User talk:Roguegeek/Archive20081002

Auto templates
No, there is no thorough discussion about depreciation of these templates. What I'd eventually like to see is a tidy-up of Category:Conversion templates. There is so much redundancy in the category. If you want to convert inches to millimetres, for example, there are four different templates you could use. It just makes sense to me to have everything moved to a smaller set of templates. J Ѧ ρ 16:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * gives "18 in"
 * gives "18 in"
 * gives "18 in"
 * gives "18 in"


 * I completely understand what you're trying to do and definitely agree with your ultimate goal. Consistency is very important to me. I'd want to see a standard convert template for horsepower that mimics auto hp. Roguegeek (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Convert can mimic.
 * gives "100 hp"
 * gives "100 hp"
 * It can also do some things can't do. E.g.


 * gives


 * J Ѧ ρ 18:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's helpful to say the least. Roguegeek (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a ton of convert templates to the Honda S2000 page. Please let me know if you see anything funny with the edits. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks fine, though I did notice one thing.  was rounding off to the nearest kilowatt (as specified by the zero).  I deleted the zero so that it would use 's autorounding then I had second thoughts and deleted the "k" also so it now converts to 280 W.  J Ѧ ρ 00:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Human Kindness Foundation, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Human Kindness Foundation appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Human Kindness Foundation has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Human Kindness Foundation and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Human Kindness Foundation with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Human Kindness Foundation.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Espertus (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Human-Kindness-Foundation.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Human-Kindness-Foundation.gif. 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) 12:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

SWG reversions
Hi RG. Was it really necessary to fully revert Treybien's edits? His/her changing of the date formats was unnecessary but largely harmless, and there were a lot of decent edits mixed in there. The only thing that really needed reverting was his/her linking of month-year dates. Powers T 15:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your right. A day after I made that edit, I knew I probably shouldn't have done it because I do like the edits that editor made. I guess I just hate the fact that it takes time to set those time standards just to have an uninformed (non-malicious) editor reset them. Let's revert my edit and I'll work on the date formats again. Roguegeek (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'd be happy to help with the date formats. Powers T 22:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to this:
Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jm wotwtc.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jm wotwtc.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) 12:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JM-WaitingOnTheWorldToChange.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JM-WaitingOnTheWorldToChange.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

British Bikes
Hi Rich - I am slowly building up and improving images of British bikes on Commons in the category Motorcycles of Britain to support the Wikiproject Motorcycling British motorcycles. It would be great if you can donate any British bike pics - or have the time to add to any of the articles. Thanks Tony (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll definitely look out for any if I can find them. Thanks for your contributions! Roguegeek (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

British English but not American English?
So, "Motorcycle" can use the BrEng notice.

But "BMW (motorcycles)" cannot use the AmEng notice.

I am sure there must be a reason why you feel that way. Motorrad-67 (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure I follow. Could you elaborate? Roguegeek (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * O.k., let me try again. You object to using the AmEng notice in one article (and deleted it), but do not object to using the BrEng notice in another article.  One article uses American English, the other uses British English. It is o.k. with you to put the notice about British English in the one article, but it is not o.k. with you to put the notice about American English in another.


 * Why?


 * I hope my confusion is now clarified. Motorrad-67 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see what you're saying. Both of those templates are nominated for deletion and looks like they are about to be deleted. They simply don't belong on an article page. Check out the deletion process here. Roguegeek (talk)


 * First issue is that "BMW (motorcycles)" was written in the first edit and the first major edit in BRITISH ENGLISH! It's a shame that U.S. mis-spellers try and force their mis-spellings on others. M-72 (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Next issue is the chaos you have cause to BMW (motorcycles) over your insistence that the company is BMW Motorrad - A subsiduary of the BMW Group. A simple e-mail to the BMW Group shows that this is NOT the case. How do you propose to remedy the chaos that you have caused? What will YOU do to re-link every link that YOU have destroyed?M-72 (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your tactics puzzle me. Roguegeek (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not tactics. You create a page about a non-existant subsiduary, change all the links and then complain when things don't go your way. You created the chaos and then demand that others fix the problem that YOU created. You stuffed it - YOU fix it. Pretty simple in my book. Things were pretty good until you invented the BMW Motorrad subsiduary and changed everything. Now that it has been shown that you were wrong you blame everyone else for the chaos caused by your arrogance. Maybe returning things to how they were before you broke it would be a good idea. Oh! An apology would also be good!M-72 (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you forgot about the WP:NPA policy again. Let's see what others think about that. Roguegeek (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Methinks you should review some of your own comments thenM-72 (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Robotech
Hello, I've merged Robotech (film) to Robotech per the notability guidelines for future films since production has not begun and is not guaranteed to. You can add further details about the project's development at this section per the future films department's process. Some examples of this being done include Shantaram (film), Magneto (film), and Logan's Run (2010 film). Let me know if you have any questions! — Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:HRC-logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:HRC-logo.png. 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 05:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ejfetters (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HRC-logo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HRC-logo.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. Ejfetters (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

&
Hello again. & are up for deletion. I've no-wikied the transclusions in your archive. J IM ptalk·cont 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yeah, those templates should definitely be deleted IMO. Roguegeek (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. is now gone (speedied). It should only be a matter of time till is gone too. J IM ptalk·cont 18:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

SWG Criticism revisions and balance
It appears that you have removed a fair amount of detail while trying to establish balance in the criticism of the SWG. It is my feeling that at least some of this removed material is "significant views that have been published by reliable sources", and were cited.

I would suggest you revert and try to apply spot changes to the wording to remove bias (such as for the "4 months" portion) without actually removing items of historical or ongoing interest relating to SWG. The original text is in my opinion mostly balanced, and some of your edits could simply be applied within the framework of topics within the Criticism section, which could also be expanded to include "reception" as you have done.

Could you discuss this in more detail, or can we work together on an edit based on the pre June 26 version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danhiel (talk • contribs) 06:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We've been discussing this at Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies. Please join the discussion there, but a full revert is probably not propable considering there's been discussion on revising this section like this already. Discuss there so everyone can see it. Roguegeek (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits
This is not a Minor edit. Please only mark minor edits as such.24.68.69.90 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I know you. Thanks anyway. Saul Douglas Whitby (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CSV Import Access2007.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CSV Import Access2007.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) 05:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear (Australian TV series)
Instead of making snide comments, how about trying to edit it so that it doesn't look like it's full of rubbish? The tag that tags it as a possible advertisment is put back.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As it should be. How about instead of assuming I removed the tag, you check the page history and assume good faith?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 14:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Opps, you're right. I did a blind revert without seeing everything you changed in the edit.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment
Over on Bull-Doser's talk page. I looked a little further into the Kia vehicles category, and it does in fact seem that more than one Kia vehicle page is described this way. I don't like it aesthetically -- and it is not applied consistently -- but a pattern does emerge. Vehicles with one name, so far as I could tell, apparently are sold under just one name. My guess is this is not consistent across Automobiles articles on Wikipedia, but I also don't want to leap to any conclusions about what that should mean here. Do you know if there has been any decisions on this issue or issues like it in the past? NMS Bill (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, to me, it's kind of a non-issue. Almost all automobile articles that have vehicles in different countries with different names work like this. The article should be called Kia Borrego. Kia Mohave should just be a re-direct to the Borrego article. Look at Daewoo Lacetti, for instance. Chevrolet Lacetti forwards to this article as well due to a different name in a different country. Articles like this would also start with an opening statement such as:
 * "The Kia Borrego (also known as the Kia Mohave in South Korea) is..."
 * Again, it's kind of a non-issue. I'd just put a request into Requested moves to get it back to the way it is. Bull-Doser is kind of notorious around here for making these kind of moves (along with so many other questionable decisions) without discussion from other editors. Let me know if you need help with something.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 01:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like Doser did respond to my original request, and has moved the article title. However, I had come around more to the thinking of User:PrinceGloria who had argued it should stay Mohave/Borrego. PG pointed me to the WP:CAR conventions guide, which does favor the name in the original market -- which I assume would be be Mohave, not Borrego. Anyway, I guess I am going to stay out of it for now, but I thought I'd update you since you had shown interest. Cheers. NMS Bill (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Camaro
Works great for me. --Leivick (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just didn't want to disconnect the info from the 2010 section since it's 2010 specific. Yes, I know that's the only model year that's going to be made available for a while, but something about disconnecting that info seemed wrong to me. I don't know. Any feedback is always appreciated.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 00:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HondaMotorcycles.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:HondaMotorcycles.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. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolution
Given our total agreement here, d'you think you might update (or at least tone down) your comment here? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to retract the thing entirely.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 16:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworked the convention text to permit explicitly the use of either convert or auto templates, but I've run into one unresolved issue with convert. It does not seem able to provide compliant output when converting engine displacement from litres. It'll give "cu in" or it'll give "CID", but it will not give in3, as it seems. Perhaps I'm not aware of the correct syntax? So far I've tried 3.7 L,

3.7 L, 3.7 L, 3.7 L, 3.7 L, and 3.7 L, without success. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's throw a request over at Template talk:Convert and see what they come up with.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Motor Press Guild
Hi Rougegeek, I have deleted Motor Press Guild under speedy deletion criteria A7. Let me know if you think you can make an indication of importance for the group. Marasmusine (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)