User talk:Siipikarja

RE: Template talk:Infobox Skyscraper
Hi Siipikarja! I like your suggestions for the skybox skyscraper. I'm short on time and won't be able to do it for a few weeks (busy), so go ahead and edit away if you would like! I'll help as much as I can -- which won't be much for a little while. Thanks! -Quasipalm 22:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Gallery pulls
I was not specifically targeting the Bank of China article, but rather a series of Hong Kong-related articles which I'm currently uploading some of my pics of to Commons. I've been pulling galleries there and in other articles as well, for the following reasons, which may branch off from NOT:
 * the galleries may be getting large (# of images in them) or dwarf the text in the article especially if it is short, at which point I think they are detracting from the article
 * with all respect to the individual photographers, some of the photos in the galleries don't in my opinion really add to the article; e.g. a closeup up of the King George VI statue's feet which was in the Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens article
 * the use of galleries here negates or dilutes the function of Commons, which is to act as a media repository for all Wikimedia projects. The galleries can be replicated there with the same information and layout to showcase the subject in a visual form.  In my opinion, the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information in a text form.  Although it may be illustrated, the images are intended to supplement the text, but are not an article's focus.  If the reader/viewer wants to find more visual information, then Commons is the place to go, which is why it was made easy to link to via template.  Even if a Commons-hosted image is not used in any article by any project at all, it is not in danger of deletion the same way an orphaned fair use image is here.  Replicating a gallery which is more appropriate to Commons is not making full use of this sibling Wikimedia project.

Basically, the question is does the presence of a gallery add to an article or is it starting to detract from it? Articles with images tend to have the appropriate images within the body, although here again, even without a gallery present, it sometimes to me is overdone with too many images, e.g. with the text getting squeezed between images in order to accommodate some images. Not a pretty sight, IMO.

I should note that date info of the picture is normally entered by the uploader into that specific parameter in the Information template for the image. If not and the EXIF camera information is available, then anyone else can do it. I am not seeing why this information is so important to be preserved in a gallery on an article page unless the image itself documents a time-specific event, e.g. the Eiffel Tower when Paris was campaigning for the Olympics, or for historical purposes is helpful to show how something appeared or existed in the past vs. now. It is somewhat similar to why I disagree with the credits for a photo being listed in the caption for an image that appears in the article; if the reader/viewer wants more info then they click on the image and have all the info they want there - author, date, etc. -- Broken Sphere Msg me 00:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Allegany cabin photo
Hi Siipikarja,

I've uploaded a new version of Cabin at Allegany State Park.jpg, which you opposed for Quality Image status. Could you please look at the image again, and possibly comment on its review? Thanks! --bdesham ★  04:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

New version of "October Revolution celebration 1983.png"
I have rescanned this picture from the original slide. Scratches and spots should be gone now. Still working on color balance, etc. New name: "October Revolution celebration 1983 3.png" Thomas.Hedden (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Getaway in Stockholm for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Getaway in Stockholm 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 Articles for deletion/Getaway in Stockholm until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)