User talk:Redux/Archive02

'''PLEASE DO NOT EDIT. THIS IS AN ARCHIVE PAGE'''

Image source
Thank you for uploading Image:Brazil fourth.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Ellmist 05:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brazil on Summer Olympics 2004
Hi, really nice of you to dedicate yourself so much to this article. But would recommend you to read the last news about the Brazilian gold medals. It's been almost a week since the IOC recognized the Brazilians' fifth gold medal (instead of silver) on the equestrian dispute. What the en.wiki shows is the Irish O'Connor with a gold medal, but his horse was caught on drug test. I suggest you to read this article (http://www.ezilon.com/information/article_3059.shtml). I don't intend to "make it look better". We brazilians don't need to. Thank you.
 * I've answered this post in the concerned article's talk page. Redux 21:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reaction
Hey Redux, I would like to know how you feel about the election of Pope Benedict XVI? Zscout370 22:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IfD
To let you know, an image you have uploaded (:Image:Niteroi_Flag.BMP) has been listed at Images_and_media_for_deletion. The reason is that this image was changed from a bitmap to a png file, and this file you have uploaded is not used on any pages. If you have any questions, please go to that page to discuss the issue. Zscout370 23:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar of National Merit
I notice that you awarded another one of these to a person. I wish to ask you what nations are you mainly looking after on here. Myself, I deal with a lot of Russian topics, yet I see only a few working on them. I also want to tell you I have a new image of the black ribbon I want to upload, replacing yours. Zscout370 (talk) 19:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Black Ribbon
Check out your front page, see what you think of the ribbons. Zscout370 (talk) 02:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Female priest advocacy
The language you added to the BXVI article was a strong advocacy of the merits of the current Vatican stance on female priests. If you can provide a quotation to similar effect, that would be helpful; but as phrased, your version was not stating, but advancing, that position.Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:28, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * Followup: I read your new revision; it looks nicely explanatory and neutral. The term "remained faithful" in your original was a red flag.  The current language about "official reasoning" seems good.Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:33, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Party of Five articles
I saw you added a picture to Party of Five a while ago (which needs a source), plus articles on all the characters. Problem is, they are all substubs and since you created them over a year ago, none of them have grown. Are you up for writing more about these characters? Mike H 07:24, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Brazial olympic images
I noticed you mentioned that they are "free" and that there is no copyright claims. I don't know Brazilian law, but the Berne convention on copyrights states that you don't need to place a copyright symbol on anything to have it be copyright. Thus I think these are copyrighted. Can you please email the siteadmin and confirm that we can in fact use these under a free license? Burgundavia 18:39, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * The images may be given away free, but it doesn't really cover the licence that they are under. I suspect copyrightfairuse, but I would still contact the site admin and confirm. Tell them who we are and what the restrictions we have for images. Cheers. Burgundavia 19:17, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * We are probably covered. List them as fairuse and noncommercial. Burgundavia 22:15, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * That template works for me. Make certain you do the voodoo to list the template in the appropriate category. Burgundavia 06:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

A request for translation
I am currently a contributor to the article Burkhard Heim, and I came across a French website which appears to have good biographical information on this theoretical physicist. In your spare time, would it be possible for you to translate the factual contents of depicting Heim and add the material to the article? Your efforts would be greatly appreciated if you could lend a hand! --HappyCamper 23:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * All done. Redux 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! We really appreicate it :) Also, thanks for placing the translation on the talk page; that was a very ingenious idea of yours! HappyCamper 01:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar of National Merit
I redrew the medal, what do you think about the new design? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Olsen Twins
I'm just getting used to the idea of the referring to the discussion pages. I didnt consider it, and I should have. My main reasoning was the two actresses are eventually going to go on seperate paths, as they already have. A single article would not justify good historical content, and would soon grow to be very large. I will refer to discussion pages from now on. Thank you. <> Who 02:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for responding. I see and understand your points and concerns.  I stated my thoughts on the discussion page, and made the other articles "temp" pages as examples of what they could be, and if the consenus is ever to split them, they will be available.  Thanks for your input and support. <> Who 03:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I must admit to being somewhat ashamed of helping to maintain the Olsen Twins page, but what can you do? Haha. Anyway, you are right. Nobody is adding any content to the page, just messing it up. I'd fully support locking the page for a week to a month, or locking out that IP address range for a while. How do we go about doing that? --Yamla 16:19, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Image:Camboinhas.jpg
Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 09:45, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Here We Go Again
Well, this I also did not see coming. I awarded a user, Czalex with the BoNM. Halibutt, who was awarded the same award for his work on Polish article, listed a BoNM variant for Belarus. Not only you do not like to see national variations, but also, the flag that was chosen was the white/red/white flag of Belarus (1991-1995). I am more fond of the current flag (Red, Green with white and red ornament), but I usually get messages saying that most Wikipedians hate the Lukashenko flag. And I know the drawing could get us into an edit war. Please, can we think of something up before I move next week? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Twins
I agree. I only made two of the changes so that I wouldn't be following his ultimatum. I wanted to make it look like we are talking and discussing so he doesn't get alienated and start vandalizing. Since he obviously has acess to many IPs it doesn't seem like a block would work (as you mentioned). The best we can do is protect if he vandalizes and try to talk to him rationally. Hopefully if we fix this conflict he will stop his agressive edits. This link is Broken 02:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of making a temp page because hopefully there people will be less keen to revert and more keen to talk. I still dislike the idea about protecting the talk page. If the talk moves to the temp page's talk page then we could still have the same problem, just on a new page. I suggest that instead of having two talk pages we redirect the temp's talk to the original so that discussion is concentrated and so that the anon doesn't feel persectued. If he begins to vandalize the talk after we open the temp then protecting the talk page of the original may be an option. We must always have a functioning talk page somewhere or else he will have no where to discuss a compromise. This link is Broken 16:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to respond, my real life obligations are once again kicking in. It seems that Michael Snow unprotected the article because it had been protected for a long time. He wrote, "protected against vandalism over a week ago." as his explanation. Since so little active work happened on the talk page or the temp page this seems like the right things to do. I wouldn't blindly revert the anon's edits however. I looked at some of them and some parts of it has some merit. The real issue i see is the filmography. The anon feels that linking to the imbd is better than having the selected filmography. Since the same links the anon wants to add under filmography are allready at external links it seems unecessary (moving the links up under filmography might quench his desire to blank though). Protecting didn't get us anywhere and nor did the temp page, so try compromising. Are those height figures the anon wants to change accurate? If you really want to bring the issue to the "admin council" try WP:AN/I, but I don't think it is necessary or warranted. I'd try to help you but I am swamped with work due tommorow and my spelling and grammar are allready going. (By the way, you might want to consider opening an RFC to try and settle the issue). This link is Broken 03:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems that you wish has been granted. This link is Broken 03:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Call to Action
Whereas, much good discussion and work has previously occured on the Barnstar and award proposal page,

Whereas, the level of discussion and progress on the abovementioned page has dropped to a record level of none; no constructive commments have been made on existing awards since May 17, 2005,

Whereas, many "Vote or Die!" have been left open, namely two, as a result of this lack of discussion,

Whereas, nine proposals lie untouched by Wikipedian hands,

Whereas, you have previously commented and helped on the abovementioned page,

Therefore, I, who have absolutely no command in ordering this whatsoever, instruct you,, to return to the barnstar commitment and further the creation of Wikipedian awards; vote liberally and spread your constructive comments.

(Signed) Cmd. Bratsche talk 5 pillars of the Barnstarium Army, 03:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

village pump exchange
Hi - I just checked and the article is protected. Does this constitute "situation resolved" or are you looking for something else (like, perhaps, a direct apology from User:Michael Snow)? I believe admins are, as a rule, well-intentioned. They are people, which means they make mistakes and also means that they'll tend to get defensive when criticized (and at least some of them are relatively clueless about basic human interaction). I suspect your point has been heard, but if you're looking for something specific you haven't gotten yet can you please spell it out in unambiguous terms at the VP? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your generous apology. Notwithstanding my comment to Rick, I will apologize for the lack of communication that contributed to this problem. As you probably weren't aware, the reasons for page (un)protection are recorded in the protection log when a page is (un)protected. The addition/removal of the protection template to/from the page is a separate action. (One of the challenges of wikis is that there are so many places to look for the information you want.)

For a little more information, vandalism protection tends to be short; a week is much longer than usual. I didn't see any reason on the talk page not to unprotect, though I didn't study the discussion carefully because, well, one doesn't expect vandals to try and discuss their vandalism. If the article had been marked with the normal protection template, I probably would have left it alone.

Regarding the village pump discussion: I did have at least some sense, since you didn't initially mention me by name, just as "this other Admin", that perhaps you weren't trying to go after me personally, so I tried not to take it as such. I'm sorry the discussion turned the way it did, and I think people may have reacted negatively to the tone of your post, which in turn affected the tone of their responses. All of the people who responded I know to some extent, and they're all good people. Unfortunately, we do see plenty of people who get belligerent about admin actions when it's really quite clear that they're the ones who are actually in the wrong. Like you, we're generally trying to get things right, there were just a lot of misread signals and misjudgments on this occasion. --Michael Snow 04:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replicators (Star Trek)
Hey, Redux, I apologize things got out of hand. I think your filing some sort of protest is way too harsh, but I'd like to offer a truce. Block me if you think it's necessary, there won't be any hard feelings, but otherwise I promise I'll return to being simply a reader rather than an editor until I have a better understanding of the Wikipedia rules.

Featured Article requirements
Redux, my friend, I wish to let you know of this page: What_is_a_featured_article. This is the requirements on what a Featured article should have. As for sources, the page states this: "Accurate: Supports facts with specifics and external citations (see Verifiability). Includes references, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Cite sources)." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:23, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help with the Brazil Portal
Hy! Just wanted to let you know that Im available should you need any help with the Brazil Portal. Im from Curitiba, but currently living in Miami, fluent in PT-BR and EN-US. I would like to say Im pretty good at automation tasks, so if you need any text mining or any other automated task, I'd be glad to help. I could possibly contribute with some articles on subjects that are a bit obscure, like "gincanas" (how do you translate "gincana" anyway? :-)). Let me know! Quase 10:35, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hy Redux... About mining the Wikipedia environment for articles containing "Brazil/Brasil": I believe it is possible to do it. The text mining would be done by WP own search engine, but I could develop a routine that would compile a list of these articles, and extract specific information that would be of interest to us (like "last edited" or "size"). I'll look further into this during the next weekend and I'll let you know of the possibilities. BTW, where are you from in our homeland? Quase 16:04, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Luiz de Orléans e Bragança
hi there, i read your question regarding Dom Luiz.


 * my first question would be, what is he normally referred to in the Brazilian media and in literature? are you familiar with that? i would probably go with the way they refer to him in Brazil normally. maybe you are familiar with this?


 * second question would be, since you are creating this article, how would you like to call it? you can respond on my talk page if you wish, we can also discuss naming of titles and so forth for non-european royalty, since this is quite an issue at the moment. trying to find consensus is hard... i can only help you with regards to how it works for Austrian royalty, if you get back in touch with me, we can discuss about this if you wish. Antares911 29 June 2005 18:25 (UTC)


 * bom dia. i just wrote something on my talk page, maybe i should have done it on yours, but it doesn´t matter. I would concur with the way you had it proposed, with the added "Prince of Brazil"... let me know what you have decided upon. Antares911 1 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

Niter%C3%B3i_Flag.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Niter%C3%B3i_Flag.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 30 June 2005 04:37 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. This image had been replaced by another in the Niterói article.  It's actually supposed to be deleted.  Redux 30 June 2005 19:48 (UTC)
 * I was asked to keep the png version, but that wasn't used in the article either. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 30 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And I just noticed that the png image is superior to the JPG in terms of quality.  I have replaced it in the Niterói article.  So maybe we could leave the png and list the other jpg for deletion as well?  Need I post in the deletion for the other jpg image?  Redux 30 June 2005 20:00 (UTC)
 * I removed the png file listing from IFD, kept the jpg image listing there. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 30 June 2005 22:31 (UTC)

Brazil series
Glad to get your note... I'll add a references section in the next few days. 172 1 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)

Anon user
I'm not sure what to say. He seems to be rather stubborn and hard to work with, certainly, but that's not really a rules violation. BTW, I think the article on Pedro II's daughter should probably be at Isabella, Princess Imperial of Brazil. john k 3 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)


 * or you could put at her at Princess Isabella of Brazil, right? Antares911 4 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)

I don't see how either of them is any more to blame in that instance. They both lost their tempers and got rude. As to the WIP accusation, it may have been unjustified - I'm not completely certain how long WIP notices are usually up - but it wasn't abusive, I don't think. john k 3 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)


 * hey Redux,

i´m sorry to hear what happened to you with user 217.140.193.123, i totally understand what you are saying. he basically eeked me out of the discussion board on naming conventions, because he was constantly verbally abusing me and I just decided that I really had better things to do than listen to this rambling lunatic. I think he means well and knows some good things. but the way he just completely flips out in the end and starts posting abusive messages was too much for me in the end. it really takes away the fun of Wikipedia sometimes in my opinion... wonder how much more we have to take before administrators actually block him. i´m pretty sure who the real user is (he is registered), but don´t want to get into speculations. probably some geek with too much time on his hands and an obsession with the internet. if you need help with this problem, let me know.

btw how is the naming of your article going, any conclusion yet? obrigado... Antares911 4 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)

Please remove your wip tag after max 3 hours
WIP tag must not abused. It is not a tool to keep others from contributing, or correcting. You have good possibilities to contribute more - in equal footing with others. The guidelines instruct: "The tag is used to alert people that you are in the process of making a larger edit (within 30 - 180 minutes). The article remains open to editing, but courteous users should leave it alone until you're done. If you do use such a "lock" please be responsive to any inquiries about the lock.". You have indicated that you want keep the tag in place for as long as days: "This is not about wanting to control the article. This is about understanding and patience. Really, the tag has been there for less than a day." 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)
 * You know what? Go crazy, that's nothing new to you.  Do not give me ultimatums though, you'll get nowhere with it, make no mistake.  And really, don't bother to post here again, I have no interest in working with you in this or any other article.  You need a serious reality check dude, I really can't see why you are so eager to edit that article, especially since you only even know of it because of my post in the project page talk page.  No need to explain though, I really don't care.  Redux 4 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)


 * maybe 217.140.193.123 needs to go outside once in a while and get some fresh air, instead of constantly sitting in front of the computer *lol* Antares911 4 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)


 * ok, added my comments to that comment page. i´m just seeing, god lord how many languages do you speak, that´s amazing. we might put up some new rules for debate soon, only registered users, feel free to give me your comments obviously... Antares911 6 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)


 * hi redux, no i´m sorry i don´t know if there is a rule or a discussion board about what to do in such a case. i´ve already asked two administrators, and no response. it´s really frustrating and i don´t understand why there is no more clearer rule in such a case? or maybe i haven´t read it yet... is he leaving you alone at the moment? cheers... Antares911 7 July 2005 08:38 (UTC)


 * hi redux, how´s it going? what´s the situation with the anon user, did you find a place where to place complaints? i couldn´t believe it, but the user actually made a racist slur on a talk page, so maybe we can do something about that? Antares911 9 July 2005 11:51 (UTC) i forgot to mention, we are having a discussion on naming, maybe you want to add your comments? or we can also draw up rules for naming pretenders, etc...


 * What? are you serious, an administrator deleted it? is this some kind of a conspiracy? i can´t believe this.. this is outrageous. why is it ok for someone to run around and constantly annoy and abuse (and now in my eyes even be a biased racist) and if someone honest wants to do something about it, they´re like whatever... this is just incredible.

you´re right though, i´m kinda bidding my time as well. you could still tell me though what you think about the proposals. hm... if you want, you can send it to my email, just click on it... 9 July 2005 15:39 (UTC) hey redux what´s up? could you tell me, which administrator deleted the page that you set up to complain about the anon user? btw are you ever planning on becoming an administrator yourself? what´s the procedure? you´d have my vote..

hey, nice to hear from you again. it´s comforting to know that there are not only psychos on this page. well honestly, i would say forget the idiot. i can´t believe he actually posted a complaint page against us, god if only we would start such a thing, it would never end i think... but you´re right. it´s like an annoying mosquito that just bugs around. at the moment he´s also known as "Arrigo" I think.. but what i don´t understand (and maybe you can help me) normal registered users with a username can be seen in blue. unregistered users are normally in red (when you look at the history page for example, or signatures). then how is it possible, that a registered user has his name appear in red? meaning he can´t be found on the page, but has a user name...? how does that work? and how can this "red" user be able to move pages? i´m not very familiar with the workings and rules of Wikipedia unfortunately... thanks. Antares911 23:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay
I haven't forgotten about the Empire of Brazil article. Sorry about the delay. I expect to start work on the Brazil series shortly. 172

BoNM rule
I did not even see that in there earlier. If so, I would have removed it myself. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for awarding me the Barnstar of National Merit. --Ragib 22:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Procedure
Hi. I'd like to request your assistance with this: I've come across this image, which has just recently been uploaded to the website. The uploader listed it as "fair use", but this is clearly not the case (this is from one of them "for men" magazines, maybe Maxim). I changed the tag to "unverified", since I don't know exactly where the image came from, and removed it from the article where it had been posted. This seems like a clear case for deletion though. But I wasn't sure where to list the image: Images and media for deletion didn't seem quite right, and I couldn't quite settle for Copyright problems. I've never listed an image for deletion, so I'm bit lost in this one. Can I get some help, if you have the time? Thanks, Redux 03:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think it's a copyright problem, then I'm pretty certain it's Copyright problems. I've seen images listed there before, sometimes a batch of them at once. As for whether it's fair use: it is awfully high resolution for any fair use we might claim; other than that, though, it's all a matter of context, for example it would arguably be fair use (even at this high resolution) in an article about the magazine it came from, or the photographer who took it. But I'm no lawyer. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Location, location (from Bratsche's talk page)
Hi. I noticed that, in the Barnstars on Wikipedia page, you moved the BoNM to the subheader of the category barnstars. We had indeed discussed using the BoNM as the award for Geography, and I do agree that the BoNM can (and already is) be used for this. But I'm worried about having it listed only as the category award for geography. The scope of the award is centered in a given nation (any nation), and, hypothetically speaking, one can (and people have) get it for work in articles that have nothing to do with geography or, more interestingly, even for articles pertaining to the other categories, as long as it's been a reasonable number of articles and they all are pertaining to one specific country. As a compromise, we could place the BoNM at the very bottom of the "general Barnstars" topic (currently, this would be right beneath the entry for the "Resilient Barnstar"), which is right on top of the header for the category barnstars, and there we list, in the first line, which we'd actually break in two, something like this: "Nation-related work & Category: Geography". We can discuss different headings, but this would be the general idea. How about it? In conclusion, I'd just like to enphasize that all this is regarding just the positioning of the BoNM entry in the project page. I'm not questioning the use of the award for Geography-related work. I decided to contact you in your talk page because you were the one who proposed and carried out the actual move. We could make this discussion more public, although, for this reason, it may not be necessary. Regards, Redux 02:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Then, we can always add Category:Countries to it. However, do not make the template too big, that is why we list everything on the page of the image we use for the BoNM. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I like that idea, though as more Barnstars are being minted we have to guarantee that it stays at the bottom of 'General Barnstars'. Sango  123  13:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Redux 17:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)