User talk:JonathanDP81/Archive 1

This is an archive of posts at were at User talk:JonathanDP81.

Hello James, welcome to Wikipedia.

Please could you confirm whether you have permission from Akihiro Kinutaku, the photographer of the image of the Thai aircraft you uploaded, to release the photo under the terms of our license? Only images which are not copyrighted or are released by the copyright holder can be used. The image is listed on the votes for deletion page and will deleted in 7 days if it is a copyright violation. You can find more information on copyrights.

You can learn more about editing here on the how to edit page. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you ever want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted. Angela 05:38, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 'Picture deleted.' —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) Oct. 5, 2003

Hi James, Japanese Instrument of Surrender (1945) that you just contributed looks rather like a source text with little editing. Source texts are generally frowned upon and usually deleted after discussion. Perhaps you would like to edit that article some more and put it into historical context? Cheers, Kosebamse 08:22, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC) That would be fine - I'd just like to point out that it might be better to start with some editing before uploading an article that is centered around a historical document, because otherwise it could easily be listed on VfD, adding unnecessary debate. Thanks and have fun, Kosebamse 08:54, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 'I intend to add some historical background at some point, I just figured I'd start with the document itself.' —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) Oct. 5, 2003

Yugo

 * Does the entire town of Verplank really own Yugos? I've never seen or read (I don't know whether or not it's a book or a movie) Drowning Mona, so I can't answer this on my own. If not (as is probably the case), under what circumstances does it occur in the work? -Litefantastic 23:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a joke in the film. From the IMDb:The first thing to appear on screen is a little blurb about the Yugo car company using the town of Verplanck as a test area for their new model years ago. Every vehicle in town that is not a truck is a Yugo, except the police cruisers. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 23:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

UK officer ranks template
See Talk:General. -Joseph (Talk) 05:46, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

British Airways
Hi, just to say great improvement to BA page (relocation of destinations). Mark 20:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but not everyone agrees so please post your support at Votes for deletion/Singapore Airlines destinations —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 23:52, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Done! Though if you used my talk page you would have had my support sooner! Looks like the votes are falling your way anyway. Mark 18:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rufus Isaacs, 1st Marquess of Reading
I split them up because those are different types of jobs. Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House are Cabinet positions that change with the government. Diplomatic positions, like Ambassador or Governor-General, and Royal appointments, like Warden of the Cinque Ports, do not change with the government in question. It's chalk and cheese. If you put all of them together, there's no reason to keep the peerage box separate.

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Airlistbox
Your changes made the box double in size in my browser (Firefox). If you have problems with such a widely-used template, it might pay to raise them on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft first. Geoff/Gsl 20:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cherry Sisters
Great call on the Category... how the heck did you make that connection/find; or did you just know that category existed. --RoyBoy 05:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Just stumbled on the category though The Shaggs and just thought of the sisters. No biggie. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 05:27, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Image copyright
Thanks for uploading Image:Unisphere.jpg, but as you noted, it is copyrighted. Did you obtain the necessary permission for its use? If so, could you document the communication on the image's description or talk page and put the appropriate copyright tag on the description page? Othewise, it will have to be removed. Thanks! Kbh3rd 04:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I got permission, but I doubt I still have the e-mail, it was so long ago. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 04:30, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Molotov Cocktail
The legal warning was NPOV US-centric.

The safety warning lacked cites. I'd really like to see a thousand deaths a year internationally cited. As it was it reeked of myth.

Does wikipedia regularly indicate safety warnings on other items? Fifelfoo 22:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stub sorting guidelines
I sincerely believe that we really need to lay down the law in stub sorting, and really provide a guideline. I believe that we should all attempt to reach a general consensus by April 2, 2005 in a set of rules that we can follow. Once we have built a set of guidelines, we can formally create a policy out of those guidelines. We need to define what a specialized topic stub is, how many articles it should cover, when is it appropriate to create it, what defines its need for its creation, what defines its need for deletion, what criteria it should follow, what are the general steps should one take when sorting a stub, whether or not to start using subst: for all templates, whether or not use subst: for all templates created by the meta-templates, and any other matters that may come up in consideration. I thank jag123 for initially creating the subpage for the project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Guidelines. Even though they have been discussed, I feel that we really need to confirm everything. For that, we should discuss each issue with its own sections, and raise a list of issues that we need to nail down before really continuing on. The English Wikipedia is nearly at 500k articles. Either the MediaWiki software needs to handle stubs such that they can be found with a simple union of categories, or the sorting is done manually by Wikipedians. Personally, I think the latter is less taxing on the server load, especially when we use subst:, which I think would help the Wikipedia out, performance wise. Please make your comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Guidelines. I apologize for making this somewhat of a spam notice, but since the project has more members, the project can finally decide on these important issues at hand. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Star Alliance logo
Greetings, I noticed you had uploaded Image:Staralliance.gif, which appears to have been taken from the Star Alliance website. I had taken the liberty of generating and uploading a new image to the Star Alliance article, which can be found at Image:StarAllianceLogo.png. After doing so, however, it occurred to me that the logo on a black background is far more common (e.g. on boarding pass jackets). Do you think the older image would be more appropriate? The newer one is a little cleaner and in PNG format, but those are secondary factors. - choster 08:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Grandcentralterminal.jpg
I have listed this image on Copyright problems. You tagged it as 1920, but says circa 1935, so it is still under copyright. --SPUI (talk) 05:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:460337.jpg
Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 16:37, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Image:KiwiSat.jpg
Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 07:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Daria characters
I've post a reply to your comment on Talk:Daria. I can understand your point and appreciate that you've play a hand in the article, but surely you know what I'm getting at? Pleae re-assess my PoV and expand upon your reasons why Wikipedia is the place for all this info', as opposed to a fansite. Thanks for your time. -Aaron

Image:Unisphere.jpg
Hi, I've listed Image:Unisphere.jpg for deletion, since it wasn't used on any page and its image tag is now considered "unfree". If you feel that it should not be deleted, you can go to WP:IFD to voice your opinion. Thanks. :) Coffee 05:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

New category
Of possible interest,. Best regards, C HAIRBOY (?) 18:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Rational Skepticism
Hey James, I've got the wikiproject page up and running. You can now put your name under Participants and add to the website as much as you like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Rational_Skepticism Maprov

user against scientology has been speedily deleted
I have requested undeletion at WP:DRV. Regardless of whether or not this template has any merit it should be undeleted until the tfd has run it's course. Your vote at the tfd counts for nothing if the speedy deletion stands.--God of War 06:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Like, the Scientology template, one of my templates has also been speedy deleted: Template:User War on drugs. I see that you're using this one on your user page. As a Wikipedia newbie, I'm a bit discouraged that a user can support something in a user box but cannot oppose it. This seems nonsensical. I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on the subject.--Tiger Marc ROAR! 18:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

WEBL
WEBL has been proposed for deletion. There's really no point having a disambiguation page if there's no articles to disambiguate. If you were planning on writing both articles, please go ahead and start them. NickelShoe 05:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Emilseidel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Emilseidel.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.

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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 08:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User page image
Hi James. I like the Top Trumps style box on your user page. However, the image of the Second Doctor you've used is, according to the image page, tagged as "fair use". This classification only extends to the main article name space - there isn't a fair use justification for using it on a user page. Sorry about that, but it means you'll need to remove it and find a different image. Thanks. &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Italics
James, nice work on the external links sections to the story articles for Doctor Who. However, just to note that the MoS notwithstanding, the classic series stories are not episodes but serials, and as such, italics are still appropriate. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Adminship
It is my regretful task to inform you that I have closed your request for adminship early as unlikely to achieve consensus. Please do not be discouraged; a number of users have had their first RfA end without consensus, but have been promoted overwhelmingly in a later request. Please continue to make outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and consider requesting adminship again in the future. You may find Guide to requests for adminship helpful in deciding when to consider running again. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. Essjay ( Talk  • Connect  ) 08:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)