User talk:Dbenbenn/archive2

A few requests
You said: "If you come across any more diagrams like Image:8cage.jpg that need cleaning, let me know and I can try to make a Metapost version."

Really? Cool! I think I'll take you up on that. Here are some relatively simple diagrams and such that look like they may be copyright violations. New versions would be wonderful.
 * Image:Equivalence.PNG: obsoleted by Image:circuit equivalence.png
 * Image:EquivariantMap.png: obsoleted by Image:equivariant commutative diagram.png
 * Image:SnakeLemma01.png
 * Image:SnakeLemma02.png
 * Image:SnakeLemma03.png

Thanks in advance! – Quadell (talk) (help)  04:07, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I have a few more. Someone used screenshots and altered them to illustrate a situation in the game of Go. Unfortunately, screenshots can only be used according to our fair use policy, and it is never a fair use to alter an image. Could you recreate these as well? I could do them myself, but I'm sure they wouldn't look as good as if you did them. – Quadell (talk) (help) 12:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Image:LnD11.png, obsoleted by Image:Go position, life and death, 1.png
 * Image:LnD12.png, obsoleted by Image:Go position, life and death, 2.png
 * Image:LnD13.png, obsoleted by Image:Go position, life and death, 3.png
 * Image:LnD14.png, obsoleted by Image:Go position, life and death, 4.png
 * Image:LnD15.png

I've started studying the Lambertian diffuse lighting model for rendering the stones. I'll be able to do these, but it might take a week or two. Dbenbenn 05:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

afu rfc
Please see draft at User:Dbenbenn/Antifinnugor. Comments have been moved to User talk:Dbenbenn/Antifinnugor. Dbenbenn 18:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Pomegranate crosssection.jpg
I uploaded the image to the commons, but it got deleted because the Stock.xchng license is not compatible with the commons (i.e. no picture archives). I didn't know that until now. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:16, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh damn! I should have read their fine print more carefully.  Thanks for letting me know.  Dbenbenn 01:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Date (fruit) image
What's the problem with Stock Xchng images?? - the ones marked 'no restrictions on use' (as is the dates image) should be OK (I've used a few too). - MPF 11:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * See the comment above. Apparently "no restrictions" doesn't really mean that.  See stock.xchng terms of use, section on "DOWNLOADING", points 2), 3), and 4).


 * I'd love to be proved wrong! Possibly the images can be kept at Wikipedia but not Wikimedia?  But in the mean time I thought it was safer to take the images off.  Dbenbenn 13:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I asked about it at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags and Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems Dbenbenn 14:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks; looks too complex for me to know, I know b***** all about copyright. Maybe send a query to stockxchng too? MPF 15:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Sollog
Awww, that's just plain cruel! Tohchina had finally managed to make a comment with only a handful of references to homosexuality and no direct personal attacks and only an indirect legal threat, and you delete it. And all the sentences had verbs this time too! *giggles* --fvw *  18:54, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Thanks, Dbenbenn :) Wyss 04:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

David. The picture of you on a car shows that you're very young. Posting your email address: dbenbenn@cam.cornell.edu. might even be unwise. But surely even you, in your youth, see that archiving my posts rather than trying to deal with the string of very sensible comments is merely another outbreak of Institutionalised Vandalism?

I expected better from Wiki people. --Comment by User:217.43.103.220 (contribs), 14:38, 13 Jan 2005


 * I archived the talk page in accordance with Wikipedia policy, see How to archive a talk page. Dbenbenn 22:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could you lend a hand?
Heya, you have the dubious honour of being having the first username I recognised on WP:RC, I was wondering could you lend a hand cleaning up? A vandal has been inserting a useless link in Dick Cheney (and in doing so violated the 3RR rather massively). All the others involved in cleaing up his mess are somehow involved with blocking or warning about being blocked so would rather not create a conflict of interest by reverting, and I've used up my 3R there. Could you have a look and if you agree the link doesn't belong there remove it? Thanks. --fvw *  18:56, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Glad to oblige.  Dbenbenn 19:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The colour white
People who use an encyclopedia might be doing so because they want to learn something. People who want to learn more than the encyclopedia contains might be interested in finding out how. Putting a link on a page to a course specifically about the subject of the article might not add much, but it adds something, don't you think? Why take it out? I've put it back anyway. Matt Stan 12:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's take this discussion to Talk:White. Dbenbenn 17:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Like ... vandalism?
You said: ''Was this change to Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania simply vandalism? Dbenbenn 10:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)'' My response is that if I were going to be a vandal, would I have left my calling card? If you are a native of the western suburbs of Philadelphia, please forgive this explanation: King of Prussia is not just the second largest shopping mall in the United States. King of Prussia also is a place name. Something one finds in Pennsylvania, possibly uniquely so within the U.S. Many of the people who live in Upper Merion Township are, for the purposes of their post office, in King of Prussia. Some residents of Upper Merion Township have as their post office, Valley Forge. However, neither place is a local unit of government of any kind. Nor is, for all I know, Upper Merion Township a place name or a post office. Wikipedia provided some recognition of this before this writer arrived by listing census data for King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. One also finds census information on Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania. May I conclude by saying that while I am happy to take my Wikipedia lumps with the best of them, I find the label "vandalism" a bit distasteful. If you believe my addition of this "see also" is not in the Wikipedia style, I would welcome your comment upon that minus the labels. --MacSigh 02:32, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Decline and Fall
If there are any flaws to this page, I suggest you fix them. This page has been vandalized; reverted without any notice or discussion. I attempted to discuss this with StBalbart (whatever) and I spent too much energy working on this for the past two weeks to continually be aggravated by reverts without any input. fix the header. find someone else. I'm out. allie 03:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kind of like Tennis??
Wimbledon must look very odd from your perspective. --fvw *  03:50, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
 * Back and forth, back and forth. Dbenbenn 03:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "At which point Henman copies the ball, leaving one copy on his side of the court and returning the other one, along with a new ball intended as a response to the original ball." --fvw *  03:57, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fvw. That's the first time I've laughed out loud all day!  Dbenbenn 04:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

afu, once again
I would appreciate any help with Requests_for_arbitration/Antifinnugor/Evidence. I'm a bit unhappy with this rfar now that afu seems to have lost interest. But since it's underway, I suppose we'll have to see it through. regards, dab (&#5839;) 10:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * never mind, I think I got most of it covered, now. You are still welcome to add additional material. dab (&#5839;) 13:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow reply; didn't have time to look into it during the work week. Anyway, I've added some evidence of my attempts to resolve the dispute.  If you have any suggestions just let me know.  dbenbenn | talk 01:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Move over redirect?
On WP:RCP, you wrote "anyone can move articles over a simple redirect with no edit history, I've moved it back." I've seen this kind of comment before, but I don't understand it. As far as I can tell, you have to be an admin to move a page over another page, even one that has no history. (But obviously there's something I'm missing, because you're not an admin yet!) Thus, I've been listing cases like that on WP:RM. ? Dbenbenn 15:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, a redirect without further content and without history (or perhaps only one that's been created by a page move, I've never tried it for other cases) can be overwritten. You just do a simple move as if the redirect wasn't there and it works. --fvw *  15:48, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I should have read more carefully: "unless it is a redirect to the old title and has no past edit history".  What I tried before was a move over a page that redirected to a third page.  Dbenbenn 16:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inclusionism
C'mon, no inclusionist would vote to delete Autobiography promotion and publicity. The subject matter is far more notable than so many other topics on Wikipedia&mdash;you think it's less notable than the Meow Wars, which even I, interpreting notability much more broadly than most, voted to delete? Sigh, oh well, oh well. But it does appear we have something in common, that we're both big Pumpkins fans. Everyking 02:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've actually been feeling torn lately about that. If you want to argue about it, I might be amenable to changing my mind.  What do you think about Legal history of Sealand?  How about Homespring?


 * I suppose that as an inclusionist, I feel that every "topic" should be covered here. But that says nothing about how much detail a topic gets.  I think you feel the same way&mdash;that some details should be left out.  The only issue is that with respect to "certain topics", your opinion about the appropriate level of detail is radically different from that of most other people.


 * Are you familiar with Mary Star of the Sea? I'm disappointed that Zwan only made the one album.  Dbenbenn 03:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sud Pol
Please stop deleting images. It is considered vandalism. This is your last warning. Sud-Pol 12:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Sud-Pol, As I am not an admin, I am not able to delete images. Perhaps you're referring to removing an inappropriate image from a page ?  It is not in fact considered vandalism.  What do you mean by "last warning"?  Dbenbenn 14:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Too slow!
Hi Rdsmith4, You keep slipping in before me! Reverting penis, then copyvio-tagging Iraqi occupation. I guess I need to get a faster computer! Dbenbenn 02:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments :-) I don't know if you've been using Special:Recentchanges, but there's also the RC dumper - it's a nifty tool and speeds up the process considerably. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 03:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for interpreting my (unintentionally) ambiguous comments as compliments! And thank you very much for the RC dumper link.  It's a lot faster than waiting for Firefox to render the whole Recentchanges page.  Of course, you'll still be faster than me, with your magic "rollback" button.  Dbenbenn 14:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, are you aware of the "Raw signatures (without automatic link)" setting? That would allow you to simplify your User:Rdsmith4/sig template.  dbenbenn | talk 14:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

TeX looks terrible?
Hi Michael,

You wrote : "TeX looks ... terrible when embedded in lines of text because it gets badly misaligned and is far too BIG". Are you aware of the "Rendering math:Recommended for modern browsers" setting? With that option set, the page in question,, looks fine; the math is rendered as text, not images.

Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 00:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no idea whether you're talking about a Wikipedia setting or a browser setting or what, but Tex always gets properly rendered when I look at it on Wikipedia from my browser. I am aware that some people have Wikipedia settings that cause TeX not to get properly rendered in some simple cases, but I am not one of those.  Do you understand that I said TeX embedded in lines of text looks bad but DISPLAYED TeX looks good, i.e., do you understand what the difference is?  Why are you asking me whether I am aware of that option while telling me nothing about it that could enable me to answer yes or no?  At any rate, I'll be surprised if I do not have far more experience using TeX both on and off Wikipedia than you do. Michael Hardy 00:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I found what you're referring to, and I tried that setting, and the result is that you're very very very badly wrong in this case; that setting makes even DISPLAYED TeX look terrible. It makes it fail to get rendered as TeX! Michael Hardy 00:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And now I've put my preferences back the way they were, and the displayed TeX looks good again; it gets properly rendered, but the TeX embedded in lines of text now looks bad BECAUSE it gets properly rendered without getting properly aligned and without matching the size of the surrounding text. One very bad thing about the setting you're recommending is that it makes minus signs in TeX look like hyphens.  Among other bad things.... Michael Hardy 00:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't make that clear. See Special:Preferences, then click on the "Rendering math" section.  Yes, I understand the point you were making about displayed versus inline math.  The point is that someone who cares about math rendering can change their settings to make it look good.  I didn't in fact "recommend" any settings.


 * For what it's worth, I have quite a lot of experience using TeX, and I don't appreciate the implication that my message was motivated by ignorance. I was simply trying to give you a helpful suggestion.  I suggest you would do well to avoid that kind of tone in the future.  dbenbenn | talk 01:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Just in case you missed it on my talk page:


 * I stand corrected concerning you TeX experience. I leapt to a conclusion based on the apparent fact that you don't find it horribly ugly to set one's preferences in a way that makes minus signs look like hyphens.  Donald Knuth's very careful attention to just such details as those is the major reason why TeX is what it is. Michael Hardy 01:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking arbitration
I've filed an arbitration request against Everyking. Please comment; brickbats for my foolhardiness are more than welcome. Johnleemk | Talk 07:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

State seals
I was working on state seals today here on En when I noticed that you started uploading them to the Commons. I guess I should have thought of that before I created Template:US state seal. I also just uploaded a bigger and better version of the Texas state seal to En. Oh well. I think a template for state seals is still useful, since I'm not quite sure about their legal status. They may not be in the public domain just because they are government works – that only applies to the federal government. Plus each government can prescribe what its insignia may be used for. I think we're fine under fair use, but usually these things cannot be used for commercial advertising or for political purposes. There could be a general disclaimer to that effect in the template, but I'll probably do that on the Commons, unless you beat me to it. --MarkSweep 04:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to you. I only came across Image:Alabamastateseal.png becase I was going through Category:Images with unknown copyright status.  dbenbenn | talk 13:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Too many pages on watch list
Thank you, you were beginning to make us grumpy reply-on-my-talkpage-or-I-won't-see-it-ers look bad. Glad that got solved. --fvw *  16:50, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after a spate of image tagging over the weekend it's at 984. I'll have to come up with some other way to make you look bad now.  By the way, it's cheating to serve two balls at once. dbenbenn | talk 17:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What, you've never played doubles? :-p. --fvw *  08:14, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision
Hey, you were involved in this dispute deeply and certified the RfC. Some of us feel that the proposed decision against Everyking is insufficient and too weak for a user who has abused Wikipedia so badly. I hope you can weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision having read the proposed decision and discussion and share your opinion with us, whether it's that the decision is too strong, just right, or too weak. Johnleemk | Talk 06:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Electrical and electronic diagrams, commons:Category:Diagrams, and commons:Category:Diagram
you moved electrical and electronic diagrams from the diagram category to the diagrams category despite the fact the diagram category is more established and is the one linked from the main page please explain. Plugwash 14:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Feel free to move it back if you disagree.


 * My reason was simply that categories in general ought to be plural. Note that the link on the main page appears as Diagrams.  Most of the other categories linked there are plural.


 * I'm trying to make commons:Category:Diagrams more established in the only way possible: by moving pages there! dbenbenn | talk 15:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ok i've moved everything out of commons:Category:Diagram and put a message that the category is no longer in use. The contents of the combined category needs some tidying though. Plugwash 15:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Closing VfD decisions
Good afternoon, dbenbenn. Thank you for your help in closing so many of the VfD discussions.

I was just spinning through the entries on the 17th looking for a few to close myself and the discussion about Wikings caught my eye. (Votes that end up that lopsided interest me.) You closed that discussion as a "keep" and noted that the vote was 9 keep to 1 delete. I counted two delete votes - the nomination by User:RickK and a vote by User:Starblind. I don't dispute your decision but I was wondering why you discounted one of the delete votes.

Curiously, Rossami (talk) 20:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sometimes someone nominates an article without themselves having an opinion. Thus, I don't count the nominator unless they make it obvious.  In this particular case, it didn't look obvious enough to me, so I didn't count RickK.


 * I'd probably avoid a page where one extra "delete" vote would make a difference anyway. dbenbenn | talk 22:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S., I edited your user page.


 * Interesting. I interpret the nomination as an vote to delete unless the nominator explicitly withholds that decision.  (User:Niteowlneils frequently makes those nominations for procedural reasons but he's always careful to express the fact that he's not voting.)  Thanks for answering.


 * Oh, and thanks for cleaning up my user page. I noticed the duplication a little bit ago but hadn't yet gone back to figure out exactly what needed cleaning up.  You saved me a bit of time.  Rossami (talk)


 * I always vote explicitly when I nominate. You're certainly right that a nomination usually implies a "delete" vote.  My method probably reflects my inclusionist POV :).  I tell myself (rationalization) that an erronious "keep" can always be fixed later.  dbenbenn | talk 23:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VfD/Ohio Wesleyan buildings
Hi Dbenbenn &mdash; thanks for merging the information in the articles to Ohio Wesleyan University. One question: several people (including myself) noted that the pages that were being voted on would have the wrong title even if kept ("Wesleyan" being the name of any number of different universities). As it is, these are the articles that have now been turned into redirects, and thus the redirects still have incorrect titles. Should I just go ahead and move them to their correct titles? Thanks,   &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 23:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Asbestos, I think the easiest thing to do is just make redirects from whatever pages you think need them. Alternatively, you could move, for example, Elliott Hall, Wesleyan to Elliott Hall, Ohio Wesleyan, but that would just result in a redirect at Elliott Hall, Wesleyan pointing to Elliott Hall, Ohio Wesleyan.  Redirects are cheap, so having a redirect from the wrong title isn't really a problem.  Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 00:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks.   &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 08:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Johnson solids
Just in case you missed it, I responded to your query on Talk:Johnson_solid. Respond there if you feel the need. -- Andrew Kepert 08:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Happy number
You wrote:
 * I removed the text:


 * It can be shown mathematically that no matter what the initial number t is, the sequence t0,t1,t2,.. will eventually settle between 1 and 163. What happens to this sequence after it is inside this interval can be estimated by a simple computation.


 * It turns out that the only alternative to ending up at 1 is to be stuck in the cycle

4, 16, 37, 58, 89, 145, 42, 20, 4, ...

The second part is in the references. The first one I proved. I did not know on Wikpedia you must submit the proofs. What is a good way of proceeding about that? Assuming that the text fragment is accurate, and since it adds value to the article, maybe it should be left. What do you think? Oleg Alexandrov | talk 21:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I should have given you more time to explain yourself. :) I got your message. I think, in the fragment above I said that it can be proved that things will settle between 1 to 163, and only from there on one can do some computerized checking. So, you want me to include the proof? It is not that hard.

You can reply here, I will keep a watch on it. Oleg Alexandrov | talk 21:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's take this discussion to Talk:Happy number. dbenbenn | talk 21:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with proof. You see, you focus too much on what happens over 100. If you are at 99, you jump up to 162. And then, if you drop below 100 again with your reasoning, you can come back later. So it is not clear if you ever get stuck under 100. So I think you should say we are stuck between 1 and 162 and leave it that way. What do you think?Oleg Alexandrov | talk 05:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Replied at Talk:Happy number. dbenbenn | talk 06:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image recreation requests
Greetings. I just started the Image recreation requests project, and I thought you might be interested. Your help would be greatly appreciated. (I got your name from the list at Wikipedians/Graphic Artists.) Best regards, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:12, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed. In fact, I actually reserved one of those images a few hours ago, and I'm almost done recreating it.   (Great project idea, by the way!)  dbenbenn | talk 03:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To-Do List Editing on Talk Pages
I'll thank you not to edit my own personal to-do list. &mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 21:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Your user page was incorrectly in Category:United States coins. I fixed the problem by replacing
 * [[Category:United_States_coins|...
 * with
 * [[:Category:United_States_coins|...
 * I'm sorry; I didn't feel it was necessary to ask your permission to fix the problem, but I probably should have left a note explaining what I did. dbenbenn | talk 23:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Three halves
I defer to your judgement on number-related articles. Please look at Three halves. Is it something that needs to stay around? Joyous 02:20, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably not. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers.  I'll give it a couple weeks; maybe someone can come up with something interesting to put there.  dbenbenn | talk 05:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Author of photos?
Hi Chilepine,

You've uploaded some marvelous photos! It looks like you're quite into hiking. The only problem is, some of them don't indicate who actually took the picture. I retagged Image:Hippeastrum.JPG as under the assumption that you took it, but there are others. If you like, I could retag them for you; just let me know.

Also, it looks like you've reduced the resolution of the images. If you still have the original high-resolution versions, it would be wonderful if you could upload them. Higher resolution is always better.

Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 01:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello Dbenbenn


 * I'm glad you like the photos. The link 'PD-link' I have used does say it is released by the creator who is myself.  I usually take images in 640 by 480 pixel resolution.  If I take them in a high resolution I can only get a handful on the memory card.  I may try taking a few high resolution images and upload them some time to see the benefits.


 * cheers Chilepine 15:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the main benefit would be for a hypothetical print edition of Wikipedia. Not really a big deal.


 * I guess it's a minor point, but the image description pages don't actually say that you are the creator. Is it okay if I add "This photograph was taken by User:Chilepine" to the ones that use PD-link, just to make it totally clear?


 * By the way, are you aware of the Wikimedia Commons? It's a sister project specifically for images.  The benefit of putting images at the Commons is that all Wikipedias can use them.  For example, da:Venus-Fluefanger (Dionaea muscipula) could use your photo of a Venus Flytrap.  dbenbenn | talk 16:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me about Wikimedia Commons. I looked at it and it looks interesting.  Also if you still want to change my copyright tags that is fine and would you use the PD-user|Chilepine tag now please.  It is on Image:Johnson's Blue.jpg.


 * cheers Chilepine 17:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, done. Thanks for helping me clarify that.  dbenbenn | talk 21:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Alpha Centauri relative sizes.png
Hi Neutrality,

I noticed you copied the text from Commons:Image:Alpha Centauri relative sizes.png to Image:Alpha Centauri relative sizes.png. I'm just curious, is there an official policy somewhere that that's what should be done? Is there somewhere it's being discussed?

I haven't been doing that for the various images I put at the Commons, mainly because I don't want to have to update two different places when I change an image.

Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 22:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's standard practice to copy Commons information from there to here. This has several advantages: it allows one to get information quickly without going to the Commons; it also allows for a copyright tag and image category. Neutralitytalk 23:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Hi Dpbsmith,

I loved the sockpuppetry at Votes for deletion/Ashlee Simpson on SNL!

Instead of Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping, I think dollar voting would have been interesting.

You wrote "if the content is merged, then the article should be deleted". In fact, if the content is merged, then the article can't be deleted. See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion.

Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 00:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Merged articles CAN be deleted, it just has to be done correctly


 * No time to check the discussion in detail, but this has come up a number of times before and any number of GFDL mavens have assured me that it is perfectly possible to perform a merge and delete that is in accordance with GFDL.


 * Apparently GFDL's requirements for preserving history are not 100% clear so there's not 100% agreement, but my understanding is that there are two ways to do this.


 * First, any sysop can follow a fairly involved procedures described somewhere under some title like "how to fix cut-and-paste moves" which merges the history of the article being deleted into its destination. The original article can then be deleted.


 * Second, in the commonest case, where the article being deleted is essentially the work of one contributor, it is sufficient to a) merge the text without making any other edits, b) make a note on the Talk page saying identifying your last edit by timestamp, copying in the text of the article-to-be-deleted's history, and indicating which edit is being merged. That doesn't make the history available in exactly the same way as normal Wikipedia editing, but it does provide traceable history and (probably) meets GFDL requirements.


 * The statement that "you can't do a merge-and-delete because of GFDL" is just wrong. The correct statement is that you can't JUST merge the text and delete the article, and special care and the intervention of a sysop may be required. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well yes, I was exaggerating. Of course you can do a merge and delete.  I just meant that "merge and delete" will usually be interpreted as "merge" unless a good reason for the extra effort is given.  dbenbenn | talk 14:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PD category
I purposely didn't add my user page to the PD category, I think the cat bar though sometimes useful seriously messes with the aesthetic. When someone wants to do automated license computation I'll have to change my ways but until then I'm sticking with a plain non-category PD box. Thanks anyway though. --fvw *  15:11, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! I should have asked first.  (To defend against people like me, you could put a comment like
 * in there.) dbenbenn | talk 15:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * in there.) dbenbenn | talk 15:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Not at all, it's nice to see someone actually reads my page; Asking up front for such things isn't necessary, it is a wiki after all. And I have high hopes that the sun bleached bones of those who tried to categorise my userpage before will ward off any future categorisers. :-P --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 15:51, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)


 * "Abandon all hope, ye who categorise here." I'm curious about your Rcpat program.  Does it automatically flag editors who have  in their Talk page for closer attention?  Does it do "sockpuppet detection" as you have on your Todo list?  dbenbenn | talk 17:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hehe, quite.
 * Flagging users who have test templates on their user page would be very useful, but isn't feasibly alas without server side modifications (otherwise you'd have to request the talk page of each anon who edited and had a talk page, which wouldn't be nice for server load). It does however highlight users who have no talk or user page, as these are often freshly created users. Sockpuppet detection is another thing that can't be done here, it needs to be done on the server.
 * The method of operation is that you flag users/IPs as good, bad or risky in the rc patroller, which means in future they either don't get shown (for trusted users) or get flagged in red or yellow so they're sure to get your attention. That way you don't have to look at edits for good users if you don't want when patrolling, and repeat vandalism shows up like a sore thumb. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 17:11, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Permission
The powers that be at Augsburg College have seen, reviewed and are prepared to approve Wikipedia's use of an article largely based on information from its web site. The question that was asked of me today is ... how does one DO that? Montanean 03:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh good. Just have them indicate on every page that it's licensed under the GFDL.  dbenbenn | talk 14:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MultiLicensePD versus PD
Hi Weapon,

I retagged Image:Pissew 2.jpg as. The MultiLicensePD tag is for user pages, and refers explicitly to text contributions. Shall I make the same change on Image:Pissew 3.jpg, Image:Pissew1.jpg?

Also, I don't suppose you have higher-resolution versions of those pictures? If you do, it would be wonderful if you could upload them.

Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 14:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, if the people in Purchasing ever get around to filling my order, I'll be able to bring my scanner home from the school and re-scan my originals... once I find them. Thank you for changing the licensing... the whole Licensing issue makes my head spin, and as I'm not a pro photographer, albeit living in a great place for it, I have no issues with contributing them tp the public domain. In doing so, I was also able to use them on WikiTravel. Realistically, what I have uploaded are just thumbs from my Ya-ho! Photos page, but i do have the originals somewhere, and intend to re-scan as GDFL licenced when I have cleaner copies. I'll let you know. Weaponofmassinstruction 03:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)