User talk:Jaksmata/Archive 2009

Your comment at Talk:US_Airways_Flight_1549

In your comment I believe you've misplaced the poison quote. He refered to key "vital statistics", not "key vital statistics". I didn't see anything that attributed that quote to an official US government publication. Please re-examine.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the location of the quote marks in that post, it was a mistake, which I'll attribute to laziness on my part. I searched that document for "vital statistics", "key statistics", "key", "vital" and "statistics" and never saw anything remotely similar to "key 'vital statistics'". If my mistake becomes an issue over there, I'll 'fess up, but I think the essence of what I said was accurate. – jaksmata 21:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LDS in Utah c 1869

Hello...As a member of the Church of LDS, you may find of interest this webpage of mine relating to my great great grandfather, Lewis Metzler Clement, who as chief assistant engineer of the Central Pacific Railroad from 1862 to 1881 was directly in charge of the building the CPRR through the Utah Territory in 1868 and 1869. (You will find the information and images about his relationship with Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders about half way down the page.) (Centpacrr (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

WOW - that's an impressive book collection. I'd love to get my hands on something like that, as would any Mormonism-related museum, I'd guess. Must be worth a fortune. – jaksmata 22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found this of interest. I have a good deal more Mormon related material on my railroad history site, the Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum, which over the ten years that it has been online has grown to more than 10,000 webpages. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

why is it when I login to widipedia with username and password, your page (Jaksmata) comes up?

Thanks,

Mike Jensen info@jensenvideo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensenvideo (talk • contribs) 19:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. If the problem persists, let me know, or contact an administrator. – jaksmata 21:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealcolor Images

Hi, all the images I have previously uploaded were deleted by a few editors, and the majority by you. You wrote:

Same issue applies to File:Color response of camera.jpg, File:Common FS filters.jpg, File:Filter examples FullSpectrum IR.jpg, File:Starr Kempf full spectrum.jpg, File:Web confucious retreat.jpg. – jaksmata 15:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC) More info: the user's website [1], says "All photos copyright 2008 by David Twede, Permission required for any use.", which contradicts the Creative Commons license. The uploader is violating his own copyright! I think the images need to be altered to remove the copyright notice, and the website needs to be altered to remove the same, otherwise all the images uploaded by this user (even those without the copyright watermark) need to be deleted. Even though CC licenses are non-revocable, the 2008 copyright for these images predates the CC license given when uploaded to Wikipedia, making the CC license invalid - unless the user removes the copyright notices. Other images with possible copyright violations but without watermarks: File:SFC palace arts pano color.jpg, File:Full Spectrum Garden of Gods.jpg, File:View palace.jpg, File:Side palace.jpg, File:Gog nside fullspect web.jpg, File:Wiki IRC byodoin pano.jpg.

One question is, if I remove the watermarks, is there a way I can give Wikipedia rights to use the images without having to alter the copyright notice on my website?

Another point, the ColorIR_SLC_Temple.jpg file is actually not on my website. But it did have the watermark.

Thanks for any tips you provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surrealcolor (talk • contribs) 14:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, so I can't (and didn't) delete anything, although I did bring them to the attention of administrators who could. It wasn't even my decision to delete them.

To answer your question: No, even if you remove the watermarks, you are still claiming copyright of the works on your website, therefore they are ineligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. All Wikipedia content, including images, must have a free license, and that would be mutually exclusive with a claimed copyright. See Wikipedia:Non-free content as a starting point to understanding how it works. If you want to contribute images or other content to Wikipedia, you have to release them from copyright using a free license. It is not possible to grant a license to just Wikipedia. – jaksmata 19:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article and diagram deletions

I am furious that you have deleted my article "Virtual Pipe Organs" without any consultation. And that you accused me of not being the originator of the schematic diagram of the virtual organ. I will make no further contributions to Wikipaedia and shall delete my contributions relating to two English villages and to the angle of Compton Scattering in xray interactions.

Kenneth Spencer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaspencer (talk • contribs) 13:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator, therefore I cannot and did not delete anybody's articles. – jaksmata 22:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hamster picture

There's only 41 images of hamsters on commons and none of them are of hamsters in sawdust-filled containers. User:Melon247/sig 10:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot more than that - look in the subcategories and see also categories. Besides, that picture is so blurry you can't even tell it's in sawdust. It just looks like brown bedding. – jaksmata 13:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on "Organ (music)"

Hi, in article "Organ (music)", you reverted overview section, but old descriptions contain a lot of incorrect informations. For example, accordion is not an organ. Do you know ?

For correctness, before you revert, please check the correctness of the old descriptions, and correct improper descriptions. --124.102.10.216 (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the way you've worded it, thanks for correcting the error. – jaksmata 18:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removal of "self described original research"

did not know, thanks. how should one communicate such travel difficulties to others? Stuartsampson (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you can find a source (probably on the internet) that corroborates your experiences, you can use that as a reference. For example, if an airline website says you need a US visa, or if you can find a news story about travel difficulties relating to temple attendance, that would be great. – jaksmata 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK can I toss in something about the fact that the temple although it is in the Caribbean, the temple's district is officially districts and stakes in Haiti, Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic? That stuff can be found on the websites in sited in the external links.Stuartsampson (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. – jaksmata 04:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's that?Stuartsampson (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great. – jaksmata 21:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Trödel (talk | contribs) has another thought check it out and see what you think Talk:Santo Domingo Dominican Republic Temple‎ thanks Stuartsampson (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ToniCol

Hi there! Saw the re-deletion of the link toblend. Actually that is exactly what the link should be to, the literal meaning of blend as it describes in the article that the name comes from a blend of someone's name (Anthony) and cola. ToniCol. I'll be putting it back, but thanks so much for your other edits which greatly added. --Cpt ricard (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How embarrassing - I don't know how I missed that twice... – jaksmata 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no worries - it happens to everyone. Thanks for keeping on though. You keep wiki going! --Cpt ricard (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCleaner

Just a misclick. Happens. Thanks for pointing it out though. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 13:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rory blackwell

Hello. This article is about me, i dont think that gives me the very right to edit at any time, however i have contacted OTRS in hopes of getting the article deleted. I have privacy concerns... Thank you for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ser33 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messina Hof

Hi Jaksmata, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messina Hof was closed as speedy deletion, not via a full deletion discussion (the discussion only lasted one hour), therefore G-4 does not apply. If you wish to have it deleted, you will have to run it through a full AfD, as it is likely to be restored.--kelapstick (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the page as G-4 after seeing a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messina Hof that had already been non-admin closed and gave that reason and also G-11. It looked like the page itself had never been tagged. I have no interest in recreating it. – jaksmata 19:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to clarify: I see that you're right, G-4 was not the appropriate tag.) – jaksmata 19:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the deleting (and page protecting) admin's talk page, should be reversed some time soon. --kelapstick (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to move this commnet to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messina Hof (2nd nomination), the first discussion should be re-closed, so we don't have two deletion discussions about the same article going on at the same time. And thanks for cleaning up my atrocious grammar. Cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I didn't realize that there was a separate AFD, I thought the same one had just been re-opened. I'll move it now. – jaksmata 21:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.arabic2english.org

the links that I added was useful to the article,I don't understand why you removed it.. did you check the link and see if it was related. it was unique and one of it's kind as there is not a translator online that offer a Arabic keyboard as well. please review it again and put it back.

www.arabic2english.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneeyedboxer (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the top 10 reasons I won't be putting back the spam links to your website:

#10: The only reason you are editing Wikipedia is to use it to draw traffic to your website. See? BTW, that's called "spamming".

#9: It's spam. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam."

#8: Big deal if it's got an Arabic keyboard. You're just wrapping your advertisements around Google's translating service and Google's keyboard. You haven't done anything original.

#7: Your website itself is spam. You haven't done anything except merge someone's software (that you didn't write) with some adds with the hope of making a buck by spamming Wikipedia with links to your site.

#6: People reading about the Arabic language on the English language Wikipedia are not looking for services to translate Arabic to English. Even if they were, they wouldn't be typing the Arabic, they'd copy and paste it. هذا الموقع ليس في اللغة العربية. Duh.

#5: It's spam. How would you like it if I filled up your website with useless links to my pathetic and/or clever ranting here?

#4: Your website doesn't work and is counter-intuitive: What are those language selection drop-downs for? They don't do anything.

#3: It's spam. People who know Arabic are already going to have Arabic keyboard hardware or software. أنا لا أعرف اللغة العربية ، لكنني تمكنت من كتابة هذا من دون لوحة مفاتيح باللغة العربية. Anyone can do it.

#2: If you don't know Arabic, what good is an Arabic keyboard? If you don't know English, why would you be reading the English Wikipedia looking for services to translate Arabic into English? If you do know both languages, why would you use a buggy website that only translates English to Arabic and can't do Arabic to English? If you don't know either language, 你不會看這個網站。

And the number one reason: It's spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam, with a fried egg on top and spam.

– jaksmata 16:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]