User talk:Techtonic

7 of 9 pic

They're pretty darn near the same. I'd say one in the infobox and the other further down the page, say on the left... ZueJay (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay, how bout the right? ZueJay (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven of Nine

When I was on the Seven of Nine page, I saw no pictures. So I thought someone had tamped with the page, and then tried to get them back. What I fond was your pictures. You can change them, I don’t want to start an edit war either. Also, I did not know of the conversation you had with Zuejay. 68.9.40.152 16:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:7of9_cargobay_mug.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:7of9_cargobay_mug.png. 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 insure 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. Videmus Omnia 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the messages about the 7 of 9 pic, and for adding the fair use rationale to the image page. I was on an extended Wikiabsence (and lost my password) so I didn't get your messages right away. Please excuse my tardiness, and thank you for taking care of the problems. As for the pic being abandoned, it seems it's back on the Seven of Nine page. Leave me a message if you need anything else. -- Techtonic (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:7of9_cargobay_mug.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:7of9_cargobay_mug.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 14:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:7of9 cargobay mug.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:7of9 cargobay mug.png. 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. BetacommandBot 15:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology of minnesota

Hi, Techtonic! I reverted the speedy request you made on Ecology of minnesota because it's a valid one. There shouldn't be any links to it, but it's definitely something someone would type. Let me know if you still think it should be deleted. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SatyrTN! Thanks for responding to my speedy delete request. I put in the change thinking that Minnesota was the only region with a proper "Ecology of ..." title and another with a lowercased proper name. I now see that there's also Ecology of africa, Ecology of banksia and Ecology of california. However, none of these redirects actually have pages that link to them. That is to say, in the year that Ecology of minnesota and the others have been in existence (they were created in November 2007 by a bot), no one has mistakenly lowercased Minnesota in a link. Is it Wikipedia policy to predict people's mistakes and make extra redirects to account for them? (I am asking genuinely, not to provoke of argument.) Where is the line drawn? It seems this would create a lot of unnecessary articles (and would crowd the predictive search box, as it did for me). Let me know your thoughts. -- Techtonic (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Techtonic! I'm moving your reply here so we can keep the discussion all-in-one-place. I've watched your page and will see your responses here.

The "guideline" about creating these kinds of capitalization redirects is pretty sparse, but you can see it at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalisation)#Case sensitivity and searching

That being said, the situation you describe is based on a couple assumptions, and is probably not one that was originally thought of.

First, these can't really be called "unnecessary articles", though they are pages that one wouldn't find in a standard encyclopedia. Since they're created for a reason, though, they aren't "unnecessary". And since they're only redirects, they're not really articles.

But that doesn't address the meat of the topic. The predictive search is extremely new - within the past six months, I think. Redirects, and the thought process behind when to create them, etc, were all created *much* longer ago. So a redirect showing up in the predictive search wasn't thought of. Unintended side effects are weird, eh?

My suggestion would be to pop over to the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and see if there's a way to "hide" some redirects (like Ecology of minnesota while not hiding useful redirects (like Sovran Bank). Perhaps suggest over there that any redirects in the Category:Redirects from other capitalisations needs to not be included in the predictive search function.

Good catch, and hope I've helped! Happy editing :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Seven and docter dancing.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Seven and docter dancing.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bureau of Home Economics has been accepted

Bureau of Home Economics, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Techtonic. Thank you for your work on Nicholas Lowry. Another editor, JSFarman, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

There are more sources available offline. (I have always wanted to know more about Nicholas Lowry. Thanks for writing this article!)

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|JSFarman}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

JSFarman (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]