User talk:Steve3849/Archives 03

Steve3849

H O M E

Talk: Current Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

New message

Userboxes

Biodiesel

Thank you for expanding on the Indonesian palm oil topic; this was useful addition to the page. Other sections have been removed, however. Two of the references vaguely referred to "biofuel" crops, with one of them mentioning ethanol. Unless these papers specifically mention biodiesel or oilseed crops, they're not appropriate on the Biodiesel page. If the publications do make the proper distinctions, please edit and repost. Note, I attempted to access the original documents prior to deletion. I was able to access the overview, but the full text PDF was corrupted.--E8 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Although not biodiesel specific the reference from the University of Minnesota is appropriate for the article because the primary topic is the overwhelming estimate of carbon debt related to deforestation. Supplying biodiesel to the United States and Europe is resulting in deforestation. The carbon debt estimate is not a vague reference. Because biodiesel manufacture is having an increasingly major impact globally as a biofuel, articles about biofuel can be appropriate for the article. Would you let me reintroduce this material minus the inappropriate ethanol related study from Princeton? - Steve3849 ^talk 10:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nice work. Your augmentation to the deforestation argument seems appropriate and sound; thank you for clarifying and detailing. I withdraw objection to this portion of the content. My concerns about the "carbon estimate" remain, however. There is substantial variation in carbon intensity by crop (and in the accounting). If you have the original document, please email (pdf) it to me so I can look it over. Perhaps it would be best to more this post to the Talk page, including what you intend to add to the main. I know of at least one other editor that would be interested in working to clarify this issue (and he's more read in this specific area than me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by E8 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Critters05.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Critters05.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) 06:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gone, gone. - Steve3849 ^talk 14:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Deadweight Stroking the Moon.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Deadweight Stroking the Moon.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 00:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Polly, you're putting me to work. :) - Steve3849 ^talk 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Batterymilk.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Batterymilk.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 00:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Album cover art is accepted because it is not replaceable (as long as it is low resolution) ... which this image is. - Steve3849 ^talk 06:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Job on the Human Highway article

I have to complement you on your excellent job on the article for Human Highway. Do you have any inside knowledge about when this classic will get to DVD (probably from one of those cheap-$1 DVD makers)? -TheOrgg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.146.128 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry, I've not heard of a DVD release for Human Highway. - Steve3849 ^talk 20:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GarageATrois01.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:GarageATrois01.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) 01:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image no longer useful for article ...away it goes. - Steve3849 ^talk 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Poi_group_300dpi.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Poi_group_300dpi.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image is now orphaned for deletion. - Steve3849 ^talk 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Stanton-press06.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Stanton-press06.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-free replaceable image is now orphaned. I'll add that I did this removal work for 'free' -- keeping wikipedia 'free' so that it may safely be for profitable use, not just for 'public' use! However, since corporations have had personhood since the 19th century and consequently have more rights than you or I, then it follows that safe use for profit falls under the free 'public' use umbrella doesn't it? - Steve3849 ^talk 19:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Chamberlain discography

Alright, it's been added.-5- (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

Hi. It was pointed out on my talkpage that the subsection I created under Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Template:Infobox_Album.2C_removal_of_genre for my statement "in favor" may have been causing people to overlook the comments subsection below it. I suggested to the editor who noted this that since nobody ever placed a specific "statement against" that sectioning out my comment might seem to give it more importance than its deserved, as its simply one among many positions. (In other words, it's not being addressed like a user RFC, where one person posts a view and others endorse or don't (example.) To avoid that, I have eliminated my original subheader and moved the "comments" subheader above it, with a note there indicating that I have merged the subsections. If you object to this, since you also commented in that subsection, please let me know. The purpose here is to hopefully increase clarity of the conversation so that new contributors can easily understand it. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Taper(Concert)

I have nominated Taper(Concert) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Tagishsimon (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Making fun of a spelling mistake

Is that typically how you insult people? "...the self proclaimed "Health Physict" [sic]." Starkrm (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not typically. - Steve3849 ^talk 02:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Tropic Thunder

Thanks for your addition to the article. Could you specify which of the two commentaries the comments were from (I remember them talking about it but it's been a while since I've seen it)? If you know around which point in the commentary would be great as well. I'm trying to keep the sources all organized for an FA run down the line, and it would be beneficial to match your addition with the other commentary citations. If you need further clarification let me know. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is the option to listen to commentary while watching the film on the standard DVD >settings>cast commentary. That is the selection. My contribution to the article is generallized because there are several scenes at which Stiller, Downey Jr and Black discussed improvisation and reworking of script to accomodate actor input. Also several scenes were filmed with "options" of dialogue (many involving improv) for the editor to chose later. I'm not sure my DVD player has a clock feature for time. - Steve3849 ^talk 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true that many articles do that. However, since we have a developed cast section that mentions each character and the actor that portrays him, it seems redundant to list both. I don't see a reason to duplicate the same information right next to each other. In addition, in the cast section more characters are listed that are not mentioned in the plot which otherwise wouldn't have the actors' names mentioned. By the way, thanks for clarifying the commentary, I'll be able to look up the time at a later date. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)