User talk:Yummifruitbat

Image:Second Severn Crossing pano 2 s.jpg
Hi YFB,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Second Severn Crossing pano 2 s.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-07-08.  howcheng  {chat} 19:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image license
Hi there, I have seen that you have brought up discussions about image license on wikipedia. To me this is a very important issue that stops me from uploading images to wikipedia. I have many good images that I would like to upload but many of those I do not feel like release. I would like to allow my images to be used on wikipedia but not for any commercial use. How is this discussion going? --Krm500 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Krm500. I have to admit that this issue has died on its feet a bit, mostly because I haven't had the time to start a proper, organised discussion on the matter. I left the odd talk page note here and there about it but never got round to chasing it up. In all honesty, this may be a losing battle as there appears to be a great deal of inertia behind the current licensing policies, much of which appears to come from users who don't contribute their own images and who are therefore apparently not all that receptive to our concerns. There has been a long history of sporadic discussion on this topic at the Featured Pictures talk page but there's never even been a proper consensus there, let alone in the wider Wikipedia community. I graduate this summer (all going to plan) and hopefully I'll have a little more free time to devote to WP after this summer. If that's the case, I'll try to kick-start the discussion then - feel free to do so yourself in the meantime. Let me know if you get anywhere... :-) Happy editing, --YFB ¿  19:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. --Krm500 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, thank you for the barnstar! --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

FPC reshooting
Please revisit Featured picture candidates/Timothy Blackstone Bronze Plaque and reconsider your vote. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Killer whale FPC
Hello. A Featured Picture Candidate you commented on, Featured picture candidates/Killer whale mother and calf, is now in the section for "Older nominations requiring additional input from voters." Contributors have tried to improve it after you commented, and your opinion is welcome as to which, if any, of the available versions deserves promotion. I am sending this message to everyone who participated in the FPC. Thanks! Kla'quot 06:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catch
Thanks for fixing that on my talk page. For some reason I can read TCP/IP packets and program in perl first thing in the morning, but I have trouble with simple postings. You are doing a great job as my personal mistake corrector. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Heheh, no problem - glad you didn't mind. I can't program perl at any time of the day but I'm not bad at pedantry, we'd make a good team :D --YFB ¿  16:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

M/S Sea Diamond Photo
With all due respect, you may be correct, but NO ONE wants to see a picture of the "Burka Princess" at port. Your edit removed my picture, which was much, much more RELEVANT to the story - a photo of the M/S Sea Diamond travelling through Santorini.

User:Neoelitism
Well, I was in the boat of, I don't want to accuse of a 3RR violation without any kind of IP trace to back it up, but I want to justify it as a rvv if it becomes relevant. And it's possible that it was a truly anonymous editor previously uninvolved changing it back...but I didn't think it likely. Anyway, thank you for making the report! —C.Fred (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Broadway Tower FPC
Hello. Just thought I would thank you for your support on this image. I had no idea that it would give rise to so much discussion on the part of fellow wikipedians! --New t on2 12:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. It's a great photo and I'm sorry your first FP nomination has descended into the edit frenzy that sometimes happens - this can be pretty depressing. Hopefully you won't be put off from contributing more images in future; it's always good to have new faces at WP:FPC, especially if they take good photos! Best wishes, --YFB ¿  17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Images
Thanks for leaving the message. I don't really know how it could be as the image is somehow got into my 'personal photo' collection. Thanks for letting me know about this and as a precaution, I think it should be deleted immediately. It was my mistake and I do strongly apologise for this. What deletion tag would be the best to use for this situation? Could you please help me get this off as soon as possible as I do not want to get myself in trouble. Additionally, I will read over the Wikipedia image guidelines. Many thanks, Extranet (Talk 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst I have been looking around, would db be a easy way of deleting it quickly? Extranet (Talk 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for tagging the image. I really appreciate your help with this matter. I will read over the guidelines for uploading images. Thank you, Extranet (Talk 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am taking it pretty seriously and I appreciate your kind help. In future, I will double check with any family members and/or online websites before I release personal copyright tags. As I have said, I am taking this pretty seriously and would like you to help me in deleting the following images: Image:SydneyAustraliaLightning.jpg, Image:Southbank Vine.jpg, Image:HughLauriePortrait.jpg and Image:Southbank Lagoon.jpg. They should do with the workload and I will always double check copyright violations in future. I do understand if you require to give me a temporary ban from Wikipedia for all this. I do still strongly apologise to anyone concerned. Many thanks, Extranet (Talk 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they're all tagged and removed from the relevant articles. Thanks for the barnstar; you're very welcome. Happy editing, --YFB ¿  01:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll have a great vacation, to the Gold Coast, where I might take a few of my own pictures using my own camera :) Have a great day! Extranet (Talk 01:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heheh, that'd be great - I'd love to see them. All the best, --YFB ¿  01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

SYDNEY MAPS
When I get clarification on the copyright laws for these maps of Sydney would it be okay to put them back. Mindys12345 03:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm not sure what you're referring to - I removed a photograph of a lightning strike which was incorrectly licenced, not a map. Whether or not it's OK to re-insert the maps you scanned will depend on what the outcome of your "clarification" is - it sounds as though they're copyright violations in which case no, it won't be OK to put them back, you'll have to get them deleted. Sorry I can't be of more help. --YFB ¿  03:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kaziranga images
Thanks for the edits. They look much clearer. I was specifically looking for improvements to the burning grass one, that one looks dark with low contrast. Thanks for also looking into my request for a tutorial, eagerly waiting for one once you have free time on your hands. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User page
While I understand your disagreement with the joke (which I find funny still), I do not agree with your edit summary (which seems to impy that you can delete content merely because you find it unfunny) and your assertions in the post to my talk page that this is some sort of violation of WP:AGF, when in fact, I find your reversion against my express wishes perilously close to that same policy. Regardless, I seem to remember a community debate about this (I can't find the link, but I believe it is in the vast WP:AN/I archives) where it was decided that, while discouraged, the joke should not be deleted off other user's pages. Because of these reasons, I have reverted you, but will not revert you a second time if you revert my revert -- instead I'll take it to whatever the appropriate forum is. Silas Snider (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you disagree with my edit summary. I was trying to explain my briefly why I was removing it again before explaining fully on your talk page. Please consider my message there to be my definitive reasoning, rather than my edit summary. I wasn't suggesting by my link to WP:AGF that you were in breach of it, in fact I hestitated to use that link because I had a feeling you'd take it the wrong way, but couldn't think of a better one. Maybe I should have left it out. What I was getting at was that, since Wikipedia relies on the good faith of its users in order to function properly, anything which causes annoyance, irritation or intentionally confuses, even momentarily, is bad for the project. I haven't seen the discussion you mention (and I couldn't find it in a brief search of the hideously unmanageable ANI archives, either... which doesn't mean it never took place!) but I believe my removal of the joke, accompanied by a polite explanation on your talk page, is justified by this if nothing else. Having demonstrated that Gmaxwell isn't alone in finding these messages disruptive and explained why I believe you shouldn't use them, I'm not going to revert you again. If you choose to ignore my suggestion, that's entirely up to you. Hopefully this discussion will have raised your awareness of the fact that such misrepresentation of the user interface is starting to wear on many users' patience. If you want to play practical jokes there are plenty of opportunities "in real life" or, failing that, on Uncyclopedia. Thanks, --YFB ¿  00:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I'll definitely think some more about it, but at least right now, I pretty much disagree with your position. Silas Snider (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --YFB ¿  03:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing copyvio tag
Hi Chairboy, regarding this, I wonder if you might take another look? I didn't provide a link in any of the templates because I couldn't get it to work, it just stayed as "unquestionably a copyvio of ". The uploader has provided the URL from which the image was taken and there is no assertion of ownership or permission. The link is still on the image page and was directly underneath the template, so I didn't feel it necessary to spend time playing about trying to get the template to work. Could you go back and see what I mean? --YFB ¿  14:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it now. Thanks!  I've deleted the image.  The format for the template is, if I recall correctly, subst:db-copyvio|http://www.somesite.com/picture.jpg .  That way, it passes the URL as a variable to db-copyvio. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 14:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's the format I used except I forgot to subst: it. Maybe it only works if it's substed. Cheers for rechecking it anyway - if you've got a moment, the rest of that user's uploads (User:Neil Of Cardiff) are also copyvios. When I get 10 minutes I'll try to replace most of them with photos from my own collection, as I come from Cardiff. All the best, --YFB ¿  14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is an = sign or certain other characters, you may need to use subst:db-copyvio|url=http://www.somesite.com/?picid=1132 I think. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, that probably explains it. Thanks very much, HighInBC :-) --YFB ¿  14:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Otherwise the interpreter thinks you are setting parameter http://www.somesite.com/?picid to 1132, stupid stupid parser. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Cheers, --YFB ¿  15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

copyvio of Image:Garth Mountain 2.jpg
When you speedy-delete-tagged Image:Garth Mountain 2.jpg for copyvio, you did not say which image in the WWW it is a copy of. Anthony Appleyard 08:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Velvet worm
Are you still doing a translation for this? If not, perhaps you could request one from someone else at the German Wikipedia? Would you be able to update the situation on the talk page? Richard001 05:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, afraid it's sort of... on very-long-term hold? I just don't have the time that a decent translation would take me at the moment, but I'll try to make it a priority in about 2 months' time when I graduate, if nobody's got to it first. I'll update the talk page accordingly. As regards getting someone else to translate it, we have a translation requests page which would be a good first port of call. I don't know anybody on de.wikipedia well enough to dump something like this on them! --YFB ¿  12:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The post that Ehthap made did look inappropriete, most likely spam, but I wasn't sure. I left a message about signing your posts, but I don't know the appropriete notice for the inappropriete message left on Durova's talk page. Could you possibly do this? Once aquatined with Wikipedia, I don't doubt that Ehtap will be able to become a leginamate user, as we all make mistakes.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Um, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick - I didn't remove Ентар's post. I think your note on his talk page is appropriate and probably all that's needed at present - his post on Durova's talk page wasn't really spam, just a bit odd. Happy editing, --YFB ¿  20:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry about that. So what was inappropriete about that other post? My guess is that it was asking a personal question, which is also proprobly not in accordance with the privacy policy. Whatever it is, I ask if you can leave User:User55505 a message about it.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of users feel that it is important to keep their "offline" personal details private, for all sorts of reasons. Posting messages which speculate about someone's real-life identity, whether accurate or completely false, is potentially harmful, not to mention completely unnecessary in the building of an encyclopaedia. I'll leave a message on 55505's talk page as you request. --YFB ¿  21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, stop where ever you're at. It's User:User55505, not User:55505. Tricked me. I guess that's why User:User was considered an inappropriete username.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, too late. Oh well, I've fixed it now. Thanks for the heads-up. --YFB ¿  21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FP delete candidates
YFB,

You are, of course, completely right. I'll go through and notify the uploader and/or creator of the images I've nominated for delisting. I've done it before (e.g. here) but not always. I shall endeavour to do it more consistently, starting with the photos currently up for delisting.

Also, I must say that your comment on my userpage was the most polite and kind thing I've seen in a while, therefore....


 * Wow, thank you very much! Glad you didn't mind my request - I'd hoped it would come across a little more subtly than, er... this :-) --YFB ¿  01:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I noticed that later! :-)


 * I'm surprised at the differing standards being applied at FPC/FPDC. Can you explain why with some photos. For example the Cocconut Shy delist nom) they are looking at very minor tilting, whereas in other places you see comments like "I see no major problems" or "the majority of the model is in focus". I don't get it.


 * I'm planning to go through a whole bunch of delist nom's in the upcoming weeks. In fact, I'll make a gallery of FP's I think should be delisted at my userpage tomorrow. If you think you could shed some light on why some things get scrutinised to death and others not, this might help me with my nomination reasonings.

Witty Lama 01:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The big text wasn't intended for you; that's why I left a separate note on your talk page. I'd seen a couple of people say "I didn't think it was necessary" etc. in other nominations and when the Mt. Rainier one came up I wanted to make a visible, unequivocal statement about it... Hopefully I'll have succeeded :-)


 * You've got a good point about inconsistent standards; I've noticed that too and I can't really explain it. I think perhaps the varying degrees of photographic experience and familiarity with FP standards might be a contributing factor. People who are new to the process often latch onto the more frequent technical shortcomings (e.g. blown highlights, tilt, DOF) and then tend to over-use them a little, sometimes missing the more subjective aesthetic considerations which are more easily appreciated with the benefit of a basic grounding in photography. Others don't appreciate the importance of the technical requirements and are inclined to support anything that looks vaguely pretty.


 * Then there's the "old hands", some of whom have very strong opinions about the principle of delisting (there's the revisionists who like a strict interpretation of today's criteria, and the conservatives who think it's disrespectful to revoke a picture's FP status) and some of whom are more easy-going. I think I fall in the easy-going end of revisionist and there seems to have been a gentle drift in consensus towards my position over the last 6-8 months - it looks like some of the repeat nominations are at last ending with a consensus to delist where previously more people had favoured the status quo. Delistings sit at the bottom of the page where fewer people see them - I think much of the apparent inconsistency is just due to the randomness of who happens to vote and in which of the above camps they sit. Sometimes I think there's also a pile-on effect, where the first two or three votes pretty much decide the outcome and then a lot of other people come and agree with only a cursory glance at the image. Once someone's pointed out a technical flaw, almost everyone else will tend to mention it!


 * I think it's healthy for the old FPs to get taken off the shelf, dusted off and hung up next to the latest crop for comparison under decent lighting every now and again. I won't advise you against creating your gallery but I will offer a word of caution: be very wary about embarking on a mass-delisting exercise. The last person to attempt that was User:AJ24 and he became very unpopular very quickly - his abrasive manner didn't help but a lot of people took offence at the very idea of a mass delisting. You'll get a much more balanced, considered response if you spread your nominations out over a long-ish period, so that there's never more than 3 or 4 on the go at once (and preferably less than 3). There's no particular rush - IIRC, there's quite a backlog of new FPs that have yet to go on the main page so it'll be a while before many of the old ones make a reappearance. You can always check the POTD Archives (in advance) to see if there's anything dubious coming up and prioritise on that basis.


 * Sorry for the huge post - I hope that helps a bit. Most of it is original research straight off the top of my head, so don't cite me as a reliable source :-)


 * I'd be glad to take a squint at your gallery when it's done and offer a second opinion before you start any more nominations, if you'd like me to. Happy editing, --YFB ¿  02:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, cheers for the giant response.
 * I've now created the Gallery I was talking about here: User:Witty lama/FP Deletion. I do not, as you warned me against, intend to mass nominate. Indeed I will probably never nominate many of the pics there. However I believe they should be there. I'll pick some of the worst offenders IMO and slowly nominate those and see where it goes. What do you think? Witty Lama 23:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You've obviously put quite a bit of work in to this! Your list is helpfully arranged and I wouldn't disagree with many of your selections. One I am surprised about is this one - you have seen the detail in that shot, right?! Personally I consider that one of the "best" FPs and, after Diliff nominated another similar image just a little while ago there was a consensus to keep this one and promote the new image.
 * You might want to be careful about using resolution only as a reason for delisting - there's been something akin to a consensus that in the absence of other flaws, low resolution is a poor reason to delist. I'm not sure I agree with that, but it might make the process smoother if you highlight other reasons, with resolution as a secondary consideration.
 * Overall, looks like a good job and I support your efforts to uphold the quality of our FPs. Good luck with it :-) --YFB ¿  23:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. that one. The existance of the other photo that is basically exactly the same is my reason. The same goes for this (it's double here) and this (it's double here). But, as you say, it (and the others) are still very good photos and I'll never actually nominate them. I nevertheless think that they fail criteria 3 (Is among Wikipedia's best work) becuase of the existance of the other. I'm aware that this is an idiosyncratic view.

Regarding the size/resolution thing, there are many photos there that are just so damn small (e.g. this, this or this) that they would not be given the time of day now. I'm frankly surprised that once promoted the burden of proof for remining an FP is on the reasons-against, rather that the reasons-for. If a photo cannot justify why it should be an FP it should be removed. Instead, they having to prove that it shouldn't be removed.

Now that I think of it, I realise that I'm quite hard line in all this. How interesting.... I wouldn't have considered myself "hardline" in anything Wikiwise until now. Witty Lama 00:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Heheh, not to worry - you're taking the stated requirements seriously and there's nothing at all wrong with that. Regarding "duplicate" images, I agree with you about the two latter images but, as was mentioned during the second Tower Bridge nomination, the newer version is the view from the opposite direction so they're not quite identical. If it came down to delisting one of them, I'd be more inclined to keep the original than the new version due to its spectacular detail level. Resolution-wise, I agree completely, but don't be surprised if there's some opposition if that's the only complaint. You might want to bring up your burden-of-proof point at the FPC talk page - that's an interesting way of putting things and might generate some worthwhile discussion. I'd like to see some sort of formal clarification of what's acceptable as a reason to oppose delisting. Contentious delistings attract some pointy votes and it's hard to combat that when there aren't any delisting criteria "set in stone". Thanks again for your hard work - I'll try to remember to keep an eye on the bottom half of the FPC page. --YFB ¿  07:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * done. Witty Lama 20:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Yummifruitbat!

I am not the one who is against the articles neutrality. To understand what I am talking about please check: (parts:my edits,sockpuppet, and Hy tankred's hungarian part), also: Please check! part. Thank you. I wish you the bestsPannonia 16:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) What I see there is you protesting your innocence of sockpuppetry, which cannot be proven by checkuser, and harrassing one of the checkusers to the point that he won't even correspond with you any further. You need to stop, step away from your computer and come back when you're ready to edit productively. So far you're adding unsourced, poorly written and at times incomprehensible information into an article which, while it may not be perfect or fully referenced, does at least make sense. As I've already told you, if you wish to make changes to the article you need to discuss them on the article talk page as it is clear there is not currently a consensus for their inclusion. You need to do this calmly and with civility or it is 100% certain that you will not have any of your changes implemented and will end up blocked. Please think about this for a while and then behave sensibly if/when you return. --YFB ¿  16:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The comment above was posted by a sockpuppet of a banned user. He is currently involved in vandalizing several articles and reverting them to the vandalized version. He has reverted Slovakia seven times today, clearly violating 3RR. Please, see. Tankred 16:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1) I edited the sources 2) I am not a sockpuppet 3) I know, that I will bee banned. After this vandalisation a usercheck will prove, that I am not VinceBPannonia 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Tankred, I hadn't seen all of those diffs. Recommend you use WP:ANI and link to jpgordon's checkuser response. --YFB ¿  16:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Canary Islands
I replied on my talk page. --Seattle Skier (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers
I did not know what chromatic abberation was until you said! However once I knew I noticed the purple fringing, particularly on the right of the photo. This is probably due to the camera being zoomed in to its maximum (10x), and from my other photos I can see that my camera is hopefully alright. Thanks a lot for your help! It was much appreciated. I'm only a 14 year old amateur photographer so I might be up to the featured picture standard one day! User:Kitkatcrazy 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yum
Pteropodidae.... yum --Iamunknown 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)  I love you disclaimer at the bottom of your user page :-D 

Huh?
Trolling removed, user now indef blocked. --YFB ¿  14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Those damned vandals
No probs. It was pretty obvious he was only here for one thing, in the unlikely event he contests he might be unblocked, but "unlikely" is the key word.

Diolch yn fawr is about the limit of my Welsh, which stretched to wishing the relatives Blwyddyn Newydd Dda to get a coin.

I'm an adopted Bristolian too, lived there through the nineties, before moving out to hotter climes. Great city, enjoying it? Although I hear traffic is a bit worse since I left.

The new tools are fun, thanks. There's a climate of accepting self noms at present so, unless you've made stupid mistakes, stand up and give it a go! All the best, --Steve (Stephen)talk 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That was my take on it too, doubt very much he'll be back in a hurry. I'd imagine the novelty wears off pretty quickly.


 * Reports of appalling Bristol traffic are not exaggerated, particularly since they decided to build a huge extension to Broadmead at the end of the M32... fortunately I either walk or cycle when I'm here, and I'll be escaping back to the right side of the border in about a month. I expect Bristol would have been more fun if I'd had more cash and less university work, but it's grown on me since I got here in 2003. I won't miss it toooo much, but there are far worse places to go to uni.


 * My Welsh extends to half-remembered GCSE and no further, but I thought I'd drop in a little bit when I saw your user page. Thanks for the suggestion - I don't think I've done anything really stupid, but my edit count is probably a bit on the low side and I expect I'd get pulled up for lack of XfD experience or some such... maybe I'll give it a shot towards the end of the summer, if I have a bit more free time.


 * Thanks for dropping by - keep up the good work. All the best, --YFB ¿  01:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Belated Thanks
Hi Yummi! Just found this page, hadn't seen it before, and thanks! Btw really like Image:Yummifruitbat.png! Nice work --Fir0002 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem - like I said, just trying to keep the peace. Thanks for noticing my refreshed userpage... the logo was the work of but 5 minutes, but I think it makes things a bit smarter. No competition for your page! :-) --YFB ¿  12:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please be more careful about reverting vandalism, as you did to Claude Monet. The vandalism was already reverted, and your re-reversion restored it. Thanks! --CA387 17:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happened there. I clicked the (diff) link when I saw the first vandalism, and restored this version. Somehow I ended up re-inserting the version I was reverting - I guess it must have been a server hiccup. In the spirit of WP:AGF, since I'm an editor in good standing, perhaps you could be more careful with your edit summaries? I'd prefer not to be accused of vandalism just because I got beaten to the revert. --YFB ¿  17:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies on my part; I clicked the wrong "rollback" button. --CA387 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think we're quits :-) --YFB ¿  17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam blacklist
Hi YFB :) To add stuff to the spam blacklist, make a proposal at Talk:Spam blacklist on Meta. On a different note, I noticed that you supported my request to become a trusted user on Commons - thanks! Even if the request doesn't work out, I'm stunned that you've noticed my efforts around here, and I thank you for your acknowledgement :) I've seen you around here, of course - your photography is beautiful. Take care, – Riana ⁂  05:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, cross-posted! Thanks for getting back to me though, it's appreciated. Regarding the Commons support - of course you're most welcome! I see your name on my watchlist quite regularly and I was very surprised to see you've only been about for just over a year; your knowledge and composure in editing belies that fact. I have no doubt that you'll be unanimously accepted as a Trusted User. And thank you for your kind words about my photos! Best wishes, --YFB ¿  05:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Semiaquatic avians
Thanks for the IDs. I finally got a photo of the little devil from the same bank today - afloat; in the reeds. Quite an impressive beak... The odd thing is that I've yet to see them in the company of the adult moorhens - the coots, the mallards, indeed the swans, all have their chicks (and then more-grown-up juveniles) going around with a parent, but these are rarely even in the vicinity. Shimgray | talk | 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The plot thickens. Today I stumbled across this and this, which are quite clearly juvenile moorhens - zoom in and look at the beaks; compare this - and had two concerned parents hovering just offshore, but don't look much like the two others we'd identified as moorhens... any suggestions? A younger pair? Shimgray | talk | 19:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Those two are definitely younger than the other one - they've still got all their downy fluff, whereas the earlier one (two?) is/are coming into their juvenile plumage, which are "proper feathers". Moorhens become independent very quickly - within 2-3 days - and fledge (get their proper feathers) in 5-7 weeks. The parents sometimes raise a second brood in the same nest during a single season. I think what we're seeing here is an older youngster, now independent, and possibly some of his/her younger relatives who are only a few days old (hence parental attention). Most likely, the reason this one hasn't been seen with adults is because its parents have been busy raising a second nestful of chicks. For some reason, moorhen chicks start out with the brightly-coloured bill, then it becomes more dusky-coloured while they're in their juvenile plumage, before becoming bright red/yellow in adulthood.  I'd guess that this helps the juvenile stay fairly inconspicuous while it's "learning the ropes" on its own.  Sound reasonable? --YFB  ¿  20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reasonable indeed. There's two of the 'teenage' ones, incidentally - I caught both in passing one day - and I think four adult moorhens (though it's hard to be completely sure) which suggests two breeding pairs with two chicks each. Couple that with one pair of coots with five or so offspring, and two pairs of mallards with five or six each (down from ten or so - rats, apparently), and we get quite a busy little lake...
 * Thanks a lot for the comments. It makes the lunchtime walk much more interesting to know what I'm watching for... Shimgray | talk | 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. It's a nice change to talk about birds instead of other flying things. Pity to hear about the rats, but that's nature for you. I don't live anywhere near a lake/pond/unpolluted body of water but I'm a member of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and make occasional trips to Slimbridge and Llanelli when I get a chance. Keep me posted if you come across anything else interesting/unidentified! Best wishes, --YFB ¿  22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Another one for you, if you're interested... Shimgray | talk | 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and the 96-hour joke
Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of the 96-hour edit ban brought up by Monsieur Merkey. It wasn't even an argument that needed to be stretched to a logical absurdity - it contained it all on its own. I was going to make a similar comment, but it was archived while I was reading through the history of the "unpleasantness." The Dark 19:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, no problem. I have a feeling nothing useful is going to come out of any of this... it just seems to be a rather odd off-Wiki feud that's been dragged here. The RfC is just going to generate a lot of vitriol, I suspect. --YFB ¿  20:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up.. I did see it, but wanted to think over his words with a clear head. His latest words, when considered on their own, would look noble, but anyone who had been part of this discussion would catch the hidden submeaning. *sighs* At least I tried, right? SirFozzie 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he could be a very useful contributor if he were a little more willing to compromise and discuss things openly. I can understand his stance (there are scam artists misrepresenting themselves as NAs/Amerinds to exploit others), but the inability to compromise on mentioning people who are ethnically Cherokee but not part of the tribe is something that has had me shaking my head - although I'm not a native (my family's only been in America since about 25 years before the Revolution), I'm familiar enough with untribed Seminole and Choctaw to know that some choose to be untribed to avoid their politics.  Government recognition is not the end-all of reality - African-Americans used to be recognized by the government as property rather than people.  His whole stalker thing is a totally different issue. In those cases where his claims are accurate, I have sympathy - it must be very disturbing to be followed and baited.  Unfortunately, he does seem rather easily baited, and I think he also tends to see an enemy where there is simply a difference of opinion. The Dark 13:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sssshhh!!
Look, if you're going to be a useful editor, you have to keep quiet about it. Someone might notice. Friday (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'll try to be less obviously-useful in future ;-) --YFB ¿  01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. Happy editing.  Friday (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch
Thanks for the revert on my user page. That was the person I was referring to in my email. Oh well.. 350 Sockpuppets and counting for JB. Gonna be a fun couple of days when his latest targets are unprotected. :/ (Is it friday yet? :D) SirFozzie 18:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No probs. ONiH has filled me in briefly so I'll try to keep half an eye out... you'd think they'd get bored, wouldn't you? I mean, summer's coming, surely there must be better things to do? Sorry I didn't reply to your email, by the way - clean forgot about it. Glad you're "back" :-) --YFB ¿  18:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed. One Night In Hackney  303  03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV Request
Unwarranted template removed per don't template the regulars and the fact that the AIV request was in fact valid. --YFB ¿  05:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:AIV deals with vandalism. You probably want to take the issue to WP:SSP, which deals with sock puppet issues. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 04:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. But you may or may not be aware that a typical SSP report takes, well, let's say longer than 5 minutes to receive attention. In cases of blatant sockpuppetry, i.e. where the user's first edit professes to be an indefinitely banned user, it should be within reason to expect that it would be quicker to go to AIV, which tends to have eyes on it most of the time. I've been advised that ANI generally gets a faster response, so I'll go there in future. I hope you won't mind if I remove your template, per, don't template the regulars? --YFB ¿  04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he is finally blocked. I was reverting his edits like crazy, hehe.  I hope he doesn't come back, but I don't know.  Momusufan 04:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. It was late, I was tired, and had to get some sleep.  Part of the problem with reporting an incident to AIV is that the report itself often lacks a good deal of detail.  Typically, I check the user's talk page to make sure a final warning was given.  I then check their edit history to determine that edits happened after the final warning.  I then check the nature of those edits to determine that it is actually vandalism (some people confuse an edit war with vandalism, so those show up sometimes.)  Usually it is only after I report back with a USER that I will get the real complaint.  Providing more detail up front will usually help get the issue resolved quicker.  The person reporting the incident knows a great deal about the background, history, personalities, etc. but seldom gives any indication of all that when they create their initial report.  In any case, I'm glad the issue has been resolved. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I appreciate that for uninvolved parties it can be hard to fathom what the problem is - that's why I came back to your talk page when I saw that you were "investigating". Sorry if I came across a little tersely, it was late here too and I was frustrated about a few things. All the best, --YFB ¿  21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol
I laughed out loud when I saw your username in a page history :-D Milto LOL pia 21:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, glad you like it. I sometimes wonder if having a frivolous username might undermine anything serious I have to say, but on balance I think it works quite nicely, especially with a shortened sig. Cheers :-) --YFB ¿  21:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196
Now you see why more eyes are better I assume? One Night In Hackney 303  00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No argument there. --YFB ¿  00:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember the bad old days when I had to give each sockpuppet spam warnings all the way up to level four before admins would block them, now they just get indef blocked on sight :) One Night In Hackney  303  00:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bongo image deletion
Got your note. I intend to fix this by getting permission from Interfauna directly. Black Stripe 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:66.248.85.79
Jossi has just blocked him. Keep up the good work. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  01:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I deleted that -- it's crap
I changed my mind. Geeze! Can people who write books in English learn to write English before they spam Wikipedia with their crap--help! KP Botany 00:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much exactly what I was thinking. I you can't even write consistently in the same person for one sentence, it seems unlikely you're going to be a notable author... Made me smile, though! --YFB ¿  00:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It would make me smile if she don't occasionally spend a week in AfD hell with theyse authors and their silk. I won't do that yesterday, next time the oppurringkittytunity presents yourself to it.  KP Botany 00:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Yes, discussion on the talk page! I guess the issue has calmed somewhat, so I will reduce the protection to one day. Sr13 06:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This ought to be interesting
Thanks for the encouragement. Hopefully all will go well! SirFozzie 23:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Good luck! --YFB ¿  00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

re:SirFozzie RfA
Actually..I believe its a hindrance getting through the Rfa and not his overall contribution. I didn't oppose him because I know he is a good contributor but I usually support people with more than 1000 mainspace edits only because that means that the person is very familiar with the main policy of Wikipedia which is contribution and even though his mainspace edits is way below my expectation, I'm still supporting him because as I mentioned above, he is a good contributor overall and that should never be overlooked..Cheers.. -- Cometstyles 00:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Unnecessary" thread?
The editorial on my question isn't really helpful. I asked for external input on a statement that appeared threatening, I think your characterization of my post isn't terribly fair. Would you mind re-phrasing the closing text? Thanks! - C HAIRBOY (☎) 03:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually no, I'm going to leave it, I'm afraid. Going to ANI over that comment was unnecessary - there was clearly no implied threat and taking it there only ups the drama. What we really need is for everyone to de-escalate things, not pick up on every comment in a heated discussion and argue over whether or not it should have been made. Obviously you're free to disagree if you think more drama (or a load of pile-on "ZOMG"s) is going to get us anywhere. If you haven't read it already, perhaps you'd consider having a look at my Another outside view on BDJ's talk page. Cheers, --YFB ¿  03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a straw man argument, you're stating that my intention was to increase drama, which is ridiculous. Please try again, thanks! - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 03:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm stating that the effect was to increase drama. There's not a lot more to say about this; the thread is closed, the block is lifted, even Tony thinks the ANI thread was a bad move. Please just go and do something else. --YFB ¿  03:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate, your statement was "Obviously you're free to disagree if you think more drama (or a load of pile-on "ZOMG"s) is going to get us anywhere." As to doing something else, uh, I'm just talking to you and Tony.  What are you talking about? - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that this is now a non-issue and that you are wasting your time arguing with me about it, much as you were wasting your time asking Jeff the same question 3 times after he deleted it and then taking it to ANI. So yes, please do something else. --YFB ¿  03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You asserted that I think more drama is good, and that's patently false. I'm just correcting your misunderstanding.  Simma down now, please. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 03:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. I'm glad that's cleared up. Look at all those articles with typos! --YFB ¿  03:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Magnus animum
Hello Yummifruitbat. I noticed your oppose on Magnus animum's RFA, which is perfectly valid. I also shared your concerns for some time, but I now believe that he's ready for the extra responsibilities (otherwise I wouldn't have nominated him). I enforced a self-probation on him, as you can read in my nom. He'll be open to recall for at least 3 months after promotion, and will have to submit to a recall if any 3 users ask him to. This way I feel secure that if any of your concerns become true, then it's easy to undo his promotion. But I think that there's no harm in giving him a chance. After all, he worked hard for this. And honestly, I doubt that he'll be asked to step down. :-) Best regards, Hús  ö  nd  02:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess I can agree to that - there's no harm in giving him a chance; particularly since I can imagine he'd be mostly using his tools to block blatant vandals instead of going to AIV. I'm still hesitant about actually supporting, but I'll move my !vote to Neutral. Hope that's OK with you. Best, --YFB ¿  02:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much
It looks like my Request for Admin has closed successfully at (58/8/2). Your support and gentle push to accept the nomination are things I'm very grateful for. I consider it my duty to try to live up to the trust that you and others have shown in me. If it wasn't for you and the others on my talk page getting me to move ahead with it, I never would have had the courage to go ahead with it. SirFozzie 17:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thumb sizes again
Hi! Do you recall this discussion arguing the case for bigger thumbnails? You started something at Village pump (proposals) with a really good summary of the discussion at that point and it seems to have disappeared. Any idea where it went? I ask because one of the contributors to the debate has announced a new portrait-format markup for thumbs which – you guessed it! – reduces the thumb height to match the size of the current horizontal dimensions. I think it's an appropriate juncture to re-ignite the original discussion, and that WP:VPR summary would be a handy reference. Cheers for now! mikaultalk 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Spain
I inform you that the Canary Islands are a part of Spain. It is not a dependence but a Spanish region. Please, excuse me my English level. Arzautz 13:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

me again
Hi, I realise you're not about so much these days (you're working now, I assume?) but I'd like to point you to the following Request for comments on an article I noticed you'd contributed to in the past. Rather than the last resort submission to the RfC page, I'm hopeful we can get something of a consensus beforehand. If you're about this weekend, please do look in and have your say. Cheers, mikaultalk 17:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Kaziranga for FA
I have decided to be bold and have taken the article to FAC. See Featured article candidates/Kaziranga National Park. Aditya Kabir 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi YFB,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Broadway tower edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-08-17.  howcheng  {chat} 23:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the Day
I noticed that the picture of the day today was at least partly to your credit, but you don't have it as one of your featured picture edits. Just wanted to let you know. Here's the link to your edit of the picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Broadway_tower_edit.jpg Henry Corvel 15:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

May or may not interest you
I see you're on a wikibreak so this may not reach you any time soon, but I thought you may be interested to note that I finally got a chance/inclination to climb St Paul's and replace the existing 360 panoramic view of London that was nominated in May to FPC. I've nominated the image here. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

BAE Systems
Thank you very much for your comments, they were very constructive. I've responded to them. Mark83 19:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Scottish national identity
An article that you have been involved in editing, Scottish national identity, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Scottish national identity(2nd nomination). Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured sounds
I noticed that you have participated Featured sound candidates in the past. There are now two candidates and the project appears to be abandoned. If you could look at the candidates and vote it would be appreciated. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Favor?
Hello there :-) Well, I'm posting to your talk page with the heador "Favor?", so you know it can't be good news XD  As if I haven't already given you enough to do, I wondered if you could help me out with a little translation from German.  We're working on Subarachnoid hemorrhage, which is a German FA with a lot of great pictures (de:Subarachnoidalblutung).  I wondered if you could help translate the captions, so I'm not misrepresenting the images.  The ones I especially need are de:Bild:SabCT comment.png / de:SabCT.JPG and de:Bild:SabAngio Comment.png / de:Bild:SabAngio.JPG (so it's really only 2 captions).  I know you're on semi-wikibreak, have a bunch of real life stuff and a bunch of wikistuff, no hurry at all.  If you can't do it, can you suggest someone who might be willing to?

By the way, I replied to your note on my talk page there, didn't know if you saw it.

Thanks much, delldot   talk  14:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in ...
I saw your name at Wikipedians/Photographers. I revised the pages at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in England. Please consider adding your name to the top of the page at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Bristol and to any of the other subpages for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in England. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Instruments
Instruments, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Instruments and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Instruments during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Brilliantine (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  06:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Gasturb
I have nominated Gasturb, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Gasturb. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Joe Chill (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your signature and linter errors
Just a reminder that your signature contains obsolete font tags. They create Linter errors, and it is advised that you change your signature to  ASAP.

The purpose of this message is because Linter errors affect the way the page looks, and with a lot of errors, the page may render badly. To reduce Linter errors, please change your signature. See WP:SIGFONT for more info.

If the software doesn't accept my replacement signature, let me know, and if that's the case, unfortunately you may have to change it to something else. Sheep (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I've also updated your userpage to remove a linter error (being the center tag) and also to remove the now obsolete "-moz-" which is no longer used. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And also some linter errors that linter doesn't detect (being the "valign" parameter which is deprecated) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gerichtsassessor


The article Gerichtsassessor has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "An unsourced WP:DICTDEF of an obsolete term for a type of judge in Germany."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)