User talk:RenniePet

Unobtainium
''Incidentally, "20 million a kilo" - what are we talking about here, dollars? Euros? It should say''

They don't bother in the film .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.31.125 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Modesty Blaise
Please do keep contributing. Your edits to Pieces of Modesty were fine, just that one line that wasn't allowed, and on Willie Garvin it was just a grammatical point ("unknown afterlife" was a bit of a redundnacy and sounded a bit conversational as opposed to the formal tone articles are supposed to have). t takes a bit to become familiar with the Wikipedia rules and style. I recommend reading WP:STYLE as a good starting point as well as WP:V and WP:CITE which set out the rules regarding adding information that requires citation. 23skidoo 12:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't need to ask permission to replace something like a plot summary (re: I, Lucifer). If you can improve what's there, please do. The one thing to watch for is that Wikipedia policy frowns on extremely detailed plot summaries. The length you have for the first two books is fine. In terms of writing style, remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so the writing style needs to be somewhat formal. What you have is OK, but it reads a bit informally. Just picking a couple of my own summaries as examples, see Knight Templar (The Saint) and The Saint in New York. Not that I consider my summaries to be the be all and end all -- I'm just giving them as examples of what I mean by formalized tone. What you've done so far is fine -- and I certainly encourage you to continue adding plot summaries. 23skidoo 03:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Novels WikiProject does prefer the use of first edition images whereever possible, so if you have any, please feel free to change the images. Right now the only first edition illustrated is the Pieces of Modesty Pan paperback (as it was never released in Hardcover). I'd like to try and keep the image for the first Modesty Blaise as the American edition pictured because that cover has become iconic over the years, in no small part through its use in Pulp Fiction. 23skidoo 23:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cover images
Good work with the cover images. My only request is if you can leave me a note when you've replaced the images so I know to delete the older files (otherwise the automated system floods my talk page with "orphaned images" notifications. 23skidoo 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your question on the Monty Python's The Meaning of Life talk page
Hello RenniePet. I just wanted to let you know that I have left a longish answer to your question about the move of the films article on the same talk page where you left the question. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 13:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

IMDb
IMDb doesn't count as a reliable source, as it is user contributed. Citing IMDb is just an example of various arguments about how lame the site can be, especially with future films. I only really count on it for end credits or the official news articles. Alientraveller 10:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

basic ref tags
I've enclosed a copy of your text in "nowiki" tags below, so you can see the markup.

This is the very basic way to do ref tags.. there are fancy cite(whatever) templates that you can use if you know them, but as long as there is a template to the article Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If the editors decide that the article can't stand on its own, perhaps we can integrate the information from it into the Lumix page, links to individual pages from that page have already been removed. kchanyr 12:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchanyr (talk • contribs)

Blocking Jack Orchard

 * I have never used a talk page before so please don't block me if i am doing something wrong in writing here. I merely wish to challenge your most recent warnings towards me on the issue of vandalism, though i will accept that my contributions to to actual article on Richard Dawkins, however true, are less than productive, my contributions to the Template of other articles which address him, it is a valid place for links to the South Park Episodes which include him. there is no 'Richard Dawkins in popular culture' section on the page. Would I be allowed to create such a section? and if so, may i include these references?


 * > so please don't block me ...
 * I'm not a Wikipedia administrator, so I can't block anybody. (When I post a boilerplate vandalism warning threatening blocking, it is because I, and anbody else, can report another user to the administrator's forum, and an administrator will then take action if he/she thinks it is warranted.)
 * > for links to the South Park Episodes
 * > there is no 'Richard Dawkins in popular culture' section
 * The place to discuss this is on the "talk page" (discussion page) associated with the Richard Dawkins article, Talk:Richard Dawkins. Good luck. (Although I think this has already been discussed a couple of times, and the general consensus is that they (the editors who are most interested in maintaining the Richard Dawkins article) don't want it, perhaps because they think it reduces the seriousness of Richard Dawkins' message and the whole situation of religion and its good and bad influences. --RenniePet (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Gotta love those kids and their crazy scatological humor :) -- jonny - m t  13:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not dealing for distruction
I am just pointed to do not post such material on wiki it hurts muslims and islamic point of view it is prohabited to published any picture of any prophet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbukhari (talk • contribs) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I, too, am not interested in destruction. I wish there was a better dialog between Muslims and the rest of the world. But a real dialog has to be based on open information, otherwise it is a false dialog based on preconditions that one side says are not subject to discussion. And if some things are not open for discussion, then the whole idea of trying to reach understanding is doomed to failure. Good luck. --RenniePet (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note
Was just writing the Mohammed Atif Siddique article myself when I noticed that Kohlmann had been the one to label his collection of downloaded documents as being related to the potential commission of terrorism, rather than the study of it. Seeing you two discuss it, I figured you might be interested in the article. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. That guy Kohlmann gives me a bad feeling of someone who, for pay, will label anyone as a terrorist, while proclaiming that he is a world-class expert on the subject without having any real credentials for his so-called expertise. But don't quote on this. :-)


 * You might be interested in contacting User talk:Geo Swan - ah, I can see you've already been there. --RenniePet (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, Geo and I converse quite regularly -- and I agree, Kohlmann doesn't seem to have any readily visible credentials, it'd be like hiring you, Geo or I to testify. Sure we know more than the average person, but people shouldn't be going to jail on account of our "hunches". Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If my suspicions are correct then hopefully sooner or later there will be some publically-available document where someone, for example a defense attorney, criticizes Evan Kohlmann's competence, and that can be added to his article. Right now it reads like an advertisement. --RenniePet (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

tangeroiseimmobilier.com and the Tangier page
answer in my talk page, thanks--Khalid hassani (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Foruming
I have reverted your comments here- talk pages are not to be used as a forum for general discussion of the topic; they are for discussion relating to the improvement of the article. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The God Delusion
I'd say vocal atheist is definitely accurate, but should it be in the lead and is there a better wording? Would you prefer something less grating, or leaving it out completely? Dawkins' vigorous defence and promotion of atheism is highly relevant to the page, but I was torn about adding it in the first place. Whaddya think? WLU (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. But rather than ask me I think you should take it up on the talk page of the article. There are several other editors whose influence over that article is much greater than mine, and if you and the others think "vocal atheist" is suitable, so be it. To me it sounds negative (perhaps that was your intention? - fair enough if so), like stamping someone as overly hysterical in agitating for their views. --RenniePet (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw 'vocal atheist' as something hopefully acceptable to both - those who dislike Dawkins see it as pejorative, while those who like see it as testament to his passionate defense of the concept. Personally, I thought he over-reached a very good point, but I'm inclined to like him, if nothing else than for his dislike of creationism.  I don't think it's crucial, but the prominence of his atheism, both in the book and elsewhere, seems like something worth putting in the lead.  But if your idea of bringing it to the talk page is probably a good one, so I'll do that.  Please, provide input if you've an opinion!  WLU (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Creationist tosh film
It's a documentary. The genre of the film is "documentary." Just like An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary and Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary. The fact that something is polemic doesn't mean it's not a documentary. I think Expelled is a pile of lies, but it's in the category of "documentary" films. FCYTravis (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All I know is that the word "documentary" was inserted and removed several times a couple of days ago, and the eventual result was that the word was removed. I'll not revert it again, but don't be surprised if someone else does. --RenniePet (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the article is in the Category:Documentary films, it makes no sense not to call it a documentary film in the lede :) Documentaries are not prohibited from being polemic. All of Michael Moore's stuff (I'm a huge fan) is polemic, but they're still "documentary" film, because they're not created-from-whole-cloth fiction. The definition of "documentary film" is using your cameras to document "reality," but in almost every case, the manipulation of what you shoot and how you edit, is designed to put some point or another across. FCYTravis (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * RP, i agree with you 100%, especially your point that calling the movie a documentary "legitimizes it excessively", and I would make exactly the same point about An Inconvenient Truth, which is political tripe masquerading as a documentary, as is most of the crap churned out by Moore. However, it appears that we are in a distinct minority. Frustratingly, the definition of "documentary" is so absurdly broad that it would apply with equal validity to an amateur porn video or a home-movie of my cat using the litterbox. Doc  Tropics  21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would wonder what your definition of "documentary" is, then. Every documentary film has a point of view. It is not possible to do otherwise. The mere act of choosing to shoot a particular scene and not another, or choosing to include one part of an interview and not another, or even aiming the camera in one direction and not another, is inherently a demonstration of the director's point of view and vision for what he or she is choosing to create. Ken Burns' The Civil War, one of the greatest documentaries of all time, ends up presenting a significant point of view regarding the causes of the war, as it is clearly written to emphasize the historical perspective that the war was caused by slavery. Significant disagreement exists among historians on that point - not that anyone doesn't believe slavery was part of it, but there are historians who feel that it is merely one part of a larger conflict. Does the fact that Burns' film took a clear position in this debate mean that it is "political tripe masquerading as a documentary?" FCYTravis (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Perceval
"Company" is indeed better than "press". Thanks for that. Panclatter (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Your correction on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 was completely right- thanks for picking it up. Tvoz / talk 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!
I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 10:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HemingwayAdventureDvdCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HemingwayAdventureDvdCover.jpg. 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) 14:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hej!
Jeg kan se at du er aktiv på den engelske Wikipedia, og at du er fra Danmark. I skrivende stund, diskuterer vi på landsbybrønden et nyt forslag, om at starte en national afdeling, der vil blive kaldet Wikimedia Danmark. Hvis du er interesseret i at bidrage med noget tid til at få startet afdelingen, kan du skrive dit navn på denne side hos meta. Tak for din tid! Mike H. Fierce! 08:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Palin content
I am beginning the process of heavily editing much of your Michael Palin content, as it is largely written in a tone that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. For example:

"'This trip involved many fantastic contrasts. From the icy cold of the Poles (-50 C wind chill factor at the South Pole) to the blistering heat of Africa (+128 F / +54 C in Sudan). From stable democracies in Norway and Finland to Communist USSR in disarray to repressive African dictatorships. From the crowded and bustling streets of Cairo to the empty deserts in northern Africa to the Arctic wastelands. From the abject poverty of Sudan to the elegant and luxurious Blue Train in South Africa. From the shaft of a gold mine two miles below the Earth's surface to the South Pole, 10,000 feet above sea level.'"

This reads like a personal review of the book, which isn't ideal on Wikipedia. I have culled a lot of what you have written, and added references. Wlwwybrn (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:PoleToPoleBookCover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:PoleToPoleBookCover.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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 03:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Stretchered"
Yes, the word does exist. However, your wording is clearer.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Westergaard
Hi Rennie - I just noticed that you reverted my edit on Westergaard, in which I changed the lead paragraph of the article to reflect the intended target of his cartoon. I made the change without logging in (whoops) so it's registered under my IP. I was just wondering why such statements can't be included in the opening paragraph? It was a cited fact, and I think that Westergaard's intentions in creating the cartoon should be indicated, while retaining the original cause of the offence. I'm happy to accept that such citations shouldn't go in the lead paragraph, but it seems strange, given that this arguably presents a more accurate version of events. Anyway, cheers, hoping you're having a good new year thus far! Visual Error (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm no authority on how things should be expressed on Wikipedia articles, but my revert of your edit was due to my feeling that it sounds like an after-thought to rationalize something. After all, the cartoon was explicitly requested by the newspaper to be a cartoon depicting Muhammad, and it appeared on a newspaper page with the large title "The Face of Muhammad". So the obvious judgement of everyone is that it is indeed Muhammad that Kurt Westergaard has drawn. If he later said something else, I think that fact can be included in the text of the article, but it's not important enough to place in the very first sentence of the lead.
 * Like I say, I'm no authority on Wikepedia matters. Maybe you should discusse it on the talk page for the Kurt Westergaard article. --RenniePet (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi - no need, that sounds like a fair justification - I may go back at a later time and insert the citation at a point later in the article, but your point about the context of the cartoon is a good one. Cheers! Visual Error (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add external link to Kitesurfing locations
Hi. You may wish to participate in the proposal to add an external link to this article Talk:Kitesurfing_locations, Regards Peter Campbell 01:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks Document Count
Is the 92,000 correct? I keep seeing a 15,000 that have been held back and the actual count so far is maybe 76,600??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcriddle4 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. My editing of the lead of the Wikileaks article was simply due to a feeling that this situation was important enough to be included in the lead. The number I used was the number that at that time was specified in the relevant section of the article. I am not at all knowledgeable about this situation. RenniePet (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

KAF 3900?
The author information for File:SensorSizes.png quotes you are the original uploader of the image to the English Wikipedia. The file was subsequently transfered to Commons and several other images have been based upon it. I believe that the model number (and possibly also the physical dimensions) for the Kodak KAF 3900 sensor is a mistake and that this mistake has been propagated. I believe the actual model number is KAF 39000 however the physical dimensions for that one are different than those quoted in the graphic. In any case, I have not found a KAF 3900 product from Kodak. Do you remember where you got the information from to build this image? Jason Quinn (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was all several years ago, and I can't remember anything about it. The version I made was a raster graphic in PNG format, if I remember right. Then someone scanned it and made an SVG version from the scan (really dumb thing to do), then someone else made an SVG the proper way by entering coordinates and dimensions into a vector editor, and then I lost interest in the whole thing, and also became much less active on Wikipedia.
 * The only guess I can offer is that I might have been inspired by a similar article in the Glossary section of dpreview.com.
 * RenniePet (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the dpReview.com page I'm talking about: http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm But it does not mention any KAF 3900 sensor.
 * It may have been User:Dicklyon who added the KAF 3900 info - but I simply can't remember any more, sorry.
 * Here's a prior (somewhat angry) dialog between me and the person who made the second SVG version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RenniePet#Sensor_size_diagram
 * RenniePet (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. My first Google search for "KAF 3900" returned this article from dpreview. That article introduces the "KAF 39000" but then appears to mistakenly refer to it as "KAF 3900" next before changing back to "KAF 39000" for the last two references. This may have been the source of the confusion. The size of the detector mentioned in that article appears to be slightly off. It states 36mm x 48mm (assuming the dimensions are the "active area") while the actual value of the active area is 36.8mm x 49mm. The actual value of the active area should be 1803.2 mm2 and the diagonal should be 61.28mm. The other derivative graphics also get these numbers wrong. I am convinced now that the images are in error and should be updated. I will post messages on their talk pages and perhaps even fix them myself if time allows. I'm pretty busy right now and may not get a chance for a few weeks though. Thanks again for your input. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wojciech Marczewski
FYI - I've replied to your query on the talk page of Wojciech Marczewski. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel Axel
Hello. No problem on the edits, and good point on the location. Could you add the section in each cite where it says where he died using the quote section of cite web? It would probably stop this from being edited in the future. I'm not sure of your wiki skills, but you seem to be able to read the article better than I can. :) If not, could you just copy + paste the parts of the article from those news sites and I'll add them. Thanks again!

Orphaned non-free image File:HitchhikerBookCover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:HitchhikerBookCover.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. &mdash;Cryptic 04:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Pole to Pole: The Photographs for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pole to Pole: The Photographs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pole to Pole: The Photographs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BriefEdits (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PoleToPoleThePhotographsBookCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:PoleToPoleThePhotographsBookCover.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)