User talk:Blind cyclist

notoriety
does not always have negative conotation:

noun 1. Unfavorable, usually unsavory renown: infamousness, infamy, notoriousness. See knowledge/ignorance. 2. Wide recognition for one's deeds: celebrity, fame, famousness, popularity, renown, reputation, repute. --Ishtar456 (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The dictionary entry you cite supports my claim, in the sense that "notoriety" is better used in a negative context, while "fame" in a positive one. But don't worry, this is Wikipedia: the one who talks loudest usually wins! By the way, you misspelled "connotation".

Blind cyclist (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

looks to me like there was two definitions, and I think it would have done just fine where it was. Although I did write much of that article, with a lot of help from people who did some spelling and other copy edits, I did not put that word in, in the first place, nor I did not change your edit (although I think "fame" is bland), I simply wanted to point out that in the context it was in, it was fine. It does not always have a neg. connotation. I'm not looking to win anything, there really isn't anything to win, no one here gets paid, and most of the stuff that is written is taken freely by others. It is Wikipedia, so people can discuss edits, if they want. But, as the most major contributor to a GA article, I believe I do have the right to defend the dignity of the article and if that is winning, they I guess I win. --Ishtar456 (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Uploading images
is very easy if they are yours (i.e. you are the copyright holder). You can choose to upload them on en.wikipedia or on commons; the latter is preferred because then the pictures can be used on other wikis.

The upload link is here. Click "entirely my own work" (if applies). Scroll to the boxed fields. The form looks scary, but you only need to fill a few fields:
 * "Local file name"
 * "Description"
 * Choose the "Licensing" from the scroll-down list (the recommended one, CC-BY-SA-3.0 is fine)
 * Add a category so that the picture can be found. This could be "silicon", "Electron microscope images", etc. That's all. Then you can add the image to nearly any article. Please don't hesitate to ask details. Materialscientist (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do this first thing tomorrow morning. Seems much, much simpler than I expected.--Blind cyclist (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to upload it, but it gave me the warning that the file contains errors?! I am not sure if the file got uploaded in the end, or not.--Blind cyclist (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to re-save the file - the particular TIFF format that our SEM produces seems incompatible with Wikimedia.--Blind cyclist (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * TIFF is inefficient for SEM images and some TIFF varieties indeed have poor compatibility, I would convert to JPG. I had some problems with Commons too, recently, and it looks like a technical glitch. An alternative is to upload at en.wiki.

Here is the upload link (same as the button on the left of the window), and the steps are nearly same:
 * Select "my own work" (if applies)
 * Fill in "source filename", "Description", select "licensing" (recommended one is Ok) and click upload. Materialscientist (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have converted your TIFF into JPG and placed into black silicon, but I'm not seeing the point of this image. Materialscientist (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cryogenic RIE is completely different from the Bosch process, and as you can see, the sidewalls of the micropillars are different: with cryogenic RIE you have sloped, smooth surfaces. With Bosch, you obtain undulated surfaces.
 * this is worth noting in the article or figure caption there. Materialscientist (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just edited the caption.--Blind cyclist (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Though as far as "ruining" Wikipedia goes ...
... I've made more edits to articlespace in the last fourteen days as you've managed in the last fourteen months, and that makes it a mightily slow fortnight for me. Perhaps you could turn more attention to helping to build the encyclopedia than in insulting other editors, each Deletion advocate in the von Trapp AfD who likewise has had thousands of articlespace edits.  Ravenswing  00:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nazis did some good, during the 3rd Reich, but still managed to wreck Germany worse than ever before in history. Deletionists are a great destructive force, because they discourage others from contributing. Deletionists love to remove examples, no matter how useful and descriptive. They love to remove proofs, no matter how useful and relevant. They love to remove data, no matter how instructive and useful. And for what? Really? We are not printing this on pages of paper. We could take advantage of the virtually unlimited storage capacities offered by electronic media. But deletionists just can't seem to be able to reign in their ego trip. By the way, I don't understand why are you so defensive. Deletionints have all the power at the moment, and there is no doubt in my mind that this entry (Sam von Trapp) will be deleted very soon, if it hasn't been already. Coming over to my talk page to show how much better you are than me is just over the top. Can't you enjoy your victory with some dignity? Blind cyclist (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside your many distortions (never mind your invocation of Godwin's Law), you have a badly skewed notion of what we're doing here. This isn't a matter of "victory;" this is not a war, there are no "battles," and it isn't a zero-sum game.  This is building an encyclopedia, and like any other encyclopedia, there are standards of inclusion.  Those standards are not set in concrete - they were derived through consensus, supported by consensus and they sometimes change through consensus.  It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize how the people who are doing the work handle things.  Feel like getting off the sidelines and joining them?   Ravenswing  16:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies ...
Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy is the correct link.  Ravenswing  17:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks.Blind cyclist (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Track saw.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Track saw.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)