User talk:Roguegeek/Archive20110707

Mustang image
Isn't the photo you just put in the Ford Mustang (fifth generation) a derivative work of an image that was deleted as a copyvio, and hence a copyvio itself? IFCAR (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason I should not nominate it for deletion? I don't appreciate being ignored when I ask a question. IFCAR (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * IFCAR, you should probably keep in mind that there is a life outside of Wikipedia and that many people have a lot more important obligations to that life. In the future, I suggest you assume good faith and watch the tone of your language. As far as the image goes, I really don't have a preference what happens to it. Take care. roguegeek (talk·cont) 15:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was trying to extend to you the courtesy of letting you weigh in on photos you'd supported heavily in the past, delaying a deletion nomination while waiting for your feedback. I'm sorry you could not take my question in the spirit it was offered. My second comment came after it seemed you had made other WP edits, so it would seem to me that you'd have seen my question at that point but just did not answer it. IFCAR (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Autopano page
Hi Roguegeek, I proposed an article about Autopano software a few months ago, and after your recommendations and those of other users, the article seemed to be OK with all Wikipedia rules. Your comment then was "The article looks like it addresses all of the policies now. Nice job!" and the comment of Happy-Melon was "That's an excellent and durable start-class article. Well done!". So I really wonder why is was deleted. Could you please tell me what to do? Thanks a lot. Waph (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD
An article of yours is in AFD: Articles for deletion/ExifTool. Joe Chill (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: U2 DVD
When I reverted your change, I moved the reference which supported the statement that said it was for a DVD (for some reason it was in the wrong location). When I made the edit it was reference #67, but when the edit was complete it was reference #64, making my edit summary inaccurate. The actual source is the Los Angeles Times article. The third sentence reads "Or, perhaps more accurately, you will benefit from the filming of the concert for an upcoming DVD release." Hope that clarifies things. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycle infobox
Template_talk:Infobox_Motorcycle --uKER (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

CBR600RR
--Dbratland (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

G8 predecessor
The GTO was based on the Holden Monaro, the G8 on the Holden Commodore. Both were RWD, and shared the same V platform (at least the previous generation Commodore did). It's not a perfect comparison, but the G8 did fill the niche of muscle car (or muscle-car-like) captive import left by the GTO. --Vossanova o&lt; 19:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You do see that being a pretty decent reach, yes? roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Aside from 2-door vs. 4-door, it's not much of a stretch. I believe Pontiac marketed the G8 toward both GTO and Grand Prix buyers.  But if I'm the only one who thinks the GTO is a predecessor, I won't argue if it's removed. --Vossanova o&lt; 18:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Honda hsv10.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Honda hsv10.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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 it not being deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of talk page
Why did you blank my talk page while adding the orphaned image template?-- iBentalk/contribs If you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 01:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I? Apologies if I did. You have quite the confusing talk page. roguegeek (talk·cont) 01:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom for Honda CB900F
I expanded Honda CB900F and nominated it for DYK. If you see any complaints on the suggestion page, can you help fix? Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

tagging of Mfx
You tagged Mfx for speedy deletion under WP:CSD. But it was previously discussed and kept at an AfD, as shown on its talk page. As per WP:CSD, in such cases speedy deletion is not warranted (except for a newly discovered copyright issue). If you think this page should be deleted, please start a new WP:AFD discussion. DES (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ray-Ban Wayfarer image


Hi Roguegeek,

I strongly disagree with your choice of lead image for the Wayfarer article. First and foremost it doesn't show the actual subject of the article. The "New Wayfarer" model sure deserves it's mention and an image, but not at the top of the page. I think that position should be used for an image of an actual "Wayfarer" model, as it is a fashion classic and the reason the Wayfarer article exists in the first place.

Furthermore, the image quality of the picture you chose leaves a lot to be desired. On first glance it looks quite professional with its perfectly white background, but one can hardly make out any details. The whole front of the glasses appears as one solid black surface. The image in the "1990s decline and 2001 redesign" section is way better, even though the angle is odd.

The image of the 1980's sunglasses is not only representative of the 1980's. It's what Wayfarers looked like for decades. Moreover it shows off the subtleties of the design fairly well. In my opinion the encyclopedic value of the 80's "Wayfarer" image is far bigger than that of the "New Wayfarer" one.

Best regards

Starman1984 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Starman. I can see your point, but I'm gonna disagree here. I honestly don't see much of a difference between the classic and new Wayfarer glasses. I mean yeah, there are differences, but your typical reader (who Wikipedia is suppose to cater to and not the enthusiast) wouldn't know the difference. As far as the actual image quality goes between the two, it's minor and no where close to noticeable. What we have to ask ourselves is this. What is the more encyclopedic image? What shows the subject more clearly? When looked at it this way, my argument is for the white image because it 1) it displays more of the subject and 2) it displays only the subject.
 * So how do we solve this? Well, I suggest we take this conversation over to the article's talk page and see what other editors say about the issue. Let's build a consensus and however it goes, I'll be happy going in that direction. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * alright. Let's move the discussion. Starman1984 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Needforspeedundercoverporsche911gt3.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Needforspeedundercoverporsche911gt3.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

5-Series photos
As you requested, I started a discussion on the BMW 5-Series talk page to discuss your changes to the article. Please weigh in. IFCAR (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Motorcycling in Wikipedia Signpost
The April 12 Wikipedia Signpost is going to feature the Motorcycling project. Would you like to add your answers to any or all of the questions over on the interview page? --Dbratland (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage in a category
Your userpage User:Roguegeek/Articles/Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W100 has a category, and so appears in Category:Cyber-shot cameras. As the guideline on userpages describes, this is undesired. It is suggested that you edit the userpage to prevent this showing. It can be done by adding a semicolon (:) before the word Category, like this:  Category: Cyber-shot cameras . -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Honda Insight
Looking for comments on the use of a newer picture. Ng.j (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zippo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Zippo.png. 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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 06:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Secondary sources
You may not understand secondary sources, either. This is a topic that is disputed between two different news organizations, categorizing it as a rumor.
 * While the reporting of rumors has a limited news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.

I appreciate that you're offering advice, but I'm fine, thanks. D arth B otto talk•cont 03:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TheBoyWhoCouldFly.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:TheBoyWhoCouldFly.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 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 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 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)