User talk:Qwertman1

License tagging for Image:Drsname.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Drsname.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 00:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
And now, a non-automated notice from a human being:

Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! CWC (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Re: Images
Your current layout makes it look like you're using images as titles, which we're not supposed to do. --Wafulz 21:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Power Line and Schiavo Memo
Hi. You undid my some of my recent edits to the Power Line article. While I prefer your wording re Rathergate ("presenting evidence of forgery"), I'm less happy with the changes you made to the "Schiavo memo" section. But most of the fault is mine for forgetting to link to the Power Line posts I quoted from. (I can't believe I did that! My apologies.) Anyhow, I really think that we should link to the Wikipedia articles about the Schiavo memo and Brian Darling. See my comment on the talk page.

Anyhow, I've now edited that section again (this time with the links in!). I cut and pasted their 3 possible origins for the memo, being too lazy to summarise them. What do you think of the result?

While I was being lazy, I've left the "citation needed" tag on the sentence
 * Critics accuse Power Line of using innuendo and guilt by association on this and other occasions.

in the hope that you or someone else can supply a few good links for it.

Again, my apologies for omitting those URLs. Cheers, CWC (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your approach. The long blocks of verbatim quotes within the text of the article accords the whole matter unwarranted prominence -- and throws off the balance the entire article. End result: the reader will be unable to see the forest for the trees, and will wonder why the section was included. I sugest you revert to my version, adding the quotes as a reference or extenallinks (I don't know how to do this.)


 * Having looked at the article with fresher eyes, I agree about the verbatim quotes being too long, so I've replaced that long 3-possible-origins quote with a single-sentence summary. What do you think of that section now?
 * BTW, it's a good idea to use ":" on talk pages to put each comment at a different indentation level. (I added a ":" to your preceding comment.) This is just one of many steps on the great learning curve that is Wikipedia editing ... I've been here nearly a year, and I've still got lots to learn!
 * Cheers, CWC (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, it's annoying to see you take some text I'd worked hard on, and make it much shorter and much better. Would you please keep doing that? (Seriously: I was very impressed by that edit. Thanks for the good work.) Cheers, CWC (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Power Line redux
Hello again. I was a quite suprised by this edit. Are you sure this edit should stand? Cheers, CWC (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As explained on the talk page, the Powerliners have not used the phrase "Churchill of our times" on their blog.
 * As the link shows, they criticise some Republicans as well as "liberals" (whatever that means) and Democrats.
 * Well, seeing that you're away for a while (having fun, I hope), I've reinstated the Churchill-free version. We'll sort it out when you get back. Cheers, CWC (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Royal Ontario Museum
Hi. I've made some changes to your edits in Royal Ontario Museum, and I just wanted to outline my reasons here:
 * Generally images should not be wider than 400px at the most, and 300px is probably enough in most cases. I have resized the images accordingly.
 * I'm not sure why you removed the information about the museum's location. I have restored it since I feel it is a vital piece of information that needs to be mentioned right away in the introduction. This is done in the articles for the British Museum, the AMNH and others.
 * I'm not sure why you placed the artist rendering of The Crystal as the first image in the article and demoted the image of the museum entrance to a subsection. Personally, I feel the museum entrance makes it a natural starting point for the article, and the phrase "That all men may know his work" makes it even more meaningful and complementary to the introduction. The artist rendering concerns only the recent expansion, and should belong in that section. I don't think it's suitable to put a rendering of an incomplete project first, when there are real photographs available.

Maybe you have some good reasons for making the edits and disagree with my take. Please let me know if I've misunderstood something. Thanks. kel 06:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rom Pictures
Among Wikipedia's greatest virtues is its ability to offer the latest and greatest information. The architect's rendering does just that. It is also visually striking. The rendering is a better introducton to the article than an old picture of an old entrance. The old entrance picture is also much less distinctive -- typical of a certain architectural style of its era. But the architect's rendering is unique and sets ROM apart. Why wait to show what's new? On a more prosaic note: the sizing of the entrance picture skews the layout of the page, resulting in an ugly hole in the crucial first screen of the article. It looks very unprofessional and may deter readers from paging down to read the rest of the article.
 * I think you made some good points, and I have no problem with Wikipedia showing off the latest and greatest information. My main concern is for showing a rendering of something that doesn't exist yet. I think it'll be great to show a photo ROM with the brand new entrance once the construction is done. I agree the Crystal is a beautiful design, but since it's still under construction, the rendering doesn't represent the museum as it is today.


 * It's like using a rendering of the New York skyline with the new Freedom Tower in inroduction of the New York City article. Yes, the Freedom Tower will become the latest and greatest addition to New York, but it doesn't exist yet. So it doesn't make sense to use this picture in the introdution just yet, because this is what the real skyline looks like today. Similarly, would it be appropirate for the reader to look up the article for ROM, only to find a rendering that looks nothing like the ROM today?


 * I'm not sure what you mean by the picture skewing up the layout. The article look pretty normal from my browser window. Are you referring to the empty space between the the image and Contents Box? Because that space is pretty much found on every article on Wikipedia. KeL 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The Lee-Chin Crystal does "exist" today -- in the sense that the basic structure is already clearly visible to the public from the street. After several years of construction, it is nearing completion. That's a far cry from the situation in lower Manhattan, where controversy stilll surronds design proposals and completion is years away.

On to the layout issue. It's atypical and amateurish. Almost 40% of the first screen is blank. It looks like a mistake -- and it is.

Please revert.


 * Regarding the layout, I'm still not quite sure what problem you are referring to. Forgive me for asking again, but are you talking about that space between the the image and Contents Box? Because the article looks (to me) the same as any other on Wikipedia. Are you viewing the page at a widescreen resolution? I don't mean to dismiss your layout concern, I'm having trouble seeing the problem.


 * With all due respect, the images from your previous edit were way, way too huge. It looked as though you were trying to get rid of the empty space by blowing up the images, but it wasn't working. Those pictures were about two or three times bigger than the Wikipedia guidelines and actually made the page look amateurish. I sense that you might have been using a really big screen, because the pictures were totally disproportionate a regular-sized screen.


 * I propose using to float the Contents Box and get rid of that empty space. And do you want to move the intro picture discussion to the article talk page? Maybe a third-party opinion would help. KeL 20:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Drsitaly.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Drsitaly.gif. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)