User talk:Dcoetzee/Archive 2009 4 15

You archived! \o/
First post on a fresh page! Thank you for going against your principles for the good of those on slow connections/computers :-P And thanks for the image, it's lovely... you inspired me to make my own! — E ditor at L arge ( speak ) 18:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooo, your image is even prettier. :-) Regarding archiving, I figured a more effective way of protesting wikithreads that wouldn't penalise innocent dial-up users would be to post an essay on the topic and see how I can get involved with efforts to improve them. Thanks for writing. :-) Deco 19:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Explaining the obvious
I like your edit on the Condom page. It's good to make things clear. Especially on this sort of topic, where some people who aren't sure may be embarassed to ask. --Coppertwig 17:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Deco! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Deco 03:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
I fixed the approval bug from last night. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Check it out
Check out codecodex. --Ideogram 11:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I think a lot of these are going to pop up. I need to come up with a plan to avoid fragmentation of effort. Hmm. Deco 04:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

P and NP
OK, I see now that I read your edit summary too fast. The statement should still not be there, at least not in that form. ("Trivially easy to crack"? Who found that out?) Even if the wording were repaired, it's unencyclopedic chatter and speculation; doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article. --Trovatore 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Although it might seem odd to put so much attention on a problem not known to be complete, the connection between P=NP and factoring and RSA cryptography is quite frequently mentioned in publications on it, including these lecture notes and Stephen Cook's official description of the Millenium Prize problem. I think it deserves some kind of mention - why not just quote Stephen Cook? No greater authority than that. Deco 06:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Deco,
I've recent had some time to devote to convert some old programs I previously wrote as standalone programs for personal computers to run as distributed programs suitable for utilization by multiple computers via the Internet.

To get started I posted a question on the science desk requesting collaborative assistance to develop a distributed data packet protocol with the result of receiving an excellent response from a user and consequently adapting his modified suggestion as the core payload of the distributed program data packet protocol.

Packet protocol, however, is dynamic at this stage while the program is being converted and even though I can continue seeking program conversion collaboration by posting questions on the science/computing desks I was wondering if you might be interested in helping to fast track the conversion from standalone to distributed in light of the time it would most likely take to explain the algorithm to non or elementary programmers.

If you would be interested please let me know. Diligent 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My experience in distributed processing, and particularly massively distributed processing, is quite limited. I'm afraid I couldn't be of assistance, and would have trouble finding the time if I could be. Deco 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The project itself seems right up your alley having an interest in P and NP (above) and all that. If you change your mind please let me know. Thanks. Diligent 01:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, Deco, just decided to leave a message on your talk page.. I must say, looking at your User Page, you appear to be an expert on programming and code :P .. I'm not too good at it, even a bit of wiki-code I cannot understand :P .. Anyway, in our chat in IRC, you said you were a member of many wikipedia languages, so (this is JUST an idea, friendly advice), perhaps you should add like es:User:Illyria05 to the bottom, so people who wander around (like me) on different wikipedias can see what wikipedias you are associated to.. Again, just some friendly advice... :) Leave me a message on my talk page if you want.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 07:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Illyria05, thanks for writing! Feel free to ask me for help with admin stuff any time. Hmm, interwiki links, that sounds like a great idea. Take care! Deco 07:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Test Mother Galanda PD.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Test Mother Galanda PD.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dcoetzee on HE WP
Hello, please do not operate bots on HE WP without checking first and obtaining a bot flag. Your bot was blocked and all its edits were reverted, becaude it deleted section names and introduced other errors. Odedee 05:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't realise the bot was causing problems or that HE requires obtaining a bot flag. Please unblock my username and I won't run automatic processes on HE in the future. Dcoetzee 06:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll lift the block in a minute. Please review the bot diffs and see the damages it created. Odedee 06:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

edits to Wikipedia:Fromowner
Could you remove them? I made sure that the image stay PD precisely so there was no need to credit so all the things like Fromowner stayed clean and focused on function.Geni 02:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's important for people who want to find more information about the image - it seems reasonable to suppose that at least some people clicking on the image do so with the intention of finding out more about it, rather than about uploading. I can deemphasise it with small tags. Dcoetzee 02:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * then they can try visting the talk page. The vast majority will not be and those that will will likely consider the talk page (and Image:Male no free image yet.png isn't original and is on en rather than commons).Geni 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the proportion of people interested in the image itself is larger than you think. I for one didn't even think of looking at the talk page. And the information I added to the image page is hidden by the redirect and only visible in the wikitext. I don't see any easy way for anyone to find this info right now if that link is missing. Dcoetzee 02:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The talk page contains a link to Fromowner documentation which covers pretty much everthing.Geni 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's good that there's a page for that, and that it's linked from somewhere, but I honestly don't think people looking for that info will look there. It's not the logical place to look. I didn't look there. I don't think a single link excessively complicates or clutters the interface. If you want to further minimize its visual impact in some way I have no problem with that. Dcoetzee 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fire safety and daylight saving time
The change log for your recent edit to Daylight saving time says "any biannual activity could be used as a reminder". While that's true, it's also true that fire safety officials do use daylight-saving changes to remind citizens. Officials do not use any other semiannual or annual event as far as I know. Residential fires cause about 3,000 deaths per year in the U.S., so a brief mention in the intro of this common use of DST does not seem out of place.

If the previous wording didn't seem quite right, how about adding the following to the intro instead, as a new first sentence in the last paragraph? "Fire safety officials suggest using DST's clock shifts as reminders to replace batteries in smoke detectors and review fire escape plans. However,…" Eubulides 05:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this placement makes it sound like it's describing an advantage or disadvantage of Daylight Saving Time, which it really isn't, it's more just related to it. I'd prefer a sentence at the end of the intro, if anything. Dcoetzee 09:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wavy Lines?
There are questions about the wavy lines in the graph you drew for the Optimal substructure and Dynamic programming articles. It would be great if you could stop by and answer them. -- Mikeblas 09:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've "reactivated" you
Hi Deco, I've "reactivated" you. Were you ever gone? Paul August &#9742; 23:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, not sure why I was removed. Dcoetzee 01:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Carl Hiaasen.jpg
It's been a while ago you uploaded this image, but I just wanted to inform you I put a Replaceable fair use tag on it. Garion96 (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. You could probably say the same of the other photos from the same photographer. Fair use wasn't so strictly enforced in those days. Dcoetzee 00:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I did that. It is too bad really, but perhaps now someone will find a 100 procent free content image. Also, you might want provide a source on Image:DavidAndGoliath.jpg. Otherwise OrhanBot will eventually find it and tag it as having no source. Garion96 (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Pademelon.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pademelon.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW
hey Dc, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:11SSShield.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:11SSShield.svg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Hi There
I am a British Lit doctoral student with a masters in classics and 18th century politics/history/society. I've recently got into a few scuffles. One was based on a few people taking offense to my user page (I find the page hillarious, and tried only to quote things that are interesting from the wiki project), and over the creation of another page. I originally created a page to deal with the Warhammer 40,000 universe's cross over/cross promotion campaign between its comic series and its miniature war game. The wiki page is here and you can look through it. It seems that people disagreed with my original project and wanted to make it a page just discussing comics (even though the individual comics have their pages discussing such. I have continued working on the original project, and it can be found here. If you would like to look it over, tell where it should be expanded, that would be a great help. Its about 60% done now. If the other individuals are unwilling to let my version become the page, then I will probably chop up the critical review sections, put them in their individual comics section, and then have a page titled "cross over (warhammer 40,000)" or something similar. (I prefered the original name "Graphic Novels (Warhammer 40,000)" because it was clean and too the point, but, if you look over there, that would be impossible to attain now. But yeah. If you could look at my user sandbox version, that would be great. SanchiTachi 03:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:11SSShield.svg)
Thanks for uploading Image:11SSShield.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

David and Goliath image?
Hello, Dcoetzee. I am searching for the source of an image currently existing in the English Wikipedia, Image:DavidAndGoliath.jpg. A copy of this image used to be in Sling (weapon), but that copy has now been removed from the Commons due to lack of proper source information. The person who uploaded it to the Commons, tells me he copied your image. Therefore I am now asking you where you found it. It is listed on your user page under the heading "Not created but uploaded by me" and there is no source information on the image page. So did you upload a digitized photo that you found somewhere? Did you scan it from a magazine or a book? Something else? I would really like to find proper information about this photo, and add it to the image page, so that the image does not vanish again. Thanks! — SWWrightTalk 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just found it on the web somewhere. It was much too long ago to remember where. It really ought to be deleted unless someone can establish its source. Dcoetzee 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah, well, that's what I'm trying to do... Guess I'd better save a copy of the image, in case it vanishes again while I'm trying to track it down. — SWWrightTalk 03:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Primorials
saw your comment on this - I have no interest in defending anymore against PrimeHunter but if you have interest, I will post my source/exe hopefully this w/e at my Talk page. You'd have to see the entire discourse - aside from any wiki content, which I have never asked for, my Conjecture works bang-on despite what anyone else says. The pgm is in C++, I code for myself so will try to add some annotation but I do try to be rigorous, in that I wouldn't have submitted the sequence to OEIS until it had proved out. Tried emailing the other fella, he has no interest but email me, visit my wiki page as you see fit. I have a cohort Phil Dempster (invented the BodPod) looking my stuff over, but it is really a self-proving sort of thing - it either works or it doesn't. Thus, I was missing 2 numbers in the sequence, and so was miscategorizing a single prime thru 10^6. Once corrected. all is fine. Of course feel a bit bruised in the only commentary being fairly condescending (sp.), but the proof's in the pudding. Thanks for your time ...--Billymac00 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I wished to oppose your position, not to support it. Dcoetzee 21:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Foxy Brown-Ill Na Na.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Foxy Brown-Ill Na Na.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Queen Pen-My Melody.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Queen Pen-My Melody.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Zelda_1_Peahat.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Zelda_1_Peahat.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 08:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll note that I didn't upload the current version. Nevertheless the objection stands. Go ahead and delete it. Dcoetzee 08:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Deterministic algorithm : what's the little story ?
Hello

You seem to have written there about cheating at blackjack by guessing the deck. I put a notice there for citation, because no proof is given, but also because I'd would enjoy reading more about this :). Where did you get this from ? --Zogromalvus 01:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm afraid your mistaken - I wasn't the one who added this particular fact, although I may have edited it. Sorry! Dcoetzee 02:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess from (diff) that you copied it from somewhere else, or I'm reading bad. Could you tell where you got that from, if it's not too old. The trouble is I feel like this particular information may be erroneous, because I saw on TV, and is about it, that people from MIT trained themselves guessing a casino blackjack deck, by using a well designed method, which involved counting the cards and probability, and needed few people to work. But I don't think this is the same as guessing a deck generated by a computer with a random generator number, and I didn't find anything about that, which is rather curious. --Zogromalvus 15:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe I did write it. I believe the article is accurate but you misunderstood it - real decks aren't shuffled using well-known pseudorandom number generators, but "virtual" decks on online gambling sites certainly are, and because they use a PRNG they can be anticipated in advance (see for example this link, which I will add as a citation). Dcoetzee 20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did understand well, but I didn't find any facts about that, and I supposed it could be a confusion with what I knew, that would have gotten worse and worse with copy/paste (Chinese whispers). --Zogromalvus 21:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean any insult - this statement needed a citation and now has one and the article is improved. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. :-) Dcoetzee 21:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Sade-Best_of_Sade.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sade-Best_of_Sade.jpg. 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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Niteroi Flag.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Niteroi Flag.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not create the original version, but its copyright is suspect. Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kimberley_Locke-One_Love.jpg
I have tagged Image:Kimberley_Locke-One_Love.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  07:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 07:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Anne Murray-What a Wonderful Christmas.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Anne Murray-What a Wonderful Christmas.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic Array
Dear Dcoetzee, thank you for expressing interest in the topic of dynamic array. I can explain my reasons for the revert. Whether dynamic array is array or not depends on point of view. I think the best way to contrast fixed sized arrays and dynamic arrays is focus on properties of each data structure. The original overview section started off with some motivational material that demonstrated the reason for dynamic array's existence. Your edit moves that material to a later point in the topic, and jumps into technical discussions before the background is laid out. One final issue deals with the cost of expanding the dynamic array. When n element sized array is expanded to 2n, in principle only n additional memory space need to be allocated, and this is an order n operation. When amortized over the entire range of n additions, the resize operation becomes order 1, which is already described in the 'amortized analysis' section. Best Regards, MegaHasher 04:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You still don't understand the n2 thing - that was intended as motivational material. The point is that this is how much it costs to greedily expand the array one element at a time, which motivates resizing it by a larger amount. I wrote the amortized analysis section and already understand it - please don't be pedantic.
 * I understand your desire to discuss motivation up front, but my goal was to expand on the motivation and make it clearer, not to remove it. I did add too much detail perhaps. I'll try to edit this again, please take another look when I'm done.
 * I'll ignore the issue of whether it's an array or not as I'm okay with the current wording. Dcoetzee 04:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Earthlights_dmsp_small.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Earthlights_dmsp_small.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 10:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Richard Simmons-Sweatin to the Oldies 3.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Richard Simmons-Sweatin to the Oldies 3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 13:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC - thought you might be able to help
There's an RfC up on Talk:History of Japan. I notice that you were involved in a similar discussion on the Japan page and that your views might be useful to the conversation. Thanks, John Smith&#39;s 18:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. John Smith&#39;s 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Polynomial-time reductions
Thanks very much for your reply here. --Doradus 13:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for your factchecking and constructive edits. :-) Dcoetzee 22:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain Collection classes
hello what is a collection classes and how should i actually code it in my project

do you have a sample code
 * A collection class is a class that stores some collection of values, such as the numbers 1, 2, 5, and 7, or a set of strings. There are various types of collections for different purposes that allow different operations, many of which are listed at List of data structures. You should generally not code collection classes but use the existing ones supplied by your environment, which should be documented in your language's online documentation. Dcoetzee 21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer on my user talk page
My answer to your comment is on my user talk page. Please read it. I will archive it soon. Thanks, Paolo.dL 21:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta!
Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike. As you know I no longer live in Atlanta, so I'm not terribly motivated to get it coming there. Sorry. :-) Dcoetzee 22:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD A7 exclusivity
Hi - since you were the original source for me of the info that the list of A7 article types was intended to be exclusive - after having my clarification reverted from the rules page and a discussion come from it, I've started a poll on the subject on the WP:CSD discussion page. You might want to come along and chime in. --Alvestrand 12:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Boston Red Sox.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Boston Red Sox.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 22:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch
...on Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. Thanks! — BQZip01 — talk 17:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Physician
I'm having a little trouble pointing out on this page that physicians are the most likely profession to be a serial killer (5 sources cited in favour of this point, including the British Medical Journal) - the medics there don't want to accept this bit of info. Could you take a look and comment if you feel so inclined? Thanks:) Malick78 08:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Nancy Sinatra-Movin with Nancy Soundtrack.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nancy Sinatra-Movin with Nancy Soundtrack.jpg. 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 09:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nancy Sinatra-Movin with Nancy Soundtrack.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nancy Sinatra-Movin with Nancy Soundtrack.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 09:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Andrews Sisters-The Millennium Collection.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Andrews Sisters-The Millennium Collection.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 17Drew 01:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 04:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Elaine Paige Tour Programme 2004.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Elaine Paige Tour Programme 2004.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 17Drew 08:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tammy Wynette Remembered.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tammy Wynette Remembered.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:U2 - I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For.ogg)
Thanks for uploading Image:U2 - I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:X-Beyond_and_Back:_The_X_Anthology.jpg
I have tagged Image:X-Beyond_and_Back:_The_X_Anthology.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 12:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
Hi. I just read your thoughts on trivia and I was wondering if you would be interested in this.

Here is a wikiproject proposal for trivia and a fresh look at trivia policy by the admins. Support the wikiproject proposal. Add your name to the list here: [wiki project proposal for wikitrivia]

Please send this link to other users that you feel would be interested. Thanks Ozmaweezer 19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yellow stop sign on OTRS
Hi

I noticed that you got usage permission for Image:Yellow stop sign.jpg. Would you be willing to put the permission email on OTRS? It's just nice to have these things on record. Samuel 21:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm not confident that they'll approve it though since no explicit free license statement was made. Maybe I should go back to the source first. Dcoetzee 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The third time is a charm?
See my reply at Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references.

The Transhumanist 10:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've come up with another idea which you might like. The Transhumanist (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Franz Josef Strauß
Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments: "the" verifier or "a" verifier?
FYI. I have opened an RfC on this question. See Talk:P = NP problem. You receive this message because you are one of the participants in the earlier discussion. --Lambiam 08:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call
Melon ‑ Bot  ( STOP! )  18:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pat Benatar-Innamorata.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pat Benatar-Innamorata.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikicommunity
Here is a proposed off-Wikipedia site for community-building. If you would like to signify interest in the Wikicommunity project, please put your name at Proposals_for_new_projects.Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Computational complexity theory
Thanks for that posting on Talk:Computational complexity theory. I fear that User:Scottcraig might himself be a troll engaging in baiting, but for now, I'll continue to assume good faith, even if he won't. Groupthink (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dixie_Chicks_Home.jpg
I have tagged Image:Dixie_Chicks_Home.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comment about Haruhi Suzumiya entry
Thank you for your comment about my note on the talk page for The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime) entry. I've answered it there. If you're interested in who I am, I wrote the bulk of the text of the current versions of the Manga and History of manga articles. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Listen small vertical
A tag has been placed on Template:Listen small vertical requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Heather Nova-Siren.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Heather Nova-Siren.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lita Ford-Lita.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lita Ford-Lita.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 23:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Constant factor approximations of Karp's problems
I thought that MAX-CUT could be easily approximated to within a factor of 2 (and also within a factor of 1/0.8... using semi-definite programming). How can a special case not be approximable within any constant factor? Please reply on the discussion page. Thanks, LachlanA (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Blackboard bold.png
A tag has been placed on Image:Blackboard bold.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nanci Griffith-Flyer.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Nanci Griffith-Flyer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 00:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on your primality certificate article
Hi Deco, thanks for writing this up. This is just a quick note suggesting you source "Although not the first primality proof invented" in Primality certificate. I'd be very interested in seeing anything earlier written about even long proofs of primality.

In hindsight one can say that it is so obvious that any failed computation of a deterministic search for a factor can serve as such a proof that it must surely have at least been a folk theorem that there were exponentially long proofs. However I'm not aware of anyone having accorded that approach to proving primality even that status, let alone an actual written claim to that effect. To the best of my knowledge my primality prover was the first documented primality proof system of any kind. The whole concept of primality proofs simply didn't exist prior to my paper (which I first wrote up in 1973 though I had the result in 1972), though it certainly could have if anyone had thought to bring it up. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

One other minor point: the original paper, which can be seen at http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/SucCert.pdf, gives an upper bound of O(log3(n)log log n) for the time required to check the proof on a random access machine (with an additional log log log n factor for a Turing machine), based on Schönhage-Strassen, the best available multiplication algorithm in 1975, considerably less than the O(log5(n)) in your writeup, which otherwise is spot on. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback, it's quite an honour to have my article reviewed by Vaughan Pratt himself! I don't know why I claimed "not the first primality proof invented" - proofs requiring exponential time verification aren't all that useful when you might as well take the prime as the certificate and have the verifier perform trial division. I probably just lacked insight about the historical context of the work and I apologise for the error. You're also right that my analysis was terribly imprecise - my original point was just to show that you didn't need any complex algorithms or analysis to achieve polynomial-time verification, but it's also important to describe the best-known bounds, and Schönhage-Strassen can be treated as a black box. I also expanded on the explanation bounding the size of the tree, since I was handwaving that. Thanks again, I really appreciate your feedback. Dcoetzee 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While I was at it I added a bit of info on Atkin-Goldwasser-Kilian-Morain certificates. :-) Dcoetzee 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The changes look great, thanks for making them. Concerning the difficulty of factoring n&minus;1, this is indeed a drawback of my approach if one wants a method that can reliably generate a certificate for any prime, the problem addressed by AGKM. However if the goal is merely a large supply of certified primes then I'm aware of at least two strategies for efficiently producing Pratt certificates and producers of certified primes may well know of more. The naive one is based on the considerable variability of difficulty in factoring large numbers: simply abandon attempted factorizations that go over some time limit, or alternatively run many in parallel and take whatever proofs turn up. The second strategy is to generate a supply of "somewhat" smaller (say a fifth to half as long as the desired final certified prime) certified primes, and in parallel apply the Strassen-Solovay or Rabin probabilistic test to one plus various products of these and whenever a prime is encountered complete the proof (which is now very easy since it involves no factorization). That said, I consider any number that "looks" prime according to a probabilistic test to be as adequately certified for all practical purposes as one "perfectly" certified by these "ideal" methods (but I don't consider myself an expert in applications of certified primes). --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are actually really interesting ideas - and they seem like they could be applied recursively to construct arbitrarily large primes with proofs. However I wasn't able to find a specific citation for these and it would be original research to add them without one. Could you provide one? Thanks again for your help. Dcoetzee 06:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Carter Family.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Carter Family.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Attacks"
The vandal listed the "practical Satan" of the Legend of Zelda series under "Fictional Jews". That kind of BS is not only blatant vandalism, but completely intolerable. I can understand being polite to other editors you may have legitimate editing disagreements with, but this kind of jackass doesn't deserve that benefit of the doubt.

If my attack truly does drive the bastard off, all the better. There is no reason for us to pussyfoot and act nice with "editors" who are only here to spread nonsense and hate-fulled drivel. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sophie B. Hawkins-Timbre.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sophie B. Hawkins-Timbre.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Deco
You probably do not remember me. You wrote a C++ version of a sort algorithm which took me a surprising number of years to develop through the process of trying to minimize the Metzner-Shell sort as I recall.

I began thinking in the early sixties of a way for a computer to reach a conclusion about whether God existed or not. The results turned out to be a program which reduces multiple state logical equations to minimum form. Developing the program to the point where it would satisfy proof of concept burned me out and left the program unfinished without a front end. The program can be used without a front end but a front end would make it possible for anyone to create a decision table and form the logical equations but more importantly would hopefully be able to automate construction of the decision table and formulation of equations.

I've completed another program which implements an algorithm to optimize a classification table. Since I repaired refrigeration equipment and computers a natural use for the program is to optimize troubleshooting charts. What I want to do is to apply the program to both medicine and law and these applications also require a front end to convert legal verbiage to logical elements and their characteristics and characteristic states.

Long story short I was wondering if you might be interested in developing front ends to create decision tables for the logical equation reduction program and classification tables for the optimization program. The front ends need do little more than to ask the user to enter values which define characteristics of the elements, whereas an automated version would have to figure this out for itself. The challenge then is creating an intelligent front end. 71.100.13.197 (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your note. I'm afraid my obligations don't permit me to get involved in a new project like this right now, but I wish you luck. Dcoetzee 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, there is no rush in completing this project on my part, since as I said I am truly burned out and my main goal has been long since satisfied which was only proof of concept. However, since you are an administrator I might also mention to you that both programs can be applied to Wikipedia policy for the benefit of both user and administrator alike, especially in the construction and evolution of the rules. The advantage of their use would be to reduce or eliminate misinterpretation of the rules which seems very common now-a-days with so many new administrators using the rules as virtual excuses to accomplish some personal agenda or goal. Also I might add that most, if not all, parts of both programs can take advantage of a parallel machine. Have a nice day. 71.100.13.197 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Basically what's made me discontent with the project lately is it's vulnerability to vandalism. I've begun to view that what would be best for the project would be for account creation to be required and for an email address to be required as well. This would certainly deter petty vandalism, but I know it is a controversial stance, as Wikipedia (falsely in my opinion) believes that its success is due to anyone being able to edit without registering. But as they are unwilling to even try requiring account creation for a period of time, we'll never know whether requiring account creation is truly responsible for Wikipedia's success or not. I used to be a vandal fighter, but I've given up on that after realizing that it was a waste of my time when Wikipedia could fix vandalism by simply requiring account creation and an email address. Anyway that's what has been making me discontent lately.-- Urban  Rose  05:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:DavidAndGoliath.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DavidAndGoliath.jpg. 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 87.1.118.9 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot where I got this one. Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry, wrong "miscellaneous!" (I was aiming for the Reference Desk. Oops.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! Dcoetzee 06:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request
Hello, I am contacting you because you're a member of the League of Copyeditors. Would you be interested in taking a look at Highlander: The Series (season 1) which is currently a Featured List Candidate ? The quality of the prose is the only remaining objection to its promotion and I would really appreciate your help. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Dcoetzee 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for doing it, and so quickly ! And I really like your prose, too. You have greatly improved that list. I'm thinking about reintroducing the paragraph about star billing, but I can't think of a way to do it right now, so I'll give it some time. I'm really grateful and if I can return the favor (no copyediting though ;), please let me know. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

69ing.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, 69ing.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Ram2006 (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC) --Ram2006 (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Someone to Adopt Me
I'm just so confused! I guess I'm sort of afraid to edit articles. Where are good sources found? I'm interested in chemistry and animals, particularly saving them from harm. Could you adopt me? Pozilla (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow response! Looks like User:Cyclonenim is taking care of you, but feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Dcoetzee 08:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar

 * Thank you. :-) Dcoetzee 11:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation task force
Hi! I was meaning to comment when you first put your proposal at WP:SPOKEN, but real-life busy-ness took over. I was going to say: excellent idea, and sounds similar to a mini-project I put together for pronunciations of British place names. It has been moribund since an early flurry of activity; perhaps it could be absorbed into the task force? The link is here: WikiProject UK geography/Embedded Audio Pronunciations. All of the pronunciations I have added have been uploaded to Commons in a standard naming format.

Anyway, must go now, but I will add my name to the list and take a closer look tonight. As a regular contributor of full spoken articles, I have the facilities and time to provide pronunciation files on just about any topic, so I'm looking forward to being able to help in any way!  Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 07:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your interest! I like your idea of absorbing the UK geography project - they're great existing examples and I'm taking the liberty of adding them to Category:Articles including recorded pronunciations (UK English). Feel free to add Category:Requests for audio pronunciation (UK English) to other UK place names and people (I'm using this category hierarchy as the task force's "to do" list). Thanks for joining and I'll be happy to hear any other feedback you have. Dcoetzee 09:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Spoken pronunciations
Hi. I wanted to ask if you could record a spoken pronunciation of "Newcastle-upon-Tyne" is the way in which it is spoken by Novocastrians (and a good proportion of people elsewhere) i.e. newCASSul. There is a "southern English" pronunciation (NEW-caah-sul) in the article at present, but it would be better to replace this with the "correct" pronunciation, or better still, include both with a note that the second is how (some) people with southern English regional accents pronuounce it. SP-KP (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi SP-KP - although I could do this recording, I am myself an American and I feel it would be best for a British person to record this name (preferably one from the city in question). You might contact User:Hassocks5489 with this request. Another thing you can do is modify the text yourself to note the two pronunciations, then add the article to Category:Requests for audio pronunciation (UK English) so that someone will record the other one. Hope this helps! Dcoetzee 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (Also copied to SP-KP's talk page) I did the "NEW-caah-sul" version in question. I deliberately didn't attempt the local pronunciation because I thought I couldn't really achieve the accuracy and authenticity required (although I consider myself able to make passable or good attempts at most British accents).  Unfortunately, since the conversation we had at the time I uploaded the file, nobody has uploaded a local version.  Perhaps if I record two or three versions and upload them, SP-KP may be able to help by identifying the best one or providing guidance for me to get it sounding as accurate as possible?  I don't mind making several attempts at getting it right; I would rather have both pronunciations featured on the article than just the RP one we have at the moment.   Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  07:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

^_^
It was such a pleasure meeting you and talking to you! Sorry I had to run. Hope we get to talk again soon. Peace, delldot on a public computer   talk  07:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You as well, Dell. Sorry I didn't get a chance to say goodbye, and I hope we'll speak again soon. :-) Dcoetzee 08:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:The Shangri-Las-Millennium Collection.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:The Shangri-Las-Millennium Collection.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 04:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Boswell Sisters-That's How Rhythm Was Born.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Boswell Sisters-That's How Rhythm Was Born.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 04:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Clara Smith-the essential.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Clara Smith-the essential.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 04:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Gabriella Ferri-I Grandi Successi Originali.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Gabriella Ferri-I Grandi Successi Originali.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 04:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A toughie for pronunciation
Heres a puzzler for you. While I was filling the request for pronouncing "Dr. Suess", I found there's the Americanized pronunciation we're all familiar with "/ˈsuːs/" (Soose), and the correct German pronunciation "/ˈsɔɪs/" (Soice). I recorded using both "Theodor Soose Geisel OR Theodor Soice Geisel. I'm torn on whether or not to use this, or split into 2 using EN and GE distinctions. What do you think? Reason turns rancid (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Reason, thanks for your contribution. Since IPA are included for both, I think it's likely that both will be useful, add both to the page, and let the page authors decide which they want to keep. Dcoetzee 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Margaret Whiting-The Complete Capitol Hits of Margaret Whiting.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Margaret Whiting-The Complete Capitol Hits of Margaret Whiting.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 04:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Seattle meetup 5
Hi Derrick, the next Seattle meetup is going to take place sometime soon. It would be great if you can make it. Bestchai (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Susana Rinaldi-Desde El Alma.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Susana Rinaldi-Desde El Alma.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 02:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Teresa Brewer-16 Most Requested Songs.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Teresa Brewer-16 Most Requested Songs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 02:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Andrews Sisters-The Millennium Collection.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Andrews Sisters-The Millennium Collection.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 02:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Yma Sumac-The Ultimate Yma Sumac Collection.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Yma Sumac-The Ultimate Yma Sumac Collection.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 02:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Seattle meetup this thursday (6/19)
Hi Dcoetzee, just a reminder that you've signed up to attend the Seattle meetup this Thursday (6/19). This one's going to take place at 7:30PM at Thaiku -- a restaurant\bar in Ballard. See the meetup page to add more agenda items, see attendees, etc. Hope to see you there! Bestchai (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A copyedit request
Hello, Dcoetzee. I noticed that you are a part of the Copyeditors League, and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind copyediting the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article. I already listed it at the league, but I've noticed that listing requests there actually take a long time before they are granted. I mean, last time I listed this article there, it got no assistance at all. So would you be willing to take this on? I'm not sure how much copyediting it needs. I mean, most of it is decent, but I have some more tweaking to do to it before I nominate it for FA (Featured Article) status, and an awesome copyedit is a part of that.

That said, I'll completely understand if you are too busy at the moment to work on this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response. I would like to help and can look at this tonight if it's not too late. Dcoetzee 18:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack, I forgot again. Tonight for sure. :-) Dcoetzee 02:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, too late now. :-( But will get this tomorrow. Dcoetzee 10:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyediting this now. :-) Dcoetzee 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good copyedits. Flyer22 (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it's a rather long article and it would take me some time to get through it all. I only got through the first two sections so far, but I plan to continue. Dcoetzee 23:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. You see it as unfortunate that it's so long; I see it as a good thing. But I know what you mean...so long to copyedit. Don't worry, I'm in no rush to nominate it for FA.


 * Also, I'm not sure that the Storyline section really needs copyediting, unless it's tweaking punctuation. What I mean is that I worked in all of the relevant/important information into that section without going overboard. Nothing really needs to be taken out of it, though some parts could still probably be reworded better.


 * Oh, and I'm unsure now whether to remove this article from being listed as needing copyediting...since you are now copyediting it.


 * Anyway, I'll talk with you later. Flyer22 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not unfortunate, it's a nicely detailed article. :-) Just unfortunate that I can't complete it quickly. Leave it on needing copyediting, as others might get to it before me, or refine the sections I already edited further. Dcoetzee 23:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WP Computing
Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with WikiProject Computing for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 12:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:David Coverdale-Into the Light.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:David Coverdale-Into the Light.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete. Dcoetzee 18:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Adopt?
I'm looking for an adopter. Would you like to adopt me?

I'm not too new here, but I am looking for someone to answer any questions I have.

-Keith (Hypergeek14)Talk 18:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the slow response, looks like someone else got to you first. Let me know if you have any questions. Dcoetzee 06:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Adoptee
I would definitly love to get into using Wikipedia. Only problem is when it comes to editing a page with weird stuff like javascript and stuff, its like trying to solve pi for me haha. so if you would like to adopt me and show me the ropes, then it would be much appreciated. --Will Willcox 16:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Will561
 * Sorry for the slow response, looks like someone else got to you first. Let me know if you have any questions. Dcoetzee 06:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pce3@ij.net
Hi Derrick - you were involved in a AfD in 2006 (Articles for deletion/Rapid sort) in which the article was deleted for verifiability issues. Since then, User:Pce3@ij.net has been infinitely blocked (for reasons unknown to me at the moment), but I have reasons to believe that he has created three more accounts:
 * User:Adaptron
 * User:Ἀριστοτέλης
 * User:Julie Dancer

Which he used to create another hoax article optimal classification. (Pce3@ij.net has a history of such contributions at Wikia here, including the rapid sort algorithm). I was wondering if you have any insights on this situation, and how it should be handled. Thanks!
 * And please reply here instead of on my talk page. --Jiuguang (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pce3 is a persistent proponent of original research. The most effective way of dealing with him is to direct him to appropriate venues for publishing his results - which for now are likely to be a personal webpage or a blog. Avoid confronting the accuracy of his work, because he's likely to defend that viciously - stick to the no original research policy and suggest alternatives. Dcoetzee 06:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have taken the article to AfD - Articles for deletion/Optimal classification, and would appreciate your comments there. --Jiuguang (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Six Sigma
Hi, could you have a look at the Talk:Six_Sigma page? The article has been stable for a good while, but an editor has been edit-warring recently, wishing to argue his own WP:OR against what WP:RS say. Thanks. -- Jayen 466 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Context of computational complexity
Nice work on Context of computational complexity! I don't know if the article will live at that location forever, but it's great to see this kind of information being collected in one place. --Doradus (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your praise! :-) It still needs to be properly linked up and catted and possibly moved, but I think it covers an important topic. Dcoetzee 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My old friend DECO
It kept hitting me that there was something familiar about your user name but I did not have time to take a break until now to check it out and then realized that yes it was in fact you. Sly devil!

If you have not yet checked out the discussion which began on user Jiuguang's robotics project page here and on his talk page here after he posted his robotics project banner on the Optimal classification discussion page, doing so now might help clarify the reason for his nomination for deletion. Honestly, I think that if he were not a backstabber he would have merely added methods to the article which perform the same function.

Thanks again for alerting me that the deletion on the discussion page was most likely due to my edits. Thanks. Julie Dancer (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I changed my username at some point. I'm not aware of the robotics conflict, but I do continue to support deletion of optimal classification for my own reasons - I believe your arguments will also be more persuasive if you ignore the robotics conflict and focus on the article and the arguments presented by others regarding that article. Dcoetzee 00:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ease up
Dude, your comment on Wikipedia talk:Trivia obviously shows that you aren't assuming good faith. I know that my petition was deleted for a reason, did I ever say that I think it wasn't. Everyone makes mistakes, an then you let them go. Besides, its my first essay, no wonder I'm gonna make mistakes. Learn how to assume good faith, and then message me back. --Oh no! it's Alien joe! 22:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is it your job to hound on me at Wikipedia talk:Trivia? --Oh no! it's Alien joe! 22:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, I didn't ever attack you, only your essay, which I believe to be misleading and unpersuasive. I'm sure you mean well and I'm not upset or frustrated with you. I apologize if I came off as antagonistic. Dcoetzee 23:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for Context of computational complexity
I hereby award you a Kinkajou for creating the article Context of computational complexity after I asked some questions on this topic on Talk:Computational complexity theory. Thank you very much! (By the way: don't worry, Kinkajous have a conservation status of least concern). --Abdull (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :-) I'd appreciate any help you can offer in linking and summarizing it from necessary places. Dcoetzee 17:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Its me again
Hey, I took your advice and fixed my essay up. Sorry if I was hard on you. --Oh no! it's Alien joe! 20:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Eastlaw/Not all business articles are spam
Dear Mr. Coetzee, thank you for your comments on my essay. I am still in the process of improving it. I have taken your suggestions under advisement, and have modified some of the language in the second and third paragraphs. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Integrated banner for WikiProject Computer science
I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project  here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks --  Tinu  Cherian  - 09:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi DECO
I was looking at the Check sort and Rapid sort we wrote programs for and could not believe how confusing the description was. Last I remember it made perfectly good sense to me. Would you have any objections to looking at it and seeing if there is anything you would change? I tried to make the text clearer but I do not know if I did.

Check sort

BTW - I have moved Optimal classification to the Wikibooks project where it has been reformatted to accommodate other methods besides Dr. Rypka's which are capable of performing the optimization function. Do you know of any methods that can be published under Chapter 2? --iggy 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the descriptions of the check sort/rapid sort never made very much sense to me - if I recall correctly they were variants of radix sort. It's also not a good idea to move the optimal classification article to Wikibooks, because I don't believe they allow original research either (ref w:wikibooks:optimal classification. And please don't call me Deco, as that is no longer my username. Dcoetzee 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why the chip? I do not recall doing anything to you which might merit such response. If I have then I am sorry.
 * As for the Check sort description I never put a lot of effort into the text saved it for the algorithm and the program in hopes that questions would help me to clarify any issues with the description. Looking at the Check sort, however, from a rejectionist's point of view I can see the reason for my plan to fail. Instead of asking questions in line with AGF there was nothing.
 * The Check sort and Radix sorts are quit different actually and next opportunity I get I will point that out in the description. Briefly the Radix sort, sorts on digit significance of a number rather than using the number as a "serial number" of a truck and a "check mark" or count as the truck's cargo.
 * The move of the Optimal classification article to the Wikibooks has already occurred and survived Jiuguang Wang's effort over there to have it deleted. He is an atheist and Communist Chinese so I do not want anything to do with him. I have already begun adding page references to the text for the primary reference. From what I remember of you, I would not have expected for you to have believed the article was original research without reading the primary reference or the references it contained. Although I was both skeptical and elated when I came across Dr. Rypka's paper I did not stop with reading it or the references it contained but went on to write a computer program to implement it. I believe you have cheated yourself out of knowing something which I consider essential.
 * But bottom line on your old user name is that I was only trying to be friendly. If you are unable to loose your chip then you will not have to worry about my using either your old or your new user name again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.162.249 (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of what occurred at Wikibooks, and I agree for now with the outcome of the deletion discussion. Your attitude of discrimination is disheartening, and I encourage you to be more tolerant of the religious and political beliefs of others, and of other cultures. I also invite you to continue your studies and hope one day you will derive original work which is published. Dcoetzee 22:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact the opposite case is true. I am the one discriminated against for believing in God which user Jiuguang Wang stated was his motive for nominating the article for deletion in the first place since he felt that such belief destroyed, in his humble opinion, my scientific credibility regarding anything I did. As for your agreeing with the deletion decision, it is obvious that you did not accept the verified source, much less open the primary reference and read it, much less read the references it cites when the article was published here in the Wikipeida. As for accepting other cultures, you know nothing of the different cultures, which make up my daily environment or the interactions I have with Christian Chinese everyday. As for my Check/Rapid/Simple and Instant sort routines, they are both original to the extent of computer sort routines and are published despite most institutions of higher learning refusing to release a degree until all fees are paid, which exposes their true motive for requiring peer review in the first place, as the basis for acknowledging valid work or accepting it into their sphere of influence. Valid work tends to eventually be accepted by them anyway, although not until the originator is dead so that he can be rightfully punished for not accomplishing his work within the academic system to generate revenue or some other reward for the system. My only crime has been to inform the World academic system of formal education that I have no desire to pay its fees or to do a dance that will. Ironically, my publication in the Wikia gives that benefit to commercial interest in the form of advertising revenue of which I receive no portion.

Amazon Kindle
I'm not sure I agree with this edit, calling it a computer appliance. While it is an embedded system, IMO, computer appliances are in a different realm (think Chumby). Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't add that - and don't particularly agree with it. I was just retaining existing text. Dcoetzee 19:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I should pay more attention to what I am reading. My apologies. But I am going to change it. I wanted to give you courtesy, but since we both agree that we disagree with it, there you have it! Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Adopting
I'm looking for an adopter. If you're interested, I could really use some guidance getting started. --Ships at a Distance (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Derrick!!
Hey Derrick! Thanks for the info u gave me. It was a kind of Spanish for me as i cudnt make much of it.... but of course i would like to correct you at one place. As far as i hv known.... prototype of scanf function is to have atleast two arguments. Do correct me if I am wrong. I wud love to read from you.--Gloriousgini (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the scanf function can be called with only one argument, as in "scanf("")" - it just isn't very useful since it doesn't do anything. I'm glad my response was helpful, and please let me know if there's anything I can do to make it clearer. Dcoetzee 07:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think i got one more question. Try doing this on 'C'..... Write printf(4); and run the program (without including headers). Now, repeat the same task with different numbers starting from 1 to say 10. you will notice the change. Can u please eplain me why. And u still cudnt make me clear that why the difference occurs when the headers are included?--Gloriousgini (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Got ur answer. Its true that nobody does this but the thing is that i was asked this by an examinar and above all this makes me curious! Anyways, thanks again.--Gloriousgini (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image more complicated than I thought :)
Thanks so much for helping out at WP:CP! Much, much, much appreciated!

Image:Croatian first team.jpg looks a bit more complicated than I thought. The uploader has altered the licensing information since I last looked in. It now has a FUR. Does this seem to cover it, do you think? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. :-) Re Croatian first team, yeah, I think they were pretty thorough with their FUR, and their argument is credible. The mentioned fact that Wikipedia-only permission was granted is irrelevant but not damning. Dcoetzee 02:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image on commons, how to handle?
The uploader of this image doesn't seem to understand copyright. I've tagged for deletion three images he uploaded there as "own work" which were painted by a man who died in 1963. I don't know if he can adequately address those concerns. He uploaded this historical photograph under the same rationale:. (I know there's some way to "wikilink" to commons. I think. I don't know how.) I don't know if this might be public domain, because I don't know when it was taken. It's a uniform of some kind. WWI? WWII? Not my arena. :) If it's not PD, it's almost certainly fair use. If it's fair use, it needs to be moved to Wikipedia, right? Not sure how to handle this one. Input much welcome. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey. :-) From this webpage, which links to the guy's Wikipedia article, it appears that the same people who run this site, his two granddaughters, also created the article and uploaded the artist's photo and the paintings by him (same photo also on this page). If you view their copyright terms, they assert that "www.finchleygallery.com holds the copyright for all the photographs of paintings in the collection displayed on this website." If this is true and not just wishful thinking, the paintings may actually be legitimate releases. As for the photograph, the Copyright law of the United Kingdom specifies that works produce by the British government fall under Crown copyright, and for such works "Photographs taken before 1 June 1957 expire 50 years after creation." Commons has Commons:Template:PD-UKGov for this purpose. If it was taken by a civilian, then the relevant template is probably Commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown, and the photograph must be both taken before and first published before 1938, which is likely the case based on Smyth's history (he had left the military long before 1938). As for linking Commons, just do it like this: Commons:Image:Paul-Cranfield-Smyth.jpg . :-) Dcoetzee 01:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote to the webmaster yesterday about those paintings and the need to clarify. He seems to be a webdesigner for hire, and the copyright notice on that website makes me worry that he is unaware that placing those images on Commons means releasing them into public domain. In any event, of course, that copyright notice also means that verification needs to be provided that he has authority to release those images into public domain. I have no idea if Commons has something like WP:CP that should be used to handle such concerns. :) Commons is a strange and unfamiliar beast to me! Thanks for the information on the photograph. Image copyright is also a somewhat strange and unfamiliar beast to me. :) As far as the photograph, what should be done now? Should the license tag on the photo be changed? Should a suggestion be made at the uploader's talk page that he change the license tag? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if the website was a work for hire I seriously doubt that the website master has any legal rights to the works. I'm not sure about the granddaughters - the rights might have been inherited by them somehow. Some of the paintings may already be in the public domain due to age, but it's hard to tell with no specific dates attached to them. Generally copyright questions about images at Commons are raised at Commons:Deletion requests. I think the photograph should probably just be retagged with something reasonable, as it's almost surely in the public domain due to age, and you can go ahead and do that. Let me know if I can do anything else to help. :-) Dcoetzee 19:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Adopt me please
Hi Dcoetzee, you would be a perfect adopter, as an administrator of WikiCommons and frequent contributor of images - I'm experienced in Illustrator and fireworks and am very interested in SVG-ising the gross amount of raster images on Wikipedia. Please adopt me.

Thanks

Will —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillT.Net (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A7
I think you misunderstood me here. An IP had to point it out to me too!  C t j f 8 3 Talk 19:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. :-) A lot of people took the point of view in the past I was assuming and I jumped to conclusions. Dcoetzee 21:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, I have no problem with high school articles  C t j f 8 3 Talk 21:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheDraw ANSI.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TheDraw ANSI.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Need Review Help
I am looking to create a new article for Abaca Technology Corp, an anti-spam provider. I do in fact work with the company. I was told that the best way to get some info is to get adopted or consult with some experienced folks.

Would definitely appreciate some help/feedback/comments or some direction. And hopefully get this posted

Can you adopt me?

Draft on my user page

Thanks in advance

Jbiggs19 (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The "tally" sort
When someone told me about this and asked me what the difference was between it and my Check sort routine I started digging, found an online copy of the Bentleys publication and realized how easy it would be for any programmer to have seen the web page I published in 1996, commit the routine and code to memory and passed it on to Bentley over the phone. I published it online in 1996 while he did not publish "Programming Pearls" until 1999 (first edition) and 2000 (second edition). The real clue comes, however, from the fact that the name "tally" sort is does not appear in the book. (Incidentally the last name of one of the programmers who worked at the school where I got my degree was, you guessed it, Tally.)

So how do you account for the fact that the name "tally" is not in the book and only a description that sounds very computer scientific with pseudo code (use of the term was also a give away) in which Phase 1 uses a loop to clear the array instead of a dim, redim or erase statement? I find it very plausible that a programmer saw this page published online, memorized the method and the code, passed it on to Bentley by phone and Bentley then published it in print either knowing or not knowing it was already published online and copyrighted. A very clever way to circumvent a copyright don't you think? Clever devils. Have to give them credit for something even though they gave me none. Have a nice day. 71.100.3.239 (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I appreciate your concern, but the article does not claim that Programming Pearls invented tally sort, as there is no source to support this claim, just that it popularized it. Your imaginary scenario for how the book discovered the sort is quite unlikely, as it was relating an incident that happened long before its publication, and in any case this sort is a trivial variation on counting sort that has probably been reinvented many times. Please don't take it personally. Dcoetzee 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Derrick - just as a heads up, 71.100.*.* started inserting random tags in articles related to classification and sorting (Cluster analysis and Counting sort so far). Since you are more active on the algorithms side, please keep a close watch. --Jiuguang (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Impact Comics logo.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:Impact Comics logo.svg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Adopt me!
I saw you were on the list of "Adopters" - have room for another pupil? daviddoria (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi David - I must apologize that I don't have time to adopt right now and have removed my adopting tag, but I wish you luck in finding someone. Dcoetzee 02:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Digital zoom
I reverted your change summarized as "Reword and rearrange a bit", since it added unsourced assertion of a main benefit, and unsourced assertion of the behavior of photographers. It would be OK to add those things if you cite sources that support them. Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. It was based on personal experience and I have no sources, so I'm just going to forget about it. Apologies for the misleading edit summary, I forgot to account for all my changes. Dcoetzee 23:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections talk page
You are aware that I saw your comment about me. I watch that page and that I frequently comment on it. I also have feelings, you know. --Oh no! it's Alien joe!(Talk) 20:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I am. I respect your feelings and your opinions. I just disagree with your methods for going about criticizing the guideline, which I believe are counterproductive. Please don't take it personally. Dcoetzee 04:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

 * Notice delivery by xenobot  14:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dcoetzee, my name is Romanoff3. I kindly ask you for assistance. Together with my German Mentor Nolispanmo we have developed Wikipedia contributions about Russian painters - see "Sacharow" or "Repin" on the Wikipedia German pages. We would like to open this information to people speaking an internationally widespread language like English. My German mentor recommended to get in touch with an English speaking mentor. We have translated the German language contribution already. Would you be in a position to help? Kind regards--Romanoff3 (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Just go ahead and create articles here based on your translations, and then I can help to clean up the English, add links and categories, and format according to local conventions. Dcoetzee 09:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Seriously, you obviously put alot of effort into your recent revision of the Dark One article and did an excellent job of removing a significant amount of OR and fan speculation. I just wanted to recognize you for your efforts and thank you! Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nutiketaiel. :-) It wasn't nearly as arduous or careful as you imagine though, it was just a first cut. I should go through some more of the articles on WoT topics to look for similar issues. Dcoetzee 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, Derrick! you're pretty interesting yourself. We should probably talk sometime :)

-crys Exacerbation (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :-) That'd be great, what's the best way to get in touch with you? Feel free to e-mail me if you'd rather not post the info publically. Dcoetzee 00:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

i sent you something :) hope you got it! (just in case your spam filter got it) Exacerbation (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * and again! :D Exacerbation (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck :)
Wishing you the best possible outcome..., which I guess would be a bidding war amongst your top ranked schools. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. :-) I'm applying to CMU, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, and University of Washington. They're also excellent schools with lots of interesting research in my areas of interest and I expect at least a couple to accept me. :-) Dcoetzee 00:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Interview?
Hello, we met at the fifth Seattle Meetup, I'm one of the computer science grad students at UW doing some wikipedia research. We're kicking off a study on dispute resolution and were looking for a couple people in the Seattle area who might be interested in being interviewed. Would you be interested? Let me know!!! (p.s. I see from the note above that you're applying for grad school. Good luck!) Thanks, Leafman (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

proof IP=PSPACE
Hi, I need to understand this proof, can I ask you to explain a detail of it to me please ? I posted my question on the talk page of the IP(complexity) article

Thank you very much

Image:Trie_example.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Trie_example.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Generation of potential factors for N
Concerns about this file were addressed by providing a reference that an associate at Mathworld helped me find. A response was submitted to the requisitioner David Eppstein who raised this issue and added the reference to the site. A second requistioner SKIDUDE or something like that, never provided any commentary to address. If you have any additional concerns, please present them, so that they can be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JNLII (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also still learning my way around the Wikipedia format, so I'm curious how the location for this file was able to remain while the file was removed. Furthermore, the source information that I had provided at the file location was also deleted. Apparently, even my user page is open for anyone to edit, logged on or not. I can understand others being able to deleted the links to topic pages, such as "Factorization", but the ability to edit my user page or "workshop" if you will is a bit concerning. If the stew just needs a little more salt, you don't throw it out, you just don't serve it until it is ready. I view mycontributions as my workshop or kitchen. If you have concerns, please submit comments and if necessary, cut the links to between the file and the topic pages, but don't throw out the stew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JNLII (talk • contribs) 16:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi - I did read your response on User talk:David Eppstein. However, there are a number of important reasons why you should not upload this PDF again. For one thing, your technique differs from the one described in Knuth's book, which I have on my shelf, and so your reference is not valid. More importantly, we don't write articles in PDFs and upload them to the site - that's just not how we distribute content here. The right way is to find a relevant article and edit it, adding text and math markup to that article's body directly. You can ask me if you need help with the markup. However, I invite you before you do to carefully read No original research to ensure that you're not attempting to use Wikipedia to disseminate your own novel ideas - regardless of how you may feel about the academic publishing system, in the field of computer science Wikipedia generally relies on peer review to determine which concepts are important and validated. Dcoetzee 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My first question is whether or not you are willing to mentor me on the best way to publish original material without a budget. I do have a lot of original material that I would like to share with anyone interested. Mathematics has been a hobby of mine for a long time, and most of the things that I originated were merely inventions of the wheel. But, even for these old concepts, I feel that I often provide a simplistic way of presenting the material so that any highschool kid could immediately understand and apply the principles. The few contributions that I've made to Wikipedia were original discoveries that turned out to be reinventions of the wheel. Therefore, only the presentation remains original. My sharing of these simple ideas first was intended to 1. learn the ropes of publishing and 2. get something out there, while I procrastinate on writing a summary on my most complex and involved work, which to the best of my knowledge is truly original. My use of the PDF format to submit to Wikipedia is only because, I couldn't upload a MS Word document, and I was having difficulty learning how to use Wikipedia's comment box to create all of the symbols that I needed. The lack of references within the body of the document are due to two reasons: 1. Precident has already been set by Wikipedia contributions (reference footnotes within the body of the article are rare), 2. My formal education is not in mathematics, so I find it difficult to confirm whether my work is original or not by providing references (in fact, this is what usually leads to me picking the subject for one of my puzzles. I don't intentionally reinvent the wheel, and when I learn that I have reinvented the wheel it is often by seeing it already used in an application, which of course provides no references). Since I'm not looking for money or fame, I don't have a conscience about freely giving the information that to me is obvious to anyone who looks in the right direction. A photographer may own the rights to a picture, but they can't claim the right to the view. This Christmas, I noticed that several parents in the mall were refusing to purchase a picture with Santa, but would let their children sit on Santa's lap for free, while they took their own picture. These parents didn't feel any guilt. To me, discoveries about the natural patterns of the world are free views of God's creation. The user of this information can battle it out with whomever wants to fight for credit or royalties. You can't stake a claim to everything. I don't need credit for any of my work. Perhaps some of my motivation is the frustration that I used to feel when trying to search for a concept that eluded me, merely because I didn't know the proper terminology or the presentation of the material failed to offer a simple explanation. Furthermore, many presentations fail to lead you an understanding of what potential value that the principle may offer. On the issue of originality, sometimes it seems that the same concept is presented as original, when the difference is really splitting hairs. It would be like not giving Darwin credit for the theory of evolution, because he failed to explain it in terms of molecular biology. If the only way to help others by offering simplistic explanations or by presenting new concepts is to get published, then I'm all ears. But, my endeavor is getting a little more involved than I wanted it to be. If I can publish, even my more complex and original ideas, then I promise to freely offer it to Wikipedia and anyone else who may be interested. It may sit on the shelf forever, but then maybe it won't. Much of the work that I've done is related to my interest in bioinformatics and comparing sequence homologies. Some of it turned out to not be very applicable in this area, but may be used in other areas. Sorry, if it seems that I've been arguing with you. I understand your position, and I respect your effort to keep the information on Wikipedia credible. My push back was just the result of dread of what may be involved and fear that my good intentions will require money. It's sort of like when a street person asks me for money and I give them all of my loose change or a dollar and then they ask for more. Don't you feel like asking, "Where's my thankyou? If my charity isn't good enough then get it somewhere else." I believe that right now, the US needs to rediscover it's ability to be innovative and to utilize whatever ideas are available.--63.99.16.91 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.99.16.91 (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

P=NP Deletion
Hello, I noticed that you removed a whole section in the P = NP article. That section casts some doubts as to practical validity of the whole debate about P = NP and also raises an objection to the unfortunately common practice of saying "problem X in NP-Complete, so a heuristic must be used". To remove them just like this, without any previous discussion feels harsh to me and, in my opinion, removes something that is (a) interesting, (b) relevant and (c) adequately supported by references. I would like to invite you to reverse your edit.

Constantine Cngoulimis (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not remove this section - I moved most of the content out to Cobham's thesis, where it belongs, as I mentioned in my edit summary. I think it's appropriate for the P=NP problem article to only briefly summarize the issue and leave the details to an article dedicated to the topic. Do you disagree with this move? Dcoetzee 20:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying - To me Cobham's thesis is a bit of ancient folklore, :-). A section such as this should not really concentrate on Cobham's thesis. The objections however as to the practical importance of P=NP are significant (at least to me) and they deserve a mention in the main article. Now that you removed these to Cobham's thesis, the article does not raise (any more) any concerns about the practical validity of P=NP. Consider for example the distinction between average and worst-case behaviour, as exemplified by both the simplex and the knapsack behaviour. There are a lot of students who, upon being told that knapsack is NP-Complete would deduce (wrongly!) that no practical solution is possible (as opposed to solving instances with 10,000 variables in a few milliseconds; similarly people would expect exponential behaviour, as opposed to less-than-sorting, at least for a restricted (though not small) range). This valuable point has now been lost, with your edit. My recommendation is that we restore the bullet points, downgrading Cobham's thesis, although still linking to it. What do you think?Cngoulimis (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your argument - Cobham's thesis is at best a rule of thumb that is taken for granted far too often - but the reason I want to contain this discussion to the article Cobham's thesis is that I think it's an issue that goes far beyond P=NP and is important in other contexts as well. I've seen papers on polynomial-time algorithms that are wildly impractical that don't even mention NP. I think it's important to centralize discussion of this issue in a separate place. Nevertheless I've expanded the section in question to summarize your point - that NP-complete problems frequently have practical solutions. Dcoetzee 20:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all
User:Fuhghettaboutit User:PrimeHunter and, User:Teratornis in regards to: [] Wikipedia:Help desk "Question for Wikipedia regarding monetary contributions" "I got this feeling, Wikipedians are watching me" "language interwiki question (linkings)" "language interwiki question (size and number of articles)" and to, User:Dcoetzee in regards to [] 2 questions: one about contributions Yartett (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request (part two !)
Hello, there. You might remember that a while ago you copyedited Highlander: The Series (season 1), which is now a FL, in no small part thank to you. I was wondering if you would be interested in copyediting Highlander: The Series (season 2), which I am hoping will follow the same path. It is currently in Peer Review and will go to FLC the minute PR is finished. Another copyeditor has left some remarks which you might find useful on the talk page. (I always ask several persons so I'm sure I get at least one review.) Your time would be greatly appreciated. Have a merry Christmas, Rosenknospe (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hotlinking? (and now: plagiarism!)
Hi. :) You know anything about hotlinking, particularly Wikipedia's opinion thereof? If so, please share at my talk page, where admin Dougweller has invited my feedback. Hotlinking crosses the technical divide for me, although I'm going to go and try to figure out what it means. But since I don't know that much, I suppose it goes without saying that I'm not secure in any effort I might make to interpret Wikipedia policies thereon...presuming I managed to find them. :) If you don't know, I'd be grateful for any suggestions on who might. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help with that. :) After my research, I kind of didn't think it looked like hotlinking, but I'm hardly familiar enough with it to positively assert that. Also, I would not have considered the ethical implications of linking directly to the images.


 * In the "now for something completely different" category, I am helping out with the proposed policy at Plagiarism. I'd like to publicize this more widely soon, since it's been hanging out for many months and ought to be either implemented or rejected at some point. But I'm hoping that I can get some assistance from you, especially as relates to images. (I've also already name-dropped you at the talk page. :)) I've been off researching & learning about metadata this morning, but I'm still not sure how metadata can be used to locate plagiarism. I could speculate that if metadata is missing or contradictory to uploading information, plagiarism is likely, but I don't think policy pages (or even proposed ones) are the place for me to speculate. :) Do you think you can lend a hand? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of TheDraw
I have nominated TheDraw, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/TheDraw. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  07:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't create this article, User:Cumbrowski did. Please leave this AfD notice with them. Thanks. Dcoetzee 07:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Try telling that to Twinkle. :) I already left a message with him, but your opinion would still be welcome in the AfD. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  07:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) Dcoetzee 08:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you
The article you created: TheDraw  may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:
 * Articles for deletion/TheDraw .

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted Findsources3:
 * Find sources for TheDraw : google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:
 * 1) List the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
 * 2) You can request a mentor to help explain all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
 * 3) When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you. Here is a list acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
 * 4) You can vote to merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I remarked above, I did not create this article and I recommend contacting User:Cumbrowski. Dcoetzee 09:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Optimal substructure
Hi, Derrick. I appreciated the article you created about Optimal substructure. I left a note there about the use of "minima" in the "formal definition" section. Perhaps you could clarify in the article what the minima is with respect to (some variable had to change, but I didn't figure out what that variable was).

Thanks,

--Christopher King (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-plagiarism
I appreciate your edits on the plagiarism page, but slow down please. There is no clear distinction between legal and ethical issues in this area, as your edit to the section heading suggested, and I hope you will see this when you review the paragraph immediately above it. When a person republishes a dissertation as a book, it is fair reuse of their own work that is accepted in the discipline. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mervyn, I'm sorry that I didn't discuss my edits more first - I agree with you that "fair reuse" is acceptable in many situations, but it's mainly the terminology that I don't like. I want to clearly distinguish the legal and ethical issues in self-plagiarism. There are many cases where the original author retains copyright of both works, and there is no legal issue whatsoever. The section that I retitled focuses on "codes of ethics" and I don't feel like it's pertinent to the legal issues of fair use, particularly as those are only relevant in the United States. My edits were only intended to emphasize that "fair use" is a legal term that applies to legal issues, not ethical issues. Dcoetzee 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wipeout
OK, I've redeleted and asked the editor concerned to discuss with you jimfbleak (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wipeout
Unfortunately I'm on a topic ban so I can't request DRV. -- Gp 75 motorsports  REV LIMITER  17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that the AfD discussion seemed to be about excluding this topic from Wikipedia entirely. Unless you have evidence that it has a wider impact outside the game, I don't think it would pass a DRV even if you could begin one. You're always free to rewrite it in your user space, but be prepared for that effort to be wasted. Dcoetzee 23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

hi! \o/


Hi Dell, good to hear from you. :-) Thank you for the image, that is a cool looking creature. How have you been? Dcoetzee 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been good! You? Hopefully we can talk sometime soon. Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  23:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm alright, just been working and stuff. We'll definitely talk soon. :-) Dcoetzee 21:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions
Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Dcoetzee 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

help editing Phorm page needed
Hi Derrick - Perhaps you can help. Looking for an editor with a NPOV to correct factual errors on the Phorm page and assist in balancing the overall tone of the article which is unquestionably negative. I have already reached out to a couple of other editors and got no response. Looking for any help/advice you can provide. Thanks in advance. IworkforPhorm (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to you on this. Dcoetzee 21:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote of Awesomeness Award

 * Thank you. :-) I'm glad I was able to address your concerns. Dcoetzee 04:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

T1 poll was confusing
I've taken the liberty of refactoring the T1 poll to make it less confusing. My intuitive reaction to your support vote was that you were supporting T1. Revert me if you disagree.--chaser (away) - talk 04:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. Good idea. :-) Dcoetzee 04:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the innovation

 * Innovation: [randomInt = rnd.Next 6,9]/10th inspiration. It never occurred to me in the absence of a template to address close paraphrase that one might simply create it. Thank you so much. It's made its maiden voyage, and it may get more of a workout today. (P.S. Try that code at your peril. I used to write programs in Apple Basic, but I could not remember how to genera l te a random number. I visited a tutorial for "Visual Basic", and I don't even know what that is. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, I was Mrs. Malaprop. She and I, sadly, are far too closely acquainted. :/ (See also: Cluttering. Me and Winston Churchhill.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually entirely overlooked that one. :-) Don't worry, I find your malapropisms charming. ;-) Dcoetzee 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Image assistance with writing FUR?
Hi. :) (I came: I praised; I came back: I asked for something.) Would you by any chance have an opportunity to help out a contributor in addressing non-standard images? I am talking to him about licensing and fair use rationales here, but as you know images are really not my area. The conversation is, and I'd be very grateful if you could not only help craft a good FUR, but also perhaps help clarify "attributing images that don't fit the simple categories". If this isn't convenient, please just let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to help, and thank you for your praise. :-) I didn't do much really. Good to hear from you. Dcoetzee 05:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than open a new section, I'm piggy-backing here, since I'm planning to sort of bring it up again. :) Primary purpose of contact: thanks for suggesting I view "source" for that complex cvio. Very helpful! It drove me nuts trying to find it through expanding the various sections. Also thanks for pitching in at WP:CP. The need to go through Mgreason's back catalog is eating into my time (plus I've been helping out at Hospice care in the United States, the article that first brought me into contact with him/her). I've requested assistance with Mgreason at AN, by the way, here. So far one taker has found another cvio issue. Yesterday I cleaned up another article. It's looking like a long haul. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Howard Allen
Hello, I ran across the Howard Allen article today and noticed that it's a BLP without inline citations. Because you are the article's creator I'm hoping you can add those. Thanks!  momoricks   (make my day)  02:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I took care of it, thanks for the message. :-) Dcoetzee 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're awesome. Have a great weekend,  momoricks   (make my day)  04:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the first non tech element of consensus
I moved your comment out of the tech part to the consensus building part. Hope that's OK with you. Comments like yours, even if I disagree, are what I hoped to achieve. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, not a problem. :-) Dcoetzee 20:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Google books mad at me; assistance needed with copyvio matter
There's a copyright concern that needs access to google books to verify, but I have evidently gone as far as google books will allow me to go in reading their text. (I sure hope this is temporary!) Their FAQ tells me this is to keep me from using their service as a library. I hope there's a time limit on that! Please see Talk:Age of Empires (video game) if you can help out, and if you can't, please let me know so that I can find somebody who still gets along okay with google. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The contributors of that article helped me get back in good with google books. (Clearing cache did not work; clearing cache, logging out and logging back in did.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me know if you need help with anything else. :-) I think Mgreason's still got a substantial backlog of closely paraphrased work and I hope to take a look at it sometime. Dcoetzee 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! I'm coordinating efforts at my sandbox, User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox. (If you have time and interest, please feel free. :)) Several other contributors have helped out, especially User:Zagalejo, but it's slow-going. I can only do maybe 5 a day. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of User talk:Glory holes
Hello there,

I see that you have restored User talk:Glory holes, presumably assuming good faith. However, this user has been blocked, per this block log, for being WP:GRAWP a known vandal. The user was blocked by an automatic bot that picks up Grawp edits - so I would appreciate it if you deleted the user talk page once more.

I would also like to bring up the matter that you seem to be stalking an administrator's deletions and restoring articles that you think should have not been deleted. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but could you not simply discuss with the administrator on his talk page about the deletions before restoring - so that conflicts on both ends could be sorted first?

Regards,

The Helpful  One  13:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * DragonflySixtyseven consistently ignores me, as discussed below. I checked the block log before I restored this page but I did it incorrectly and the entry you showed me didn't show up. I apologize for my error and have re-deleted the page and also redeleted User talk:BigBobStevens. Dcoetzee 21:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven
In regards to your restorations of some articles DragonflySixtyseven deleted, could you consider a different approach? It is best practice for an admin not to undo another admin's actions without consultation first (see wheel war). You may very well have legitimate rationale behind each restoration, but it may be more productive if you refrain from restoring, and instead discuss the issues with him first. He has legitimate rationale too. This is a sort of admin protocol that can prevent wheel wars, promote good will, and enlighten editors to policies and practices.

Also, it is Big Brotherish for you to have a DragonflySixtyseven deletions link on your userpage. Wikihounding is ill-advised.

Thank you for all your hard work in Wikipedia.

And if you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Kingturtle (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He has consistently ignored me, never responding to anything I've ever posted on his talk page, even once, so I think communication is futile. I bear no ill will towards him and I know he is acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. I only had the link to his deletions for personal use, to help me find incorrect speedy deletions to restore, because an unusually large proportion of his deletions are out-of-process and incorrect. To make an analogy, if a user had a habit of contributing copyright violations, even in good faith, I might keep a link to their contributions to help me detect them. I have no vendetta against him in particular and would have restored those articles regardless of who had deleted them.
 * Nevertheless I've removed the link because I don't want to upset DS or give the wrong impression. In fact, I don't want to make any enemies - if DragonflySixtyseven asks me not to restore any more of his deletions, I will comply. I'd frankly be thrilled just to have him talking to me. Dcoetzee 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for response. Your analogy makes perfect sense. I know that each of you are working in good faith, and I hope that he takes a cue from this and approaches you in the future. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

fever and chills
I have a nasty cold or something just now. Going to the extent of working out a proper answer will take too much effort and I'll probably pass out. There is no central government in Somalia to issue passports, and the wiccan thing in australia is published by a self-owned press and being registered as a church/religion is not an assertion of notability. no content other than external link is valid csd.

what these have in common is hat they're all from the far end of unpatrolled queue. if you don't like how i'm handling newpage patrol, you're welcome to participate yourself. DS (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi DS, I'm really sorry you're not feeling well. It didn't occur to me that you might not be responding because you're ill. If you want I could redelete these and take them to DRV instead - or nominate them for AfD for you, either way. The two articles you cite (Somali passport and Inclusive Wicca Tradition) may in fact be deleted at an AfD, for the reasons you suggest, but I think they warrant wider discussion. I'm not confident that there's not some organizational body in Somalia issuing passports, whether or not a central government exists. The Wiccan one may be a valid A7 or may not - I was pretty generous in interpreting its claims, and I could let it go. Please just let me know what you'd like me to do. Dcoetzee 23:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

fever and chills
I have a nasty cold or something just now. Going to the extent of working out a proper answer will take too much effort and I'll probably pass out. There is no central government in Somalia to issue passports, and the wiccan thing in australia is published by a self-owned press and being registered as a church/religion is not an assertion of notability. no content other than external link is valid csd.

what these have in common is hat they're all from the far end of unpatrolled queue. if you don't like how i'm handling newpage patrol, you're welcome to participate yourself. DS (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi DS, I'm really sorry you're not feeling well. It didn't occur to me that you might not be responding because you're ill. If you want I could redelete these and take them to DRV instead - or nominate them for AfD for you, either way. The two articles you cite (Somali passport and Inclusive Wicca Tradition) may in fact be deleted at an AfD, for the reasons you suggest, but I think they warrant wider discussion. I'm not confident that there's not some organizational body in Somalia issuing passports, whether or not a central government exists. The Wiccan one may be a valid A7 or may not - I was pretty generous in interpreting its claims, and I could let it go. Please just let me know what you'd like me to do. Dcoetzee 23:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm feeling substantially better today; thank you for your concern. To address the articles in order: Inclusive Wicca Tradition, we already discussed.

Muslims I Know - I'll grant that I misread that one; it has a lot of predictions, yes, but it also has mentions of the past.

Anthony McMillan - this is garbage. "Short Story of the Year" is meaningless unless we know who's giving the award (is it the Hugo committee? the Pulitzer committee? the homeless guy who sleeps in the subway station?), "nomination" for the Short Story of the Year is worse, and "preliminary nomination" is completely devoid of substance. It doesn't help that Google has never heard of his nom de plume, and that there are no hits for his name plus the name of his most famous story. The link to his Facebook profile is just icing on the cake: this is g Perhaps "unverifiable" would have been a better rationale.

University Rosenheim - "no content except an external link" is a valid CSD. Yes, I could have expanded it into a valid article, but I was under no obligation to. Similarly, the one on children's literature in Oriya: it was an incoherent mess. It's clearly possible to have a valid article on that subject, but that was not it.

Sent Martine - you're right, that's a better redirect.

Armando Orefiche - casual browsers do not typically read the category tags. Context was easy to add, yes, but no one had done it. And frankly, the content looked like it had been copied from the back of a record sleeve.

Sindhi journalists - not obligated to improve.

Benassi sound - From what I can tell, the majority of Google hits for those two words in conjunction do not refer to the subject of the article. It's real, yes, but I judged it to be a neologism. Willing to be proven wrong on this one. Find me evidence.

Sphincter paralysis - oh, come ON. Don't be tautological, and don't rely on Popular Culture.

FK Behar - okay, the starfire is assertion enough.

Non-synaptic plasticity - there's really no content there. Feel free to provide more if you can, but I'm under no obligation to improve it.

In general, I don't decide unilaterally about notability; rather, I decide about assertions of notability. Don't judge the subject of the article, judge the article itself. DS (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, you weren't obligated to improve any of these, and I'm not calling your deletions into question. I chose to restore and improve some of them of my own volition and just wanted to inform you. Some responses:
 * I agree that Anthony McMillan is rather unlikely to pass an AfD and I was pretty generous in my interpretations of its claims. I would probably let that one go.
 * The prose in Armando Orefiche was pretty unreadable. I was just going by category tags. I'm not willing to assert it's a copyvio though.
 * From what I can tell, all the Google results about "Benassi sound" do in fact appear to be regarding the topic of this article. It is a neologism, but there's a reason that's not a CSD, it might be significant in the synthesizer community.
 * On non-synaptic plasticity: a definition is enough context for a stub, particularly when combined with the Neuroplasticity link. I think it's fine.
 * I disagree with you about sphincter paralysis - I think your argument might be a reasonable one to make at AfD, but just because it's a very specific type of paralysis doesn't mean it hasn't been studied in reputable publications, as the reference I added demonstrates. I'm no House fan, but just because an article was added because it was mentioned in popular media doesn't mean it's an illegitimate topic for an article.
 * Again, I should have clarified this sooner, but many of these were correct deletions; I only restored them because I frequently find expanding deleting articles to be a useful way of generating new articles. And I do tend to be awfully generous in my interpretations of A7 and G11, more than most. Please don't take any offense. Dcoetzee 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing/copyvio
Me, again. Big surprise. :) I have undertaken to try to help Mgreason learn how to paraphrase and/or summarize without infringing on the original. If you have time and interest, I'd be grateful if you'd take a look at his talk page, User talk:Mgreason, to see if you think I'm being clear, using good examples, generally making a sound point that might help him learn how to overcome the problem that led to his being indefinitely blocked.

By the way, am I correct in presuming that since he is blocked he can only edit his talk page, or is he able to edit other pages in his userspace? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey. :-) I took a read over it and it looks great and well thought-out. I'm glad that your conviction that he was acting in good faith is correct, and I think it was appropriate to take one of his own recent articles, since he seemed to be under the mistaken impression that he had avoided trouble recently. I think it was also a good idea to emphasize reading a passage at a time rather than a sentence, and that summarization is okay. I think it might also be useful to address his paranoia about original research by demonstrating some original research using his own articles, to emphasize the difference between original expression and original ideas. It'd also be useful to show when it's okay to copy a word or phrase (for example, a name or technical term) and when it's not (when it's just part of the prose style). With regard to process, I'd emphasize not using copy-paste and not even looking at the source while writing. That's all I got right now. Good luck. :-) Dcoetzee 02:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

John Decyk
Hey, sorry to bother you but you were the first active admin I saw... Could you delete John Decyk and the associated image? A quick Google search should be enough to verify it's all BS. The image is obviously manipulated as well. I'm honestly in disbelief this has been up for one and a half year... Thanks! -- aktsu (t / c) 23:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag. As described in my edit summary, it is not clear vandalism and I suggest putting him up for deletion at AfD as a non-notable martial artist. A7 does not apply either because he lists a number of awards and accomplishments that may be construed as a claim of significance. Dcoetzee 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I expected but was hoping someone would WP:IAR if I contacted them directly since if you read it it's obviously all nonsense. Will put up for AFD instead. How should I proceed about the obviously manipulated image? -- aktsu (t / c) 23:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I know a thing or two about image manipulation and I'm fairly confident that image is not manipulated. Sorry. Nevertheless if the article is deleted I'm sure the image can be deleted under CSD F10. Dcoetzee 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? No problem with you not deleting, but now I'm curious on how you see it as not manipulated :P No problems with the pixelated background or the black border around the "thing" right over his head? The bright line around his arm in the bottom left? The fact that his head seems out of place? -- aktsu (t / c) 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I admit the pixelated background and the bright lines around the edge are pretty suspicious. :-P To say nothing of the sharp-edged brightness distortion near the T. I don't know what I was thinking - I was more going on the theory that he'd have no reason to create that fake image, but I guess he did. Dcoetzee 00:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Close paraphrase essay
I have invented a fashion model and an Elle magazine profile on her. Do you think this would make an acceptable example for the essay? It's at User talk:Moonriddengirl/sandbox. If you like it, I can either boldly place it or propose it at the essay's talk page for other review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't like, I can try again. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry I haven't responded about this. :-/ I think your example is a good and interesting one, but I have a feeling the close paraphrase is a bit far from the source to be clear close paraphrase (and certainly more effort than many people would put into close paraphrasing - as much as half of it is probably original language). What I do think it does a good job of demonstrating is how unnatural and out-of-context closely paraphrased language can sound compared to original prose, and how summarization and removal of bias is an important part of effective paraphrasing. I'm going to say to be bold in adding more examples to the essay, but I personally would shift the close paraphrasing example more in the direction of obvious close paraphrasing. Dcoetzee 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you like to take a shot at that, or would you prefer that I do so? If you have an idea of how you want it to read, feel free. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I've achieved what you're going for, but I pushed my paraphrase much more towards cvio: User talk:Moonriddengirl/sandbox. I'll move it to the essay's talk page to see how others feel. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooops..
Didn't know my material on talk:set wasn't allowed. Delete at your discretion.

Btw do you know any place where I can discuss this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standard Oil (talk • contribs) 04:02, 20 February 2009 ::(UTC)
 * Hi, don't worry about it, you haven't done anything really bad, was just letting you know. :-) Wikipedia isn't the best place for formulating new ideas about things, but there are some wiki venues for that, like Academic Publishing Wiki. Let me know if you have any questions. Dcoetzee 08:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Horsegirl
Hi Dcoetzee Concerning the discussion at Talk:The Saddle Club, I'm not sure if I'm making much progress with Horsegirl070605. It's nice that I got her to talk and even to compromise a little with those external links, but discussions on her own talk page are still impossible, since she keeps the retirement notice up, and I haven't even started talking about her OR and fancruft additions. I'm not sure this is going somewhere. Any advice on that situation? Cheers, Amalthea  12:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Amalthea, I greatly appreciate your patience with Horsegirl. I can talk to her firmly about blanking her talk page; this is a fine line to walk because talk page policy is so permissive. I think the OR and fancruft is, while somewhat problematic, also par for the course for articles on fiction targeted at children (many of the additions of that nature are not hers); that stuff can be cleaned up. It will have to be dealt with eventually but isn't my first priority. Dcoetzee 17:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done already, I guess. It's also a fine line cause I don't know how she's going to react to that, thus far the hard hand hasn't really worked with her either. For something completely different, it recently came to my attention that my second registered edit ever was one where I reverted you. Oh well, luckily I was right. ;) Cheers, Amalthea  18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a correct reversion. :-) I was thinking of the related problem of finding the largest element smaller than k in a list of integers. I have some hope for firmness with her, because I did warn her about adding links without discussion and she actually discussed that, although I could also chalk that up to coincidence. :-P I guess we'll see. Dcoetzee 18:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Hello, I've been speaking with Amalthea about this user and given her most recent note left on her talkpage what do you think about it? I want to think that maybe that's she's receptive when she likes to be but genenrally I'm not sure if she isn't playing some odd game right now. Blocks should be a last resort but aren't we close enough yet where we have to wait for her to mess up? treelo radda  12:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think she's playing a game - I honestly don't have an explanation for the "retired" behavior. My best explanation so far is that she gets really upset quickly when someone tells her she did something wrong and tries to flee. But she did ignore a warning I gave her earlier about not responding to talk page comments, so I've blocked her for a few days. I should have advised you to leave your note on her IP talk page, as her main user account really is retired. Dcoetzee 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much that'll do, she might have been gone for those days anyway until she comes back. So, not gaming, just really easy to upset then? OK then, that I can handle but not her stating her leaving then a few weeks later resuming her editing, it's happened before and she's being very upfront about her not wanting to work with anyone, ignoring others comments and generally wanting to do things the way she likes, is that really something we want here? I'll give it a few weeks, see what comes of her "leaving" this time around as she just might surprise us and go for good. treelo  radda  20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not about to assume she's actually retiring this time. If she continues her pattern of poor communication after she is unblocked, I'll advise her that I can block her indefinitely if she requests me to do so, and she might well agree to that if she really wants to retire and has some kind of compulsion. Otherwise I'll seek other remedies. Dcoetzee 21:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A block upon request, didn't notice we hand those out upon request. I think she might refuse your request given she doesn't really care and possibly figures she can lie and say she's going and can renege whenever she thinks reasonable. What you can do otherwise besides blocking isn't known to me. treelo  radda  22:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh, each time she leaves a message on her talkpage I get more and more confused as it all seems a bit erratic to me. She doesn't like us but apologises a lot, says she's going but crawls back like a crack addict to leave more "goodbye, I hate you all" messages. Now I'm figuring she is playing a game because it seems a little bit like a front for whatever her real personality is. I'm sorry her views of the internet don't cover everywhere which it is made up of but cut the cord already because I have no doubt she'll be back. treelo  radda  21:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I think she has the capability of being a productive editor if she just learns to work better with others, and I'm going to assume good faith for now - but I'll watch her closely and won't allow her to disrupt the work of others with abandon, so don't worry. Dcoetzee 22:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Guess I was right to let you do what was required as now she has been blocked though that is through her request which is still odd to me as I thought we didn't block on the request of an editor so you might have to explain that to me. Anyway, good to see this issue is dealt with now and thanks I suppose. treelo radda  01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not normally block on request, but in light of Horsegirl's problems with civil communication I thought it was the best way to amiably resolve the situation; it's also not unheard of to request enforced wikibreaks. I'm still not sure what's going on in her head, but hopefully she won't disrupt you any longer. Dcoetzee 01:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:IBM7040.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:IBM7040.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uploaded this over 4 years ago. Don't remember or care, feel free to kill it. Dcoetzee 18:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not stalking you or anything
Congratulations! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :-) I'm really looking forward to it. And don't worry, my edits are an open book to you. :-P Dcoetzee 21:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

en.literateprograms.org
Your site is currently not reachable. Is there anything you can do about it? Thanks. --132.199.97.100 (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the response I sent to someone else by e-mail:

Unfortunately I may have a bit of trouble getting it back online, because it was based on a home server and I recently moved and no longer have ownership of my Internet connection. I may have to migrate it to an online service that has PHP/MySQL support. I'm also concerned that the wiki lacked direction and the contribution rate had fallen; that it used a custom syntax highlighting solution since replaced by official modules; that it was not written as a separate Mediawiki extension and was not scalable, requiring invocation of external tools; that I probably should have used subpages in places of categories for the primary hierarchy; and that it was not effective for describing large programs, only snippets. I've begun to think of it more as a proof of concept, something to inform a better attempt in the future. I'd appreciate any ideas you have about it.
 * Hope this helps. Dcoetzee 20:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I hope you can get the Wiki up again. While this year I haven't yet had the time to do much there, I definitely had planned to do more as soon as I find the time. But I agree that the general contribution rate had fallen quite a lot. But maybe that was just a lack of advertising the wiki.
 * About the lack of direction, that's easy to fix: Just give it one :-) For example, you mentioned that it wasn't ideal for large programs. I actually never bothered to even try to use it for large programs for the simple fact that I thought that's not what it was for. The trick of getting a direction is to explicitly state and discuss the direction you want it to go (and even if you yourself have no idea where it should go, starting a discussion about it might help).
 * The technical problems you mentioned (custom syntax hilighting solution, not a proper mediawiki module) are behind-the-scene issues which could be changed by a more or less silent update of the wiki software whenever you find the time to do it. Also, you could make the improvement a community project, so that you don't have to do all of it alone (hey, what about making literateprograms self-hosting!)
 * Unless I'm missing something, the category vs. subpages thing is a purely reorganisational problem, so it could be done after some discussion by the wiki community.
 * In case you can't or don't want to put the original wiki online again, is there a way to get back the old content? I'd hate to lose all the work I've put in it last year, especially the Unlambda stuff (the older stuff I could rescue through the wayback machine, but it doesn't seem to have last year's stuff).
 * Also note that several Wikipedia pages link to literateprograms, which is another reason why getting the content back online might be a good idea.
 * PS: I'll probably not have the possibility to answer here next week, so if you answer and I don't react soon, it doesn't mean anything. --132.199.97.100 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey! I appreciate your support and ideas, and your enthusiasm about the project is honestly really reassuring to me. :-) Consequently I've found a webhost that supports enough features to get LiteratePrograms back up and running, but it will take me a bit of time to set up. I agree with you that the site is ideal for small, self-contained programs that fit in the scope of a single article. I'm thinking of disabling anonymous edits as is done on some of the smaller Wikipedias to help deal with the vandalism issue (there aren't enough users to effectively monitor vandalism). And of course you're right that technical issues can be dealt with transparently, including the long-delayed Mediawiki upgrade. I might end up starting from scratch and importing the old pages so that I can separate out the LP support as an extension (I've noticed Commons has a lot of extensions that add tabs, so I'm sure it's feasible). I think I just got lazy because I felt like nobody cared and it'll be back. :-) Dcoetzee 20:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons question
Hi. There's a question at WT:C concerning an image at Commons. It's left me wondering if said image is too derivative for the uploader to release. Since that's your neighborhood, would you mind taking a look at [Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Opinion needed]]? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Very productive
Our discussion is becoming very productive. I love it when a good disagreement becomes a good agreement. Chillum 03:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm glad to help everyone come to an agreement. :-) Dcoetzee 03:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

UC Berkeley history

 * Thank you. :-) I'm glad it was helpful. Dcoetzee 01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Review in paraphrasing/copryight issue?
Hi. :) I have conversation with User:CeeGee and have left a rather detailed note at User talk:CeeGee. If you have an opportunity, would you please read over that and let me know if you think I have been unclear in any way? I don't want to cross the line into TLDR, but I also want to cover all important aspects. I'm hoping I haven't lost clarity in my (laughable failure of an) effort to reach brevity. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey. :-) I think it was, as usual, quite clear and detailed, and seems to have gotten the desired response, so keep doing what you're doing. Sometimes brevity isn't important so much as being explicit and thorough. :-) Dcoetzee 23:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-free logos
I recalled that the other logo like File:Air Nunavut logo.jpg was File:Canadian North logo.jpg. I tried to add it to the deletion page on Commons but couldn't seem to get it right. Do you know how that is supposed to work? Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The easiest way is to use the "Nominate for deletion" tool in the toolbox (you may have to turn this on in your preferences). I went ahead and nom'ed that one, thanks for pointing it out. :-) Dcoetzee 12:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There doesn't appear to be anything like that in the preferences. Just the "Quick Delete: adds very useful links, to tag images as without source/licence/for deletion, and notify users accordingly.", which is turned on but doesn't seem to work anyway. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 21:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Image request
Hello Dcoetzee,

I have created an image for the naked short selling, although I'm not sure if it is correct. Please contact me if you see some errors. Greetings from Germany! -- Grochim (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Danke! I'm not very knowledgable about the area, but the people on the talk page say it's okay. I saw you placed it and it does help explain a lot. :-) Dcoetzee 19:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems, math articles
Hi. There are two math articles at CP today. One of them is certainly an infringement; the other probably is. I am absolutely incapable of replacing these with stubs. Any chance you can help, person with specialties I don't share? The listing is at Copyright problems/2009 March 1. The articles involved are Arithmetic circuit complexity (certainly a copyvio) and Multilinear polynomial (probably a copyvio; see article talk). If you think they aren't important and agree with the copyvio assessment, they can simply be deleted, of course. If you think they are important and can't/won't/would strongly rather not address them, let me know, and I'll hit up somebody else from the Math wikiproject. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey. :-) It's your lucky day, as circuit complexity is one of my areas of expertise. I can stubify multilinear polynomial as well (and make it a bit more accessible while I'm at it). Dcoetzee 16:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoot! Get down with me and my lucky self! :D Actually, though, I tend to think my lucky day was the day I met you. ;) Thank you very much. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. And no problem. :-) Dcoetzee 17:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Janssen
It's from the Guardian website that's footnoted in the Cobbe portrait article. Paul B (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
Hi. :) In line with our previous conversations, I am considering attempting to launch a wikiproject. I would very much appreciate feedback on it before I try to give it a go. The project page, such as it currently is, is at User:Moonriddengirl/WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Needless to say, any additions you would like to make would be welcome.

I think it is a very necessary project. My main concern is that I might throw a party and nobody come. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Paata Burchuladze singing Tavisupleba.jpg
Hi. I saw you comment on the other day, and I'd be grateful for some more feedback from you. How would you assess the current situation for this copyvio challenge? Whose "court" do you think the "ball" is in now? Is there anything more I need to do if I want the deletion process suspended pending further discussion? And if there ought to be a more wide-ranging discussion of   and similar templates, what do you think would be the most appropriate forum for that discussion to take place in? Richwales (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Wenceslas Hollar - Mülheim (State 2).jpg
Moin Moin. Thanks for uploading the file. You guess, that this is a view of Mülheim an der Ruhr. I think, that you are not right, because the name of the river is "Rhenus" - latin for Rhein. And because of this, it must be Köln-Mülheim or "Mülheim/Rhein. Please check it once more - thanks --O. aus M. (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I apologize for the error, I'm not very knowledgable in this area. The files were named based on titles provided by the University of Toronto, and they may have committed the original error. Please feel free to place the image wherever you think it belongs. Dcoetzee 00:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the major CopyVio problem
Thanks so much for creating the list of articles that Graham Bould worked on other than the Category:Molluscs of New Zealand. And thanks for ranking them by how major the edits he had done on them were. That's very useful.

As you know there are only a few of us and we have 1,000 New Zealand mollusc articles to work on, plus another 400 in Category:Molluscs of Australia. (There are also presumably an unknown number of other articles that GB created with CopyVio.) One of our participants, Tim Ross, suggested that we do this: rapidly create temporary stub articles (which anyone can work on right now) and which will then be used to overwrite the offending articles. You can see what Tim did at:


 * Talk:Alcithoe jaculoides/Temp
 * Talk:Buccinulum vittatum vittatum/Temp
 * Talk:Littorina cincta/Temp

I was wondering, since we have so many hundreds to convert, do you think it is it possible to develop a bot to set up at least the framework for these temporary articles so it doesn't have to be all done by hand? Or would it be better to do it by hand do you think? Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You can reply here if you like:. Invertzoo (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to this, as it now seems quite likely that this is even larger than we knew, I have opened a new thread on the matter at the administrator's noticeboard. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested assistance, yes, again
Hi. If I haven't worn out my welcome, would you mind taking a look at Template:User WikiProject Copyright Cleanup and Category:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup members to make sure that I've done all that correctly? I've had so far unanimous support at the WikiProject Council, so I'm going to move this into project space, and I want it all kipper. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They seem fine. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on proposal
Hi, as you participated in the village pump discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to this proposal. Further input is welcome. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Contribution survey
Hi. :) Is it possible for you to run another contribution survey for User:GrahamBould, excluding articles that are in Category:Molluscs of New Zealand and Category:Molluscs of Australia (and subcats of both)? I don't know such things. :) If it is, it would probably help simplify the ongoing cleanup at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. Thanks to mammoth efforts there, Molluscs of New Zealand is clean. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Dcoetzee/ContributionSurveyor:GrahamBould
 * Oh, there are other thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup about organizing the list. User:Geronimo20 notes, "Nor do I see how the people in the fish project can be of practical assistance, unless the script which listed the gastropod articles is modified so it lists all the articles GB edited by category. Then the job would be relatively simple." Is that possible? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is possible, yes, and not very difficult. :-) I will get to it as soon as possible. Dcoetzee 19:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Upright
"Upright" is a very useful piece of the syntax for images that would otherwise be too large, like some of these Hollars you are adding. It makes the difference between these. Some of your additions left large white gaps at my thumb setting (300px). Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Johnbod, thanks for the info, that's an interesting parameter I was not before aware of. Dcoetzee 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)



Quotation essay
Hi. I've had a look at it. For the most part, it seems great. :) I especially like your guidance on how to use quotes in conjunction with original text. I do not have any real experience with userpage consensus, so I really can't offer anything there. I know non-free images are not permitted, but that's the extent of it. :) I'm not at all uncomfortable quoting from books on userpages (as I'm about to prove).

My only concern is this: "a paragraph or two of an article or book is acceptable, and at most a stanza or two of a poem or a song's lyrics is acceptable." I'm afraid that this could cause some confusion. :) A paragraph or two of a book is probably acceptable, but I'm concerned that a paragraph of an article quite often would not be, unless it's a long article. Also, if the paragraph is central, a single paragraph and even less may be judged an infringement. As McCarthy notes, "one cannot copy matter that constitutes an important part of the plaintiff's work, weighing both quality and quantity." ( <--look! I'm citing sources in a talk page discussion! Are you not deeply impressed? :D ) If you have a three paragraph article, a single paragraph is almost certainly going to exceed fair use. If you have a ten paragraph article, a single paragraph could still exceed fair use if it is central to the work, and in my opinion most of the time will violate WP:NFC anyway, as an overextensi. This applies to poetry, too. If we have a three stanza poem, two stanzas clearly exceeds fair use. In Paradise Lost, not so much (leaving aside the whole public domain issue :)). I believe this is why you very seldom see concrete figures for how much is too much in fair use. I would probably pull out the specific length references and just stick to a general note that the amount used must represent a small portion of the overall text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. :-) Dcoetzee 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your section is an excellent addition to the essay, clears up a lot of issues. I have one more issue that I hope you can clear up. I found that many editors think it is okay to not use quotation marks with copied-and-paste sentences from copyrighted sources just as long as a reference is provided. One person said that this is allowed under fair use. I am confused myself on whether it is permitted, can you address this in the section? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Qalby, this is an interesting issue. The short answer is: the law is largely unconcerned with whether a sentence is enclosed in quotes or not. If the text is substantial enough to infringe, merely enclosing it in quotes will not make it noninfringing. If the text is insubstantial enough to quote, removing the quotes will not make it an infringement. The primary concern here is a stylistic one. Words written in the article itself are understood to be "in the voice" of the authors of the article and should convey a neutral point of view, whereas words written in quotation marks are understood to be "in the voice" of the referenced source, and should convey the point of view of its author. There's some overlap between this and my essay Close paraphrasing. Dcoetzee 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I am not sure if I understand correctly, if I were to take a sentence from any news article and place it in an Wikipedia article, I don't have to place the sentence in quotes and add a lead-in phrase? For example, let's say I copied and pasted this sentence The 63-year-old, who only has days left in office, still faces possible indictment on charges of fraud and breach of trust from a BBC article to the Wikipedia article on Ehud Olmert. I don't have to place a lead-in phrase and enclose the quotation in quotation marks like this: According the BBC, "The 63-year-old, who only has days left in office, still faces possible indictment on charges of fraud and breach of trust."? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Short answer: I'm not one to judge if that quote is substantial, but if the quotation would be fair use, so would the unquoted version. There are a number of reasons you may not wish to include the unquoted version; it's very difficult with unquoted text to track how much was included from each source, which may lead to unwitting copyright violation if other users do the same later on. It may contrast jarringly with the surrounding original prose. Also, many news articles do not use a neutral point of view or an encyclopedic tone (this is generally okay as it can be corrected by editing). But there is no legal issue, only an issue of style and policy. Dcoetzee 02:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I understand what you mean now. So quotations marks is not the issue but rather the length and the circumstances. One last question, let's say the New york times reported a statement made by Obama, can we post Obama's statement in its entirety even if it is 5 sentences long? The New York Times can't copyright statements made by others, correct? -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that - Obama doesn't hold the copyright by merely speaking them, because they haven't been placed in a "fixed form." On the other hand, it's likely he was giving a prepared speech written by his aids, who are federal employees doing that as part of their job, making the speech public domain. If they were just quoting an ad hoc statement by Obama though, it's possible that they might obtain copyright - I've never seen a case like that tested. Dcoetzee 02:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Commons admin
Can I drop File_talk:Surface_Finish_Tolerances_In_Manfacturing.png on your lap? The image is stored on Commons, and I can't find the purported to compare. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Took care of this. :-) Dcoetzee 02:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Again: File:Paata Burchuladze singing Tavisupleba.jpg
Hi. I was wondering if you might have any more thoughts you would be willing to share at. Although only one user (Russavia) has come out firmly against this image, he's continuing to present his view as being settled fact, and I wouldn't be surprised if the image ended up being deleted on his say-so alone, despite two (and, depending on your opinion, possibly three) other users questioning his interpretation. Richwales (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

UC Berkeley alumni
User:Waxwon has been adding a lot of content to the University of California, Berkeley and the alumni section has grown to be enormous. Can you and he discuss a way of cutting this back down to size and moving the rest off to a daughter page? Madcoverboy (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Augustine Birrell; Katharine Frances Asquith (née Horner); Anthony Birrell by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
Hi. You posted this photo on Talk:Augustine Birrell. I certainly would like to use it, but I'm a little concerned as to its copyright status, as you say the "set of images was gathered by User:Dcoetzee from the National Portrait Gallery, London website using a special tool." While the photographic image is clearly in the public domain owing to the death of the author more than 70 years ago, is the electronic image not copyright of the National Portrait Gallery? Have you checked this out at Media copyright questions? --Scolaire (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Scolaire, that's a reasonable question. There is no copyright issue; it is policy on Commons that we do not respect any claim to additional rights conferred upon the photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain work, regardless of source country. This is a new policy as of late 2008. See Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for details. Dcoetzee 06:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's really interesting! Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  I will incorporate the image into the Augustine Birrell article.  Scolaire (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I hope it's helpful. :-) Dcoetzee 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another question, would you mind if I crop the image to remove the white border and the dark background? Not for copyright, just for aesthetic reasons. Scolaire (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I've cropped a number of these myself. Please upload it to Commons under a different name though, as I'd like to preserve the original images from the NPG. You can see a demonstration of this e.g. at File:Catherine Parr from NPG cropped.jpg. Dcoetzee 07:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done (here). Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great. :-) Dcoetzee 07:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-free logos on Commons
I just noticed that the files were still there so I tagged all three,, File:Air Nunavut logo.jpg, File:Canadian North logo.jpg and File:Arctic Sunwest logo.jpg. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't - things move slowly on Commons, but these are not obvious copyvios and require discussion. Proper deletion will also set a precedent that can be applied to future images of a similar nature. Dcoetzee 23:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I think I nominated them incorrectly - oops. Fixing Dcoetzee 23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

File:China shape.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:China shape.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

NPG images in Commons
I am stunned. Thank you so much. - PKM (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm glad they're appreciated. :-) Much of the credit goes to Commons' new PD-Art policy, and the Foundation backing it; before, these images would not have been permitted on Commons. There's much work left to do in placing them in articles and categorizing, but the impact is clear. Dcoetzee 06:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm working on categorizing, starting with the Elizabethans (see my note on your Commons page). - PKM (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group
Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided - one is April 8 (Wednesday) starting at 6 pm and the other is April 18 (Saturday) starting at 10 am. (Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration.) Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page. Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

File:6-airalgerie.jpg
Can you take a look at the above image that was moved to Commons as I think it might be a copyvio. I haven't been able to find it but User talk:Mino fly makes for interesting reading as does the rest of that talk page. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tough one. The user has a pattern of borrowing images from elsewhere, but this image is amateur looking enough that he really might have taken it himself. Just compare that image with these images from the Air Algerie official website (they're by no means good, but they're certainly different). On the other hand, I'd expect it to be higher resolution if it were self taken, even with a cellphone camera. The logos are de minimis and so not an issue. I'd advise nominating it for deletion on Commons and seeing what others think. Dcoetzee 04:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I was able to follow all the steps. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your thing that lists stuff?
My articulate subject header is a lead in to asking if you are able to list the contributions of User:Cahf that mention Oswald, Mary, They Led the Way, Wetaskiwin: Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame? I have need to compile a list of these, as the contributor has not verified copyright permission for reuse of this text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I can do this. Must sleep right now, burned out on portraits, but I'll come back to it. :-) Dcoetzee 11:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm surprised to see you here at this hour. To bed with you, sir! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I reviewed this and I'm not sure exactly what you're requesting - I could list all articles edited by Cahf containing citing that source, but that would be trivial, as they only have ~250 edits. I wouldn't expect every edit sourced from that source to explicitly mention it. Can you clarify? Dcoetzee 10:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's only that few, I suppose I can go through and do it manually. :) Cahf has been pasting material from the website for the Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame and from this book published under its auspices. Evidently, he is a representative of the CAHF. He was considering going through the permission process with the book (CAHF is not the author) until he realized exactly what GFDL licensing means—not uncommonly, he had no clue that pasting it on Wikipedia basically means giving it to the world (attribution aside). He has requested that I list for him the articles he has created that will be impacted by the need to get rid of this material. I either need to list them manually or find some automated thingie that can do it. They'll also all need to be tagged for CP and cleaned, which I can do manually from a list or from his contrib history, whichever. I don't know if those 250 edits means he's got 10 articles to be cleaned up or 250, but can look into it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WOW!
Derrick, Barnstars don't come into it! I have just read your note but not looked to see what you have done. (Its the thought that counts!) I saw an image by you from the NPG which improved on my efforts and then looked at your Amelia Opie image. I am still working on the image map and have just produced Mary Anne Rawson. It had occurred to me that you might have tools that could better my rather amateur creation done using print screen and no skill with GIMP with the 1840 convention. What held me back (only a bit) was the idea that I would need to recut the image map. And you've done it! You may have even created something really novel as the existing imagemap tools I use have difficulty with really big images. I thoroughly approve of the initiative to move 1000's of NPG images to commons. I'm quite sure that the original writers of copyright intended these images to be in the public domain after the allotted time. Well done. Respect. Victuallers (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :-) I'm quite fond of that painting of Amelia Opie. I'm thoroughly impressed by all the articles you've churned out on attendees of the 1840 Convention, especially with many of them difficult to find sources for, and the work on the image map. Keep up the good work! I'm still in the (arduous) process of placing all the portraits in articles, and meanwhile have more images coming down the pipe. I'm glad that you also support the Foundation's view towards copyright of reproductions of public domain works - it was NPG that really did the hard work in producing these images though. :-) Dcoetzee 09:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a list of the images so that others could help with placing them? Oh and Hatdon produced other large group images .... fancy some further cooperation? Victuallers (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There certainly is! I've just written a new guide to image placement at Commons:Commons:Placing images. I'm going through Commons:Category:National Portrait Gallery, London in order - I'm up to "George Augustus Selwyn." Feel free to do some images later on in the alphabet - take a letter like M or T or W and just let me know when you're done with it. :-) Don't worry about whether you finish it or not, I'll use check usage to see which images have already been done as I go. Dcoetzee 22:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Victuallers, FYI, I am working on categorizing and placing images too, focusing on the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods and anything else that is useful for the history of fashion (I'm methodical, but not in way that ever makes sense to anyone else...).
 * Derrick, thanks for the link to Commons:Commons:Placing images - checking that out. - PKM (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cormac McCarthy photo
Thanks for changing the resolution and bringing it to my attention. I hadn't been the original uploader AFAICR; I just wrote the rationale and so I wasn't aware it was high-res. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Potentially widespread copyright infringement on Commons
Hi, commons admin. :) It was recently brought to my attention on Wikipedia that a contributor was under the impression that works of Florida's state government are "public domain", when they are actually "public records": a very different concept, of course. After it was pointed out on my talk page that this problem spills over to commons, here, I followed up to discover there is actually a template on Commons disseminating this misinterpretation. I've asked at the "Help" desk for information on how to nominate a template for deletion, but unless I've suddenly lost my mind and am quite wrong on this, all of the images uploaded to commons under that rationale (unless the images are pd for other reason) are going to be copyright violations. As I explained at the help desk on Commons: "I believe PD-FLGov is based on a grave confusion between the definitions of 'public record' and 'public domain'. The statute cited does, indeed, indicate that Florida's governmental documents are public record, but Florida clearly reserves copyright. Note that the Florida Statutes themselves bear the notice 'Copyright © 1995-2009 The Florida Legislature'. According to the State's official website: 'MyFlorida.com is owned and operated by THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES (referred to as 'DMS' herein). No material from MyFlorida.com or any Web site owned, operated, licensed or controlled by THE STATE OF FLORIDA or DMS may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way. Materials may be downloaded on any single personal computer, for non-commercial use only providing all copyright and other proprietary notices are kept intact. Modification of the materials or use of the materials for any other purpose is a violation of THE STATE OF FLORIDA and DMS's copyright and other proprietary rights.' As Florida's governments works are not public domain, this template is obviously misleading and could result in serious legal liabilities to the project." Any chance you could take a look? The template on commons is located at commons:Template:PD-FLGov. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I reviewed this carefully (and nearly nominated it for deletion), but the template as it stands is in order - your best reference is the summary judgement cited by the template . Here's the relevant text:
 * "The Sunshine Amendment permits the legislature, by two-thirds vote, to enact exemptions for public records [...] Accordingly, the legislature has allowed restrictions on the unlimited access to some public records by enacting specific statutes authorizing certain agencies to obtain copyrights in particular circumstances. [...] Additionally, the legislature has specifically permitted certain categories of public records to be copyrighted. [...] The Florida public records law [...] requires State and local agencies to make their records available to the public for the cost of reproduction. This mandate overrides a governmental agency's ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption."
 * They then list several cases in which a government agency was not permitted to assert copyright without a statutory exemption over a work they produced. Since the template specifically excludes works with statutory exemption ("and does not fall into any of the various categories of works for which the legislature has specifically permitted copyright to be claimed"), there is no issue. Additionally, even if there were an issue, the problem isn't too widespread - only about 70 files are affected. Dcoetzee 18:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure there isn't. Evidently, that case has been appealed (.) However, given the seriousness of the question, I've written Mike. Thanks for looking into it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right about that - the core of this argument is "the District Court necessarily decided that the protections afforded by Federal Copyright Act and Property Appraisers’ duties mandated by Florida Public Records law were mutually exclusive, when a review of the actual laws as written demonstrates that they are not" and that the state court "had no jurisdiction nor necessity under state law to decide a federal [copyright] issue." However, since this is not a ruling and is still a case in progress, I think we can probably retain the files for the moment under the status quo interpretation of the state court, and delete them if and when a ruling is issued. Contacting Mike doesn't hurt either, since he can decide whether the potential liability is a risk the WMF is comfortable with. Dcoetzee 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw, if you still want to open a deletion discussion on Commons about it I can help set that up. Let me know. :-) Dcoetzee 19:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If Mike says we need to respect the copyright notice, then I may well. If he thinks it's clear, then there's no reason. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)