User talk:Bkell/January 2010 through July 2011

Knot (unit)
Happy New Year... You might consider, when archiving, leaving the last few weeks of posts here, rather than cleaning out the whole thing...

Anyway, would you take a look at Linear scale. I know that I know too much about the subject to get the words of one syllable correct and another set of eyes would be great. Feel free to just go at it... ... . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pulaski.jpg
Thanks for the heads up. I think it was under cc-by-3.0 when I uploaded it to Wikipedia originally, but I've asked the photographer to change the license to be compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines. If the photographer doesn't change the copyright, I'll take my own photo and replace the current one. -GrantHenninger (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Bkell! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Henny Eman (prime minister) -

Meet about wording for and arrangement of mathematical coincidences?
I see you are just across the state from me during the school semester. I remember you from trying to work on the article a little before, and I am planning to do some major writing for it--sourced--to help the article look less like just a list and to justify some rearrangement of it. If you can get away and you happen to like playing chess, I would like your opinion on what I will be working on much of the time from now until a tournament next weekend. I'm not going to push OR, but I plan to set the article on a path toward a better differentiation of types of coincidences that should suit most mathematicians.

Anyway, seeing as there are no signs the weather will prevent my going to The Liberty Bell Tournament in Center City Philadelphia next weekend, if you would be interested there is a way I won't be explicit about for you to find my e-mail address: I gave an indication of how to find it to another administrator. If that's too vague for your tastes or you simply would not be interested anyway, rest assured that I will handle the subject in accordance with Wikipedia policy.Julzes (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The spring semester begins for me on Monday, and that likely means I am going to be busy with something this next weekend (either working on problems for my own classes or preparing things for the class I'm teaching). Also, I'm not very good at chess. :-) If there's something you'd like to discuss about the mathematical coincidence article, we should be able to do so either here or on Talk:Mathematical coincidence. Granted, it's a little more cumbersome and it takes longer to receive a reply; on the other hand, our conversations will be open to all Wikipedians. —Bkell (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I just thought I'd ask. I wasn't betting on an affirmative, but I wouldn't have any other way of knowing. I'll keep quiet on the article (aside from what I've already said recently at the talk page) until about ten days from now. I have to reason out what exactly I would like to do with it (Basically, the intro is too short and the lists need a little re-arrangement in concert with what needs to be changed at the start. Sources are also obviously a problem).Julzes (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I agree with your assessment that the article is too disjointed now and should be rewritten as prose. If there is some way the facts in that article could be tied together and organized (somehow) in a coherent framework, it would probably also discourage the addition of miscellaneous calculations that some editor came up with one day, which would be a good thing. It would be really nice if we could find a book or something written about the topic of mathematical coincidences. Something else to think about: Is there a way we could have a history section? For example, I think some ancient cultures used $$\sqrt{10}$$ as the value for $$\pi$$. Perhaps that doesn't quite belong in the article, because they may not have realized that it was only an approximation and a coincidence at that; but on the other hand surely the Babylonians or Egyptians or somebody did notice mathematical coincidences from time to time. —Bkell (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what sources tell us. I don't know what the best approach is right now. Back to Global Warming and related articles for me--on deadline, you could say.Julzes (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology at the Reference Desk
Dear Bkell, I have apologized to you at the reference desk in the section. I hope you do not mind. Regards, -- PS T  03:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Define the Word 'Matrix'
I'd like to know if you are able to define the word that you deleted from the "Space article".

69.171.160.32 (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

While you are at it, please take note of the Wikipedia definition--

"A matrix is an array or grid" (Click on the Wiki-linked word matrix to see the definition).

Pay special attention to the word grid.

69.171.160.32 (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, but space isn't a grid. We might superimpose an imaginary grid onto space so that we can use a coordinate system, for example, but space itself is not literally a grid. I don't have to pick my way through grid lines when I walk from my apartment to the bus stop in the morning.
 * If you're interested in the definition of the word matrix, you can read the Wiktionary definition. In addition to not being a grid, space is also not the womb, a tissue in which other structures are embedded, the tissue between cells of an organism, part of the mitochondrion, a medium in which bacteria are cultured, a rectangular array of numbers, a kind of data structure used in computers, a table of data, the outer material of a rock, sediment surrounding archeological artifacts, the environment from which a sample is taken in analytic chemistry, or a 1999 movie starring Keanu Reeves. The only definition of matrix that might come close to being an accurate description of space is "an environment or material in which something develops; a surrounding medium or structure" (from the Oxford American Dictionary), but I don't think this is quite the right word to describe space as the word is meant in the space article. For one thing, it would seem that space would exist whether or not anything developed inside it, and space isn't exactly a medium (most of space is nearly a vacuum). —Bkell (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Filling station "image gallery"
Please see the comment I added to yours in Talk:Filling_station. It isn't really an image gallery in the sense usually used. It needs a discerning editor to piece it back together instead, in a way that doesn't ruin the aesthetics and functionality of the page. Dovid (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2010 Victorian storms
An article that you have been involved in editing, 2010 Victorian storms, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, okay, thanks for the notification, but I just fixed some minor grammatical things. I don't really have a vested interest in the article. —Bkell (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for the help at the math reference desk. Your response to me was both well thought out, through, and well written. I'm sure it took some time and thought to write and I thank you for that. 018 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you found it helpful. This is very interesting stuff, and at least part of that interestingness comes from the fact that it's so mind-bending. —Bkell (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Motorized bicycle
And sorry I forgot to remove the test page language. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

question
Hi, I have a question for you, but if you prefer I can ask it at the math reference desk. Here is a common example from analysis (I think). Start with the set {1/2} then add {1/2 + 1/4} and {1/2 - 1/4}, then add the set of all previous members all previous members plus or minus 1/8... this ends up being uncountable (though I don't know how to prove it, I've just seen that claim made). But every value is rational... and there are aleph0 rationals... so what gives? 018 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is uncountable. What you generate by that process is the set of dyadic rationals in the interval (0, 1). They are dense in the interval, but they are countable. One way to prove that they are countable is that, at each stage of the process, you are adding only finitely many elements, so the whole generated set is a countable union of finite sets, which is countable. (One way to make an explicit bijection from the whole generated set to the set of natural numbers goes like this: Map the single element generated in the first stage, namely 1/2, to the natural number 1. Then map the two elements generated in the second stage, namely 1/4 and 3/4, to the natural numbers 2 and 3. Continue in this fashion. Since every fraction in the generated set is produced at some finite stage, it will be mapped to exactly one natural number.) —Bkell (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I got this notion from here look at problem 12. I just assumed a assistant professor of mathematics at a university would know these things. I think I'm going to answer my own question here but: can this be done uncountably many times? And the appear to trinary in the homework solutions suggests a parallel to the Cantor set to me. Finally, I obviously got the setup wrong b/c she uses 1/3, 1/9, ... while I used 1/4, 1/8, ... . Thanks in advance... 018 (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay, perhaps I misunderstood the construction. I understood the set you were describing to consist of all numbers that could be generated in finitely many steps. In the problem you linked to, the position of the attacker is not going to be produced in finitely many steps but in infinitely many steps—it's a limit of the finitely-generated positions. (In the homework problem, for example, the number 1/2 is not one of the possible attacking positions.) In the dyadic case, since the set of finitely-generated positions is dense in the unit interval, the set of limit positions is the whole interval [0, 1]. In the ternary case given in the homework assignment, I think the set of possible attacking positions is the Cantor set (although I haven't quite convinced myself of this). —Bkell (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bkell, "perhaps I misunderstood the construction." Ha! You are too polite. Sorry I didn't understand my own question. So the point of the Cantor set isn't actually a bunch of rationals because of the whole uncountably many steps thing. But then I wonder, the defintion sure appears to require that there be rational numbers used to generate these so musen't there be a rational number for every member of the cantor set? BTW, my contention that it is for rationals comes from Haaser and Sullivan, "Real Analysis" page 20. 018 (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a sequence of rational numbers for every member of the Cantor set. There are uncountably many sequences of rational numbers. —Bkell (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My first thought is that the sum of a bunch of rationals has to be rational (find the common denominator...) but I guess it is like how pi can be written as an infinite sum of rationals. Is that sequence countably long or not? There must be a reason that you can not find a common denominator, but I would believe that even countable rationals might not allow that. 018 (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The sum of finitely many rationals is rational. The sum of infinitely many rationals might not be (even countably infinitely many); for example, $$\sqrt2=1.4142\ldots$$, so $$\textstyle\sqrt2=1+\frac4{10}+\frac1{100}+\frac4{1000}+\frac2{10000}+\cdots$$. Every real number can be written as a countable sum of rational numbers. This is one way to see that there are uncountably many sequences of rational numbers that are countably long. (In any one sequence, there are only countably many elements; but the set of all such sequences contains uncountably many sequences.) In fact, consider only countably infinite sequences of zeroes and ones—there are uncountably many of those sequences. (This is exactly what Cantor's diagonal argument shows.) Allowing the sequences to contain any rational numbers, rather than just 0 and 1, cannot decrease the number of such sequences. —Bkell (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you time! 018 (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

another question
Hi, if you have the time, can I ask you another question about this stuff. I was wondering about what I'm missing in constructing what looks to me like a map from the integers to the reals. Can you tell me where the error in my logic is?

If each real can be represented by a (countably) infinite string of numbers, then could the integers be used to index a single digit. That is, could one create a map from the integers to the digits of, say, a binary digital representation of the reals so that 1 would be 0.5 (100...) and 2 would be 0.25 (0100...) and so on so that while the map from the integers would not be onto the reals on (0,1), they could represent every possible digital binary real that has all zeros with a single one?

Then, having done that, could an appeal to a Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel type argument be used to argue that i.e. an (countably) infinite number of coaches could carry an (countably) infinite number of references to digit representations of 2^(-n) type reals? Would this constitute a map from the integers onto (0,1)? 018 (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean. I understand your first map, but I don't see what you mean by a Grand Hotel argument. Perhaps a couple of examples would help to clear things up. Under your proposed map from the integers onto (0, 1), what integer maps to 3/4 (0.11000…)? to 2/3 (0.101010…)? —Bkell (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your question is good. But I don't think I understand the Grand Hotel paradox well enough to answer that. 018 (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you this, doesn't the paradox say that I can represent these in terms of $$I^{\aleph_0}$$? And that there is a bijective map between $$I^{\aleph_0}$$ and I? 018 (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What is $$I$$? Do you mean the set of natural numbers, $$\{1,2,3,\ldots\}$$? [Usually that's denoted by $$\mathbb{N}$$; the set of all integers, positive and negative, is usually denoted $$\mathbb{Z}$$.] —Bkell (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming that's what $$I$$ is, then yes, there is a bijection between real numbers and countable sequences of digits, but there are uncountably many countable sequences of digits. Alternatively, there is a bijection between real numbers and subsets of the natural numbers, but there are uncountably many subsets of the natural numbers. (I'm not sure whether you're thinking about countable sequences of digits, subsets of the natural numbers, or something else.) It is correct that a countable union of countable sets is countable, which is the basis for the part of the Grand Hotel paradox about a countably infinite number of coaches, each with a countably infinite number of passengers; but a countable sequence of natural numbers is not the same thing as a countable union of countable sets. To phrase things in terms of the Grand Hotel story, a countable union of countable sets is like the set of all passengers on all of the coaches, considered as a single set of passengers; a countable sequence of natural numbers is like a selection of one passenger from each coach. There are many more ways to choose one passenger from each coach than there are passengers in all. —Bkell (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "there is a bijection between real numbers and subsets of the natural numbers" so i.e. R there is a bijective map between $$\mathbb{R}$$ and some subset of $$\mathbb{N}$$. Can you point me to more about this? 018 (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there is a bijection between $$\mathbb{R}$$ and the power set of $$\mathbb{N}$$, which is the set of all subsets of $$\mathbb{N}$$. This bijection maps each real number to a subset of the natural numbers—so, for example, $$\sqrt2$$ might be mapped to the subset {3, 8, 197} or something, while $$\pi$$ could be mapped to the subset {2, 4, 6, 8, …}, perhaps. There is not a bijection between $$\mathbb{R}$$ and any one subset of $$\mathbb{N}$$, because any subset of $$\mathbb{N}$$ is countable while $$\mathbb{R}$$ is uncountable. I can explain a little bit about the bijection between $$\mathbb{R}$$ and $$\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})$$ a bit later when I have some more time, if you're interested. —Bkell (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, no I get this. I just didn't recognize it (sorry). 018 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Camp Massad logos
hi i noticed that you tagged a number of images on the Camp Massad (Montreal) page as 'candidate for speedy deletion'. can you please tell me how any such deletion can be avoided? i am a camp administrator for this organization, and fully endorse the use of such images.

i am a Wikipedia rookie when it comes to posting and contributions, but would like to know what steps to take...

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.76.97 (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's consider File:MapOfMassad.PNG as an example. According to the image description page, this image was taken from http://campmassad.org/. But the uploader, Kyuko, tagged the image with the tag, which makes the claim that Kyuko is the creator and has released the image into the public domain. The problem is that there is no proof of this claimed authorship and release of copyright. The Camp Massad Web site says at the bottom, "(C)2008 Camp Massad - All Rights Reserved." So it seems that anything taken from the Camp Massad Web site is in violation of their copyright, unless we have definitive proof to the contrary.
 * You say you are a camp administrator. If you are in a position of authority to do so, or can contact someone who has the authority, can you verify that Camp Massad is willing to release the images under a free license by sending an e-mail modeled on Declaration of consent for all enquiries to the e-mail address listed on that page? Keep in mind that releasing these images under a free license gives permission for anyone to use them for any purpose, not just on Wikipedia. See also Requesting copyright permission for more information. Please let me know if you need help or have additional questions. —Bkell (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

alright - is there a way to release images under a license that could apply to Wikipedia content only? would like to stop any future copyright issues on the wikipedia page about the camp - would the license apply to all current content as well as future content added to the page? any info appreciated. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.76.23 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Each image is licensed independently, so the license for one image will not be automatically applied to others. The copyright holder is the only one who can agree to license any particular image. If the copyright holder wishes to allow all images on campmassad.org to be used freely, one way to do that is to simply license the content of the entire site under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA 3.0). This could be done by a note at the bottom of the page near the copyright notice. (Please note that the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license allows commercial use and modifications of the content; a license requiring "noncommercial use only" or "no modifications allowed" is not free enough for use on Wikipedia.)
 * There is no "Wikipedia-only" license. In order to be considered a free license by Wikipedia's standards, a license must allow anyone to reuse or modify the image for any purpose. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia of free content that can be redistributed and redeveloped by anyone for free, so a "Wikipedia-only" license would be contrary to our goals. Please see Donating copyrighted materials. —Bkell (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

hey - images came down. let's get this license in place so that the page can return to its previous content with the included images. from what i understand, a camp administrator should send an email to the license email address? please confirm. want to page to remain in full standing. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.163.203 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Please see the information at Donating copyrighted materials. —Bkell (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

TheClerksWell - Thanks
Hi Bkell. Just wanted to say nice move. I was almost about to log-in and indef our friend TheClerksWell (even though I'm not editing from the most incredibly secure connection right now). At any rate, for going through the trouble of starting a thread WP:WQA and enduring TheClerksWell's relentless trolling spree, have a cookie. Cheers,  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 06:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC) 

Fastily has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * Thanks for the cookie. Sometimes I wonder if I'm too patient. :-) —Bkell (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Email
You have some. -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. So do you, now. —Bkell (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

NetFlix
It would be best if you showed neutrality in your personal deletions (you removed the image from the article, therefore making it an orphan) by removing the other images of the envelope which are NO MORE or LESS an issue regarding copyright than the one I posted; or by requesting/noting an issue you may have seen (or perceived) for someone else to deal with. If you had noted that someone removed the sited reference I would have added it right back in. You acted in what could be seen as a rash matter by deleting links and images without any notice to the uploader, as I could have fixed your (non)issue simply by readding the reference back in. Lostinlodos (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, this is not a "personal deletion." I don't believe I have ever talked with you or interacted with you before—why would I have any reason to be biased against you? I am simply trying to improve the encyclopedia, not to make personal attacks or to carry on a vendetta. Please avoid making such accusations. I understand that it can be frustrating when something you have contributed is removed. But I am not acting maliciously against you.
 * The image File:NetFlix.jpg was included in the Netflix article with a caption which read, "A new Netflix security prepaid mailing envelope, designed to prevent tearing or unauthorized access." Last December I saw that caption and thought it strange that Netflix would need to prevent "unauthorized access." (By whom? Is the United States Postal Service going to steal people's Netflix discs? That's a federal crime.) So I put a tag on the caption (see ). That was six months ago, and in that time no one has offered any references that support the claim that the Netflix envelopes had been redesigned for security reasons. Since the caption seemed to be original thought to me, which is not acceptable for Wikipedia, I removed the image from the article today. (The reason I removed the image from the article had nothing to do with its copyright status.) Now, since the image itself was tagged as being non-free and was no longer being used in an article, I tagged it as an orphaned non-free image and notified you, the uploader (see ). What part of this process do you think was improper or lacking in neutrality?
 * I completely fail to see how what I have done could be called "rash." I waited six months for someone to provide a reference for the claims made in the image caption. When I finally did remove the image from the article today, I did notify the uploader (you). The image has not been deleted—it still exists (see File:NetFlix.jpg)—and even after it has been deleted it can be undeleted if necessary, so nothing has been or will be irrevocably destroyed. You are aware of the issue now, so if you feel that you can address it, please do. You seem to be eager to add a supporting reference—it would be excellent if you could do so.
 * If there is anything I can help you with, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A personal deletion is one made by a person, a human, as opposed to a bot deletion made by a script. Had nothing to do with me; per say. That aside, all you needed to do was note to the author (me) that the image was uncited and I would have put the link back in. The notice was from netflix's own FAQ/Help Page and cited, at the time I posted it. Just thought it was interesting. Was surprised to see the reason given for the deletion as I had cited the link before. If I had known the cite was deleted (a note sent?) I would have put it back in. Is it stands, I'll do so in the next 24 hours. As for WHY they need security envelopes isn't mentioned. But who knows. What was possible to be seen as a neutrality issue was the fact that you both deleted the image in the article and NSD the image. Should leave that to the 5 or 6 bots that handle image issues once you remove them from articles. Lostinlodos (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for misinterpreting your comments. Now, I don't think I have a responsibility to go around notifying all past contributors, or to hunt through the article history to figure out who added a certain piece of text or that the text originally had a supporting reference, whenever I ask for citations in an article. If you are interested in the Netflix article, you can watch it. I'm glad to hear you would have readded the reference if I would have notified you, but I'm notifying you now and you've said you'll readd it, so it seems to me that everything is being done almost exactly as you propose (the only difference being that the image has been temporarily removed from the article after six months of inaction).
 * When I remove a non-free image from an article, yes, I do tag it as an orphaned non-free image (because it is) and notify the uploader rather than waiting for a bot to do it. Why? For one thing, I don't trust the bots—there have been many times in the past when orphaned non-free images have sat for months before a bot finally gets around to tagging it (if ever). Second, if the issue with the image is something that can be addressed, then it seems to me that the best thing is to notify the uploader as quickly as possible so that it can be addressed sooner rather than later. In addition, notifying the uploader seems to be something I should do myself; after all, if I list an image for deletion at WP:FFD, for example, I should be the one to notify the uploader. You have expressed frustration with me for not notifying you when I placed a tag on a caption in an article, and then additional frustration when I do notify you about the removal of the image from the article? —Bkell (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitol Reef
Hello, Bkell;

The quotation marks were kind of a stopgap; public domain or not, I was uncomfortable having entire unedited hunks of text used without attribution. I'd prefer to see the sections rewritten, of course, but it's a bit out of my area of expertise. J. Spencer (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. Now that we have reference tags for those paragraphs, I take it you're okay with the situation for the moment? (I see you've removed a set of quotation marks I missed.) —Bkell (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not as happy as I'd be if the text was different, but there's certainly no sense in complaining about that if I'm not prepared to do anything about it. J. Spencer (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oval Office
Thank you for your fix of the Oval Office page's format. I moved one of the images, which I think works even better. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good. —Bkell (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with Image
Hello Bkell, I uploaded an image to the Fräulein article and you added a tag stating that copyright information was needed. This is my first time uploading an image, so I am not sure where to begin. The image is an album cover, and my impression was that album covers were public domain. I have the site that I downloaded the image from so would that be sufficient? Where do I need to post the information or to whom can I sent it? Please help. I uploaded the image so I could improve an article, but this is turning much more complicated than I would have imagined. I tried reading the Wikipedia rules on copyrights, etc but they don't seem to answer my questions. JohnBoughton2 (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Album covers, as a class, are definitely not in the public domain. This album cover is almost certainly copyrighted, and we must assume that it is unless you can provide evidence that it is not. Providing a link to the source of the image would be a start, but we also must have information about its copyright status. If the copyright holder has not released this album cover under a free license, then we can only use it on Wikipedia in accordance with the non-free content policy. In particular, its use would have to satisfy all ten points of the non-free content criteria. Frankly, I doubt that this image would satisfy the non-free content criteria; its use in the Fräulein article seems to be decorative. If you have more questions or need help, please let me know or ask at Media copyright questions. —Bkell (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Image conversion
Thanks for clarifying that for me. Unfortunately, on a similar note, a lot of the JPG images requested for PNG conversion are photographs which I don't think can be changed properly. Hugahoody (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have an example? —Bkell (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Lh-map.png
Thank you for uploading File:Lh-map.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. I see you also tagged File:Lithuania-map.png as missing a source. These files were already tagged with, which explicitly states that the source of the images is The World Factbook; that is pretty specific and easily verifiable source information. I've edited the file description pages so that they repeat this source information, but in the future you would do well to just fill in an tag or something yourself if you're not satisfied with the way the information is presented—all the information you need is already on the file description page. —Bkell (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

OK; I'm not sure how I missed that. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award
For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award. (Explanation and Disclaimer) ♠  TomasBat   02:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Uploading a screenshot from Who Framed Roger Rabbit to the Elmer Fudd article
Hi. I got your message and Bkell's other message about the screenshot I was trying to add to the Elmer Fudd article. Specifically what was wrong with it? The fact I got it from a Youtube.com video clip from the movie, the fact I drew a circle on it, or the fact it wasn't a better quality resolution? Why is it illegal to show screenshots of movie clips from Youtube.com? I'd like to upload another screenshot with better resolution from the movie and add it to the Elmer Fudd article- how should I do that? I don't have a DVD of the movie and I don't know to make screenshots from DVDs or VHS tapes. Other people have screenshots of cartoons they added to the article. A character appearring in a crowd of other characters, even if only for a breif amount of time, constitutes a cameo appearance in a film. From dictionary.com: Cameo- Also called cameo role. a minor part played by a prominent performer in a single scene of a motion picture or a television play. Walt Disney's Encyclopedia of Animated Characters lists Elmer Fudd as one of the characters who cameoed in the movie. I also keep trying to provide links to sources to verify his appearance in the movie-why does that keep being edited? Other articles about other characters who cameoed in the film make mention of Who Framed Roger Rabbit in their articles. Can you please help me out? Thank you. Mavericker (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to familiarize yourself with some policies and guidelines here at Wikipedia. Specifically:
 * Non-free content. One of the foundational goals of Wikipedia (described in the five pillars) is that Wikipedia is free content which anyone can use, modify, and distribute for any purpose. In order to uphold this goal, we must make sure that our content really is freely licensed, so we do not allow copyrighted, non-free material here except under strictly defined criteria. A screenshot from Who Framed Roger Rabbit is copyrighted material and is not available under a free license. Therefore we may only use it here if it satisfies all ten of the non-free content criteria. In particular, the image must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" (criterion 8). This screenshot does not significantly increase readers' understanding of Elmer Fudd—all they can see is a blurry shape in a tiny part of the background—so its use here surely fails criterion 8. Also, non-free images may be used "only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (criterion 1). We don't need this screenshot to explain that Elmer Fudd had a cameo appearance in the film—we can convey that information perfectly well with text alone, which can be freely licensed—so its use here also fails criterion 1.
 * What Wikipedia is not. We are not here to collect every little factoid and piece of trivia in the world. Elmer's cameo in this film is extraordinarily brief; even in the screenshot you posted, barely the top of his head is visible. I can't see how this cameo appearance is in any way notable enough to include in the Elmer Fudd article.
 * Verifiability and Identifying reliable sources. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. Random pages on the Internet are generally not considered reliable sources. If you want to make a persuasive argument that Elmer's cameo in Who Framed Roger Rabbit is indeed notable and should be included in the Elmer Fudd article, then you need to provide references to reliable sources that specifically discuss his cameo appearance and its importance. A passing mention of his cameo on some guy's Web page that is crammed with all kinds of other trivia is really not enough. You also cannot use the screenshot you made as a source—how do we know that's actually Elmer? (It's too blurry to be sure.) And the screenshot doesn't establish that the cameo appearance is notable. You mentioned "Walt Disney's Encyclopedia of Animated Characters"—is this an official published book from Disney? If so, it is likely to be considered a reliable source. Does that book discuss the importance or relevance of Elmer's cameo in this film specifically, or does it just have Elmer as a single entry in a long list of every cartoon character in the film?
 * Consensus and Edit warring. If you are the only person who is in favor of including this fact in the Elmer Fudd article, and other editors have repeatedly determined it is inappropriate and removed it, you should not continue to put it back. The proper course of action is to participate in a discussion about the issue on the article's talk page (Talk:Elmer Fudd). If the consensus among editors is that the material is inappropriate for the article, then you need to respect that consensus. Continuing to re-insert this material may be considered edit warring, and you might be blocked for it.
 * You say, "Other people have screenshots of cartoons they added to the article"—that's true, but these screenshots clearly show Elmer's appearance and contribute to readers' understanding of Elmer Fudd. Your screenshot does not. You also say, "Other articles about other characters who cameoed in the film make mention of Who Framed Roger Rabbit in their articles"—this may be true, too, and if the other cases are similar to this one I think they should be removed. See also Other stuff exists.
 * I notice you posted essentially the same message on Acather96's talk page at User talk:Acather96, so perhaps you should also read WP:FORUMSHOP. I am going to post a link there to this discussion. Let me know if you have further questions, but really you should be discussing this at Talk:Elmer Fudd. —Bkell (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi- I do not entirely agree with you about the screenshot - he appears there and again shortly after when they characters start singing in the background. I have found a better quality screenshot and some other info regarding his appearance in the film - he was going to appear in a scene that was left out of the film. Did you get the list of references and info I posted on your main talk page for Oct. and Nov.? How do I know the resources I have are good enough? I was hoping someone could help me to review them before I put them on the Elmer Fudd article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavericker (talk • contribs) 04:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comment to User talk:Craiglduncan
Hello, I posted a reply to your comment to User talk:Craiglduncan on his talk page. Please have a look. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have further questions
Hello-thank you for your input. I would still like to add a screenshot from Roger Rabbit to the Elmer Fudd article, I will take it up with the editors on the Elmer Fudd talk page like you suggested. Are you, TheRealFennShysa, and Acather96 wikipedia.org mods, admins, and/or editors? Is there a list of mods, admins and editors here I can look at, so I know who to contact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavericker (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Everyone here is an editor. A few of us are administrators, but that doesn't really change anything—we just have a few extra tools. See Administrators for more information; see List of administrators for a list. Please understand that simply being or not being an administrator doesn't (or at least shouldn't) make a difference in the weight of someone's contributions in consensus-building. In general administrators are quite familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that knowledge and experience can lend more weight to their arguments, but the same can be said for any experienced editor, whether they are an administrator or not. Usually there is no need to seek out an administrator to get something done. There are a few cases, though, where seeking out an administrator is useful—see Administrators. —Bkell (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Proper size for non-free images
Hi Bkell, you put a "non-free reduce" tag on File:Sderotchilddrawing.jpg. But to what resolution should the image be reduced? --Túrelio (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The non-free content criterion 3(b) requires that the resolution of a non-free image be no higher than what is necessary for its use in the encyclopedia. I see that File:Sderotchilddrawing.jpg is being used in the Sderot article at a resolution of 220×164 pixels. So there is apparently no need for us to have a copy of the image at a resolution of 1015×755 pixels—that's over 21 times as large as its use in the article. I would think a resolution of, say, 440×328 pixels would be acceptable. That is still larger than its use in the article, but not so indefensibly large as we have now. —Bkell (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. As the "original" image (actually I got the image in far higher resolution from the Israeli MFA) has to disappear, I would only ask you as an admin not to remove the original upload log, as this might be once needed for forensic reasons. At least on Commons, where I'm an admin myself, we can simply make disappear (hide) a version's content without removing the other data. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what will be done here too. —Bkell (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would the same be required for File:PirelliBuildingAfterPlaneCrash.jpg? --Túrelio (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, for the same reason. The resolution of non-free images should be no higher than what is necessary for their uses in the encyclopedia. —Bkell (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, done again. --Túrelio (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Bkell (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bkell, now exactly that has happened what should have been avoided. The original version of both files has not been hidden, but completed deleted including the original upload log, thereby robbing me of a proof for the original time of upload. As you are more involved on :en, could you eventually ask the deleting admin to correct it in the way we had discussed previously? Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, perhaps I misunderstood what you expected to happen. Yes, the original version of both files has been deleted, but the history of each page shows the original time of upload. For example, checking the history of File:Sderotchilddrawing.jpg shows that you originally uploaded the image at 21:45, 25 June 2007. The logs for that file show the same information. If this is not satisfactory for you, I can try to find out if the process can be done differently. —Bkell (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:El Fresno.jpg
Just FYI, you might want to see the message the image poster left on my talk page. Some people just have to learn by experience. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 22:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(File:La_Paz_Skyline_By_Dortega.jpg
Dear Bkell: The copyrights of La Paz pictures belonged to me. I used Adobe Photoshop to create the image. You have no right to just erase someone's picture without asking for permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dortega94 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dortega. First, please read Ownership of articles; editors do not "own" articles here, nor do they "own" images (in the sense of being able to mandate how they are used). Second, please see Files for deletion/2011 January 15, where a discussion of this image was open for a full week, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I did notify you of this deletion discussion (see ). This is a community project, and, contrary to what you say, it is not necessary to obtain permission from an uploader before deleting images, although it is considered polite to notify them of the deletion discussion, which I did.
 * The claims you have been making about this image, such as "I do not allow anyone to delete my picture or edit it," "This is protected by me," "authorized to be used by Dortega," and "Noone has the right to erase the picture without my authorization," indicate that you believe you should have full control over how this image is used. This is not how Wikipedia works. By contributing content to Wikipedia, you agree that it can be freely edited, used, redistributed, or deleted by others. If you do not agree to these terms, you should not submit that content. This was the issue I raised at the previous deletion discussion—you had tagged the image with a Creative Commons license, but your own words on the file description page seemed to contradict that. I am going to list this image at Possibly unfree files. I will notify you when that discussion has been opened; you are welcome to continue the discussion there. —Bkell (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, just don't erase it. It is my own work and I did not copy it from anyone.Dortega The Bolivian ! 18:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dortega94 (talk • contribs)


 * Do you agree to allow anyone in the world to use, edit, and redistribute this image, in any way, for commercial or noncommercial purposes? If we do not have from you an explicit agreement to these terms, this image will need to be deleted from Wikipedia, because it will not satisfy our licensing policy. The image is currently listed at Possibly unfree files/2011 February 6 because it is not clear that you have agreed to such terms. —Bkell (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Odd One out of n Resistors
Hello Bkell. I replied to my question near the end of the body. I deem this friendly reminder necessary since locating my reply may be counterintuitive. --Mayfare (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and sorry for the confusion. I've replied over there. —Bkell (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Please stop removing tags
Hi. You should have contacted me before reverting all my edits. Hugahoody (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See your talk page. —Bkell (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite clearly I did see my talk page, as this is why I have left you a message. My point is it would have been courteous to contact me to clarify things before reverting. Hugahoody (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried that approach with you once before (see User talk:Hugahoody)—I asked you to stop adding tags to images that were screenshots of computer programs and to remove the ones you had already done. But that didn't accomplish anything, and there are still lots of images (such as File:Superrobotwarsoriginalgeneration2.jpg) which you had inexplicably and inappropriately tagged with  that are still tagged that way because you never went back and corrected those edits. So, rather than trying that approach again, this time I was bold and just undid all of your unexplained tag removals myself. I'm sorry if that seems brusque, but given your lack of corrective activity before, I didn't see any reason to believe that discussing it with you beforehand would be productive. —Bkell (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it was very bold of you. I've made so many edits that it isn't so easy to go back to them all. On another note, I hope you're having a good day :) Hugahoody (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For future reference, your manner leaves a lot to be desired. Hugahoody (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously I upset you when I undid your edits. I apologize for that; it was never my intention to offend you. What I saw was the unexplained removal of tags from about 90 file description pages—no explanation, no edit summary, nothing—and the edits were even marked as minor. I usually feel free to revert unexplained removal of content when I notice it, both in articles and in file description pages. Afterward I posted a note on your talk page letting you know that I had undone those edits, and asking for an explanation before you continued removing tags. You promptly archived your talk page without replying there, so I still have no idea why you thought it would be a good idea to remove all those tags.
 * Now, apparently you would have preferred me to have done this in the opposite order—first post on your talk page, and then undo your edits? Or perhaps, first post on your talk page asking for clarification, then wait while you don't provide any, and then undo your edits a week later? Would you have engaged in a meaningful discussion about the issue at hand if I would have asked first? If so, why can't you do that now? You haven't even attempted to explain to me why you removed all those tags—the only thing you have told me is that you don't like my "manner," which doesn't help to resolve the apparent misunderstanding here.
 * I am perfectly happy to undo my own edits if I can see why the tags you removed were inappropriate for those files, but I really don't understand what you were doing when you removed them all, and frankly your removals appeared almost clandestine, not having edit summaries and being marked minor.
 * I see you have just asked for an editor review, and apparently you are referring to me when you say you have "met several users recently who perhaps had forgotten they were talking to humans," because you use the same phrase to describe those users as you have used to describe me ("their manner had a lot to be desired"). Please consider this present discussion to be my contribution to your editor review. I will post a link to this discussion over there.
 * Please let me know when you are willing to discuss your reasons for removing those 90 tags from file description pages. —Bkell (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When I archived my talk page should have no bearing on this, since we have conversed here.

Regarding my editor review, I filled that out first, then thought the comment was particularly relevant in this case.

I would have prefered you to contact me first so that I could respond, which I would have done. I have taken issue with your tone first and foremost.

The images are tagged as bad jpegs but were created by another user. As this is the case, it would be difficult for another user to revisit the source to create a new PNG or SVG version. Rightly or wrongly, I decided to remove the tag to take the image out of the category and so reduce the backlog.

I trust this addresses your concerns. Would you mind deleting my editor review page as I've changed my mind on having it done at this time.

Thank you. Hugahoody (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Editors do create SVG versions of JPEG drawings all the time, even drawings that were originally created by someone else. User:Mysid has done a lot of work like this. I've done some of it myself; for example, File:Schriftzug Fraktur.svg and File:Activation energy.svg. The entire purpose of the tag (and similar tags like ) is to bring images to the attention of editors who do this work. If we had to rely on the original creator of the JPEG drawing to do the work, we would just leave a note on the uploader's talk page and hope for the best. —Bkell (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Do you think you could create SVG versions of the crest images? Hugahoody (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not right now, but maybe later. —Bkell (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hugahoody (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Another quick question for you
Hi. I just wanted to know, is TheRealFennShysa a wikipedia.org staffer (mod or admin here)? I got a message from here a while ago about my editing- I tried looking for his/her name in the list of staffers-I couldn't find her name. Do you know here? I'm curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavericker (talk • contribs) 08:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You can just look it up. User:TheRealFennShysa is a reviewer but not an administrator. There are no such things as "staffers" or "mods." —Bkell (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you-how much jurisdiction do reviewers have here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavericker (talk • contribs) 09:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" here. I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the various roles. All Wikipedia editors are equal. TheRealFennShysa is a reviewer—that just means she has access to a tool that allows her to officially "review" newly created articles in a process that helps to catch some forms of vandalism (see Reviewing for details). It doesn't mean she "outranks" an ordinary editor who is not a reviewer. Most anyone who has a reasonable amount of experience editing Wikipedia can easily become a reviewer if he or she wants, just by asking. I am an administrator, but all that means is that I have access to a few tools that allow me to do things like delete pages, restore pages that have been deleted, change the protection level of a page, block users for violations of Wikipedia policy, and so forth (see Administrators/Tools for details)—I do not "outrank" anyone else, nor do I have "jurisdiction" over anything. —Bkell (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello- would I get in trouble for deleting TheRealFennShysa's message to me? She claims I was being disruptive with my editing. I got her message-that was not my intention. I am not trying to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavericker (talk • contribs) 05:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine; you can delete messages from your own talk page. See User pages. —Bkell (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to have further discussion about submitting screenshots to the Elmer Fudd article and discuss it on the discussion section, but why is it illegal to include pics of movie stills from Youtube.com on here? I would like to resubmit a new screenshot from Roger Rabbit to include on the Elmer Fudd article-I'd like to include a zoomed-in close-up of Elmer Fudd's cameo in that movie. And I am still trying to find original sources to verify his appearance in this movie. Mavericker (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not "illegal" to include movie stills, but such images are non-free content, so their use here is subject to restrictions. Specifically, all non-free content must satisfy all ten points of the non-free content criteria. In addition, other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines apply, such as Verifiability, Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think I have already explained in detail why I do not think the particular image you are referring to is appropriate; see Files for deletion/2011 January 17 and the section Uploading a screenshot from Who Framed Roger Rabbit to the Elmer Fudd article above. The main point is that the use of the image you are referring to does not seem to satisfy the Wikipedia policies I've cited here. The fact that it is a low-quality image taken from a YouTube video which itself is a copyright violation does not help matters, but there are more important problems than that. If you have specific questions about the points I've made, please ask, but understand that my objections to the image are not simply that it is a "movie still from Youtube.com". —Bkell (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how do I create a screenshot from a movie/cartoon without using something from Youtube? What tools do I need? Please help. Mavericker (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First, you need a copy of the DVD, and DVD-playing software. What you do after that depends on your computer. Do you have Windows or a Mac? —Bkell (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Windows. Mavericker (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume you know how to take a screenshot with the Print Screen key, paste it into an image editor like Paint, and save it as a JPEG, since you must have done something like this to get the screenshot from YouTube. Taking a screenshot of a DVD is no different, except that you may have to disable hardware video acceleration to get it to work. This blog post has details. —Bkell (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Imamhassan.jpg‎ by user Afghana
Hi, I noticed that you warned this user about copyright issues of the image in Husayn ibn Ali article and later it was removed. Apparently she also uploaded the photo for Hasan ibn Ali. Would you mind investigating the copyright credentials for this article' image as well? Thanks.Kazemita1 (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The image File:Imamhassan.jpg is certainly missing source information, so I've tagged it appropriately and left a note on the uploader's talk page. —Bkell (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

West Omaha Suburban Street photo in Omaha, Nebraska article
Hi Bkell,

Thank you for your advice on the image size description in the photo I uploaded last night.

I am a new contributor, and this was my first attempt at adding to the value of this most amazing project. In spite of the vandals and other detractors, and thanks to people like you, Wikipedia has become, I believe, the finest and most extensive encyclopedia ever created.

I see that my own login shows the corrected image still in the article, but the standard Wikipedia does not have my image at all. Now that you have advised me on my image and removed the image size text, do I need to re-edit the live article to put the image back out there, or will this happen automatically within a few days? I have looked through your talk page and checked a few other places, but have not found an answer to this question.

Like you, I also look forward to correcting some of the many grammatical errors and incorrect content, not to mention the deliberate inclusion of incorrect or opinionated information.

I suppose you may already be aware of this, but I have also discovered that some of the links, even in the references, actually point to someone's commercial or personal web site that has no connection to either the article or the reference.

Thank you again for your help with my first attempt to add to Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Futuredirections (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The only thing I did with that picture was to remove the note in the caption about its resolution, since I didn't think that note was relevant to the Omaha, Nebraska article. If you aren't seeing the photo in the article, try bypassing your cache so that you get a fresh copy of the article from the Wikipedia servers; it should be there. —Bkell (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Graph Ramsey number
Hi. I thought it best to reply here, regarding the Graph Ramsey question because since a few days had elapsed so my response was in danger of being archived. By $$K_m+\overline{K_n}$$ it is my presumption that the problem means the join of graphs $$K_m$$ and $$\overline{K_n}$$, i.e. the graph obtained by adding all mn edges between the empty graph on n vertices $$\overline{K_n}$$ and $$K_m$$. The book from where I got the question referred the reader to another textbook on Graph Theory (by Bollobas) for definitions. The Bollobas book defines the join G + H of two graphs as the graph obtained by adding all possible edges between G and H in $$G\bigcup H$$. -Shahab (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Imamalbaqir.jpg
Hi,

The page claims this file is in public domain. However, when I click on the source website, it does not show anything. I tried contacting the person who posted it for the first time, but no response yet. I guess it would be helpful if you ask the person to provide some source(copyright, authenticity, etc.) for this photo. Thank You.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Grande Arche
Looks like you deleted the Grande Arche picture I uploaded, because you incorrectly believed that it infringed on copyright. You do realize that there are hundreds of similar pictures of buildings in France on Wikipedia. Why haven't you deleted those as well? Either (1) none of the pictures infringe, and your deletion of the one I uploaded was a mistake, or (2) Wikipedia has negligently and recklessly allowed infringing photos to remain on the site. Which is it? (I can tell you now that none of the photos is an infringement, including mine, but clearly you don't believe that if you deleted mine.) If you don't understand copyright law, it might be best to stick to math. Agateller (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration. However, you will note, by carefully reading Possibly unfree files/2011 January 17, that I did not delete this file. The file was deleted by User:After Midnight. My participation was limited to listing it at Possibly unfree files, which is meant for files that have "disputed source or licensing information", in response to an anonymous editor's claim (on the file description page) that the image was not in the public domain; and, later, commenting about what I believe is the policy on Wikimedia Commons about such things. Please note that I did not argue one way or the other about whether the image should be deleted or kept, because, as you rightly say, I am not knowledgeable enough about the applicable copyright laws and Wikipedia policies and precedents in this instance. And I certainly was not the one who decided that the image should be deleted. If you would like to further discuss the deletion of this image, I would suggest first contacting User:After Midnight (I would also suggest avoiding the confrontational tone you have adopted with me). You might also look at Deletion review to familiarize yourself with that process. —Bkell (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will talk to that user. My tone is not confrontational, it is just the consequence of having very little time to deal with people who are clueless on the subject of copyright (as anyone who deleted that photo must necessarily be). Agateller (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Be careful with your accusations of cluelessness—copyright law, and especially the interaction between the copyright laws of different countries, is a complicated mess, and unless you are an intellectual property lawyer (and perhaps even if you are) I doubt you understand all the intricacies fully. Come to the discussion prepared to admit that you might be wrong about something, or at least that this particular instance may not be as black and white as you seem to think it is. Also, there are considerations here other than purely legal issues: namely, Wikipedia policies and precedents. Wikipedia disallows some content even though it may not specifically violate copyright laws. As I mentioned in the WP:PUF discussion, Wikimedia Commons (which, granted, is separate from the English Wikipedia) intentionally has stricter standards for acceptance than U.S. copyright law mandates. —Bkell (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Black hole formula image picture
Not sure if you saw my follow-up to your post at the help desk regarding File:Bekenstein–Hawking entropy formula.png. Anyway, did you happen to catch this edit? --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Copyright
Thanks for your message on my page regarding images that have been flagged. I've contacted the organisations that you have listed and asked them to send an email to permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org to prove ownership and grant permission to use the images. Biggleswiki (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject:Pittsburgh
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 20:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Heads up
Please see Talk:Black hole.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello
I came across some of your pages and saw that we are in the same area and I am led to believe that we share some mathematical interests. If you are interested in contact, or can let me know about seminars offered at CMU or in the Pittsburgh area, I would be appreciative, thanks! Rschwieb (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Certification listing
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Certification listing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Soon and Baliunas controversy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Soon and Baliunas controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hala'ib Triangle
Hi. Thanks for the move of "Hala'ib triangle" to "Hala'ib Triangle". Could you also move the talk page, which is at Talk:Hala'ib triangle. There's a redirect at "Talk:Hala'ib Triangle" which is preventing me (non-admin) from moving it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. —Bkell (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)