User talk:Lambtron/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Lambtron, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Also, thanks for uploading Image:CompetitiveDanceGroup.jpg! It's great to have free images on Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CompetitiveDanceAwards.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:CompetitiveDanceAwards.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Images of children

Thank you for your interest in improvement of wikipedia.

There may be legal problems with some of your uploaded photos. Do you have parental consent for public release of photos of children in Image:CompetitiveDanceGroup.jpg and Image:CompetitiveDanceAwards.jpg? `'Míkka>t 21:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely that parental consent is required here, but to confirm this I have asked for advice at the media copyright questions page. So far there has been only one response, and it's author made no mention of parental consent, choosing instead to issue a rather vague warning about commercial use. BTW, I do have parental consent for public release of one of photos in question. If you have the time, please read my analysis on the media copyright questions page.Lambtron (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Two-hand-walkover-valdez.gif

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Two-hand-walkover-valdez.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good deal.  :^) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

other formatting?

Are you aware that Wikipedia can also accept video files, provided they're similarly licensed? At the upload page it accepts .ogg files, which is an encoding medium for either audio or video. I'm not sure of the intended usage for this animation, but if a video would be more suitable (and available at a higher resolution) you can take that under consideration. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this, Thor. Yes, I am aware of ogg/theora encoding for video. My goal here is to extract very short, highly illustrative video clips and present them as animated gifs so that viewers need not be encumbered with video decoder/player plugins. This way, the video plays automatically when the page loads, with no need to even click a "play" button or, in the worst case, interrupt the reader's information flow by forcing them to download and install player software.—Lambtron (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving Split

FYI - normally a WP:RM administrator closes a move proposal tracked via WP:RM, not the person who made the request in the first place. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Born2cycle. That was the first article I ever moved and, based on the experience, I probably won't do it again. I recognized a need and presented compelling, impartial, fact-based reasoning for moving the page and arrived at an obvious consensus with a variety of people. After the move, however, several people expressed their displeasure by making disparaging remarks about Americans and huffily proclaiming that the value of their city has been reduced to that of a banana split. Yes, just editing for now—a much more civil activity. —Lambtron (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of pointe shoe manufacturers

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of pointe shoe manufacturers, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

per WP:NOTDIR

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 00:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I created the afforementioned page but I didn't create the content--it was extracted from Pointe shoes. I extracted this list because it was cluttering Pointe shoes with irrelevant info. Frankly, I'm in total agreement with the proposed deletion even though I lacked the conviction to personally initiate deletion. Lambtron (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Acro dance hand walking.gif

File:Acro dance hand walking.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Acro dance hand walking.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Acro dance hand walking.gif]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WDC Amateur League

Re your observation that the article mentions two committees, but three activities. Here is the only statement I could find on their web-site:

"To All Competitors, Coaches/Trainers

In May 2007 at the Annual General Meeting of the World Dance Council the decision to form the WDC Amateur League was adopted. This was not, as was viewed by some, a knee-jerk reaction to developments initiated by other International Organisations, but a totally new concept that Dancers, their Coaches/Trainers, Adjudicators and Organisers have been demanding for many, many years.

It has long been said that Competitors and their Coaches only want to have a truly Open System of Competitions, free from Political restrictions where the couples can do what they do best i.e. Dance. There was a need for the threat of bans, suspensions and other perceived restrictions to be removed for Competitive dance to flourish. Major Open competitive events such as the British Open (Blackpool), United Kingdom Open, International Open, Dutch Open, etc. continue to promote this ideal and show by their continued success that this is what the vast majority of people involved in the Dance world demand.

The old ideas of monopolies or cartels are no longer valid and a free and open Market is the only way forward.

The WDC has decided to support this principle with the formation of the Amateur League. Amateur Competitors in their thousands are exercising their free choice and registering with the WDC Amateur league. There have been no pressures applied to anyone to join, only the promise that the best Events, best Adjudicators and Best Competitors will be taking part. The WDC are so committed to this ideal that no restriction will be placed on non WDC registered competitors at these events. This transparency, the WDC is confident, will lead to all couples exercising their own sound judgement to become part of this new concept.

This Press release is being addressed to you to keep you informed of these long overdue decisions. All couples look to you the Coaches/Trainers for guidance in their careers and Dance development. We, the Coaches/Trainers Commission, hope you give your support and leadership to all couples who seek the best course for their Dance futures in an Open Market system that:

1. Promotes the right to choose

2. Removes the threat of restriction

3. Gives the opportunity to express yourself freely.

4. Gives direct access to the policy makers of the Dance Business through the formation of Commissions.

5. Seeks to defend the rights of Competitors, Coaches/Trainers and Promoters to operate within a Free and Open Market.

Steve Powell,

On behalf of the Coaches Commission

Well, I am loath to summarise this on WP! Obviously, something is going on, and that something may be to do with the competition between the WDC and the IDSF for control over amateur competitions. This affects coaches, because the coaches are all professional, and hence are represented by WDC. As I write this, I see that I could introduce the Coaches Commission into the article as a third grouping; but it's still unclear who exactly is operationally in charge of the Amateur League.

Regards, Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps under the circumstances it's best to simply list the two known committees and discuss the amateur league separately. Lambtron (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oddfellows Playhouse‎

In case it wasn't clear from my edit summary, I am puzzled by your edits:

• 20:20, 5 November 2009 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (5,372 bytes) (As I said, it is NOT a dab link, and you have NOT fixed it. Please discuss the matter on the talk page - further unexplained changes will also be reverted. - Undid revision by Lambtron (talk)) (rollback | undo)
• 14:02, 5 November 2009 Lambtron (Talk | contribs) (5,368 bytes) (fixed dab link) (undo)
• 09:53, 5 November 2009 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (5,372 bytes) (I don't understand. I don't see any ambiguity. Also, removing a link doesn't "fix" it ... - Undid revision 323959259 by Lambtron (talk)) (undo)
• 07:32, 5 November 2009 Lambtron (Talk | contribs) (5,368 bytes) (fixed dab link) (undo)

Please discuss the matter on a talk page - either here or Talk:Oddfellows Playhouse - before making any further edits. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies! I've been cleaning up problematic redirects (e.g., redirects to other redirects) and redirects that may be subject to deletion in the near future (e.g., "frontflip", which is not a legitimate word) and, in the process, inadvertently passed through Oddfellows Playhouse twice because you reverted my first edit before I finished. I admire your tenacity and quick attention to this minor issue — perhaps you could also apply the same aggressive energy to the many substantive issues that plague the article? In particular, the article is tagged for being written like an advertisement, for containing material not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and for its complete lack of references. --Lambtron (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining this a little further? I'm not sure what's problematic about many of these redirects in the first place ("backflip", for example). It seems to me that they're single redirects, and I'm not sure how removing those links entirely instead of piping them to avoid the redirect qualifies as "fixing" them. I find the edit summary "fixed dab link" to be confusing at best. As you seem to have a good reason for removing them, all I'd ask is that the edit summary reflect the action/reason a little more accurately, as I don't seem to be the only one who feels misled. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been duly reprimanded and, having learned my lesson, will henceforth strive to be more thoughtful and craft more accurate edit descriptions. --Lambtron (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Polite Notice - Possible solution to Ondine merging

I am creating this notice to invite all interested parties to vote on the proposal to merge Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton) to a new article at Ondine (ballet). You can read the discussion and add your vote to the poll at:

• Discussion
• Poll

Look forward to seeing you there to help resolve this situation, thanks! Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your work on DMX512

Hi Lambtron,

First of thank you very much for you contributions.

I would like to change your "clarification" of DMX-universes back or find a different wording because in it's current form every chain coming from a splitter would be it's own universe which is just not true (at least that's how I understand the way it's written).

Your input is appreciated,

--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Keeper of the Keys. Part of the problem is that splitters are not yet mentioned or discussed in the article. Until then, how about something like this for a workaround: 'Each DMX512 network—which consists of a single controller and all of the slave devices it controls—is called a "DMX universe".' Lambtron (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ballet shoe construction and flooring.

Hi! Thanks for your input to my edit to the ballet shoe. Please see my comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ballet_shoes#Is_this_significant.3F

o) 38.109.88.196 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

CrossFit

Thanks for your efforts on the CrossFit page. I have been struggling with this for over two and half years. May I ask you to revert my last three edits? (I tried and failed to do this myself.) I think something got lost in all the revisions and on re-checking, I realize that the edits are unsupported by the existing citations. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertman (talk • contribs) 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Done! Lambtron (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)