User talk:...adam.../Archive Apr 2007

Welcoming
Hello new user and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:


 * Peruse Welcome, newcomers and associated pages
 * Sign talk page entries with ~, which is automatically converted to a name and date
 * Ask questions on Village pump
 * Have fun.


 * ...everyone gets a standard welcome blurb. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  17:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:CUNT.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CUNT.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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bar Product PDF
I found the guy's website (apparently he moved to another university), but I don't see the notes that I referenced there. In any event, I still have them. I can email them to you if you like. Jpkotta 01:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm always right
...and I can't be seen associating with common vandals such as yourself. ed g2s &bull; talk 18:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI
You can link to images by adding an extra colon Image:like this.jpg -> Image:like this.jpg. ed g2s &bull; talk 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Trouble
Speaking of trouble, we crashed a conference party and Ben managed to start a fight over pool with some Fellow's brother. Ray was going mental, silly little man. Also, "I'm slightly less knew"? ed g2s &bull; talk 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonimity
Come September some smart-arse pupil's going to be trawling through your contributions... ed g2s &bull; talk 14:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends if you're bothered - but once the search bots get a hold of it it'll start moving up Google search results for your name. ed g2s &bull; talk 14:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Deal with it. ed g2s &bull; talk 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything but write my dissertation. ed g2s &bull; talk 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * DIV is you general purpose block (SPAN is the general purpose inline block). The style attribute is for sticking in CSS. Proper webdesign would have you do &lt;div class="adamsPage"> and stick all that junk in a stylesheet file under .adamsPage{}. The Wikipedia software strips out a few things, such as the background-image property (style="background:url('image.jpg')") as this would let people drop in files from other sites. My userpage puts in an image, the puts some content underneath it with a negative top margin, moving the box over the image.

margin-top: -101px; font-weight: bold; Acutally, my page uses relative positioning, but there are many ways to skin this cat.

The fun part is tweaking it to work in IE, Firefox, Opera, Konquerer.. which all have a different interpretation of the CSS2 standard. ed g2s &bull; talk 19:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot doesn't exist yet, but then just because the page isn't on the list, doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the list. The use on reserve team pages hasn't really been discussed. User pages, league pages, player pages etc. where it's used as an icon are the problem ones really. You haven't done anything wrong though, there should be a rationale for each use. ed g2s &bull; talk 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith?
Perhaps you were just in a hurry going through recent changes, but you issued a warning to 189.182.23.243 for vandalizing Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, despite the fact that his edit appeared to have good intentions. Please review his edit, and insure that you wish to keep the vandalism warning posted on his page, and always remember to assume good faith. Ninja! 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is some in joke with harry potter that I'm just not getting, but this edit

Does not seem like vandalism. If in fact, this is just some harry potter thing I'm not getting, and it is non-factual information, I apoligize.

Yes, if they are infact adding nonsense, then a warning is in order. Personally I would have used subst:error2 for deliberate factual errors, but uw-vandalism2 works OK too.Ninja! 00:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a list of warning templates that can be found here: Template messages/User talk namespace Ninja! 00:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And the error2 template is just uw-error2 Ninja! 00:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I can only do a short block initially, which I have, but I will watch him/her.--Anthony.bradbury 00:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I knew what you meant. Really, you cannot do anything else yourself at this time, but we all watch WP:AIV, and a user posted there, if they have vandalised after their fourth warning, will be dealt with very promptly. In the longer term, of course, you amass about 3,000 edits, evenly spread in mainspace, wikispace, projectspace and talk, and apply for adminship. You can do more then.--Anthony.bradbury 00:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: aiming for adminship, it is also a good idea to keep out of big fights. Most votes against on a request for adminship are from users holding a grudge. ed g2s &bull; talk 16:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that you are now challenging my every contribution, you seem to know something about grudges. Yakuman (数え役満) 23:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Melvyn Bragg
In the interest of good faith, I've removed the vandalism warning here, as i now believe adam was acting with good faith according to his reading of policy. I am unsure if one is allowed to revert such warnings. If I have acted improperly here, feel free to revert. Yakuman (数え役満) 03:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, ignore the above warning. See my comments on his talk page. It may help to point to specific policy in your edit summary (see mine), but most users don't react like this, nor should they. ed g2s &bull; talk 16:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed: it's Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. ed g2s &bull; talk 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

LOEs
Yes, but too many people think not to make it worth the hassle at the moment. Eventually the policy will be clearer. ed g2s &bull; talk 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

LOEs
I'd urge you to read Fair use/Fair use images in lists, Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 and Wikipedia talk:Fair use (and lots of other discussions.. all over the place). I'd advise you not to remove screen captures which are perfectly valid as per the FUC with consensus in agreement without an explicit consensus to do so. It's disruption. Matthew 22:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying you're not allowed an opinion - but the consensus does not agree with you, and thus you should not attempt in removal of these images against the consensus of the community; it can be construed as malice. I understand you'd side with your friend, but please: discuss, don't edit war. At the end of the day it'll work better for all of us without getting hot-headed, cheers. Matthew 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you've misunderstood me. I was not saying anybody was getting hot head or revert warring I was trying to say we should not edit war/get hot headed, because it is better. Policies and guidelines states: "While we strive to build consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and its governance can be inconsistent. Hence there is disagreement between those who believe rules should be explicitly stated and those who feel that written rules are inherently inadequate to cover every possible variation of problematic or disruptive behavior. In either case, a user who acts against the spirit of our written policies may be reprimanded, even if technically no rule has been violated." -- in this case consensus is not overriding policy, it is the opinion of a minority of users that usage of images within LOEs violates policy, the consensus disagrees however. Matthew 23:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(bad?) Vandalism Warning
Hi I'm not sure how WP:TW works... but I think it might have malfunctioned when you gave User talk:Nateiscool his 3rd warning here. If you notice you used the 1st vandalism warning when he has already been warned twice beforehand... so shouldn't he have been given the 3rd level warning? Just checking. 21:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, just wanted to make sure it wasn't malfunctioning and wanted to point it out otherwise. MrMacMan  Talk  21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

BookShorts
Despite the conflict of interest there, the version of BookShorts currently there isn't a G11 candidate because it's not as blatant an ad as the previous one. Try AFD. --Core desat  01:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't notice that it was an A7, but yeah, db-corp would've been better. Either way, it's been deleted, so it's not a big deal. --Core desat  22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Userpage Vandalism
Just to let you know that I reverted some vandalism on your userpage. Sorry if you'd rather I hadn't. ...adam... (talk • contributions) 00:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I appreciate it! :) Literacola 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Boosh.jpg
The surest way would be to have the author/copyright holder e-mail the Wikimedia foundation (permissions-en[at]wikimedia[dot]org), confirming that and under what license (such as GFDL, or Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike) he intends to release it (or that he releases it into public domain for unrestricted use). For a list of available licenses, see Image copyright tags.

By the way, the image has been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Click on "description page there" to go to Commons, and then correct the link and provide its copyright status. Regards, Mike Rosoft 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just discovered what the problem was and corrected it; however, the Flickr user states that he retains copyright to the image ("© All rights reserved"); unless he releases it under a free license (permission for Wikipedia only, for non-commercial use, or one that prohibits derivative works is not sufficient), it'll have to be deleted. - Mike Rosoft 16:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem official enough; "I hereby release image such-and-such which I have made into public domain" should probably do the trick. - Mike Rosoft 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Autoboosh.the.list.cover.jpg
It seems that both conditions should be met; see our fair use policies and guidelines. - Mike Rosoft 16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, it probably shouldn't be used in the article, unless the magazine is discussed and particularly relevant there. - Mike Rosoft 16:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Flikr Permission
Hey, I asked the person who owns this if he would release the copyright to it and he agreed, but I don't know how to do that so could you tell me? The guy has said that he's happy to do whatever he needs to to release the copyright. Cheers mate. ...adam... ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Flickr page seem to have vanished. Flickr has options to release images under Creative Commons licenses. He'd have to choose cc-by or cc-by-sa (if he uses nc (non-commercial) and/or nd (non-derivs) we can't use it). Any evidence of him saying he wants the images available under some specific free license will do, but emailing permissions at wikimedia is the best way. Also make sure it is a DVD screencap... ed g2s &bull; talk 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Flickr page is alive and well; the problem was with the description template ("photographer_login" serves for the user's code; "photographer" for his name or nickname). If he intends to release it for unrestricted third-party use, it should be marked with . - Mike Rosoft 16:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha! PD-release is different on Commons and here; on Commons, it redirects to PD-self. The correct tag was PD-author - fixed now. - Mike Rosoft 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also all of these: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=boosh&l=commderiv are ours for the taking (provided they are not photos of posters/TVs/screencaps). If you stick &l=commderiv in a flickr search you get stuff that we can use. ed g2s &bull; talk 16:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Or install this: http://edcam.dnsalias.com/flickr.html. ed g2s &bull; talk 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

en:Some page on en as opposed to Some page which creates an "interwiki" link in the left menu to represent that page's equivalent page on en.

Looking at the collection of the pictures, they are from multiple angles, professional quality, are all widescreen and low resolution. Almost certain still frames from the DVD. This guy does not own the copyright, so has no control over their use or license. ed g2s &bull; talk 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To distinguish between a Some page (on Commons) and Some Page (on en.wiki). You have to pipe the link if you don't want the en: to show, bit annoying... ed g2s &bull; talk 18:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak
In javascript (and most languages) // means single-line comment, so
 * var month = 2 // 4

set month to 2, 4. You may want to fix your wikibreak accordingly. ed g2s &bull; talk 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, ...adam...! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Davesmith33
Reported to AIV for persistant removal of warnings and disruption but I am not sure what they will think there. GDonato (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just adding an other site ...
No need to worry we are trying to work out this whole neutral thing out ... neither of us want to touch it. It is pretty damn neutral right now from Beetstra's edit. I simply added beer pal because they are an other beer ratings site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jalstromer (talk • contribs). 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Jon Mychal
Hi Adam,

I appreciate you outlining these things for me: I'm literally brand new here today, and still learning my way around. I'm helping Jon Mychal manage his internet presence, and it's abundantly clear that there are literally thousands of artists -- some completely obscure -- who can be found within these pages. My aim is to bring Jon's resume and body of work to the fore, so that people can learn about him as a person and as a creative contributor to contemporary ideas, music, literature,etc. I feel that the aforementioned all more than qualify as notable, and simply wish to construct a page here for him.

Indeed, the article in question was copied and pasted: 'The Daily Vault' gave permission for that article to be used nearly two years ago when jonmychal.com was first introduced -- the article can be found in the 'Archives' section of the site. To be fair and law-abiding, I have resubmitted my request to The Daily Vault and will look forward to hearing back from them shortly.

In the meanwhile, perhaps you can advise on my next steps, as having my efforts deleted is discouraging.

Thank you,

George Garner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enki69 (talk • contribs). 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not fair
how can i add a hangon if the article is already deleted? Warfwar3 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Question
hey I was wondering about the nobility tag, i'm new to wikipedia can you please be kind enough to explain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silent99 (talk • contribs). 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you got my last message i was wondering why you add notability tag? Im new at this, can you explain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silent99 (talk • contribs). 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Laurence Frichot
hi its larry 141094, the page on Laurence frichot should remain on wikipedia as it is to a record holder based on information that i found on a website as with other pages on people like bill gates it is on a person and contains information on this person. surly this has not broken any of the rules.

Larry 141094 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Larry 141094 (talk • contribs). 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Rihanna's Album Edit
I'm not sure how to put in the reference info but I have it and it is www.ultimate-rihanna.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nodoubt16x (talk • contribs). 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Job!!!
Congratulations for finding the super secret hidden page!! Here is your reward!

You've earned it! selfworm _ _ ( Give me a piece of your mind ·  Userboxes  ·  Contribs ) _ 06:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting edits
I'm curious if you read the rationale for the edits I removed on the Blue Shield of California page. The edits I reverted were inaccurate and, in one case, appeared to be material copied directly from the BS California website, which I linked to on the talk page of the article and stated in my change summary. Tamara Young 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries! I can absolutely understand how that happened as I did removed a pretty big chunk of info. :) Tamara Young 16:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Users removing warnings from thier talk pages
I recently came accross your comment on User_talk:HiImPhil regarding his removal of warnings from his talk page. Warning removal, while frowned upon, is not prohibited by any official policy. See WP:USER and Centralized_discussion/Removing_warnings. While it is certainly reasonable to ask users not to remove warnings, it is not a good idea to suggest that they are not allowed to. While the warning removal does make fighting vandalism a bit slower, there is not a consesus to prohibit it. Thanks -- Monty845 04:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely a combination of WP:OWN and the fact that says what it does points in the general direction of what should be done. I have to admit, I haven't read every policy page (yet) - but I had assumed that the above two, plus the fact that it is a blockable offence (and if it's not, then a lot of people are getting "wrongly" blocked) meant that a consensus had been reached i.e. that "heavily discouraged" means "don't do it". I don't see anything wrong with archiving warnings (as I suggested on User talk:69.132.199.100) - but it seems that a lot of people - including sysops - are of the opinion that they shouldn't be blanked, and if that isn't consensus, then I'm not quite sure what is. In the end, I think it comes down to the fact that we don't own anything here, and if you remove templates from any page unjustly - then that's vandalism.  ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 11:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There does appear to be considerable confussion over the issue. The problem is that while most people disaprove of warning removal, there are strong aurguments against making it a warn/blockable offense. The most common are that warnings can still be found in a user's history, that warnings are meant to notify the user of the error in thier ways (and that the user will have read it if they decide to remove it), requiring a user to keep old warnings turns them into punishments (which they are not) and that reverting user:talk to reinclude warnings results in edit wars serving no purpose. While a majority support making it an offense, a vocal minority holding those views prevent a consensus. Fortunatly most of the users who have been blocked following warning removal notices are really vandals or otherwise deserved the blocks. I'm just trying make sure poeple are aware that there is no actual policy prohibiting it. One approach users who oppose warning removal take is to note in talk pages that warning removal is a "bad idea" or that "they wouldn't do that". It serves the purpose of discouraging the removal while not asserting it is prohibited conduct. (I know it is really just semantics, but I think it is important) Monty845 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Edit to your talk page
Thank you for fixing it. I've tried what I hope will be a cleaner fix. Could you check it out to see if it works, it all looks the same in my browser. Please revert it if it doesn't work, leave me a note if it does (so I know if you checked). Thank you! Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 01:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)