User talk:Terra Novus/Archives/2011/January

Evolution/JBS
Do I understand correctly that you have a ban on topics related to evolution/creationism? The John Birch Society has a position on the issue. Topic bans are construed broadly, so it'd be best if you avoided articles about organizations which espouse views on the topic.  Will Beback   talk    00:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 1

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

WPSS:JOVE listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WPSS:JOVE. Since you had some involvement with the WPSS:JOVE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Beriev 2500.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Beriev 2500.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Treading Dangerously with your Topic Ban
This is in violation of your topic ban, since it was Request for Page Protection I aint dragging you to ANI. I advise you to take such pages off your Watchlist The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also it seems you creative formatting of your page is hiding my text might wanna look into that. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A wiki that may be of interest
You may like to look at A Storehouse of Knowledge. LowKey (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks
Thank you for the barnstar and kind words. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:J-20 takeoff.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:J-20 takeoff.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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:J-20 Front.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:J-20 Front.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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:J-20 Front.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:J-20 Front.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 on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Gliese 581 g
Please stop with the drive-by maintenance tag additions. You are either using the wrong template or you are unable to communicate the problem. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Same thing with terraforming. I'm starting to see a pattern here. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Chengdu J-10.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Chengdu J-10.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Chengdu J-10.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chengdu J-10.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. feydey (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

File:FaxxNavy.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FaxxNavy.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. feydey (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to template colors
I've reverted all of your changes to the template colors, which made them completely illegible. Also, your edit summary, "Changed from Marxist colors" is bordering on absurd and disruptive. Please discuss your proposed changes with the project or on the talk page and get some feedback first. You seem to be slipping back into troublesome edits yet again. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because you seem to be returning to an earlier pattern of disruption, I have reported you to your original blocking admin. I'm not sure what is going on with you, but please slow down and discuss your edits. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel compelled to take action at this point, but I will note that those color changes are ridiculous, and it won't take much more of that sort of thing for me to conclude that there is a continuing pattern of disruption here. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that the colors matched the economics theory. Perhaps we could discuss what color would be most appropriate.--  Novus    Orator     04:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are colors used in economics infoboxes to match the theory? If so, how? Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Red has just been traditionally associated with Marxian economic and political symbolism, so I think that perhaps blue or a neutral grey would be more appropriate.--  Novus    Orator     05:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing supposed unsourced statements.
Please be more careful when removing unsourced statements from articles. Many of the statements you removed from gold standard were actually properly sourced statements, they just happened to have the reference to their source at the end of the sentence immediately following. It is really not a good reason at all to remove statements just because they happen to have a period between them and their reference.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, you may want to check the sentence following for the source before just removing the content. It certainly doesn't make for a better encyclopedia to just willy-nilly remove any sentence in article which isn't followed by a reference. According to WP:INCITE references are accepted at the end of paragraphs as well as sentences. If you think it is unclear what is the source for a given statement it would be much more helpful if you then moved up the reference to statement in question, or at least put a WP:citation needed-tag in so others might find the reference for you.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still there is no reason to make Wikipedia into a WP:battleground. Our goal should be to try to make a better encyclopedia, not to try to score points by having more statement which one agrees with in an article.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But the point is that those statements you removed did have citations, there just happened to a period between them and the reference.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, much of the content around those statements lost their meaning as the context that those statements you deleted provided were removed. I really just don't see how you help the encyclopedia by roaming around doing stuff like that.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Terra, this has been brought up numerous times before. When you remove content for being unsourced or add CN tags, you need to first check the references in the paragraph. You can't simply assume the content is unreferenced without checking first. That's not helpful editing. This is the same issue it was 6 months ago. Jess talk&#124;edits 21:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:V any statement likely to be challenged needs a reference. As soon as those references in Gold Standard were aligned properly I accepted the end result. Unsourced claims are not allowed in Wikipedia.--   Novus    Orator     05:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Terra, you're not understanding. The content was sourced. The sources "not being aligned properly" isn't a reason to remove stuff. I'm not going to keep repeating this... I brought it up multiple times with you many months ago, and it seems it's still going on. When you remove unsourced content or add CN tags, you need to first read the sources throughout the paragraph. You cannot simply assume the content is unsourced and remove it. When a sentence is sourced in the very next sentence, that is perfectly acceptable, and you challenging it because you didn't read the paragraph is not constructive editing. Jess talk&#124;edits 08:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't read the relevant part of WP:V. Any statement likely to be challenged must be sourced. The material I removed did not clearly connect with the references. Once the references were added I offered no objection to those statements.--  Novus    Orator     08:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the last time I'm going to say it. The statement was sourced. It was sourced in the very next sentence. You need to read the paragraph before removing text for being unsourced. If you continue removing well sourced content because you haven't done your due diligence of actually reading the surrounding citations, I or another editor is likely to take the issue to an appropriate noticeboard. Please just read the context before removing stuff. Thanks. Jess talk&#124;edits 08:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Reply to comment at Mann Jess's talkpage.)This is clearly wikilawyering. We all know that WP:V isn't supposed to be used the way you use it. You are trying to get things you disagree with removed based on (misinterpreted) technicalities, and in the process severely detracting from the quality of encyclopedia. WP:INCITE says that references for a given statement can provided at both be at the end the sentence as well at the end of the paragraph. Some people do not find it practical to cite the same source over and over again if a whole paragraph is written using the same source. They will then instead just put in a reference at the end of the whole paragraph. This is clearly an acceptable practice in accordance with WP:CITE. To then have you go around, removing the first parts of paragraphs sourced like this is really no help at all to the encyclopedia. Often all that will be left are meaningless statements, as the properly sourced context given by the first part of the paragraph has been removed. It is totally understandable that mistakes may happen when editing Wikipedia, and one may not have found the reference provided for a given statement. This does not however mean that one it is not required to read the full paragraph (and reference for it) before removing statements within it. If one then finds that it may be unclear that the whole paragraph was sourced from the reference at the end, it might be appropriate to insert repetitions of the reference throughout the paragraph. It is how not appropriate at all as you have practiced to remove the whole first part of the paragraph. If you do not stop this practice, as Mann jess have said, it will have to be reported to the appropriate noticeboard.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:J-10 blueprint.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:J-10 blueprint.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:J-20-1st-flight.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:J-20-1st-flight.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Korean Stealth Fighter.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Korean Stealth Fighter.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:J-20 sketch.png
Thanks for uploading File:J-20 sketch.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop uploading non-free J-20 photos
Please stop uploading non-free J-20 photos. Precedent was set that these image were replaceable at Files for deletion/2011 January 6, and the community has since upheld that in two subsequent FFD discussions, at and. As you have now been warned not to upload further images like this, any future uploads may be viewed as disruptive, and handled as such. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I certainly don't want to be viewed as disruptive.--  Novus    Orator     03:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Question: File:Korean Stealth Fighter.jpg
There's one thing I don't understand. You said about File:Korean Stealth Fighter.jpg that it is an "in-company prototype that cannot be photographed by the general public." Why then does it show a price tag with a bar code, as if it were a toy model displayed for sale in a shop? Can you clarify where this picture comes from? (Oh, and I only now notice the source link – again without context page – goes to a different picture, which in fact seems to match your description better.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, I'll upload that version then.--  Novus    Orator     03:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that another copyrighted image incorrectly being used as a non-free image? I don't understand the rationale behind justifying its use. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

File:J-10 blueprint.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:J-10 blueprint.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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Skylon
I had a go the changes are minor. The best way to do it in my opinion is to aquire the UK English dictionary for your Word Processor, OpenOffice is free. Then block copy the text in check it and then back.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi Terra Novus. Good work on the RESkylon page. I've left a comment for you over there. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine articles
Three months ago, in an ANI thread where there was considerable momentum for a block or community ban, I wrote (see top of right-hand column in diff):


 * I don't intend the least disrespect, and I regret having to ask, but can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.?

You agreed, writing, in part:


 * I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area. I would just ask that whenever I slip (as I obviously have in these instances) that editors will take me to the task civilly, and assist me in finding more productive paths for my contributions.  Please put a note on my talk page whenever you have some friendly advice ...

I'd like to politely do so now: I see from your contribution history for January 26th & 27th that you just jumped into editing related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. You may not be aware that the I/P articles are probably the most hotly-contested and controversial articles on Wikipedia; they generate a great deal of "traffic" at ANI. ( One admin I respect described political articles on Wikipedia as "thorny nests of woe", and that's especially true of the I/P articles. ) If this was a one-time thing, I'll not object, but if your intention is to rescind that promise then may I ask that you make that intention explicit? Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I prefer to keep discussions on the page where they were begin, I've copied the reply you posted to my talk page here, immediately below. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning. I was merely fixing a few referencing issues on that article, and since it was not clearly attached to my topic ban, I think my edits were uncontroversial. If I get reverted or into an edit war in that topic I will be sure to back off.-- Novus  Orator  08:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't referring to any externally-imposed topic ban, I was referring to the offer you made at ANI in order to avoid a block or ban: I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area. (emphasis in the original) Your reply and your recent edit history lead me to believe that you no longer intend to uphold that promise. Is that correct, or am I missing something? –  OhioStandard  (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do intend to uphold my promise. I was merely pointing out that this particular article has not had a contentious atmosphere while I have been editing it. If I begin to see that the situation becomes conflictive I will stop editing that article. Generally speaking, I agree that many articles in this topic area are contentious, and I thank you for warning me to be careful.  The topic ban I'm referring to is one applied to me by the arbitration board that covers a different topic area than politics (Creationism and Psuedoscience).--   Novus    Orator   


 * I wasn't "warning you to be careful", I was asking whether you planned to continue editing controversial articles, contrary to your explicit and unequivocal promise at ANI to avoid them in response to the threat of sanctions. I think you've made your intentions quite clear, however, so I'll leave off this thread. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I prefer to keep discussions on the page where they were begin, I've copied the reply you posted to my talk page here. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My answer in one word is No. I do not intend to edit controversial articles. If you think my intentions are contrary to that notion, please explain.-- Novus  Orator  10:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I misunderstood. You seemed to be implying that an I/P article like One-state solution shouldn't be encompassed by the promise you made to avoid controversial subjects because it "has not had a contentious atmosphere while I have been editing it", as you said. And I also thought you were saying that you didn't intend to avoid controversial subjects, but only intended to make what you believe are non-controversial edits, and to refrain from edit-warring. Both of these seem to me to be contrary to, "I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area." But I'll be the first to admit that I can't read minds, so let's make this simpler: Based on your last statement my current understanding is that you do not intend to continue editing articles in the area of politics, religion, or other subject areas that can reasonably be called controversial. If I'm mistaken, then please clarify. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct. My analysis of this specific situation tells me that I made a mistake in editing this article, because it involved a contentious subject which I had not fully thought over. In compliance with my former promise, I will cease from editing that article now that I understand this rationale, with the hope that the other editors involved will do their best to improve its editing environment. Please feel free to comment on any of my behavior which you view as questionable, and I will welcome your input.--   Novus    Orator     11:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making this clear. Respectfully, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)