User talk:Astronaut/Archive 3

Amit Choubey
As posted on User talk:Stifle/Archive 0508b

There's speedy delete, then there's delete it before I've finished telling the author improve the article. Can you undelete it and give us a chance to improve it please. Astronaut (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done with a prod so that he has 5 days to improve it. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

--


 * It's been deleted again by User:Orangemike. Just letting you know. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that. I've asked User:Orangemike why so quick with the delete and if he saw the prod tag - no reply yet.  Astronaut (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it mysteriously came back, but radically trimmed and with no history. It'll have to do.  Astronaut (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Chetan Ramlu
I appreciate the efforts that you have made to improve this page! What other information do you requie to make this a better and more informative page? I will do my best to get you the information required with appropriate citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbetts (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As posted on User Talk:Richardbetts


 * If you could find verifiable infomation in reliable sources to support the statements highlighted with the little [citation needed] flags, you can add links to that info by adding it between pairs (see this article for more info about doing this). The reference will automatically appear in the references section of the article and will support Chetan Ramlu's notability for continued inclusion in the encyclopedia.  A couple of important points to remember: Self-published sources such as: blogs, forums, and social networking sites like Facebook, Bebo, MySpace etc, are not usually considered reliable sources.  And do not copy material verbatim from other websites (most editors will delete such copyright violations on sight), so take the time to at least rephrase or precis the info.


 * As for expanding the article, if there is enough information about his film & TV, that could be split off into a new section. If he has been nominated for or won any awards it would be nice to include that in a new section, again with supporting references.


 * One last thing. Some people are determined to see the Amit Choubey article deleted (it was flagged for speedy deletion 3 times in one day).  I tried by best to at least give you the time to work on it.  Even so, the poorly laid out page that was there, has been severely trimmed and is scheduled for deletion on 19 May.  If you want that article kept too, it might be better to apply your efforts there first.


 * Astronaut (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Shrimp Ecosystem
Hi, I'm answering your Ref Desk Misc comment here as I believe we should keep this sort of thing off the Desks. You are quite correct, I didnt answer the question: I did some research and because I couldnt find anything really pertinent or well referenced I didn't post! I hope my contributions, few as they are, respect the idea of the Ref Desks, and that they are useful and have decent references. And by the way, as an Antipodean it was past my bed time! I have seen your contributions and know your interest in architecture, so dont really want to have an argument with you, but CR and some other Ref Desk regulars do need to be reined in - dont you think it was a particularly unhelpful, pointless comment? Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree CR does need to reined in, particulary when he is been unhelpful like this or acting somewhat like a troll. You are usually a good answerer of questions and I did in fact agree with your comment, but it did strike me as somewhat ironic that while you were lambasting CR for his unhelpfulness, you seemed to have forgotten all about the question itself.  Apologies if it looked a little harsh, but I didn't know you had actually done some research and decided not to post your research.  If you are really bothered by my comment, I can remove it for you.  Astronaut (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks for that astro, but as a historian, all records must stand inviolate! Does your interest in architecture mean you are a practioner, student, academic or that very rare thing (in my part of the world anyway) just someone interested in architecture? Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If I had taken a different academic path long ago, then perhaps I would have liked to have been an architect, but I'm really just someone with an amateur interest :-) Unfortunately, I live in a country were modern arcitecture is not appreciated.  Astronaut (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Groan I know, its not that much different here, on a more positive subject! I see you like astronomy too, which I'm very keen on Mhicaoidh (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I've wanted to be an astronaut since I was a kid. But now I just make do with the username. Astronaut (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai- Emaar is unreliable, outdated and Inaccurate
This same comment appears on Talk:Burj Dubai Astronaut (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!!
Thanks! You were right. "Gravitation" is the anime series I was looking for. Aanusha Ghosh (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Anime central
Comment moved to Talk:AnimeCentral Astronaut (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Maldek
Hi, Astronaut.

I have a question for you: How many times did vandalized by Maldek?

Thanks! Unknownquinones (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On about a dozen occasions since the beginning of May, Maldek has repeatedly tried to add information from an unreliable source to the Burj Dubai article. Despite discussion on the article's talk page (also check out the latest archives) and the continued efforts of myself and other regular editors on that page, he persists on pushing his unreliable information.  Do you think starting again with a uw-vandalism3 was a little strong?  Astronaut (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One should assume good faith with all editors. If one has an issue with a particular editor or reliable sources, it is a separate discussion. Accusing one of vandalism can constitute a harassment if repeated. One should be careful as not to do it again [as you did after this edit]. Probably removing a uw-vandalism3 notice from Talk page will be appropriate. That will also be a requirement under the civility policy. Wikidās ॐ 08:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough -  uw-vandalism3 retracted.  But what to do about repeated addition of unreliably sourced information against consensus, despite repeated discussion on the article talk page and a period of page protection?  Astronaut (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice on WP:RSN will be appropriate. And possibly a different format notice on the user page. In any case its not vandalism, its a discussion on reliable source, that will be a normal editor to editor relationship. Wikidās ॐ 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What other format of notice would you suggest? The reliability of sources for Burj Dubai has already been raised on WP:RSN - got one response.  It's been discussed endlessly on Talk:Burj Dubai (see the archives too) - myself and the other regular editors all agree and think we have consensus.  A couple of months back, when Maldek failed to get his way, he started adding increasingly outlandish data and eventually got blocked for 3 days.  Whilst one could classify this as a low intensity edit-war, I really feel Maldek is being disruptive just for the sake of being disruptive.  As I have said on the article talk page, I don't really want to see him blocked, but I think it is eventually going to come to that.  Astronaut (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection for Al Burj
Astronaut, please fully protect Al Burj because of updates. If you want to reply, please, go to my talk page. Thank you! Unknownquinones (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As posted at User talk:Unknownquinones


 * Unfortunately, I am not an admin so I don't have the necessary privileges to protect the Al Burj article. The place to request page protection is WP:RFPP, taking care to follow the instructions and providing a good reason for your request. Looking at the edit history at Al Burj, I think a request for a period of semi-protection might work. Astronaut (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I will request for full protection because of User:Maldek. Thank you! Unknownquinones (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I requested for protection. Unknownquinones (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Request declined. 121.54.108.42 (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Skope78
''As posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skope78&oldid=218614630#What_is_the_point... ''

...of replacing perfectly good fair-use album cover images with almost identical images? ie. Why are your images any better than the existing ones? Astronaut (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and replied to your comment User talk:Astronaut.   Astronaut (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

--

Sorry. :-( I didn't mean to step on any toes. I am hurt and upset now. I thought my images were better in quality, that's all. Just trying to continually improve a source of information for the world to use. Why did you feel it necessary to delete them? Why couldn't they just be left up there? They are clearer and larger. Skope78 (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to be hurt and upset. It just seems a pointless exercise to replace well established and perfectly good images at a 300x300 with an almost identical image at 600x600.  Furthermore, if your image is incorrectly licensed or too large for "fair-use" purposes (see particularly the sections: Policy 3b and Policy 10), it could be justifiably deleted; and then the article would have no image and how is that an improvement?  I suggest you check out the relevant policies I have provided links to above.  FWIW I didn't actually delete your image, but put back the original image when I found that your image was incorrectly licensed.  Astronaut (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed!? How would it be an improvement? My point exactly. I still don't understand why I need to stipulate a licence when it's an image only clearer and larger but representative of the same subject. I will review these policy guidelines, and see why it is that you have reverted my uploads. So as I understand it, 300 x 300 is the maximum canvas size for non-free images, correct? Just so I know for future reference...Skope78 (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't actually specify a size limit, just that "Minimal extent of use ... Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used". However, if you look at most other album covers, you will find they are 300x300 or smaller, so that's obviously acceptable for album covers under fair-use.  The need for a license and fair-use rationale is mandatory and without it the image will be deleted.  Looking at the messages left on your talk page before (you cleared it) and your edit history, it seems the majority of them have been reverted due to a lack of licensing, just like when I reverted one of your changes.  If you are going to continue replacing perfectly good images with your images, please try to get the licenses and fair-use rationales sorted out as soon as you have uploaded the image.  Astronaut (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I cleared it out of guilt and shame. Continual stumbles aren't the resume I want for myself on WikiPedia. Guess that's the path some of us take in learning, isn't it? So, a 300x300 assists in maintaining that an image is of a low enough resolution. That, coupled with a fair-use rationale will put an upload I make in good stead for avoiding deletion. Am I getting close? LOL. This is beginning to become amusing... I liken it to a game of darts. This s what I gather from reading the rules and what you've said. :-P Skope78 (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's about it. Some other editors may disagree with the above but Wikipedia is built on consensus, and as far as I can tell the consensus is that 300x300 is acceptable.  Astronaut (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref Desk troll
As posted at User_talk:TenOfAllTrades

I noticed that after just one question, User:로그인 계정 만들기 got an indefinite block. I think after just one question it is a little hard to tell if "Account created to troll Ref Desk" is a true assessment of the user's intentions. Surely some track record of trolling is necessary to enact an indefinite block and we should not be biting the newbies like this? Astronaut (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I was a bit surprised by this, I support your block. A little research supports your guess that this user is a troll, their username means "Create an account or login" so was likely taken from the Korean wikipedia as it obviously appears at the top of every page for anons, e.g. take a look at ko:Main Page. At the very least, it's an inappropriate username. Edit: I see you already noticed that. I've already remarked it on the user's talk page in case any admin comes along with the eye to unblock Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You have just been effectively trolled. The degree of disingenuousness shown by the question is pretty transparent on its own; the insistence on continuing to play dumb – and waste admin time – in his unblock request is the icing on the cake.


 * The username in question, 로그인 계정 만들기, is Korean for "Login/Create new account"; it's probably cut & paste straight from kowiki.


 * If the user wants to create a new account with a meaningful name, and he starts out by asking non-trolling questions, then he's welcome on Wikipedia. I wouldn't support unblocking his original account, though, nor would I encourage lifting any autoblocks.  This isn't someone who's yet demonstrated an interest in making meaningful contributions here.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I thought the question sounded troll-like, and in the light of the korean translation it just goes to reinforce that opinion. However, with such a rapid block after just one question, we will never get to find out if the user would have "demonstrated an interest in making meaningful contributions here".  Astronaut (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anime Central
Hiya,

I wasnt disputing the teleshopping, i was undoing the user work because they had changed it to say they had stopped widescreen from june 2008 which is false. And i beleive wikipedia rules prevent you editing a user contribution when udoing it even if part of what they enter is true.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Astronaut
I need to make an interview to a real astronaut for schoolwork, just wonder if you are one and if wou'd mind to answer a few questions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.95.203 (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Contact NASA - you might be particularly interested in astronaut Carlos I. Noriega. Astronaut (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Anime Central logo
Hi, the AnimeCentral logo does not officially havre a black background, it only appears that way because it is usually set against a black background but that black background is not officially apart of the logo itself. The one I uploaded is the correct one to use. Thank you. musimax. (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you actually watch the channel, you will never see it on a white background. Astronaut (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaps galore :-)
Wow, thanks for the double-header for my card games query, Astronaut! But I'm not sure how my kids are gonna take this: "Oh, no, Mom -- not another online solitaire game...!" -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Skyscrapers Wiki
I would like to invite you to the skyscraper wiki. It currently does not have many contributers.

The link is HERE

Houstontowers (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

image dates
As posted at User talk:Tony1/Archive 2

Your recent change to the Burj Dubai article, caused an accidental change in the names of a couple of images to images that don't exist (in particular, the final two date changes inside the tags). Please be careful to exclude the names of images, articles and other vunerable links when doing your clean up. Astronaut (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied apologetically on user's talk page. Tony   (talk)  03:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

--

I'm very sorry this happened. We're trying to fix this issue in the script. Tony  (talk)  01:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Epicentral distance
Thanks for adding the unit. Can you also add a little elaboration about its determination? (A graph is better.) Wikipedia is for lay(wo)men, and the word distance in this term doesn't readily lend itself to understanding. Sillyvalley (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can come up with without straying too far off the subject. Astronaut (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hiroshima Dome 1945.gif
As posted at 

I noticed you recently left a disputed fair-use tag on Image:Hiroshima Dome 1945.gif. In case you didn't notice, the image already has a Non-free historic image on it, which displays the useful text:

...
 * to illustrate the event or historically notable person(s) in question where:
 * The image depicts a non-reproducible historic event or historically notable person(s), and no free alternative exists or can be created, and
 * The image is low resolution and of no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article, and the use of the image on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright,

If this does not accurately describe this image, please remove this tag and provide a different fair use rationale.

Whilst the original uploader has now provided a short rationale, you are the second person in recent weeks to have disputed this image's fair-use. I am confused, so please could you explain in which way the Non-free historic image template text is insufficient as a fair use rationale and why you say the image has "no rationale"? Astronaut (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The template specifically says "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information". Boilerplate tags are not a fair use rationale on their own; you must write a rationale which explains how each of the ten points at WP:NFCC are complied with for the image. WP:NFURG has further details on how to write that tag. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The template actually says "If this does not accurately describe this image, please remove this tag and provide a different fair use rationale" and only then goes on to say the "To the uploader..." instructions.  It certainly suggests to me that a separate rationale is only necessary if the default text does not accurately describe the image.  In the specific case of this image, it is a notable historic image showing a non-reproducible historic event, no free alternative exists or could be created, the image is of low resolution and the image does not decrease the value of the copyright.  To simply repeat the same adds no value to the project.  If such "Boilerplate tags are not a fair use rationale on their own", then why does the template exist at all?  Astronaut (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All images require a copyright tag, of which non-free historic image is an example, and non-free images also require a rationale. This is the current image policy and is not my decision. Feel free to open a discussion at WT:IUP or WT:NFCC if you feel it should be changed. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I've added separate fair-use rationales for each use and removed the disputed tag again.  I invite you to visit the image again and advise me if the rationales are adequate or not.  Astronaut (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thanks for your work. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mistagged articles
As posted at User talk:The Anome

I notice your bot has been putting "missing coords" templates on some proposed building articles. Very often, these proposals do not have a site agreed, so is there anty point in adding the template? Astronaut (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you give some examples, please, so I can try to filter these out? -- The Anome (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

--

Thanks for letting me know about the proposed buildings being tagged by my bot. Can you give some examples, please, so I can try to filter these out? -- The Anome (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about Murjan Tower, Nakheel Tower, and Buenos Aires Forum? Astronaut (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'm now constructing some suitable rules to try to filter out these and similar articles. -- The Anome (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, it should now filter out all articles categorized as building projects / future buildings (whether directly, or via templates) that are not also categorized as being under construction.


 * Update: I can confirm that the filter now seems to be working properly: it has correctly rejected Dubai World Central and Universal Studios Dubai. -- The Anome (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper Image Source Reference
To whom it may concern:

According to WikiMedia, the spider web images found here were created by NASA. However, in researching with NASA, these images are not in their image library. The following message from Deborah Griffiths who is associated with NASA's image library confirms this:

Dear Paul,

Unfortunately, those photos are not referenced in the NASA photo library. And the photos that were used in the NASA Tech Brief (attached) are not the same photos. So these photos most likely were added by WikiMedia. The suggestion from our IP manager was to contact WikiMedia as they would have to have gained permission to use the photos and they could tell you where they originated. I hope this is of some help to you.

Kindest regards, Deb ___________________

Deborah J. Griffiths Administrator Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center Wheeling Jesuit University 316 Washington Avenue Wheeling, WV  26003

We are still interested in finding the true source of the images. Do you have any additional info on the source of the images? I have copies of the actual images from the NASA publication referenced on the WikiMedia site if you are interested in them.

Thanks,

Paul Thatcher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.181.128 (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't have any information on the original source of the images other than what it says on the image page (ie. "The effect of caffeine on spider web construction. Noever, R., J. Cronise, and R. A. Relwani. 1995. Using spider-web patterns to determine toxicity. NASA Tech Briefs 19(4):82. Published in New Scientist magazine, 29 April 1995.")  The image Image:Caffeinated spiderwebs Horiz.jpg is based on Image:Caffeinated spiderwebs.jpg which was already on Wikimedia Commons long before I got involved - I simply reorganised the before&after images to be side-by-side so that it displayed better on the Spider web article.  I assumed good faith and credited the image to the same people as the original image, but I didn't actually check the truth or otherwise of that credit (I don't have access to all of NASA's images and I don't have the 29 April 1995 copy of New Scientist to hand).
 * If the image credit is incorrect, I will try to find the correct credit for the image. As an alternative, perhaps you could upload to Wikimedia Commons the actual images from the referenced NASA publication (click this link - though I think you might have to sign up to be a Wikimedia Commons user here - it's free to sign up).
 * Astronaut (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Improper Image Source Reference
By the way, you can contact me Thanks,

Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.181.128 (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I value my privacy and I am unwilling to email you. Please see my reply to your post above.  Astronaut (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

RefDesk
In re Reference_desk/Computing, I'm at loose ends IRL at the moment and I like solving problems. I have one or two decades of experience at interoperating systems (only 10 years with TCP/IP), so I'll offer to help - you'd need to enable your email though (anonymous gmail account would be good). Franamax (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your offer to help, Franamax. I have set up an email account and you can email me.  I've never used the "email this user" facility and I'm not sure what will happen, so it might be better if you email me first.
 * As you can see from my user page, I'm based in the UK and it is probably easiest to contact me during my afternoon. I also have occasional bouts of insomnia, so I'll sometimes be active at 3am! I look forward to hearing from you.  Astronaut (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks
As posted at User talk:Wooerfara3661

I have reverted (again) your edit to List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. While I'm sure your edit was made in good faith, I think I should point out that the list is for the tallest structure in each the specified categories. Unfortunately the Milad Tower is not the tallest concrete tower (the CN tower is the tallest), the Tehran International Tower is not the tallest skyscraper (Burj Dubai is the tallest), and the Azadi Tower might be the tallest white marble structure (I haven't checked) but you shouldn't replace the "Monolithic obelisk" category with it. List of towers however, is a simple list of towers sorted by height and includes both the Milad Tower and Azadi Tower. List of tallest buildings and structures in the world by country includes the Tehran International Tower. Astronaut (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

--

thanks you for your good help in that article. in that list, I added azadi tower, while you check & the azadi tower is not the tallest white marble structure, then you remove it from that list. (:---wooerfara3661---:) 23:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wooerfara3661 (talk • contribs)

Main Page redesign
The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, P retzels Talk! 14:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

SOM is the architect (design & technical) and engineer of the Burj Dubai.
Moved to Talk:Burj Dubai Astronaut (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)