherlin 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that your RfA was unsuccessful. In watching it I was surprised at how much the opposing votes required of you. I tend to think adminship should be given to those who can be trusted not to abuse it, but it looks like some people think that a level head and a willingness to learn is not enough. Anyway, keep up the good work, get more involved outside the article space, and I'm sure in a few months you'll be a shoe-in if you decide to run again. -SCEhard T 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]