User talk:Xyzzy n

Thingy

Welcome!

Hello, Xyzzy n, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RJFJR 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Botean

What, exactly, is your objection here? There was no page. I made one. I got permission from the copyright holder to pull official website text (I got it for images too but haven't used it yet). I place *my own work*, which is a derivative of that original text from the diocese (and created with permission), under the GFDL. It's a starter article, which is better than most US bishops have right now. If you don't believe my acquisition of rights, follow the website link and call the chancery. They know me and we can have this all out in email so everybody is sure *this* TMLutas is the TM Lutas they know who has served in various diocesan and parish capacities and got permission to do this. TMLutas 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either you believe me when I say the text in the article is ok or you can go to the original source (which I have given) and check (and I've provided a reasonable method to do so). Had I played fast and loose and just copied, it is incredibly unlikely that we would be having this conversation. So please be aware what kind of behavior you're selecting for. Check the release with the releaser and feel free to ask for a formal statement. They ought to get around to issuing a formal ruling sometime before 2010. The plain truth is that this is a tempest in a teapot. Feel free to pursue checking the copyright but even-handedly please. TMLutas 03:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not looked because you have not contacted the granter of the rights which I identified and gotten any feedback whatsoever. I talked to a person, the chancellor of the diocese. If you write a polite note or call the man he will confirm the *conversation*. He may be noncommittal, ask for a way to get back in touch with you and contact me for confirmation that it's ok to talk to you. He's not a wikipedia editor and he shouldn't have to be.

Is there any rule or guidance on verifying permission to copy? I somehow think this circumstance has come up before. This situation might benefit from looking at past experience. So are you just flying by the seat of your pants or are you following a guideline? TMLutas 03:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I *have* followed Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, in fact the relevant section is reproduced below for your convenience.

It sometimes happens that users post text from other websites claiming to have permission to do so. Sometimes, images from other websites are uploaded and claimed to be under a free license (GFDL, public domain, {{No rights reserved}}, or others.) If the external website does not have any indication that such claims are well-founded, it sometimes is a good idea to try to verify such claims by contacting a representative of that website directly. You should, however, basically assume good faith and judge for yourself whether a claim made appears credible or indeed does warrant following up with an attempt to have it confirmed.

I told you who I spoke to, you can assume, in good faith, that the license is appropriate or you can contact the representative that I spoke to to verify that it is. It really is up to you according to the very standard that you threw at me (that's the risk of guideline links, the other guy might actually read them). If you do not assume good faith and do not contact the diocese to verify that I have secured rights, I will look at a tag of {{copyvio}} as abuse/vandalism because after you yourself bringing up the guideline you would be refusing to follow it.

If you look at the website, my use of much less than 20% of it as source material that I subsequently modified constitutes clear fair use. In other words, copyright would not have been violated even if I had not gotten permission. Considering I work for the diocese as needed in a volunteer capacity and it's good to be polite to the priest that married you, I went and got permission anyway. My modified text, like all my text submitted to the two wikipedias I contribute to is subject to the GFDL and has been since I first signed up for an account years ago. The more time I spend on this, the more I wonder why you are pursuing the issue in such a haphazard way. Either do the full monty and follow the guideline or drop the matter because I don't think that you'd believe an email set that came through my hands at this point.

Myomer

Hi, thanks for copyediting--the article does look saner now. Nevertheless, I think that in its current form it is mostly a sink. The only real article that links there is the one on BattleTech technology, where I think the information in myomer belongs anyway, so I have asked for a merge. I'm not an expert on (and not even a fan of) that particular bit of fiction, but if you are, then I'd like to suggest that you consider looking at the possibility of doing that. --xyzzy_n 00:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know my way around it, so I suppose I could. Do you suggest doing much else than just dumping the myomer article's content into a new subsection of BattleTech technology? --Kizor 00:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to delete content, but I'll get on this in the morning and see what overlaps then. --Kizor 01:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

illuminatus

the The Illuminatus! Trilogy article is now up for "featured article" status. please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Illuminatus! Trilogy to vote Support or Oppose with your comments. cheers. Zzzzz 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roundhouse kick

While I agree the pic is not the best, it is the closest I could find. I know very little about the show, but I think he should be noted in some way as he has become synonymous with the move. KI 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure he invented it... but I dont want to take the time to go find citations as I dont really care that much about this... rest assured, I wont re-add the picture until someone cites. KI 02:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten German Bombers

Well,

I haven't been able to find any other sources for this either. I could imagine, that the author of the article in the Jungle World misinterpreted what Clarke said about respecting German laws. So I'll go ahead and remove the statement.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U2 Crisis article

Hey, I accidentally split that sentence off from the paragraph while correcting the grammatical error in it. Is it ok to re-fix the error?

Also, I have no idea what the problem would be wrt Unicode. Browser is ELinks 0.10.6. Is there a test page I can use for that to see if there is a problem? I'd hate to think I've blown stuff away in all the pages I have edited... Runderwo 08:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the investigation. I also found that this issue has been discussed before: http://www.mail-archive.com/elinks-dev@linuxfromscratch.org/msg00065.html So I'll refrain from editing with ELinks. A pity, since it's long been my favorite browser. And there is no need to apologize, on the contrary you have probably saved others a lot of work by bringing this to my attention. Do you know where I could bring up a discussion about banning non-compliant browsers from editing articles containing UTF-8 characters? Runderwo 09:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese polygamy

No, I'm backing out of this before I violate 3RR. That guy is pissing me off with his nuisance edits, but I don't think they're clear-cut vandalism, so I'm goign to wait for him to get it out of his system. Really annoying though, because I've tried to clean up that article a bit and this guy is potentially goign to fuck it up to buggery. :( mge kelly 15:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks !

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for fighting (constant) vandalism on the TS page. I've been busy lately, and every time I've gotten over there to have a check on the daily vandalism, I find you've already taken care of it. Thanks ! Sandy 15:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JBlogger - Thanks

Thank you very much for your advice and points. I'm working with the direct help of people who know Dr. Gerstenfeld and I plan to change some of the wording soon. I was simply trying to get some of the stuff down. I had the permission of Dr. Gerstenfeld to use the material, so while there is still the issue of making it moreinteresting, there is not a technical issue of copyright. Nonetheless, thank you again! JBlogger 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does it take some time for a new article to be "accepted" by Wikipedia because while I continue to work on this, I have realized that when I have tried to search the article, it never comes up.JBlogger 07:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emblems of the Red Cross

I'm concerned with phrases such as "The ICRC denies that the Red Cross is a Christian emblem.", they look to me like they say "THEY say this but WE know better", specifically as the Red Cross is refered to as being "associated" with Christianity a paragraph or two above. If we could make the article sound less like this I'd be happy. Also, the Swiss flag's origins are no longer known, we only have three competing legends now. The Christians use a Latin cross, not a equal-cross, this type of cross far predates Christianity, as it is one of the most basic shapes that can be portrayed. It is only in recent times that any type of cross has become affiliated with Christianity. +Hexagon1 (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the cordial message, I appreciate it. Normally I would use a more civil approach to get across my points, but right now certain users are ignoring rules and damaging Wikipedia to a point that I cannot tolerate. Kelly Martin, Will Beback, and Jacoplane should know better. I hope I have not offended you by my use of such language, but I feel it is necessary. KI 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War film image

Thanks for coming up with a better image for the war film stubs. As the creator of the original image (Warfilms.jpg), please feel free to nominate it for deletion. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Quotation

Hello Xyzzy, thanks for answering me personally. Yes, I think there is a good reason to have it there. When I checked the article last time I was looking exactly for the literal phrase and a word-by-word translation from Greek to English (I needed it for a homework on the subject), meaning the many bible citations included before your edit were very helpful. I didn't restore ALL the citations, most were superfluous, only what I thought was useful for personal research into the historic origins of the phrase. I would include the Greek translations for ALL the mentionings of 666, but I don't even own a bible myself, much less a Greek one.

I suppose others might need the original Greek wording too for some reason, so why not include the extra six lines? It's not that much text after all, and I'm sure most readers would appreciate not having to look up other sources. --TheOtherStephan 20:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xyzzy. I certainly understand your position, but I would by no means call quoting the original source of a very prominent phrase "indisciminately collecting information". While it is quite optically messed up as it stands there now (I can see why you would rather remove it), I think the literal Greek and maybe Latin wordings are very relevant to the interpretation and meaning of the verse. Maybe we could compromise and create a new bottom section called "Quotes and Translations"? Alternatively there could be a direct reference to either the Bible Translations article, or a direct link to a somewhat permanent site, giving you bible verses in their historically important translations. What do you think? --TheOtherStephan 22:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Personally, I think it does help. Wikipedia does not cater to some kind of imaginary Average Joe, english-speaking readers from all over the world (me, I'm german) read the english Wikipedia for a variety of reasons, especially the scientific articles often contain very in-depth information and formulas. It's certainly not for everyone, but as long as it is relevant it should be there for those who need them.

I couldn't find any useful links today (the ones in Bible translations are not too useful), but I'm going to look again tomorrow. If I do not find anything I'd still request an additional section "Original Greek and Latin", or something like that, for the above reasons. --TheOtherStephan 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark of the beast

"Hi! Regarding your edit to Number of the Beast, could you please explain why you removed {{fact}} tags without providing citations for the tagged items? —xyzzyn 19:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)"

Well, it seems like fairly common knowledge, but if you like I'll go digging off for some sources. I remember a bible doctine's book that says this, I'll see if I can find it.

"I’d appreciate some sources. That’s why I put the tags there in the first place. (Also, please read WP:COMKNOW on ‘common knowledge’.) —xyzzyn 22:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC) "

Whoops! It looks like I also included "Weasel Words" in my edit... I'll clean it up right away (if someone else hasn't) and look for some sources... (It's allright to cite books as sources, right? You don't have to use web pages? Never mind, i'll read Wikipedia:Citing_sources). My apologies on making such broad assumptions

You're way too fast in removing the 616 reference. I don't have my bible handy at work to check the names of the manuscripts which have 616. Consider the possibility that all the people who have added the 616 info in the article know more about the subject than you do. I believe this information is such a fundamental fact that citations are unnecessary. Check out [1] or, for that mater 616 (number) - Jeffr 12:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EGS

EGS Hi! You noted in an edit summary that a couple of things were ‘lost’. I’d like to point out that they were actually ‘deliberately removed’ and I’d like to claim responsibility for that. My reasons were:

bunnies

Irrelevant to the webcomic and not notable outside very few non-story strips and the forum. Unless the theme is somehow significantly expanded in the books (which I still have to buy…), this does not belong in the article at all.

The Matrix

Possibly interesting comparison, but absolutely unhelpful for anyone not familiar with the film (I say this from experience). The article should not rely on the reader’s knowledge of such things and whatever point the comparison makes should just be made explicitely.

Iirc you don’t like deleting stuff, but is there a reason why I shouldn’t remove these items again? —xyzzy_n 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. "Bunnies" is not expanded in the books (I gather), but I find it a factoid worth noting. That said, I have to admit that it's too prominent. Perhaps a trivia note or the like, or does the article have too many sections already?

Fair enough on the Matrix issue. That needs to go. Honestly, I replaced the previous one with it mainly to get away from the previous one. Stating that the comic uses suspension of disbelief to look believeable could be said of virtually every piece of non-feasible fiction, anywhere, ever. --Kizor 19:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't know how to edit very well but I do know the "Mark" of the beast is money. The word isn't translated correctly and you even gave me an online reference that you didn't read to prove it. You owe me an apology for removing my information. Here's what you wrote:

Number of the Beast Hi! I have reverted your (repeated) addition of the remark about the translation of χάραγμα. Not only was it formulated in a manner inconsistent with WP:NPOV, but I also could not find any support for the claim in that lexicon. The website you provided was unhelpful (well, blatantly wrong and non-notable, actually). Please read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:EL for more information. —xyzzyn 09:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the misunderstanding

Hey, I am sorry about this whole situation. I was just trying to alert an Administrator to my concern that User:216.244.12.76 may be vandalizing the television episode articles on The Twilight Zone; he is systematically removing the category called "Themes." I had been working to expand those articles; I have even crated the new Wiki Category: The Twilight Zone actors (it would go along with other similar Wiki Categories: Star Trek actors and The Outer Limits actors). Anyway, thank you for your input on this matter. :) User:ProfessorPaul 00:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suck

Ack! Sorry! I ran into a couple of anon bloodhounds, but that doesn't excuse dropping the discussion like a stone. I naturally default; the side that wasn't a jerk wins.

That said, I changed 'It contains' in the intro to 'Said lives contain'. The latter - IMAO - fits rather well the whole strangeness-in-normalcy, normalcy-in-strangeness thing that EGS has going. The former is much more disjointed. --Kizor 08:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose "these" would fit. Thank you for the offer, but I'm overloaded with projects at the moment (okay, moreso than usual) and my presence would have to be intermittent at best. --Kizor 21:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for restoring the valid edit in Polygamy. I think I had the window open too long and someone edited in the meantime. ... discospinster _talk 20:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for TS edits

Thanks for working through the automated peer review: I'll try to catch the rest after the 4th of July holiday. Thanks again! Sandy 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, xy, thanks again for all the help on the TS article. If you're interested, I'll share my large To Do list with you: I'm working my way through the article, trying to fill in gaps and copyedit as I go. If you want to join in, I'll share the list :-) For example, I need to expand both pathophysiology and the links to OCD/ADHD in the Causes and origins of Tourette syndrome. Plus add the CDC image, which is still Greek to me. There's more :-) Sandy 17:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yes that would be completely cool if you could upload that picture: I can't decipher the Wiki instructions. I have learned how to manipulate pictures, change the sizes, and add captions once they're on Wiki, so I would be able to do that -- have to figure out where to put the picture and what caption to use. I do appreciate the help you've been ! Sandy 18:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of a caption: putting it at the right of the paragraph that begins with "Tics are described as ... " in the "Symptoms and signs" section, with the caption Tourette syndrome is a common condition which appears in childhood and diminishes for most by adulthood.

If that doesn't work well, I know how to work on the caption later . Thanks again ... it is very kind of you to do that for me ! Sandy 18:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - that was fast !! Thanks so much ... I'll play around with the size, location, caption, etcetera now. A great addition! Sandy 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, again, my house got hit by lightening, sustained a lot of damage, and I am now on a very slow dialup, maybe for a few days. Will respond in bits and pieces on my talk page ... Thanks so much for the help. Sandy 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry -- I work on it in bits and spurts myself, and haven't paid much attention to it lately. Sandy 01:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the image, I truly don't know what to do. It's one of those areas that just won't compute in my feeble brain. The Fair Use issue is too vague. Do you want to put together something original? If you know how, that would be cool. I'd look for pictures showing a lot of motion, like ticcing, along with some "deep in contemplation" poses, and a mixture of ages and races, but mostly male, since TS is 4:1 male:female, and mostly children, since adults tend to outgrow tics. It makes me crazy. If you are able to do something, I'd really be grateful. Sandy 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is so kind of you to take this job on: OK, I'm a neophyte. Is the idea that you are going to create a new collage from the selection your sent me, and that I should choose from those ? (And please don't feel you need to apologize for elapsed time: there is no hurry whatsoever on this.) Sandy 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it now :-) I'll go through Flicker and pick images that would work for a collage. I'll pick an excess of them, and pick some that depict the facts that TS affects all races, mostly children, highest tic severity ages 8 - 12, and more males than females. I'll get back to you ... thanks again ! Sandy 17:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is going to be hard! I can't find a mother and son, an African-American youth, or many hispanic children ... am I on the right track with any of these?

Starting list of candidate images for collage: ethnic young girl contemplating child - young boy happy boy children in motion silly boys smiling boy boys teen girl dancer young thinking boy vertical young pensive boy vertical hand in motion, tic-like young boy blinking and licking boy winking hispanic man child at play man vertical mother grandson

And how do we know they can all be used? Sandy 19:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrifice is going on tonight

Hey, I don't know how to edit very well but I do know the "Mark" of the beast is money. The word isn't translated correctly and you even gave me an online reference that you didn't read to prove it. You owe me an apology for removing my information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raquel666 (talk • contribs) .

From IRC

Alright, finally got around to having a look at the stuff you mentioned. I'll try to keep an eye on it, if anything develops feel free to let me know. Luna Santin 23:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libya referencing

Please consider striking your objection to lack of referencing in the Libya article.

I have spent the last three days thoroughly increasing the number and quality of references. I have also updated the bibliographic style to be comprehensive and organised.

There are now over 60 references in the page and almost every paragraph and fact is referenced at least once if not more.

--User:Jaw101ie 16:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Libyseal.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Libyseal.png. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PNG to SVG

I saw your work on converting the Libyan ethnolinguistic map from PNG to SVG format, which was excellent. Can you do the same to Image:National League for Democracy flag.png and Image:MyanmarAdministrativeDivisions.png? Thanks. Sorry for bothering you. Hintha 00:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks for tracing the map in SVG. I believe the National League for Democracy flag is under the licence {{Insignia}}. Some flags have GFDL and public domain licences, though. --Hintha 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the map could have been found anywhere, would it be wiser if I removed the statement, as it could have come from the U.S. government, or other sources. --Hintha 04:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

Hi,

I've noticed that you've changed the world Libya in Amazigh from an image to text. I think the image was much better. Otherwise the majority of people will just see 6 squares, like I see now. It's better if everyone can read it. See Algeria.

--Jaw101ie 17:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVG sounds much better. The only reason I'm concerned is because Tamazight are not well known. An image which everyone can see will have the positive effect of leading the reader into the topic. 6 squares however just look like an error! Do you think you'd be able to convert?

Thanks --Jaw101ie 18:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a gem,

thanks a lot

Libya

- - - Nice. There are some others left, though. The oil reserve data reference doesn’t look so great. I suggest using this table from OPEC’s Annual Statistical Bulletin. (Not a government, but reasonably reliable, or at least notable, in matters like this one.) The Factbook references could be collapsed to a single one, because the Factbook page is reasonably short and the URLs are the same in both cases. This should probably be that (and cited more appropriately). Also, which material, exactly, from the Background Notes is used in the article at the moment? (There’s a template at the end that says there is some.)

Regarding your comments made above on the Libya candidature page:

I've fixed the OPEC and the change "this" to "that" reference concerns. As for the CIA world factbook, I don't agree they should be one reference. The reason is, all the references in the article refer to different sections on the Factbook Libya page. This makes it easier when you want to check a reference because you know exactly where to look on the factbook page.

As for the background notes, that tag was added a while ago and I can't point to exact sentences in the article that come from the notes. The information has pretty much assimilated into the article. Thanks for raising the concerns. If you want, (think they have been addressed), consider striking them, for the sole purpose of making the page easier to sort through, and more objective.

Thanks again

--Jaw101ie 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utah

Nonsense, the user made a deliberate moronic change to the article and that's what I called it and what I meant. If you check his talk page you will find that he has a history of vandalism and had in fact just been blocked for 24 hours for similar stupidity. Bob Palin 04:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing obsolete JPEGs for deletion

Hello, Xyzzy_n. I notice you've listed several JPEGs for deletion, after having replaced them with SVG versions. Your SVGs are much better; thank you for uploading them. However, I disagree that the JPEGs should be deleted, because they are an important part of the history of the SVG images. If the JPEGs were deleted, we would lose the evidence that we have about the original creator of the image. This is the reason the {{obsolete}} tag is recommended for JPEGs that have been replaced with SVGs: the JPEGs may be obsolete, but it is important to keep them around so that we have a complete record of the history of the image we're using. Please let me know if you have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but in the specific cases, I’m still not convinced keeping the original images is necessary, for the following reasons:

The information (i. e. non-noise) in the specific images is discrete, which means that, assuming I got all the relevant details, primarily the names and shapes, right, the images are almost equivalent with respect to their content.
The licence matters are mostly trivial. All the images I nominated on July 29 were created by the uploaders and released under free licences or in the public domain. Afaict, mentioning the uploader’s name and choosing the correct licence has been the maximum necessary information. This could, of course, be expanded to include all information from the description pages of the JPEG images (of which there is not much), but the actual images do not seem relevant for the matter.
There is no general way to track changes from a raster image to a vector image in the style of a revision history of that I know, and I’ve been making an effort to make reasonably precise traces, so there should be very few important changes.
I hope there is no scenario under which it would be useful to include the JPEG versions anywhere. Any corrections, enhancements etc. should, presumably, be added to the SVG versions. Thus, the JPEG files themselves would never be used.

I’m not sure what other ‘evidence’ would be needed about the creator of the image; can you explain further? —xyzzy_n 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same reason we have a history for every article on Wikipedia: so that if someone questions our claim that the article was written by Wikipedians and released under the GFDL, we can show them the evidence. If the JPEG is deleted, and someone questions the SVG version, the only evidence we have is an unverifiable claim from the uploader of the SVG that it was created from a GFDLed JPEG, but we can't produce said JPEG.

Presumably there will be a better format than SVG eventually, and there will be a drive to replace SVGs on Wikipedia with images in the new format. We shouldn't delete the SVGs, for the same reason. This cycle will probably continue many times; if the versions in old formats are deleted each time, then in 50 years we will have images that are claimed GFDL, but the only evidence we can produce goes back a few months.

Now, I agree that keeping a JPEG version and an SVG version is clumsy at the moment. Mostly this is due to the fact that there's no way to directly replace an image in one format with an image in another format. Hopefully this problem will be fixed soon (see bugzilla:709 and bugzilla:4421 for related bug reports). Until we have a solution, though, the best thing to do is to keep both versions around. They can later be merged into a single image page, that shows the history of the image, beginning with a JPEG, being replaced with an SVG, and so on. —Bkell (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody can make a case that an image is not actually under the GFDL, wouldn’t the problem usually extend to the JPEG version (the information for which is exactly as verifiable as for the SVG version, i. e. not at all, in most cases) as well? Besides, I remember reading something about image undeletion being now possible. Doesn’t that leave a means of getting back to the original image in such an event? The same would go for merging the image histories once that becomes possible. —xyzzy_n 18:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider Image:BikeLeanForces2.svg. You say in the image description page that it is a trace of a previous image, Image:BikeLeanForces2.JPG, and you claim that the image is licensed under the GFDL. If the JPEG is deleted, there is no hard evidence that the original JPEG was licensed under the GFDL; sure, you make that claim, but frankly lots of editors make lots of preposterous image copyright claims all the time. If the JPEG is not deleted, then we can go back to the original JPEG and see that AndrewDressel claims he created it himself and licensed it under the GFDL.

Now, is AndrewDressel's self-creation claim verifiable? We don't really have any evidence other than his own claim that he created it, but we don't have any evidence to the contrary (for example, we don't have evidence that it was scanned from a book). But in the case of a self-created image, we don't expect to have any more evidence, so that's okay. For your SVG, though, you admit that you are not the original image creator, so you do not have the right to unilaterally license the image under the GFDL (in order for you to license it under the GFDL, the original image must be GFDLed, or in the public domain). So you need to provide some evidence that the original image was acceptably licensed. If the JPEG is deleted, we lose that evidence.

If images can be undeleted, and retain all their history and past versions, then I'm less strongly opposed to the deletion of the JPEG, because it can always be undone. But I'm still opposed to it, because it means that this evidence is not visible to the public. I don't see any harm in keeping the JPEG around; server space is not an issue, and the JPEGs should have {{obsolete}} tags on them to advise potential users to use the SVG version instead. If there's no reason to delete the JPEGs, but there is a reason to keep them, then I say we keep them.

So it is basically a matter of {{*-self}} tags being more trustworthy than the rest? I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for the explanation. By the way, you might want to edit {{ShouldBeSVG}} accordingly. —xyzzy_n 00:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that {{*-self}} tags are "more trustworthy" than the rest isn't quite true. There are many cases where images are incorrectly tagged with {{PD-self}}, for example; when I run across an image that looks like a professional photograph that is tagged with {{PD-self}}, I question the claim, because this tag is frequently misused; but unless I can find some evidence that the claim is false (for example, finding the image on another Web site, or seeing a watermark in the image with credits), I will let the tag stand. It is often helpful to look at the uploader's history; if other uploaded images are clearly incorrectly tagged, there's a greater chance that this one is too.

But the reason I let the tag stand is this: If the claim is true, if the user really did create the image from scratch and upload it, then there really is no evidence of this fact available. We have to trust the uploader's claim. On the other hand, if an image is a modification of a previously existing image, then there should be evidence of this modification (namely, the previously existing image). If an uploader says, "I created this image by modifying a freely licensed image," we can reasonably expect to be able to verify this claim by examining the freely licensed image he speaks of. Does this make sense? It's not that the {{*-self}} tags are inherently more trustworthy than other tags.

In the case of Image:BikeLeanForces2.JPG, I have absolutely no problem believing that AndrewDressel created the image himself. Now, if it were, say, an oil painting that appeared to be done by a professional painter, I would question a claim of self-creation, because unfortunately there are many more people who upload copyrighted images to Wikipedia and tag them as their own creation than there are Wikipedians who are professional painters. Likewise, if it were a photograph of a sculpture tagged as a self-creation, then I would be more likely to question the claim, because there are many more Wikipedia users who would take a photograph of a sculpture and believe they held the copyright to the photograph than there are Wikipedians who are sculptors. So it's a subjective judgment. I don't think any evidence is needed to support the claim of self-creation for Image:BikeLeanForces2.JPG. For the painting or the sculpture, I would want an explicit statement by the uploader that he was the painter or the sculptor. Of course, there's a possibility that such a claim might be a lie, but I think that's generally unlikely because I think most uploaders aren't malicious copyright infringers. The existence of such a claim would very much increase my confidence that the uploader of the image was indeed the original creator, rather than just someone who found an image and used an incorrect tag.

By the way, thank you for pointing out that {{ShouldBeSVG}} needs to be changed. I had changed the wording on {{badJPEG}}, but I failed to change this one. —Bkell (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MATLAB SVG script

I can't get this script to create an image that I can view. My browser doesn't need a plug-in to render SVG, does it? AndrewDressel 15:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Most browsers do not have built-in support for SVG, the notable exceptions being Firefox, version 1.5 or newer, Opera, beginning with version 8, and, to some extent, recent versions of Amaya. If you are using Internet Exploder and can’t get Firefox, you can try Adobe’s SVG plugin. However, the best way to check whether an image will display well on Wikipedia is to use the same tool which is used here: librsvg, which includes a viewer for SVG files, rsvg-view, which shows almost exactly what an image will look like after upload. Recent Linux distributions should offer packages for librsvg and similar options are probably available for other popular Unix clones (e. g. MacOS X and the *BSDs), but I am unaware of a Windows port of the viewer (although the a port of the library itself is available). The second best way, imho, is to use Firefox. —xyzzy_n 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Finally got it to work with Adobe’s SVG plugin. I think librsvg is a site that only a developer would love. So now the problem is that I don't appear to be able to scale the image. I created it to be the same size as the JPG image, on my machine at home. Now, here at the cafe, it is too small. Is that correct? Images in SVG format do not scale? That's not too handy. AndrewDressel 13:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, neither Word nor Paint are good tools for image creation or editing.

- They work fine for me. Since Wikipedia serves up raster images anyway, I don't really see the benefit of uploading vector images, especially if it means I then cannot scale them as necessary. AndrewDressel 13:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

Thanks for your note. WP:BLOCK lays out when we may and may not block, and doesn't list exceptions for 3RR, so that's why I linked to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Saying Hello

Hi!

152.163.101.8 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’d reply on your talk page, but the IP belongs to an AOL proxy, so… —xyzzy_n 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

for "plumbectomy". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musclam

I find you alTer me writteen work. I angryy undless yoiu alter work in gooed faith.

وبارك الله بكم انتم الا علي هدف تدمير مقالتي --Uzerbaaji 04:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arabic scrpt is to mean "God bless if you edited my article for useless purposes, but if not, I hate you" I can be wonder if any other Uzbeik wikipadan other place? --Uzerbaaji 04:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

???

Bitte schaue in DEine E-Mails! Danke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.152.230.21 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-11T09:04:15 (UTC)

Habe ich getan. Falls das, was ich dort finden sollte, nicht als Spam getarnt ist, ist es nicht angekommen. —xyzzy_n 15:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

destroying content in CMS listing

Please read the discussion section in the CMS Comparison documents before you destory any more content and remove any more relevent CMS links. Your removal of major vendors from the list is not helping the community nor improving the content of the article. There is a new discussion on the page about notability rules. If you have new content to add please make the contribution, but a simple deletion of valid vendors is not welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shan mcarthur@spamcop.net (talk • contribs) 2006-08-13T03:00:46 (UTC)

I'm sure that xyzzy has read the discussion page, since his edits were perfectly in line with the goal that is agreed upon by the majority of that article's editors: "This is a comparison of NOTABLE CMSs, as judged by the existence of articles on Wikipedia. Please don't add external links or wikilinks to nonexistent articles--write an article instead to demonstrate notability. Redlinks, external links, and links to articles that aren't on the CMS in question will periodically be pruned. Please fill in the background info too, please, to make this article useful. Thanks." xyzzy's edits followed that policy to the letter and were completely appropriate. He absolutely was not "destroying content" whatsoever. I personally wish more editors had his enthusiasm for keeping Wikipedia top quality. --Satori Son 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

state reverts

FYI the revert you did yo Utah was wrong, the IP updated it to match the source. -Ravedave 16:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem it was just an FYI. I have been seeing the same problems - esp from AOL accounts. There is a source embedded in the utah article, thats what I looked at. Actually, now that I think about it someone should find the best source for that info and update all of the state articles, but thats bound to be an assload of work. -Ravedave 17:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!

Thanks for taking better care of my user page than I have myself. The tide of vandalism is surprising, given that I'm after all not a high-profile contributor, but I can't help laughing at it. Largely because of my vigilant fellow-contributors, who've kept it from becoming a real problem. --Kizor 16:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy!

I just thought I'd say hello, since I spotted you (well, saw you in the EGS history page). So:

Hello

AlmostReadytoFly 22:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question!

Is User_talk:Xyzzyplugh related to you? [2]

69.165.170.115 11:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer!

No. —xyzzy_n 16:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I was just wondering because your names are so similar. 69.165.170.115 08:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help

What can be done regarding Racism on Wikipedia?

I need you to see the following:

Edits made to Jew by User:63.238.223.66

[3] [4] [5]

Edits made to Jew and Jewish Identity by User:68.189.255.6

[6] [7] [8]

Edits made to Jew by User:159.134.245.207

[9]

Edits made to Jew, Lebanon, and Palestine by User:Sucene

[10] [11] [12]

Edits made to Nigger, Hebrews, and Kike by User:70.22.51.13

[13] [14] [15]

Edits made to Kike, Heeb Magazine, Jeremy Piven, [[Tulane University, and Mel Gibson by User:68.14.99.143

[16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

This one offended me most!

Edits made to Black People by User:138.88.55.121

[21]

Edits made to Black People by User:70.222.42.249

[22] [23] [24]

Edits made to Black People by User:64.211.1.190

[25] [26]

216.32.86.210 10:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The David Duke article needs you help

What on earth is going on with that article, is this an encyclopedia or a political spin forum? This racist nonsense is getting to be a bit much! 216.32.86.210 11:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. I am going to post this message on a few other respected editors talk pages as well.[reply]

TS Review

To Dwaipayanc, Xyzzy n, Wouterstomp, Wikipedical, TimVickers, Arcadian, NCurse, TedE, Jkelly: to all who have helped me develop the article Tourette syndrome, I was hoping you'd have a new look. Jkelly has checked the images, I've asked Tony to do a thorough copyedit to polish the prose when he has time, and I've completed the referencing and expanded the Screening section. I think I've done all I'm capable of, and would appreciate any new input you may have. Sandy 23:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what do u make of this

Ryodox [27] 66.246.72.108 13:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for unknown reason

Hiya, this is Xinyu, remember, the kid who disobeyed rules for the longest time? Anyways...I have been blocked for some anonymous reason from talking on the talk pages of all the articles in Wikipedia. Please help me out, THanks. --Lord X 19:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]

LOL...

at your vandalism! Don't you hate when you accidentally revert the reverter? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have it on my watchlist since I'm the one who unprotected it. I'm pleased (and shocked) that it's lasted this long without protection. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PMI logo

I was getting ready to tear into you about the PMI logo on my user page, so I researched their terms of use. You are absolutely right — according to them, we can't display their logo at all, because we also have articles on stuff they don't like. I'm not going to remove their logo from their article (they can't prohibit that), but it shouldn't be used anywhere else. So: thanks for removing it, and extra thanks for making an attempt to replace it! ➥the Epopt 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collections for Research into Sudeten German Minority (2nd)

Hi, schreibe in der o. g. Debatte bitte auf englisch. Beiträge zu AFD-Debatten sollen nämlich für alle Benutzer verständlich sein. Es wäre außerdem nett, wenn du das, was du bisher dort geschrieben hast, übersetzen würdest. Falls du Fragen hast, kannst du mich hier erreichen. 84.191.121.116 21:27, 11. Jan. 2007 (CET)

Hallo! Kannst Du mir helfen, was ich geschrieben habe, übersetzen? Mein Englisch ist nicht mehr so gut, ich habe viel vergessen. Danke sehr: Lea --Dr. Steller [[User talk:Dr. Steller]] 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your participation on the Thalía article

For a while, a couple of other users and I were the only ones blocking some of the ridiculous edits to this article and Paulina Rubio. My casual observation is that fans like to visit both pages to boost their favorite artist and vandalize the other page. That may be over simplified but it held water because I got both pages semi-protected for a while. Now, being unprotected, anon IPs are showing up to ratchet up the album sales and post links to fansites. I would like to see only registered users edit these pages for the reasons above. Thanks, Ronbo76 20:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

Don't you have anything better to do than trying to delete all of the images that I uploaded. And why just me I checked you only added for deletion my images today, no one else's. Do you have some personal problem with me. You are the only one that has made a fuss over this images nobody else cares. Also there are dozens of other Wikipedia editors out there who are uploading the exact same type of images just like me go and bark at them. Get of my back.Top Gun 20:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== WP:PUI ==

Hi, that was not meant as an attack, it was just meant ot put that editors ascertions in context. Please look at his last 200 edits. From my point of view they are bordering on harssasment. He has also put over 20 of my pages and images up for deletion (he has not targetted anyone else either.) Sorry if it sounded like an attack, it wasnt meant to be.--Vintagekits 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, as for the images, they are commonly used on posters and placards in political rallies. I was informed that this was a legitimate usage.--Vintagekits 20:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I prefer "It's always easier to get forgiveness than to get approval." :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thalía

No worries. 1) I think it was actually easier to re-add 75's improvements to the reverted version than it would have been to try and tease out all the other changes in 75's initial 7:54 revert from the version you reverted from, and 2) Hopefully specifically re-adding 75's changes will reduce the chance of them feeling the need to do any more reverts to the article (if you look at the history you'll see they did it three times before). 71.231.107.188 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode chars ...

Oh, not again . Yes, sometimes it does. What page has it affected? I'll shoot over and fix it with a standardized browser. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the GTK version. Why, is the FLTK version released? Where do I find it? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I saw last time I visited the webpage^[28]. Never mind. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popups

I've never used popups before - thanks for showing me how it looks. Do you think there is a problem with having that opening sentence? I have it there because I like to highlight that Wikipedia is a good place to go for open-use images. THanks for any input. I removed the "About Me" stuff on my User page.--DavidShankBone 16:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from and I'll reconsider the User page. That said, some of the wording may read like Ad copy, but I'm not advertising or selling anything, just trumpeting my contributions, which is appropriate for a User page. --DavidShankBone 17:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Thalía - please review

Would you please review some of the recent edits to Thalía? A big edit was made tonight without discussion on her talkpage. What I find interesting is that both anonymous IPs share the same opinion and do not seem to have any respect for WP:CIVIL in the edit summary and on her talkpage. I seek your advice because you have provided reasonable edits beforehand. I do not wish to be viewed as causing an edit war. Ronbo76 06:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trajansmarket.jpg

I added the author's name and the website; the text reads: "This Web site was originally designed as a project for my Latin I class. I was in Rome during Spring Break of 2000. The pictures on this site were taken with a digital camera. Feel free to use any of these pictures. Created and Designed by David Chaszar." I'm hoping this qualifies...Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Energy

Thank you for your review. I appreciate the comments. If I implement all of them will you support the article for a Featured Article nomination? Frank van Mierlo 00:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment, could you please delete GA from your first sentence? If the article passes GA at this point it will motivate everyone who is working on it to continue for FA status. Carson did an excellent review much like yours and all his suggestions have been cleared at this point. Given the quality of the data and the effort that went into creating the graphics and text. I think the current version of the article deserves to be called good. It is a process and small successes on the way do a lot for morale. Frank van Mierlo 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick and comprehensive answer. Good is a much lower hurdle than FA. Any editor who has not been a principal author of the page can give the article GA status. Frank van Mierlo 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Stomakhin article

It is extremly unfair. You have protected version of Biophys. And it is discrimination of me. Biophys deleted and reverted all texts done not only by me, but by administrators Mikkalai, Alex Bakharev. So it is just simply protection of Biophys version. I oppose that kind of thing. I would like to ask Alex Bakharev or Mikkalai to revert the article back to their version.Vlad fedorov 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey !

So good to hear from you - I was worried about where you'd gotten off to. It's very kind of you to take notice of my "anniversary" :-) I missed you during the FAC: I was (actually, resentfully) dragged into it, because other editors were going to FAC it if I didn't - I really didn't want the article to become high-profile, but if someone else was going to FAC it, I wanted to do it myself. Surprise - Dr pda wrote a script to calculate prose size - it's in my monobook. Good to have you back ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops, forgot to add, the idea of a collage was voted down as too "support-groupish" <shrug> ?? See the talk page, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It misses listy prose, and it misses image captions, but it does the job. Dr pda is doing great stuff - I see you've noticed how we're up to our eyeballs trying to set up templates, scripts, and bots so the FAC process can be more automated. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sexual objectification

I submitted a photo to sexual objectification of women in panties heels and nothing else vacuuming; it's of a fashion show by Imitation of Christ, a well-known label. Several editors want NO images on the page, but I think this one is pretty clear: at a fashion show, these topless models vacuuming in heels shows women objectified sexually. Could you interject with your opinion please? Talk:Sexual_objectification#Request_for_Comment--DavidShankBone 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

webcomic deletion (merge from User talk:xyzzy_n.)

In the schlock mercenary thread, you invited people to come by and talk so here I am. Go over to the Ursa Major awards AfD page (I linked it at the schlock thread) and tell me that you find "I hate furries" or any of the other obviously subject matter biased deletion votes to be worthy delete comments.

Once that award went, all the Ursa Major award winners started getting purged because now they were non-notable. And thus more and more articles get stuffed down the memory hole. It's really creepy if you ignore the low stakes of the subject matter at hand. So go ahead, justify those votes and the subsequent deletes that hinge on the deletion of that page or, better yet, try and resurrect that award page. Just put on the asbestos underwear first. TMLutas 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hey, another following the Schlock thread ^^. Thought your "Too. Damn. Long." post was helpful and detailed and wholly appropriate. I do think wikipedia has its problems with rule of personality but hey, what doesn't? Good on you for your efforts.

- Leith

---

Wikipedia has an entry for every single railway station in England.

Every. Single. One.

Just thought you should know that.

163.192.21.43 23:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of the history page

(cur) (last) 2007-02-09T00:19:18 163.192.21.43 (Talk)
(cur) (last) 2007-02-07T08:29:07 203.184.29.132 (Talk) (→webcomic deletion)
(cur) (last) 2007-02-06T05:08:02 TMLutas (Talk | contribs) (←Created page with '==webcomic deletion== In the schlock mercenary thread, you invited people to come by and talk so here I am. Go over to the Ursa Major awards AfD page (I linked it a...')

John L. Fugh

My understanding is that reformulating the text so that it merely reflects information, and not creative expression, is permissible so long as the original source is cited (which it was, albeit without inline cites). Cheers, JCO312 14:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yet another crowd with surface-to-air pitchforks

Thanks for the comment on my user page. I always welcome suggestions on the content in my userspace so I know what I need to improve. As far as the blog entry, since I did not see my name specifically mentioned, among other things, I am not worried about it. I have had to put up with far worse things, and so I am not worried about it. But thanks for letting me know about it, and I'll see how I can fix that grammatical error. —P ilotguy push to talk 22:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I completely forgot about that copyvios nomination, although I do think it's been speedied too. (I'll check the logs). Once again, sorry. John Reaves (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No go

Why no go

The web nes paper says that anyone can use their pictures if you link to them and that is what I have done, what more must I do to be able to use that nice pic of the Indian air force chaps. Potaaatos 21:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomics jihad

Sorry, but there is a jihad going on. There are folks out there determined to wipe any mention of webcomics, or things on the web in general, from Wikipedia. I've long believed in calling a spade a spade. It's no less civil than what they're slinging at the webcomic community. -- Jay Maynard 16:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gun

Thanks for alerting me. We appear to have a Wikiholic here- too bad he just can't figure it all out. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again?

Listen sorry that was just an oversight on my part. I was adding the new suicide bombings of the Iraq war and Caesar had reverted the previous that I had put so I was just reverting to my last editing before he reverted so the old references were back as for the senteces I was writing them this time in my own wording, as I promised, over the old ones that where copyviolation but it seams I didn't correct the incident of February 17th and I thank you for pointing it out to me. Belive me it was not intentional this time, I have learned my lesson, this was just an oversight on my part.Top Gun 00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retention of history in off-site migrations

You reminded me off-site to copy the article history in moving the Sore Thumbs article to Comixpedia.

Whoops.

I've moved the article, but I was not aware that any such thing is possible. AFAIK pages are userfiable by request, but it takes a succesful DRV to access history. If it is, how, and could you handle it? --21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup

OKAY :)--NAHID 10:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bashundhara city.jpg what about it? Now Talk to me..
You don't know the answer?? Are confused to tag this image?? Or...what--NAHID 11:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give me the reason that you can't tag it. See it's description page.Then tell me
What's the possible reason for tagging these two images Image:STU-siddeswari_.jpg and Image:STU-dhanmondi.jpg. And also why wouldn't you tag this Image:Bashundhara city.jpg.......--NAHID 11:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then

You added rational, sources on this image Image:Torchy-b.jpg along with other images(Though you tagged but later you changed the mind). Did you like the images???????

What about this one Image:Bashundhara city.jpg? Uploader just mentioned for asking him permission if required. How do you know that's not copied from the website The same thing I could have done with two images........! From its description page How do you know this image isn't copied from website or unfree image. Are you confused??

ANSWER ME--NAHID 12:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the flowchart thingy

Appreciate it. Megapixie 06:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

I left messages there Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Reply please--NAHID 14:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Fell

Hello. I could do with a second opinion on images, if you don't mind: I've seen you on the Media copyright questions page. An editor has added many photographs to Cross Fell. My problem is that he has members of his family as the prime subject. I am unaware of any other examples in Wikipedia of geographical locations where family/friends are stood infront of them. I'd appreciate your advice. Cheers. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xyuzzy. I rather thought I would find this message on your talk page. JPS is actually committing a blockable offence in inviting you to join in the discussion in this way. I have just posted the following message to the Cross Fell talk page :

xyzzy. The problem with your adjustments is that what you produce is not real. You may remember the recent case of a news journalist who produced an image from the Gulf War showing the aftermath of an American air strike in northern Iraq. He produced an image being a composite of 3 pictures and then embellished it with some extra smoke and flames. He sold the product of this exercise for a substantial sum to various newspapers. But when the facts became known he was sacked and blacklisted.

If you want to take some good pictures, then I will be happy to guide you up to the summit of Cross Fell. There have been a few casualties up there in recent years, but I am a reliable guide and you can trust me to get you up and down safely. You will then have the personal satisfaction of knowing that you have taken real images as a product of your own efforts. regards. Bob BScar23625 16:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, and especially for looking into it for me. I felt it important to invite others into the discussion, and I appreciate your posting at a relevant WikiProject. Although I should imagine that doing so, according to Bob's interesting understanding of policy, would lead you to be indefinitely blocked... if my contacting you was a "blockable offence". I wonder from which policy that idea is derived? (don't worry -- rhetorical question).
On a serious note, I am busy in RL at the moment so I might not be as quick to respond. I am keeping an eye on the discussion, however. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JPS. The practice of inviting people to join in a discussion on the basis that you think they will agree with your view is frowned on by the Wikipedia community - and has been a blockable offence. Witness the discussion on Image:Gulf.png. There is a group of editors who are interested in articles on the hills of Northern England and the matter is primarily their concern. That is the forum you should address

As it happens, xyzzy did not seem to agree with your view. Although, he has raised another interesting issue. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 08:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...considered to be a blockable offense." Ah, the joys of passive voice. I'd be delighted to see a reference to policy. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xyzzy. As I have banned myself from Cross Fell, I reply here to your note. There are some good images at Geograph and at least two of them could be used as replacements for mine - assuming that copyright is clear. Sorry for the error on my part concerning the image you inserted. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 17:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DFRGNCR

I took a stab: Template:Opaque. Better than nothing I reckon. --MECU≈talk 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rare photos response

That was very nicely put. Jkelly 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Commons

Someone brought up that the Russian arms and flag are not free because they came from the Kremlin website. Not true; the Russian copyright law, section 8, states that national symbols are free from copyright. Plus, I designed the SVG files for both files, so it should probably be fine at the Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, I think we might need to change the kremlin.ru template. While I believe works from the Presidental Press Office are free enough to use, stuff from Reuters, AP and ITAR-TASS are probably not. Feel free to play email tag with me on this issue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we could change the template to say that only photos from the Press Service could be used, since they are covered under that license page at the Kremlin website? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail failed. Regardless, if the Commons decides to get rid of the template, that is fine with me. I posted what I felt the licensing pages said, and if we cannot change the wording of the template, then we have no other choice. It sucks, but it has to be done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

Hey, thanks for the tip! = ) --Tonyjeff 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article you prodded

While doing routine deletion of expired prods, I came upon Francis X. Livoti, which I deleted per CSD G10 and recreated as a redirect. In the future, please tag such pages with {{db-attack}} so we can rid Wikipedia of them as quickly as possible. Thanks! Picaroon 01:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tits

I gave the reason when I nominated the image last month Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 February 3#Image:Now that.27s a great pair of tits.jpg. It was deleted on 8-February-2007 by User:Nv8200p. It was undeleted by User:Rdsmith4 on 7-March-2007, with the orphan IfD tag hanging for no apparent reason. ~ Bigr Tex 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSC FAC2

You were against my fair use at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans. Would you consider supporting now? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.

Hello Xyzzy,

You are obviously a careful, thoughtful editor, so I would not ask you to change your vote or anything like that. I'm hoping that you might revisit the article and see what changes have been made.

One more thing: I just wanted to let you know how sorry I am that we are on opposite sides of the deletion issue. I read your edits etc., and you seem like a pretty cool guy. I guess I just wanted to let you know that I'll still think you're cool regardless of how it turns out, because I'm convinced that you're convinced that you are doing the right thing, and that's good enough for me. That's why I kinda backed out, and I'll leave this to the wisdom of you admin types. Be well. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Maravar Battle

Don't make another thing out of this. I'll explain. I initialy made the article a direct copy of the one that you found that I used as a source, so I would later use this article as a template to rewrite the text and make an apropriate article for Wikipedia. The article has been already rewriten. And difers from the original. User talk:Top Gun 05:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion going on about changing the template on it's talk page. Would love your input :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Military-Insignia

Template:Military-Insignia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Megapixie 02:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More image help if you please.

Hello,

A while ago you helped me when I made the image Image:Pipe.svg, and now I would like to ask your help again. I have made an (modified) SVG version of Image:Fork join.jpeg and would like to upload it. The problem is when i try to raster(ify) it using rsvg (2.9.5) i get a whole lot of "attempt to put segment in horiz list twice" errors being emitted. Can I email the file to you and get you to have a look at it? Trying the stroke to path business that you suggested seems to have little effect. I am using Inkscape 0.42 (curse you out of date repos!). Thanks User A1 14:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:"Bootstrap" Bill Turner.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:"Bootstrap" Bill Turner.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 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. Ilse @ 14:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:"Bootstrap" Bill Turner.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:"Bootstrap" Bill Turner.JPG. 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. BetacommandBot 06:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:American McGee Strawberry Shortcake.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:American McGee Strawberry Shortcake.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 07:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:National League for Democracy.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:National League for Democracy.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Hancock Vandalism

Thanks for catching the missed vandalism of John Hancock. --Ziusudra 13:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Neighbours.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Neighbours.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. β^_command 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teach a man to fish

And he might come back and ask for some clarification.

Hi Again,

I have had more SVG trouble, and previously you have been quite helpful. This time its related to Image:BatchDistill.svg, which I drew to replace Image:Batch still for Wikipedia.png. Now my version of RSVG has no problems (2.16.1), Firefox has no problems, but Mediawiki renders it in squish-o-vision. I have tried a few things, but I haven't trawled the SVG, and I was wondering if you had a good idea for fixing this. Thanks User A1 12:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

Libya has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Craig interpolation and the virtue of laziness

Only just seen your 2 year old comment on my User talk:Chalst/tasks: not doing anything seems to have done its magic & the article is OK now. Thanks for the tip anyway. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Head angle rake and trail.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Head angle rake and trail.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Mononomic (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of El Goonish Shive

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is El Goonish Shive. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Goonish Shive (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Brahma beer advertisement.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brahma beer advertisement.JPG. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:NumericalTower.svg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:NumericalTower.svg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]