User talk:Truthanado/archive8

ARCHIVE: January 2011 – March 2012

Schneeferner
Hi Truthanado, I welcome your contributions to Schneeferner, many of which made sense to me and I accepted them. However I reverted a minority after careful thought because I believed the original wording (translated as faithfully as I could from German Wikipedia) added something to the information which was lost or watered down in the amendment. Specifically: Having accepted all the other changes positively, I hope you will agree that this represents a reasonable compromise. Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "favourable conditions even led" - The word "even" is emphasising that the glacier's retreat not only slowed down (previous sentence), but actually reversed and it grew again. I wanted to draw attention to the fact, as it bucked the trend and is not what one would expect.
 * "been on the retreat" - nothing wrong with "retreated"; I was just trying to use a more interesting turn of phrase.
 * "still covered" - The word "still" is again adding emphasis; the glacier hadn't gone completely (like the short-lived Eastern Schneeferner) but was "still" around and of reasonable size.
 * "offering very little shade" - I don't agree that offering is incorrect; the sentence's verb is "is". The word "offering" is in a sub-clause as e.g. in "He overtook dangerously, giving the oncoming driver very little chance". However, I confess I did miss out the separating comma which may be why you didn't read it as intended. I have corrected that.
 * "offering very little shade" and "very little accumulation" - "Very" is not listed as a peacock term and it would be wrong IMHO to class it as such because it is useful in conveying a sense of degree when there isn't a numerical way of doing so - enabling distinctions such as "very", "fairly", "slightly", "moderately".

Murder of Joanna Yeates
Thanks for doing some edits to Murder of Joanna Yeates recently, however I noticed in several instances you changed the correct grammar to incorrect grammar e.g. "her hobbies included" -> "her hobbies include" (original was correct) "4 January" -> "4 January 2010" (should have been 2011 if anything), "have been investigating" -> "are investigating"(original was correct) so it might be worth sometimes checking your edits a little more carefully before going ahead with them? --Pontificalibus (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:PittsfordTownSignRt96.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PittsfordTownSignRt96.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Powers T 03:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: PittsfordTownSignRt96.png
The cases you mention have special protections. Your house is an architectural work, which by law in the United States, can be photographed freely. That is written as an exception to normal copyright law. See commons:COM:FOP. That exception applies only to architectural works, not to artistic works.

The Mona Lisa, on the other hand, is indeed an artistic work, but it is very old! Leonardo is long dead, as are his immediate heirs, and so no law affords copyright protection to his works at this late date.

The sign in Pittsford is neither old enough to be out of copyright, nor subject to exceptions to U.S. copyright law. If it were part of a streetscape, it's possible a de minimis argument could be used, arguing that the sign is a minor portion of the photograph and thus the photograph would not be a copyright violation -- but such arguments are necessarily somewhat subjective.

The point remains that an artist created that sign and owns the copyright to it. If you take a picture of it, and say "this picture can be modified in any way you want" (which is effectively what you did), that circumvents the artist's rights to control how his artwork is used.

I hope this clarifies things.

-- Powers T 03:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope Bay Aerodrome
Thanks for catching that. I tend to copy and paste them to new aerodromes as they are all pretty similar. I removed the bit about using true. It's outdated but I will need to look and see exactly what they are saying now. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Yumiko Kurahashi
This is fine, quite possibly an improvement, and I don't object nor am I reverting. However, it's not per MOSNUM. This sort of thing has been discussed and MOSNUM doesn't have an opinion one way or the other about placing birth locations in the parenthesized vital information following the name. (It is possible to infer this from the examples, but this would be a false inference in my view, as the MOSNUM examples exist to show the proper format of dates only, hence MOSNUM). Thus your edit summary should have been something like "for better presentation of data" or like that. Herostratus (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not recommend doing that, and I think it'd likely lead to contention somewhere down the road. MOSBD points to the sections "Dates of birth and death" so it is the same deal - the examples are concerned solely with dates, so they omit and do not express an opinion on data which would just clutter the examples. (The example "Genghis Khan (c. 1162 – August 18, 1227)" could also be taken to infer that everything shown in italics here (which is in the article currently) is forbidden: "Genghis Khan (pronounced /ˈdʒɛŋɡɪs ˈkɑːn/ or /ˈɡɛŋɡɪs ˈkɑːn/;[2] Mongolian: Чингис Хаан or ᠴᠢᠩᠭᠢᠰ ᠬᠠᠭᠠᠨ, Chinggis Khaan, or Činggis Qaγan, aka Chengiz Khan), IPA: [tʃiŋɡɪs xaːŋ]( listen); probably[3] 1162–1227)").


 * Anyway, this has been discussed at various times, although as far as I know in a desultory manner, and I'm pretty sure no decision was ever made. It would make an interesting topic, and perhaps you could bring it up and request that birth locations be proscribed from the parenthesized vital information. And it might very well be adopted, although at I guess I would expect to see arguments along the lines of "Well, it depends, it might be critical info at times" possibly ending with a decision of No Decision, implying a "leave it as found, especially if contested" type situation as is used (I think) as the de facto standard for the inclusion/exclusion of birth dates (as opposed to just years) in the parenthsized vital information. Herostratus (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Positive Train Control
Thanks for removing the unsupported advertizing from the Positive Train Control entry. I did a Google search on "Lilee Systems" and they don't look like they're much of anything, certainly not any kind of "leader" in PTC based radios. Damotclese (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it was a user named Lmanchu who has since been deleted. Damotclese (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 17:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Numbers
The MOS says that 1,200 is as good as 1200 (if I may, I'll quote the page you cited: "Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited (e.g. 1250 or 1,250")). Since that is the case and since 1,200 was there first, I've reverted your edit (to that bridge page). Apologies, Ericoides (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the mssg. You're right, actually, so I'm quite embarrassed. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Hanks Category order
I fail to understand this edit which put Category:1956 births and Category:Living people last. I see nothing at WP:CAT indicating that this is current policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this interpretation common policy, official policy or opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Mystery
Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 00:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 02:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Rock Me Tonite image
I set it to 200px, which should probably do it (until, of course, someone who reads articles with the screen maxed out on some 20+-inch widescreen and assumes everyone else does too decides to change it again). Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)