User talk:(aeropagitica)/Archive 26

Image
Hi there, I've done something different. :) I uploaded CU_AF_Insignia1961.svg to Commons as requested on WP:GL. Could you check it real quick to see if I did it right? Not a lot to mess up I suppose, but I'm paranoid. Thank you!

Oh yes, if the abuse report gets rejected I'll be sure to tag the link spammer under my long term goals. :) Is it acceptable to give out the blatant vandal warning as a first or second warning? ≈ Krasniy t/c 02:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the image looks fine - you've released it for all the world to use and that's quite clearly stated. I can't see that it would be deleted for copyright reasons, so I reckon that this image is a very good first effort, well done!


 * I would say that tagging someone as a blatant vandal all depends upon the circumstances under which you encounter them. There is a long history of someone tagging this article with the inappropriate external link, so you can point to that as a demonstration of determined efforts on the part of the vandal.  It would be on the balance of probability that a new IP editor on the article adding the same link would be the same person.  You can use that evidence to point towards the justification for issuing a blatant vandal warning.  More information on checking IP editors' point of origin on the network is available at Help:CheckUser.  It's fascinating! Regards, (aeropagitica) 11:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hunter Killer (StarCraft)
Hi, could you delete said article and move Hunter killer (starcraft unit) there to take its place? That would be much appreciated. Thanks!  Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it. 21:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, with page histories merged. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Support and/or Clarification
I could use some help either through clarification or support. I having what is essentially turning into an editing war with two anti-spammers at the Darren Hayes article. The issue is what constitutes as an acceptable source. I listed my explanation at the Darren Hayes article discussion page as well as the its edit history. I've since pleaded my case at User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon (see Good Faith Explanation - I wrongly accused him of reverting my edits in bad faith) and Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/January_2007/SERSeanCrane. I know this is a lot to ask but I trust you'll be able look through this stuff and give me a NPOV on my actions. SERSeanCrane 04:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will look through the links you have provided above today. Just for information, definitions of reliable sources are available from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. (aeropagitica) 07:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Myspace SERSeanCrane 07:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I have read through the comments at User_talk:Eagle_101 and User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon and I agree with the points that these editors raise. Myspace is  about promotion of artistes over-and-above communication of their artistic endeavours.  Linking to Darren Hayes' Myspace site is an endorsement of his interpretation of his career, which can be biased in his favour as he is the primary author, unlike a neutral third party reliable source.  I would also say that characterising Eagle101 and Wizardry Dragon as 'anti-spammers' is a touch unfair, as they have good reasons for their decisions - that's just my opinion, though.  Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

An idea
Hey (aeropagitica) I had an idea I think we should get rid the users that don't have accounts you know ip usrs. Because I was looking at the Recent changes page and it looked like most of the ip users are vandals. So if we get rid of them we will have less vandals do you think thats a good idea? --Pediaguy16 18:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it that this is a joke, yes? If you block all anonymous IP editors, how would anyone ever be able to even read the articles, let alone edit them - or even sign up for a user account? Plenty of vandals sign up for user accounts that they can then abandon when blocked, so this approach solves nothing. This is the encyclopedia that "... anyone can edit", as it says on the front page. Put some more thought in to your comments before you make them - this appears to be a troll and a few of those could have you blocked if your correspondents decide to interpret them in a negative light. (aeropagitica) 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No thats not what I mean. You know how the other wikis have it so you can't edit under an ip so you have to make an account to edit thats what I mean not ban the ip users.--Pediaguy16 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
Hello. Just wanted to say thanks for noticing and reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Looks like you also blocked the editor, so thanks for that too. --Onorem 16:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, happy to help. (aeropagitica) 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Response To MySpace
You Said: ''OK, I have read through the comments at User_talk:Eagle_101#Apology and User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon#Explanation_of_Good_Faith_Warning and I agree with the points that these editors raise. Myspace is about promotion of artistes over-and-above communication of their artistic endeavours. Linking to Darren Hayes' Myspace site is an endorsement of his interpretation of his career, which can be biased in his favour as he is the primary author, unlike a neutral third party reliable source. I would also say that characterising Eagle101 and Wizardry Dragon as 'anti-spammers' is a touch unfair, as they have good reasons for their decisions - that's just my opinion, though. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)''

I Think: Your reasoning is fine. However, what irks me about this whole debate is that I was using such a reference to affirm that the "artist uses MySpace as a medium to communicate with his fans." Now, the obvious question here is if this information is encyclopedic...probably not but it's currently posted in a Trivia section, so I see no harm in it. Thoughts? SERSeanCrane 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Subpages
How do you add a subpage to your user page? --Umalee 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! The instructions can be found at WP:USERPAGE. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the vandalism revert on my userpage. Appreciate it! - Alison✍ 18:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and thanks for the block, too :) - Alison✍ 18:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, happy to help! (aeropagitica) 18:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Breaks
How can I put something up on my userpage that says I'm taking a short break from editing but will respond to any messages I get? Sorry for asking so many questions. --Umalee 02:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello! You don't need to apologise for asking questions, that's one of the reasons why I am here - to help you!  To place a notice that you are on a Wikibreak on to your Userpage, you need to create/copy a template notice like mine - User:(aeropagitica)/wikibreak] .   You can then fill in the blanks with the to/from dates and a reason, if you want to give one. Regards, (aeropagitica) 17:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newbie
Hi there Aeropagitica, I am new to creating/amending articles on wikipedia, so if you have any tips for me please do not hesitate to point me in the right direction. My specialist are is top fashion models/designers/photographers. I think this whole subject area requires exanding/updating. Can you please tell me what "Reverted edits by Lxhughes (talk) to last version by 88.109.75.164 for Kristen McMenamy" means? Many thanks, Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lxhughes (talk • contribs)


 * Hello! I have placed a welcome message with lots of advice on  your Talk page, as you are new here.  I reverted your edits to that page because it was an unusual place to start an article.  You can read Help:Starting a new page and the other pages associated with 'the path to a featured article' for guidance on creating and expanding articles.  You can also request to be adopted, so than an experienced user can offer you guidance.  Also, don't forget to sign your edits to user pages with four tildes, ~ .  This helps to see who has done what and to get to their Talk page easily, rather than look at the edit history of said page. Regards, (aeropagitica) 17:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on getting started. I was wondering what will happen to my new "Kristen McMenamy" entry? Does this have to be approved by an administrator? How do I access the "edit" again? regards, Lxhughes 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll dig it out and put it on a user sub-page for you to edit. It doesn't have to be pre-approved by an administrator, biographies have to be notable according to WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 22:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Lxhughes/sandbox - this is your new sandbox. You can edit articles here without interference before you publish them. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFC
Just FYI, it's commonplace for us to get submissions from registered users. Even though they're not doing it right, we usually just treat them like any other submissions. Patstuarttalk 23:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the heads up! (aeropagitica) 00:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –m y s i d ☎ 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

question about creating an article
I have a quick question about creating an article about a company. I have noticed that companies have their own pages about their company. What is your policy for creating pages about a company? Take Hp for instance, their website is all about their company, from how it got started to where it began. I am the webmaster for a company called Pile Dynamics, Inc. and we would like to insert a page about our site, however I do not want it to be considered spamming. I had previously added links to our website where we had additional information, and I have come to the understanding that doing so is considered spamming. I do not wish to spam your site so I would like to get the policy clear and from reading what you have posted I am not sure that I understand whether creating a site for my company would be considered spamming. Please give me your input on this subject Thank you so much for your time, Pdigrl 14:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Notable companies are defined as such using the criteria at WP:CORP. Regards, (aeropagitica) 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User Page
Can you please tell me what you're going to do to my user page before you actually do it? I want to try to learn to do it myself. Thanks, Umalee 14:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Errr, this was the only edit that I made to your userpage, nothing technical at all! Is there something that you would like to happen to your userpage that you would also like me to illustrate on a point-by-point basis?  Let me know if there is and I will be more-than-happy to oblige!  Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub Templates

 * 1) How do you designate an article a stub?
 * 2) And how do you get the infoboxes that says "this article is part of {insert article group name here} and has such-and-such rating and such-and-such importance)"--Umalee 15:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I have another question. How do you make it so the stub refers only to a certain section instead of the whole article? --Umalee 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:Stub gives all of the information about stubs that you should require. An article is a stub if it is:
 * "...is too short to provide encyclopaedic coverage of the subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information."
 * A stub is a short article with the potential for expansion, rather than a limited definition of the article title. This is because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and definitions can be Transwikied to Wiktionary or another appropriate Wiki project.
 * 1) Infoboxes
 * Politics of the United States is an article that I have found with an infobox side menu, which I assume is similar to what you are referring to? I haven't found one with a rating and importance tag on it, can you provide an example, please?  The infobox on Politics page is a Template, similar to the Wikibreak template that we discussed earlier.  You can find it at Template:Politics of the United States.  I think in this case the template was created to group the articles together for the Politics portal project, as it makes it easier for researchers and editors to locate articles related by similar themes and concepts.
 * 1) A stub does refer to the entire article at the time of its initial creation. If  you want to expand a particular section of an article then the expand tag makes this clear to other editors.  Update: you can also use the sectstub tag to indicate that a section requires expansion too.

Finally, I am very sorry about not sending this reply to you earlier! I was interrupted in the middle of typing and I thought that I had sent it to you. My sincere apologies and I hope that I have no inconvenienced you with my tardy response. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the infobox, I was talking about the one on the talk page, not one on the article page. Other than that, I think you answered my questions. Thanks, and don't worry about the delay.--Umalee 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Pereira
No problem... it took me a while to figure out what was going on, since I don't even know who Kevin Pereira is, so I accidentally deleted the article at first thinking it was a nn bio, before restoring from like 200 edits back! It's fully protected now because it looks like people were using some sleeper accounts to vandalize too. --Delirium 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've not heard of him either. Looks like he was mentioned on a television programme somewhere in the world and the vandals descended.  Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Going straight dvd.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Going straight dvd.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fayyad al Arba
Hi there; you probably know this, but I felt the urge to point it out. Tell me to go away if you want. This guy has now added the same article, margionally changed, three times. How long can he be allowed to go on doing this?--Anthony.bradbury 21:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing as it is nothing more than a personal attack/vandalism, I warned twice and blocked on the third attempt to insert the material in to the main space. If he tries again after the block expires then it may be a case of indef-blocking as a vandal-only account, something that I also considered. (aeropagitica) 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Not trying to tell you how to do your job; while I tagged all of these edits, you were so quick off the mark that I was not able to locate the nqme of the author, and so could not take note of his block!--Anthony.bradbury 21:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all - I didn't interpret your comments in such a way. I am just on the newbie's contributions special page patrol.  It looks like I was refreshing the page just at the right moment.  I'll stop it for now and let you carry on.


 * I am sorry to read about your wife on your userpage. You have my sympathies in this difficult time. Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 21:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Content Contribution
Hi aeropagitica,

My page Steven Forsyth has been marked as speedy deletion. However, in your guidelines you state:

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries.

My biography states the articles I have written and where they have been published. It also links to free information site which I write and publish. Is this not suffice for your criteria? I'm new to this but feel I have a lot of information I can contribute on both Localization and SEO. Please advise.--Dasav 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
It's been a while since I've had questions, how've you been? Hope is well in your neck of the woods. Things are just fine on this end. I've found a project to jump into, Project Baseball / Project Baseball-Players, and I've been keeping my pet-project "clean" - Earl Mindell.

In joining these projects, I recently started an article on a player that did not have one, Adam Bostick. There are a few other players I have interest in doing this for, and my question has to do with uploading pictures. As you can see, I've supplied reasoning for fair use rationale but I was hoping you could elaborate on the process of determining if such rationale is proper. Any advice you can offer in this realm would be much appreciated, thanks! SERSeanCrane 16:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello there! This is a tricky one, with each side having merit in this debate.  The rationale for Wikipedia is that the project cannot infringe copyright, which is outlined in Wikipedia:Image_use_policy.  The guidance at Wikipedia:Fair_use suggests that publicity photos - as your example appears to be - may be used for identification of the subject, with the corollary that the publicity photo could potentially be used for a limited time until a photo of the subject is taken and uploaded under the GFDL licence.  This is always going to be an equivocal point on the project as actions taken with the best intentions don't allow for leniency in the eyes of the copyright holders if they choose to enforce their legal rights to their images.  If you have searched high and low and asked for a photo taken by an amateur/fan that could be released under the GFDL licence and come up with nothing other than the uploaded image then that may be the best argument that you have.  If it is deleted then it is with the best interests of the project at heart. Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How does the commons work? I uploaded pictures (which I've taken myself) to the commons and I'd like to use them in place of the copies I currently have on wikipedia. How do I link to the ones in there? Do I need to? SERSeanCrane 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikicommons is a media repository that can be accessed by the other Wikis in the Wikimedia Foundation Project. The advantage of uploading an image there is that it is a single upload for multiple accesses. If the image was uploaded to Wikipedia, it would then have to be uploaded to each additional WikiMedia Project for use on their pages.  This places an unnecessary burden on the servers which use of the Wikicommons project attempts to resolve.  Linking to an image on Wikicommons is simple, it is done in the same way that you would link to an image on the Wikipedia servers.  The format [[Image:200508-DSCN0310.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Congratulations]] shows that no special pathway to Wikicommons is required to be made.  The Wikipedia servers can locate the image in Wikicommons automagically.  Regards, (aeropagitica) 05:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Red links
Hello, I was wondering what are and/or where I can find the guidelines for linking terms to pages that don't yet exist. I presume there is some room for things that should have articles but don't yet. Thanks ≈ Krasniy t/c 23:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello! I would have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery, Wikipedia:Red link and Wikipedia:Requested articles for starters. Let me know if you have follow-up questions after looking through these - I think they are relevant to your question but I could be wrong! Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those were relevant and answered my question perfectly, especially the second one. Thank you :) ≈ Krasniy t/c 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of service! (aeropagitica) 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are seriously fast
...everytime I go to speedy, you've beat me to a delete! You rock. Philippe Beaudette 06:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooh, thank you! I like to keep pratice with new page/ newbie's contributions patrolling.  I notice that you have warned quite a few editors whose pages I have subsequently deleted.  That's good work and something that I don't usually see.  You keep up the good work too!  This is my early morning patrol before work, so other admins will have to take over the deletion process now until I start the afternoon shift.  Regards and good editing, (aeropagitica) 06:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Test1article (first level warning)
Please see my talk page for response. Thank you. Peace. --Parker007 06:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing a website
Hello! In working on the rewriting of the Malamute page, I am using more than one page of a single website. Should I have separate citations for each page I use, or use one citation for the website itself? I hope that makes sense. :c) ≈ Krasniy t/c 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would say that if you are citing references to a large website then you don't just want to send a researcher to the top level and leave them to dig through the content, performing the same research that you did to get the reference in the first place. I would cite each page if required.  Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

if you look at the Gorilla page, you'll see he relogged in, and redid the edits. As his actual point, not his point, was at least worth discussion, I'm going to let the edit stand under AGF, but I felt it right to make you aware of his avoidance of the block. If you feel that because of his behaviors, the edit should be reverted, I understand and will not revert that. I felt that in the interest of not escalating, letting the edit stand till the section can be properly reworked was a reasonable compromise for now, and I will make a new section later tonight. ThuranX 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. If you feel that the situation can be managed in this way then I will leave it with you, as I am going off-shift now.  Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks for the timely response, and he seems to be calm now. Enjoy your Real World Time. ThuranX 00:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)