User:Jarcanist/Archive7

Image copyright problem with Image:159175678 41f4df966a b.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:159175678 41f4df966a b.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:. If you have not already done so please also include the source of the image; in most cases the website where you found it.

Please signify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that he's using a script to notify you, so he wouldn't see the notice. Also, you are not being careful enough.  GFDL by itself is meaningless; if it's your image, you have to tag it with GFDL-self, or state the website, or whatever.  It would be even better to say that you took the image, so us copyright fanatics can tag it with GFDL-self.  Also, more descriptive image titles would be more helpful - i.e. Image:198488096 7903b9466a o.jpg could be renamed Image:Turbine_outlet.jpg.  Third, you can't expect us to peruse contributions - there are thousands of uploads to examine, and the images are heavily backlogged.  The image description page should stand for itself, not your work.Hbdragon88 02:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there are thousands of images to upload. By your logic, I simply don't have time to be using the correct license when uploading. Perhaps you should think about this "nag script" a little. If we shouldn't be using GFDL, then delete the damn template, or at least deprecate it. Maybe I'll spend a day or two going through and re-tagging a couple hundred images, just to appease the drones. ... aa:talk 13:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

GFDL is still perfectly usable - just that a source description needs to be added. It's like any other fair use template. Hbdragon88 22:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, yes you do have to put the correct licensing. The onus is on the uploader to supply licensing and source information. Just because "they don't do it" doesn't excuse you from not doing it. Hbdragon88 17:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't a fair use template. It is GFDL because I uploaded it and tagged it as such. I took the picture, I licensed it, I uploaded it. I'll be going through and changing all the images I took to GFDL-self, but I think it's ridiculous that I have to do that. If you don't want people using GFDL, tell them NOT TO. Don't threaten to delete them. It's asinine. ... aa:talk 23:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh. Not very easy to negitoate images, here. If you had written "This is my photograph" or something, I'm sure that Nv8200p would have taken your word for it and tagged it with GFDL-self. But you didn't, and thus the assumpetion is that it was ripped from a personal site or something, and the copyright status cannot be verified. Only tags that are self-referential, like PD-USGov or PD-self or GFDL-self, can survive without any kind of source description; GFDL by itself needs a source description.

You think that it's disruptive to ask for source descriptions, copyright tags. On the contrary. Most of my experiences is that they don't even care; I've noticed that the numerous IFD notifications and "no source" warnings have disappeared from user talk pages a few days after I append them. In the realm of fair use, Jimmy Wales has voiced the opinion that it's better to have no image than a fair use one, and thusly pariahs like me are more aggressive on those types of images.

I do take caution when there's reason to be cautious, but, as in the case of this particular photo, I (like Nv8200p) saw no reason why to be cautious. GFDL is not Permission or No rationale; there is no set date. Even if GFDL-self appeared after the majority of your contributions, adding even just "I took this photograph myself" would have been more than enough to satisfy pariahs like me into retagging it with GFDL-self. Hbdragon88 05:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:M252 mortar usmc.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:M252 mortar usmc.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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. Nv8200p talk 16:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

you may want to delete this...
I found your first post on my talk page insulting and condescending. It seemed to be for informational purposes and I didn't think you wanted a response.

I speedy deleted the mortar image you orphaned as a redundant image of the one you preferred and struck the listing at WP:IFD.

As a personal choice, I have decided to abide by and enforce, Wikipedia policies when I can; otherwise, I believe Wikipedia would collapse in chaos. Images with no source or no/incorrect copyright tag or orphan images, etc. can be deleted by policy. I would love to delete them on sight, but the rules say I have to post it here or there, notify the uploader and wait a certain number of days, blah, blah and so I do. Then someone else actually has to do the deletion.

As Wikipedia evolves, the rules change and unfortunately, there is no "grandfathering" in of what we have already done, so images have to be maintained to comply or we risk losing them. Regards -Nv8200p talk 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're taking it upon yourself to uphold new rules regarding old images, it isn't my responsibility to keep track of them. Many members of the project simply move on. Therefore it is your responsibility to make sure images conform to whatever petty differences you ascribe them. ... aa:talk 13:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * When did he ever imply that it was your responsibility for everybody else' images? He simply informed you that your image is subject to deletion as they did not comply with the new rules.  He can't read those members' minds about where they got the images or what license they are.  Therefore, he's nominating them for deletion, tagging with them no source, etc. and informing them of the pending deletion.  That's his responsibility - to inform thsoe who uploaded the image and request for clarification.  Why are you giving him flack for doing that? Hbdragon88 18:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's flak, spanky. The reason I am concerned is images such as Image:Ied munitions.jpg are being considered for deletion even though they are tagged PD-USGov-Military-Marines. The people going around and IfD'ing these images don't seem to care that it's possible the image was tagged correctly. If is the wanton carelesslness of you people with your scripts doing this that pisses me off. Why don't you got and take some pictures and upload them, instead of pissing people like me off? As I said earlier, I am less inclined to upload images now that I have the Picture police on my tail. ... aa:talk 01:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How can an inanimate object (a mortar) be a US government employee? &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  09:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Clicking to that link must be difficult for you, so I've subst:'d it here for you.  Read  the license, SJ.

 This image is a work of a U.S. Marine Corps Marine or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain. Subject to disclaimers.


 * smooches, ... aa:talk 14:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets ignore the fact that I actually DID read the template, and I swear last night that it said "This is an image OF a US Marine."....How do you actually know? I mean.. its not shown in any context? It could be a manufacturers picture? &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest, hombre. Check the change log on te license, and check how may times i have used it correctly. you're a little out of your depth here. ... aa:talk 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying: I don't really care, but there's really no way to know unless you can cite a link to a US Gov't website that hosts it right? &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The image is the  work  of a us marine. literacy good. ... aa:talk 15:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Read again what I said before you jump on me. I'll spell it in nice big capital letters for you. HOW DO YOU KNOW IT IS THE WORK OF A US MARINE? Is there a link to usmc.mil? Is there a "This photo was taken by LCpl. XXXXX"? Is it from "Photostakenbymarines.com"? Then how do you know it is the work of a marine? THAT is my question. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  21:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh for fuck's sake. Are you really being serious? First and foremost, have a look at some of the images at Operation Asbury Park (1 2 3(. I know those were taken by marines because I know the marines who took them. In fact, when they came back from their tour, I helped them take the images off the media, and burn a CD for them with all the pictures they'd taken on their tour. When it comes to pictures of the SBX, I know they were taken by employees of the US Missile Defense Agency because anyone else close enough to the SBX to take that picture would be slag at the bottom of the ocean, camera included. As regards the '252, I pulled that directly from the USMC website. Since you're being so persistent about this, I'll point you in the direction of the image in question, as well as a veritable cornucopia of images of USMC hardware. In the case of Operation Restore Hope, I took the battle plan directly out of the OPLAN powerpoint deck. You may be military, but I am a defense contractor, come from a military family, and you could even call me a fanboy. I love me some hardware. So let's put aside this little dick measuring contest, and work on the encyclopedia.


 * 1) The M252
 * 2) The Big Ol' Hardware Repository
 * Now, you may be right. There may be some hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional mice taking pictures of equipment for the Corps, but my guess is some poor pfc is doing the camera work for them. In this case, or in the case of  any  of the hardware images I've uploaded, can you demonstrate reasonably that the mice did the work and not the marines? Some people think that marines are just trigger pullers, or whatever, but in general, they know how to use cameras. ... aa:talk 22:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And by the same token, can you demonstrate reasonably that the Marines took the pictures and not Joe Schmo off the street? &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  03:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you prove that truman was president? Piss off. I don't need to waste any more time on this inanity. ... aa:talk 03:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No original research
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Xkcd, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! --Yamla 18:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yous aid: "What are you talking about, NOR? And kindly don't "welcome" me to the project, I've been here for almost three years."


 * I'm sorry. It looked like you were drawing an original conclusion as to the similarity of one comic to another, which is a violation of WP:NOR.  I used the standard warning template.  No offense was meant.  --Yamla 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Further, I should probably have used a hand-written notice in this case indicating why I removed your addition. Sorry.  --Yamla 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yikes.
I didn't notice that. That is really troubling: putting all of his warnings in one space is bad enough; editing them to change what they say is particularly troubling. I've left another message on his page, but I can't undo it without spending a good chunk of time twiddling with it. I would remove your comments from his archive since they no longer accurately reflect what you wrote. -- Merope Talk 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, etc.
I can't edit Phillip's page but you can mine? Tsk. -- aard 22:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note
No problem moving that comment... that's a long term issue from someone who just doesn't get it. Glad to know I'm not the only one with userbox qualms! Tuf-Kat 01:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Raul Julia
The summary for this edit does not refer to your edit, but to the reverts done by this edit and this one. Sorry if this was confusing. I've added something to the talk page as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

About Dragonball...
Dickery is against the rules..--Vercalos 05:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A little confused
I can't figure it out, not that it matters too much to me personally. I just saw the IP vandalism to Cydebot, fixed it, and posted a warning. What happened after that makes no sense, but my best guess is sockpuppetry. Who knows. --NThurston 13:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My signature
Hi AA, thanks for the hint. I wasn't aware that there is an actual policy about using images in signatures. I see that very code-intensive as well as image-using signatures are controversial and understand the reasons but from what I understood in the end its up to the user? Splette Talk (for you without the pic :)
 * I think that's exactly right. That it is up to the user, but that it is "suggested" that users not use images. The reason for this is not exactly clear, other than it can mess up browsers for some people with sight disabilities, and be harder to render on a slower connection. Some people, for example, insist on viewing the wikipedia in a text-only browser. If you ask me, the whole thing is silly, and I rather like your signature. But somebody may complain at you later. Just fyi. As I said, I do like your signature and wish more people were as "smiley" in their interaction with others. Cheers! ... aa:talk 17:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll consider changing it to a text-based smily. Thanks, Splette:) Talk

Re: Badgering
Hi,

You miss several important things. First, an oppose vote in a RfA (and a support vote too but less so) must be justified. Indeed, RfA is not only a vote and it is done as to avoid abuses, such as spaming Mustafa was doing (and for which he got blocked btw).

Second, it must not be proven to me that is true. However it must be proven to the bureaucrat(s) who close the RFA. Generally, they're clever enough to not take thiese sorts of "votes" into the account.

And third, I'm not the only one. If you look at the comments, people like Dmcdevit said exactly the same thing (see his reply to oppose #7 - "Do you have any evidence at all for these personal attacks and wild accusations? Well, actually, you can't."). Consequently, asking for just a minimal amount of evidence when people are opposing based on ridiculous accusations and/or personal attacks is the rule on a RFA.

Cheers, Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  17:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet nobody is required to list good deeds when supporting. Can you cite something that says a dissenting vote must be justified with diffs? Why is "the user is disagreeable" or "there are people badgering dissenters" not sufficient? Regardless, you should let the matter rest, and cease calling people's votes "void," as you have no such authority. I consider it extremely bad form. ... aa:talk 17:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I stopped editing that RfA at least 24 hours ago, in case you didn't check the history; so if you call this "let the matter rest", I did. Second, your use of "dissenting" is flawed. What must be backed up with diffs are things like "this user is a POV-pusher" (at least one diff of such a POV-pushing would be a good thing) or "this user is a revert-warrior" (some history?) and things like that. Otherwise, people would be able to oppose based on a pure libel... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And where does it say that is prohibited? I can oppose your nomination for adminship because I don't like purple elephants. There aren't any rules that I am aware of which limit what reasons you can oppose an RFA for. I'm open to correction, of course. ... aa:talk 18:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RfA/Alex9891
Hi Alex, you recently participated in Alex9891's RfA, saying you were neutral with regards to what you call his 'editing philosophy'. Would you mind taking a minute to go back there and clarify what you meant? You've left some people a little confused :) Cheers, riana_dzast a  00:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, crap, I left this on the wrong user's talk page. *whap* But thanks for your reply, nevertheless, it was very informative. Personally, I think all we need administrators for is vandal-fighting, deletions, protections, etc. Wikipedia administrators shouldn't be any different from administrators at other websites - they're just policing, that's all. Agreed, we need more editors working on articles, but you don't need administrators to do that. Alex9891 is a capable vandal fighter and I think he'd benefit from the tools.
 * I'm not trying to change your vote, obviously - just stating my opinion on these matters. I'd never support someone on an RfA who seemed to be looking like a reward for good article-space contributions - if they're good policemen, that's what we need.
 * Anyway, sorry about disturbing you from your work! Take care, riana_dzast a  14:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about army ships
I've occasionally seen mention of Army ships; one just the other day, but I can't remember where. I see Ship prefix has designations for American and British army and air force vessels. Most—but not all—are listed as "(not currently in use)". The list of jacks and ensigns includes Image:armymajor.png for commissioned vessels of the British Army. Following the links, it was used in the late '60s by a group of ships which were transferred from the Army in 1970. We've got pictures of the Royal Logistic Corps' RCLs Antwerp and Arezzo.

Googling for "USAV", I had to weed out a lot of USA Volleyball pages [:-)], but found http://www.tomw.net.au/2002/tsv1x/index.html, about USAV Spearhead (TSV-1X), a vessel similar to HSV-2 Swift. Googling on "USAS ship" led me back to US Air Force ships. —wwoods 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh. That's curious. So they don't have a lot of ships. The ships they have are used for troop transport (you'd think they'd use the C-5 Galaxy instead, huh?). I'm curious now, I bet there are more, but there's just not a lot of exposure. I can think of a lot of things Air Force ships would be doing (the Norton Sound for example). Boy, that first Army boat would make a swell yacht. I should email Paul Allen. Thanks for your research woods, it's an immense help. ... aa:talk 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:08-10BillHilf2004 lg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:08-10BillHilf2004 lg.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I replied on my talk page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And once more (into the breech). – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Claymore mine af.jpg
Hi!

I'd like to use your Image:Claymore mine af.jpg in the french article I am writing (fr:M18A1 Claymore) about this mine, but you posted it on the english wikipedia and not on commons. So i was wondering if you have a problem with me posting it on commons instead? (or you if you want to do it ;))

Thanks! Chtit draco 20:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I found the same image on commons under a different name so there's no need to transfer it :) I placed the template on it. Chtit draco 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. That image of course isn't mine, it belongs to the US Air Force (although what they're doing with a Claymore, I have no idea). Anyways, it's probably a US Army or US Marines image, and even if it is an Air Force image, it's still copyright-free. I'm not sure how that applies internationally, but I think the wording is "is not copyrightable in the United States." You might consider looking at some of the Air Force's European commands (google for things like EUCOM, EUTRANSCOM and EUSOCOM etc). They may have a more Europe-friendly statement there.
 * At any rate, the answer is I don't think there's any problem with using it unless the USAF gets its knickers twisted about using their stuff in non-US countries (which it does from time to time... this is why they have bombs). ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply
More was looking for section splits, perhaps some additional wikilinks, stuff like that. I'll work on it if I've got some time later, else there's a ton of people with experience that look through that category and do all those wonderful things. Seraphimblade 06:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Will work on the tannerite article as well. They're excellent articles and certainly the tag is not to say otherwise-just to encourage some additional collaboration. No one writes FA's on the first go-round, and those are some of the best starts I've seen in a while. I'm surprised there wasn't already an article on bomb damage assessment. Seraphimblade 06:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, not "breaking" anything at all to me, though certainly those users also make contributions on other subjects. While much a liberal myself, I'm not up for censorship of any notable subjects just because someone might find them distasteful, and I'm glad to see them getting done. Seraphimblade 07:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

esata
Read the two AfD discussions, links |here. I think it's NN. - crz crztalk 02:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors
There is no method of nominating articles for us to copyedit, aside from simply putting the tag on the article and waiting for us to get to it in due course. However, if you require some assistance, you can try contacting a member of the League to take a look at whatever it is that you are working on. I suggest myself, Rintrah, Pigman, Jaxhere or Kathryn NicDhàna, as that we are the members that seem to spend the most time online. I will be taking a look at your street racing article tonight sometime. Trusilver 00:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. I avoided using the template because I personally can't stand articles with big ol nag templates at the top. Is it necessary to have such a large template? How about something a little more discreet? ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 01:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up and copyedited the article today. Because this article appears to still be in a state of flux, I am adding it to my watch list and will check on it and do occasional touch-ups as needed. Trusilver 06:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 16:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hello. I was wondering if your only objection to my bid was my use of the word "fighting". First, the term "vandal-fighting" is a fairly common one here. Second, I'm indifferent between that word and "reverting", so if that's your only concern, I'll strike out the word "fighting" and replace it with "reverting". Biruitorul 21:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't understand what I said or why I said it. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You said, "We don't 'fight' changes." I understood that much quite well. If there's a hidden meaning, fine. If not, then my word choice is a poor reason to vote against me. You're entitled to do so, of course, but that doesn't change my view. Biruitorul 00:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What I was getting at is the futility of changing a word describing an action when the action remains the same. If I describe a gunshot wound to the head as an "impact on the cerebellum by a high velocity kinetic weapon" with the intent to not scare children due to the language otherwise used, the act itself is unchanged. Grey matter everywhere. As such, I said that you misunderstood what I said and why. I dislike the act, and the attitude associated with the act. Modifying the description of the act is precisely the attitude I dislike. Does that clear things up? ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Much better. Thank you. Biruitorul 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am glad that was clearer. I try very hard to avoid the vitriol such as below. I hope you understand I am not angry about my views on this subject, just stubborn. Thanks for your understanding. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 03:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Hi there; I feel that contacting you is reasonable, away from my RfA page, because it is quite clear that it will be no consensus and nothing is going to change that this time round. I think, to be fair, that your use of the word "interrogate" is too strong. Don't you ? Two staightforward questions for purposes of clarification, and a couple of explanatory comments, do not in my book add up to interrogation. You will note that I have not argued or objected to any comments made except, perhaps, yours. Sorry about that.--Anthony.bradbury 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do feel the word is correct and merited. As you can see from the charming discussion immediately above this one, some users feel compelled to quiz users who do not condone their RFA. I don't feel that it is appropriate to ask users any more than a casual question in regards to their vote. If somebody does not leave an explanation for their vote, it is fair to ask them. However, if the person responds, and the response is not what the nominated wanted, I don't feel it is fair to continue to ask them for information. Nobody, for example, asks why people who support users with no qualification (to their answer, not to the user) why they have supported. And, I might add, it would be seen as wholly inappropriate if they were to.
 * I'm sorry we disagree on this, but I feel particularly strongly about it. I sometimes do not agree with the answers to questions provided for RFA questions, and I am subsequently hostilely interrogated by said users. It's a personal peeve of mine, and I find the whole process to be loathsome. Unfortunately, I think it would be far worse if I did not voice my disagreements, as it would be the ultimate breakdown of our consensus based community. Does that make sense? I'm happy to clarify my position if we can do so politely. :) You could say that recently I've not had the happiest of encounters in regards to it. Thanks for being a gentleman about it. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Normal link conversion
I'm not aware of such a system... althought I'd imagine that something like that would already be available or easy enough to cook up. You might ask User:Cyde and see what he might be able to suggest, I think he's fairly knowledgeable about such things. Cheers. (→ Netscott ) 02:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
"I'd prefer editors rather than people patrolling a beat." Clarify. What do you mean? -- Chris speranza! chat edits  02:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very, very insightful words. I think I'll do the same from now on. -- Chris speranza! chat edits  03:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * YOu should say that rant to every Wikipedian. -- Chris speranza! chat edits  17:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Random things I run across at 3 AM ET
Hi,

Although our previous talk page discussion was less than enjoyable, I've got to ask: Why are you hosting a copy of User:Tony Sidaway's old userpage in your userspace? Best wishes, Xoloz 08:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Outcome wasn't hostile last time; the manner of reaching that outcome was. You may be a self-proclaimed "hardass", but I'm not, so your previous conversational style wasn't my bag.  No biggie, though.  Thanks for the answer -- I'm sure you've noticed that Tony's on hiatus, so your copy of his userpage is a bit of a tribute now.  Best wishes, Xoloz 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox query
Hi Avriette. All userbox-related policy, guidelines and related pages can be found through Userboxes. Proto :: type  09:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Street Racing
Hey thanks for cleaning up that article it's vastly improved. TotallyTempo 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Lonely goat says 'thanks'!
I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future (up to and including adding any of these neglected pages to my watchlists). Cheers! -- nae'blis 00:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

 * Aww, bummer. That's too bad. You know, as I said in the RFA, we don't always agree, but you're a principled and honest man, which is what we need 'round these parts. I'm sorry it didn't succeed. It's kind of a bummer that the community has this eidetic memory. Things (such as our argument over the Hawk) which people would have normally forgotten long ago can be dredged up and reinjure like an itchy wound. It leaves little room for people to grow. Seems somebody's always looking for a way to shoot people down, meaning one of two things (or perhaps both): 1) they are too new to have pissed anyone off (thus almost assuring they aren't fit for the mop) or 2) they are being dishonest or duplicitous in playing WP politics (thus also making them unfit for the mop). It's a sad commentary on our society when quality editors such as yourself are taken to task for being principled and affirmative. I wish I had something more positive to say or some advice, but I think it's a problem endemic to the community that seems like it won't be fixed.
 * That means the only consolation for people who go through this retroactive lynching process (you're not the first, and certainly not the last) is that The Mop is not really a promotion or a medal in spirit. The Mop is just that -- it gives you a responsibility to clean up after people. It's really only because people have started treating it like a medal that the bemedaled people are fiercely protective of their inner sanctum (otherwise we'd dilute the significance of their medal, wouldn't we?). And so, consolation would be, "do I really want to be 'promoted' into a group of people who would bicker so about things which are obviously past-tense and insignificant relative to the present-day reality?"
 * For me, the jury's still out on that one. Sorry to rant. I see no reason not to continue to support you. I bump into you fairly frequently on my watch list (we have a lot of common interests, I suppose), and I've never seen you do anything that would raise my ire as some of the other editors do. Good luck next time, hopefully people will grow out of this phase. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cliches?
No, just one :) Thanks. ( Radiant ) 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "I thought he already was one" is of course the best reason to support a candidate. ( Radiant ) 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

From Xoloz' talk page...
I've been mostly out for the past few months, but I think I remember an arbcom decision that ED was to not have an article here. Xoloz might have the link to it since he's been active. I believe the points you brought up are the same points that were brought up during the 2? 3? 205324322? DRVs of ED, but despite that the arbcom has ordered it salted I believe because of the attack nature of the site.

So yes, trying to recreate it against an arbcom ban would likely make you the target of Pot Potshots. ;)

Feel free to disregard anything in this message. I wouldn't have popped into the conversation except I don't know if Xoloz is out sick or whatever from what you wrote. Syrthiss 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have no idea what the history is, which is why I asked. I'd be very saddened if somebody were upset with me for asking. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 22:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

rfa
Could you please elaborate when you call me, "Belligerent" on my recent RFA? I am slighltey confused as to what behavior you are referring to. I am always for making myself a better person and if there is particular behavior that I need to work on, I would kindly accept the criticism and use it to improve myself! Thanks, Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your lengthy discussion of your involvement with blocking/reverting, as well as your interrogating users who voiced dissent. As I said on your talk page. I even listed things to do to improve yourself on your RFA. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Re, your comments on the same RfA about the nominator. You know, yours is only the second complaint about my comment and yet the one person who would have been offended by the alleged incivility has yet to comment directly. Perhaps he took the comment for what it was – a blunt comment made within ten minutes of the RfA opening, in the heat of the moment, so to speak. And don't worry, I won't be nominating anybody else, although it certainly hasn't got anything to do with your comments. Bubba hotep 22:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How many?
You said in Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo 3 that you did not believe Wikiwoohoo had enough edits. Just wondering how many you would view to be enough. Sharkface217 03:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's tough to put an explicit answer on this, as it varies from user to user. This is partially because some users focus on one thing and others focus on another. For example, CSCWEM spends a lot of time reverting vandalism and talking to vandals (warnings or otherwise). I personally opposed his nomination because he didn't have enough edits to the main space. He did, however, have 4500 edits (approximately) at the time of his first nomination. Is that clear? It's hard to define the exact number, but I know it when I see it. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 03:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, upon re-reading that, I should have said "additive edits" to the main space. Sorry for any disclarity. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 07:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, which type of edits did you feel I was lacking on? Wikiwoohoo 21:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Vandal-fighting wise, he must be doing something right. I make no comment as to other aspects of his behaviour here. That's why I'm neutral. riana_dzasta 03:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. Maybe the user is running around starting arguments with people. I can hardly believe anyone would condone a user around whom conflict follows. Wouldn't it be better if he was actually doing cleanup without getting his userpage vandalized? Why does nobody think that is possible? Why on earth would we encourage people to engage in conflict? I'm completely baffled at this attitude. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 03:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't encourage it. I dislike the mindset of regarding conflict as a sort of badge of honour. And I manage to do cleanup work, RCP, NPP and a lot of other things without getting into disagreements with editors, or having my page touched up too much. My comment was simply a way of introducing a speck of positivity into my vote. I try to only vote oppose when I can see that the candidate is going to significantly harm the encyclopedia with the tools, or is otherwise obviously, laughably inappropriate for adminship. I see no reason to discourage a potentially good editor, and many RfA candidates settle down and do good work once they realise their fun and games isn't being appreciated. I feel Llama Man could be a good editor if he knuckled down, and I see no reason to discourage him with a strongly worded, incivil oppose comment.
 * I totally understand if you can't relate to the 'slay vandal, win vote' type of candidate - you're a different style of editor, and the type we need a lot more of. There are definitely some children playing laser tag with RCP, and this is the sort of editor who finds conflict rewarding. I don't like it. Hence the neutral.
 * Apologies if my comment seems terse, I'm feeling a little spiky today. riana_dzasta 07:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Terse is not a problem. You may notice the link on my userpage to an "eliminating wordiness" article I read in college. I am glad that you explained your point of view here (and not just because you seem to understand my position). I seem to run into people who think the biggest problem Wikipedia faces is vandalism &mdash; a lot. From what you've said, it sounds like we mostly agree. However, I think what you said was a little misleading. That having been said, I can understand your not wanting to be negative in the discussion. I had a pretty ambivalent stance towards admins throughout my time here, up until about Jan of 06. You most likely remember the userbox and subsequent debacles (yes, plural). We've just had so many problems with these "rouge" admins that I really want to prevent more of it happening. It's my hope that people will start to apply who don't want to collect a posse and lynch people, but rather people who need the tools to do simple gruntwork, like moving or deleting pages (and I don't mean userboxes, I mean more db-owner type stuff). Oh well. I suppose what I'm asking for is a sea change, and those don't happen quickly or frequently. Thanks again for being candid with me, and don't hesitate to do so in the future. I try to be understanding and polite (most of the time, we all have our breaking points). alex (... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 07:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC))
 * I'm relieved you took it the way I meant it, I've never written so much without adding a single smiley... riana_dzasta 08:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

re:two comments
Ah, I wondered if it would be difficult to read when I made it, I could read it ok so I kept it, however I hadn't thought of people who might be using darker screens or something, I will changed the font to make it easier to read. Per your second comment, I assume you are refering to the use of the images as votes in RfA's. Whenever somebody visits that page, the server must send a copy of the page to their computer, which isn't much info for just text, but images take up a lot more. A page of text may take up 15 KB but an image the size of a webpage would be more of the order of 2 MB. The servers get a lot of traffic, especially with tasks such as edit counters (which require the server to go through every edit a user has made) and bots (which can work much faster than people requesting many pages in a short time). Images tie up the servers because they require a longer download time than just text, and when you add 4 images (support, oppose and neutral) to every RfA it will mean that more is downloaded for each page, rather than about 30 KB (the average size of an RfA) the RfA will now be 51KB (30KB of text + 1KB support + 2KB oppose + 3KB neutral + 15KB comment), almost double. Which may not seem like a lot, but it all adds up. The tool-server lag is currently 175 days and 15 hours because of things like edit counters (which is why they are blocked so often). I opposed the idea because I don't think it will actually help the process of RfA. Sure it would look better, but it's not neccessary and wikimedia servers aren't free (whereas the services they provide are) and it means more would be needed sooner bought purely with donations. James086Talk 09:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The server will send each individual image once (I think you meant once instead of twice), each time the page is requested, which is why I came to the conclusion of 51KB instead of (30x100) about 3MB for a very successful RfA. James086Talk 09:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey
No, I didn't take the picture. Lovely building it certainly is, which is probably why I spend rather a lot of time there. Apart from all the great singing.

What a weird dialogue. What exactly was the background? Moreschi 10:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

expediting wikipedia processes
I appreciate your questions on my RfA and I also appreciate commenting on my talk page as opposed to there. I can definitely understand what you're trying to say. No one likes to see admins running the show and deciding things on a whim. However, that's what the time period is for. There is supposed to be a discussion for 7 days on SFD, so you have during that time to voice your opinion. I would say that is plenty of time to voice your opinion. It's just like voting in the US. If you can't get to the polls on that one day, then you can't vote (well, with exceptions of absentee ballots, etc, but that's another story). Once the 7 day period is over, there's no more discussion. Although, we are attempting to tweak the wording so that it is clear that if the discussion is ongoing or if consensus isn't clear, we will leave the discussion open until consensus can be reached. I am fine with leaving discussions open if I feel that the extra time would benefit the discussion. On most counts, however, the consensus is pretty clear and it should be dealt with. I hope I was able to clarify my position a bit more, and feel free to continue to ask more questions if needed. Thanks for putting the time and effort to read and respond to my RfA. Have a great day and happy editing! <b style="color:maroon;">~ Amalas</b> rawr  <sup style="color:navy;">=^_^=  14:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your input on my RfA. I understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's greatest strength also happens to be its greatest weakness. While there are many people who are making great contributions to Wikipedia, there are also many people who wish to tear it down. It is unfortunate that this occurs and I really wish that I did not have to do all the vandalism reverts that I do. One of these days perhaps that will happen. We can only hope. -- Gogo Dodo 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA Responses
Hello,

I'd just like to let you know that you've received comments to two oppose nominations, each in different RfA's, in case you hadn't seen them and would like to reply. The RfA's in question are here and here. —Lantoka ( talk 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I rather resent your insisting I respond to this now. As you may have noticed from the RFA, it closes on the eighth. Between now and then, I have real-person things to do. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 08:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon looking at the other one you gave me, I noticed that it ends on December 9th. I will not be pressured into answering questions about an RFA from somebody who is not the subject nor sponsor of said RFA. And furthermore, I am entirely capable of watching my own watchlist and contributions to see if those I have voted on have been updated. You have no reason to assume I wouldn't. I request that you not do this again. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 08:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * initial vote
 * follow-up
 * Delta: ~ 2 and 1/3 days.
 * initial vote
 * follow-up
 * Delta ~ 2 and 1/3 days.

In addition to that, I have  explicitly stated  that I have "light to no time" to work on the wiki. You have every reason to assume that I'm a little backlogged, but no reason (as the edits come trickling in, even as I write) to believe I wouldn't be back in five days. In fact, I would bet in the last year, I haven't been gone five consecutive days. I will restate this: I am very irritated that you see fit to push me into editing something that's important to you, when I have other priorities. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 08:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Geez, worst reaction ever. I'm sorry I even talked to you. Just thought you might have missed those comments; not everybody checks up on RfA's they voted in. —Lantoka ( talk 08:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. What makes you think those were important to me, or that I even wanted you to respond? I did this as a courtesy to you. One of the comments wasn't even mine. I am livid; you have been terribly insulting to me with no just cause. I suggest we just avoid each other in the future; obviously we won't be getting along. —Lantoka ( talk 09:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for userpage praise
Hi there, thanks for the praise of my userpage design. I wish I could claim absolute credit for it, but as it states at the top of the page, Sango123 did the initial design, and I've been modifying it ever since. I removed the userboxes yesterday, when it used to look like this. I'm glad you like the colours. I've always liked the colour purple. Thanks again! -- Kyok o  15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Alex
Hello dear ,i am fine n thanx for ur message,yeah i want to help and i have lots of question to ask,but i was afraid to get answer but thanx u ping me. i want to uploded picture ,many i will go and visit some area to get those picture which are listed here and i will start some new topic ,but i do not know to do all this? i mean i am not exploreing much here beacuse i am already working and studing same time and trying to look other job and differet so it takes my time,but i want to help that's why i am here,but i know i can find those picture here on web which are need by wikipedian then why not to upload those picture here rather then going myself and collecting it(i am afraid even i go myself and collect picture ,some how if some gets better picture on web then mine he will change it ,my work will be no use to wiki for that purpose i though to look 1st on web then i look my friends collection of picture then go by self to get those picture? what do you suggest?). 2nd thing how can i copyright stuff on images?how can i know those sites are copyright or not from which i am collection images?

regards with love User=khalidkhoso

The GAU-12
The image looks great Alex. The article really needed one. Cheers. -- xompanthy 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the advice man, but lol, I'm a computer engineer, so I DO know how to use google. :) It was still nice of you to try and help by giving advice. I didn't look for the image myself, 'cause frankly it didn't cross my mind at the time. And I as a rule don't mess with articles whose topic I'm not very familiar with (except typos and such). -- xompanthy 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I completely agree with you, images are important. But like you said, copyright is the big problem. Or worse, images for the article are practically nonexistent. For instance, when I was writing the Supersampling article, I couldn't find any that were appropriate AND had the right copyright. So I ended up making my own. And this leads us to my next point: computer graphics (and strangley, computing in general) articles are absurdly few and far between. I could not BELIEVE there wasn't one on SS already. And that's not something small. Also, check the UVW Map article. That's barely a stub. And these are topics that are CORE to CG. So in my spare time (and there's not much of that) I try to either expand related articles or create new ones.


 * But wikipedia has for instance articles for all those ships. :) I could be wrong, but I honestly can't see someone typing USS Takanis Bay into the search bar. Those people exist, of course. But imagine if you can how many people type Weight map, IT Consolidation or for God's sake, basic things like Internet topology.


 * See, those articles are missing, but all those ships are here. There's something wrong with that... So pictures are the least of our problems.


 * DISCLAIMER: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the ship articles are pointless or no one needs them. I'm just saying there are far more basic articles missing.


 * /end rant


 * -- xompanthy 00:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well... you're 100% right in all you said. What you said about wikipedia becoming a tabloid, I was just thinking about that a few days ago. And people not caring? That's just a sad fact. I see articles that are completely POV, yet no one wants to intervene. My best example is the article on Nikola Tesla. Now you have to understand the background here... Nikola Tesla's nationality is a hotly disputed topic between Croatians and Serbs. His father was Croatian, his mother was Serbian, and he was born in Croatia. One of his most famous quotes is "Ponosim se srpskom majkom i hrvatskom domovinom." (trns. I am proud of my serbian mother and my croatian homeland). During his entire life, he directly considered himself Croatian, and said so when asked about his nationality. No document exists in which he says he is Serbian, yet hundreds exist (his letter, interviews etc) in which he always says he is Croatian, making no mention of Serbia (except that quote). He is considered one of Croatia's greatest scientist. Children learn about him in elementary school.


 * Yet, the article states he is a Serbo-American. The first time I saw this, I couldn't believe it. Personally, I think it should state he is Croatian (and that there's no doubt about it), but since I'm biased, and it is still a disputed fact, I changed the article to say "he's nationality is disputed amongst Croatians and Serbs". Of course, I cited a site that stated exactly that.


 * Now, that cited fact got reverted very quickly. A dispute grew quickly on the talk page. And just as I was about to continue the debate, an older friend of mine I was visiting (longtime editor of wikipedia), told me "there's no point". That there were countless efforts by numerous editors before to change that article, that were A LOT better cited than my attempt, and they all failed. Why? There are about 50 serbian editors watching that page like hawks. It seems croatian wikipedians avoid the article like the plague. So I said "screw it", and went on my way.


 * And let's not forget, I didn't say he WAS croatian, I just said it was DISPUTED, and no one can deny that's true, be there reason for the dispute or not.


 * Thats just one small example. I'm sure you know a lot more. And this is why people stopped caring about NPOV for instance. No one needs an exercise in futility. And so the downward spiral into POV, pointless drivel and nonsense continues. Most good editors just give up eventually... -- xompanthy 15:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I forgot, in the future, feel free to leave any and all potential cynicism directly on my talk page. I don't mind. And if you would like for me to leave MY cyncisim of YOUR talk page, feel free to ask. :) -- xompanthy 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. I'm honestly amazed. I never knew that existed. And neither did you, and you have been here a lot longer than I have. That probably says that that project falls under itself. :)
 * But it's good SOMEONE noticed that wikipedia has a bias. I might even contribute to the project... yeah, I think I will. Thanks for the heads up. -- xompanthy 00:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)