User talk:Dacoutts

Welcome!

Hello Dacoutts, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Daverocks 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dacoutts Dacoutts 08:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Science fiction games[edit]

Can I suggest that you make Category: Science fiction board games a sub-cat of Category: Board games and then remove the board games category from any articles you add sci-fi board games to? Cheers --Pak21 10:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - how do I do that? --Dacoutts Dacoutts 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, apologies for not replying to this earlier! In general, to make Foo a subcategory of Bar, just add [Category:Bar] to the Foo's Category page. There's some better documentation about all this at Wikipedia:Category. Cheers --Pak21 11:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit summaries[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've been making some very constructive changes (to the Malthus article, especially). You should try to use edit summaries; they really help other editors when reviewing changes to articles, and the accepted Wikipedia guideline is to always fill the summary field. May the Wiki be with you.--ragesoss 15:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm still a bit new at this. That's good advice, and I'll do my best to follow it. --Dacoutts 23:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fetus into Man[edit]

Fetus into Man <-- I thought that was an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie ;) --JWSchmidt 23:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted lists[edit]

Hi there, you were complaining that I tagged two lists that you uploaded to Wikipedia as a copyright violation. Problem is that these two are not merely a compilation of data (like the phone book) but there is much editorial input involved. As such they are likely copyrighted, and like a copyrighted photograph they can't be reproduced wholesale. (One may quote from them, saying for example "Vancouver was rated the 'World's Most Livable City by the Economist in 2005".)

These concerns must be addressed, as they increase the legal exposure of Wikipedia. Pilatus 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth do you mean by ...but there is much editorial input involved... and As such they are likely copyrighted, and like a copyrighted photograph they can't be reproduced wholesale.?

Please bear in mind that both lists represent much less than 10% of the complete lists of cities. Also, the information listed is just the ranking, not the in-depth analysis of each city's ranking. As such, the ranking itself represents an absolute minimum of the information available in the surveys by the EIU (perhaps as little as 1% of the total city information available per city).

For a comparable example, please see The 100 and read the debate on copyright there. --Couttsie 23:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 and the "World's most livable cities" lists aren't really comparable (or so I think, Raul's 4th Law again).; The 100 is a book of nearly 600 pages with an essay on the 100 people on the list, so one can argue that reproducing the list isn't a such a substantial part of the book and could be considered part of a review. The purpose of the "most livable cities", on the other hand, is to list the world's most livable cities. If one cites without much comment the top 15 (and people are most interested in the top and bottom anyway) one might somewhat convincingly argue that that is reproducing a substantial amount of the work.

Someone more experienced in copyright law than either of us should review the case. After all that's what WP:CP is good for. Pilatus 18:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone more experienced in copyright law than either of us should review the case. That's entirely reasonable - how do we make that happen? --Couttsie 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design (Reactionary Creationism)[edit]

Might I say sir, what I damn good job you did with that write up you did on Intelligent Design's introductory paragraph, explaining how it is just a modern version of Lysenkoism. I salute you, sir. --Ricimer 10:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary[edit]

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 3% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 2 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 05:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humanist International[edit]

I don't understand these see also links you added. What do they have to do with the Humanist International? Tedernst | talk 20:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments requested[edit]

I have been assigned this case by the mediation cabal to see what would be an acceptable compromise in these matters. May I have your comments at the following link as to what you believe the issues are and what would be acceptable to you as some sort of compromise? Many thanks.Chandler75 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC) link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-28_The_Humanist_papacy[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Counter_Vandalism_Unit#IHEU_long-term_and_complex_vandalism

See Talk:International_Humanist_and_Ethical_Union#Clarifications_and_apologies

From IHEU talk:

Plover: If the IHEU cares enough about capitalizing Humanism to change their website when the use of lower case is pointed out to them, then that seems fairly clear evidence that it's a meaningful convention within the organization.

Rohirok: That they changed their website from h to H is compelling, and I admit that always capitalizing without an adjective is their general practice, as evidenced by much of the website.

NPOV tag on Secular humanism page[edit]

Dacoutts, am I correct in thinking that you added to the Secular humanism page the tag that 'The neutrality of this article is disputed.'? If so, since that was added a lot of references have been added and the wording you most objected to was altered... would you consider removing the tag, or is there something else you are looking to see done? -Rhwentworth 18:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AHA Membership figure[edit]

you wrote "The AHA unfortunately only has 6,000 members" - can you please provide a citation and add it to the AHA page. Thanks, --Couttsie 09:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I got the 6,000 member figure by emailing and asking, I do not believe it is listed anywhere on their website 2ct7 21:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:44 Squadron RAF.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:44 Squadron RAF.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Australian Humanist[edit]

A tag has been placed on Australian Humanist, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Russavia 10:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==[edit]

This is pathetic. The national American Humanist magazine Free Inquiry is allowed to go unmolested, but the national Australian Humanist magazine is marked for "speedy deletion". --Couttsie (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:44 Squadron RAF.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:44 Squadron RAF.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 13:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==[edit]

It qualifies for fair use because examples of art for other squadrons from the MOD/RAF are used under fair use by Wikipedia. I gave an example, as I recall.--Couttsie (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies[edit]

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Dacoutts! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 940 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Ten Inch Men - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Humanism (life stance) for deletion[edit]

The article Humanism (life stance) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanism (life stance) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sandstein 23:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of Australian Humanist of the Year[edit]

Hello Dacoutts,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Australian Humanist of the Year for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]