User talk:Pagrashtak/archive5

Image:BobButterworth.jpg

I do not recall where I originally downloaded this picture - it is the subject's official Attorney General portrait, and is (or was) therefore available on a number of websites. However, since it was originally produced by the state for public dissemination, it is of no commercial value, and the case for fair use is particularly strong. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet you give no rationale for fair use on the image page. Pagrashtak 23:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your image deletions

We can always use help on that never-ending backlog. Your work is certainly appreciated. You might be interested in a semi-bot I've written (in Python, making use of the pywikipediabot framework) that speeds up deleting images. It has a terrible interface, but if you're interested, I'd be glad to work with you to get it working. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek rank insignia speedies

You've marked quite a few Star Trek rank insignia images for speedy deletion, but the reason you give is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion. What you should do is add {{NowCommons}} to the image page instead. Pagrashtak 17:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Its a "common sense" delete. WP should not be a burocracy should it? --Cat out 17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Images with identical copies on Commons must be marked for seven days prior to deletion. Take it up at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion if you want to change the rules. Pagrashtak 17:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I Already have. I just wish you werent soo burocratic. :) --Cat out 17:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Star

Could you take a look at the Star article FAC and see if your concerns have been addressed? Does the article now deserve support? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it's already been yanked from the FAC list—even though I addressed the concerns. — RJH (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not getting back to that in time. I've struck the addressed comments for reference, although I still feel there's more work to be done on the article. I'll help you with the peer review. Pagrashtak 17:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for your help. — RJH (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cyclone Gafilo.jpg

Is there a reason you deleted this image? Please can you undelete it. The image was a featured picture, and, despite what you said, was not available on commons. Thanks. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please disregard the above, on behalf of Hink - the problem with .jpg/.jpeg has been realised. – Chacor 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hi, Markdr. I noticed the userboxes you're creating at User:Mark dr/Ubx. However, Wikipedia's fair use policy does not allow images claimed under fair use to be used in the user space. Please remove them. Thanks, Pagrashtak 16:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for bringing that to my attention, I was not aware of that rule. I've cleared the relavent subpages. Is there a quick way of deleting all the userboxes and pages? --Mark ^{(Talk | Contribs | Email)} 14:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. You can mark the pages for deletion with {{db-author}}. Pagrashtak 14:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Mark ^{(Talk | Contribs | Email)} 19:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah

You recommended Ziad Jarrah be demoted from a featured article, partly because you claimed your attempts to fix the article were reverted. I don't understand. Looking through the history, it appears your changes were never reverted, and they currently stand. Thanks for your help! But do you think you might change your vote in light of this? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see where it might be confusing. I inserted the infobox and removed the picture here. The next two edits to the article reinserted the image. The next three edits by an anon got rid of the infoxbox. The net result was that two images were switched. Then today, I put the infobox back, then decided to go ahead and vote remove. After I voted, another user removed the image I removed some time ago. So as it stands now, the infobox is there and the image isn't. Pagrashtak 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, glad that's cleared up. Thanks for professionally formatting the refs! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I figured if you were going to work to keep the article featured, I might as well help out with some of the grunt work. Pagrashtak 22:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

you stink

you deleted a friend of mine's picture, and yet he said he knew where he got it, but didnt know what copyright tag to put on it.

SO REPLACE THE PICTURE AND TELL HIM THE TAG LIKE A REAL MAN (or woman, i dont know which you are)!!

GO TO user: Isipeoria

PS: Id help him myself but i dont know either —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 007BondFan1992 (talk • contribs) .

I'm a man, but that's beside the point. I'm going to assume you're referring to File:CBPatGrissomPkwy.jpg; it would have been helpful if you specified which image you're talking about. It appears your friend, Isipeoria, uploaded the picture with the {{PD-USGov}} tag, which is only applicable to works of the federal government. Given that the source listed was a county government web site, this was probably incorrect. SPUI removed the tag on 13 June 2006 and marked the image as having no license. Seven days later, I deleted the image in accordance with speedy deletion criterion I4. It is the responsibility of the uploader to determine the copyright status of images. Knowing where you found the image is often not enough information to determine the copyright. If the status is unknown, the image should not be uploaded. Your friend is welcome to upload the image again once the copyright has been determined.

On a separate matter, telling someone "you stink" and then asking him to do something is usually not an effective tactic. Pagrashtak 22:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your work is being deleted, check this

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 8#Template:Infobox Scientist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.167.200.118 (talk • contribs).

I wouldn't really call it "my work" — I've never edited that template and have used it a grand total of two times as far as I know. Pagrashtak 14:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use Logos in Templates

Hi, Pagrashtak. You deleted a logo from the Nalfo template: Template:National_Association_of_Latino_Fraternal_Organizations
and left the following comment: "no fair use images in templates." Yet fair use logos exist in:

Template:National_Pan-Hellenic_Council
Template:North-American_Interfraternity_Conference

Could you clarify? New to wikipedia. 2much 05:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's fair use policy #9, "[Fair use images] should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." I don't seek out fair use images in templates to remove, I just remove them as I come across them. Thus, other templates may still be in violation of the policy. I've removed the fair use images from the two templates you listed — if you come across any more, please remove them and inform the editors of the fair use policy. And welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here — don't be afraid to ask if you have any questions. Thanks, Pagrashtak 14:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.2much 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Go for it

I think you have the support of the CVG group to implement the changes to the {{cvgproj}}. I would like to start being able to reduce the number talk page templates. Just two things though - Nintendo should be above LOZ and any of its sub-projects. Hbdragon88 18:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Template help

• I managed to get the "selected article" paramater for the {{StarWarsProject}}, but there's slight gap when the SA paramater is not turned on. How can this be fixed?
• I've had the hardest time trying to use parser functions in {{Animorphs Books}}. I've been trying to get the preceded by/followed by paramaters to work, but I can't. I asked on WP:VPT but didn't get any response.

Great job on the cvgproj template! Hbdragon88 04:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Did this fix your first problem? I'm working on a modified CVGproj proposal right now, but I'll help you with the ParserFunctions when I get a chance. Thanks for the support with cvgproj, by the way. I wish it would go over. Pagrashtak 04:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That worked! Thanks. Hbdragon88 04:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And this for the second problem? Pagrashtak 04:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! Hbdragon88 05:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Sorry to keep coming to you, but I just failed at tyring to make the image paramater also optional. I'll read the source material on parser functions I will learn how they work...so I don't have to keep asking or trying to guess at how they work by looking at other templates. Hbdragon88 05:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, this should do it. Here's the part that's tripping you up: you can't use a pipe (|) that serves as wikitable syntax inside a ParserFunction — it's interpreted as part of the ParserFunction and not table code. To get around this, you can either use HTML code (tr and td tags, etc.) or replace table pipes with the {{!}} template, as I have done. Just don't try and mix and match the two; it generally doesn't work out very well, I've found. Pagrashtak 05:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know...

...I'm not trying to rain on your parade about the CVG template thing. I just really strongly believe that combining the project header templates will cause a mess, and that the current system (each project tags each article themselves) is a better system.

I just felt like apologizing for being so negative about it. I swear I'm a nice guy, honest! ;) EVula 05:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I'm not taking it personally. I just think Wikipedia seems to be headed toward pastel box cruft, as it were. Take a look at Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. There are nine header templates there, and it was ten before I combined the selected CVG article into CVGproj. The WP:Nintendo and WP:Zelda templates contain a whole lot of redundant, space-wasting text, and the CVG todo list occurs twice. Combining them into one cvgproj template makes the page much easier to read and nothing has change content wise; it's just a presentation difference. I don't personally see the advantage of separate templates with redundant text and todo lists. Pagrashtak 05:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

...oh, wow. I completely see what you're saying on that page. I'm coming from the Mortal Kombat pages, which have nowhere near that many boxes. Just from a cursory glance, I'd say that several of those could be summarily removed, such as the peer review boxes (peer reviews are largely irrelevant as far as "improving the article" goes once it has been assigned FA status). Just change those two to regular text (above the TOC) and combine the "This is an FA" and "This is still an FA) boxes, and all of a sudden you've got six boxes instead of nine (I also think the Zelda box shouldn't have a CVG To Do list, but that's just my personal opinion). EVula 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, combining the featured and FARpassed templates is something I've been thinking about suggesting. Pagrashtak 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If that ever comes to fruition, let me know; I'd be more than happy to voice my support (and provide feedback) when you need it . EVula 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Template stuff

Hi Pagrashtak, hope you are well. Could you take a look at my comment regarding indicating that articles have gone through GCOTW ([1])? I've always felt that this should somehow be indicated but never wanted to make a seperate template for it. If you're busy then I can try and muck around in your sandbox to make something work, let me know. Also, could you take a look at [2] & related discussion @ [3]? I think you might have some insight in to how best to resolve this issue. Cheers! (If there's ever something you need a hand with, please don't hesitate to ask either :) jaco♫plane 21:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, perhaps it's not entirely clear, my question was related to the usage of {{Musician}}. I added the rating functionality etc (well one of my socks, Ajaxfan, did).jaco♫plane 21:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought about adding an old GCOTW parameter; I'll look into that later tonight, as well as the Musician issue. Pagrashtak 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool thanks. There's no rush: if you would take a look when you're bored and have some free time that would be great! Cheers, jaco♫plane 21:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Writing Systems

Can you explain the change you made? -- Evertype·✆ 21:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This edit, right? No problem. Anything in the <noinclude> section appears on the template page but not any transcluded page. Categories such as Category:WikiProject banners apply to the template itself, but not to pages such as Talk: A that transclude the template, so those categories belong in the noinclude section. The previous version of the template put Talk: A and every other page that called the {{Wsproj}} template in Category:WikiProject banners as well as a couple of others. By the way, the <includeonly> section handles the converse case. Does that answer your question? Pagrashtak 23:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Userboxtop

Ay, I forgot to thank you for fixing the problem with the template, even though I'm not quite sure I get why it doesn't interpret six apostrophes as opening and closing of bold. Crazy wiki. Anyway, thank you again, not least because your fixing it was much much faster than my responding. o_o --Galaxiaad 02:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because you need an easy way to display a bold italicized apostrophe? ;) Pagrashtak 03:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Template help redux

This is a bit more complicated, and I was wondering if you could help. For {{Animorphs Books}}, I was wondering if this could be done - if the author field is not specified, the field automatically shows "K. A. Applegate". But if the author is defined, it shows whatever the user wrote in. The entire series was published under K.A.'s name, but nearly half of the books were ghostwritten by other authors, so when we get there (we're only up to #10, and it starts getting ghostwritten in #25) I would like to credit them as well. Hbdragon88 03:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, that's the easiest one yet. Pagrashtak 05:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Selected Articles

I noticed you're marking some articles as being selected, when they haven't appeared on the portal — some aren't even featured! May I ask why? Pagrashtak 21:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just marking all of the Featured , formarly featured, and GA articles as selected. It's because it appeared that all FA's and GA's that were old enough were marked, and I was just rolling them into the new templaty box. If there's some procedure to being "selected", please tell me- If it means being selected for the Portal, then that's the first I've heard of it, though it'd make more sense. --PresN 21:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"Selected" across WikiProjects generally means selected to appear on the portal, and that's how we use the term, at least the last time I checked. If we wanted every single FA and GA to be selected, we would just write it into the template code instead of having a selected parameter. I can see the confusion, though; our guidelines seem a lot more confused than they used to be. With our list of featured articles, there used to be a section called "Selected articles" that listed articles that had appeared on the portal; it was only about four or so, since the portal had long periods of not being updated. There's some talk about setting up a procedured for selected articles, so hopefully we'll be able to define this better soon. Pagrashtak 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I'll stop marking them. Whenever it's defined better, I'll go back and fix it. For the record, all of the articles that are FA, FAR, and GA up to Pokemon articles are marked. --PresN 21:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

image:Pilot2backgammon.jpg

Thank you for your offer of assistance with this image and for the courtesy of asking if it was Ok to post on my talk page - anyone is welcome! I think I understand the policy, I'm just not sure how to enforce it now that the uploader is reverting my edits removing the image from the article Thematic motifs of Lost and tagging it as orphaned. Is there a tag for no fair use rationale that I'm not aware of yet? I really hope that the uploader can write a fair use rationale but I think they might believe that it's only me who wants one rather than it being a policy issue.--Opark 77 07:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-CVG peer reviews

A number of articles (like Charizard and Link (The Legend of Zelda series) didn't have a CVG peer review; they had just a regular one. Is there a way to incoporate this into the cvgproj template, or is there a reason why they shouldn't be intergrated? Hbdragon88 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't integrate them in the template since they are not covered by WikiProject CVG. Everything I've added to the cvgproj template is operated by us. Pagrashtak 00:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I figured, but I just wanted confirmation, as I asked on the template talk page but hadn't gotten an answer yet. Hbdragon88 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer over there too, just for others. Pagrashtak 00:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

SKalia image

I noticed u assumed then liberty of removing images without finding it fit to dicuss. The image is freely available at http://www.geocities.com/siafdu/kalia.html and plenty of other sites.... please restrain urself till u have talked about the issues at the talk page. I am restoring the picture; and please consider it as first of 3RR warnings on the subject --Geek1975 06:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

After some investigation, I believe you're talking about the image Image:Skalia.jpg, which you uploaded on 12 September 2006. The upload page page clearly states, "Your file will be deleted unless you provide detailed information on ... The copyright holder and the license of the file, including: A copyright/license tag, either selected from the drop-down list below or included in the upload summary". You failed to note the copyright status on the image page, so OrphanBot marked the image as having no copyright tag that same day. I deleted the image on 26 September in accordance with speedy deletion criterion I4. I also removed the image from Saurabh Kalia prior to deletion so the article would not display a broken link. I'm confused as to why you mention 3RR — it is not applicable to speedy deletions and I have only made one edit in this matter.

On a separate matter, you say the image is "freely available", even though I see no indication of the copyright status of that image on the page you reference. Please refrain from uploading images unless the copyright status is clear. If you have further questions about Wikipedia's image policies, please feel free to ask. Pagrashtak 03:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Maintenance categories

Thanks for letting me know. I did not realize this. If I finish off one in the future, I will delete it. Sorry, about that -Nv8200p talk 19:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Deactivating categories

I've been messing around wiht {{StarWarsProject}}, adding in optionaal paramters similar to what you just implemented for {{cvgproj}}. One problem I've run into is deactivating certain categories. For instnace, the SW project has a "selected images" template. When transcluded onto Rwookrrorro.jpeg, however, it gets sorted into the "unassesed Star Wars articles" and "WikiProject Star Wars articles" categories as well. Is there a way to deactivate these categories? Hbdragon88 03:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You could do a namespace check, something like this:

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk|[[Category:Foo]]}}

This assigns the category Foo only if the template is transcluded in the article Talk space. Pagrashtak 03:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

STOP!

Hey, Looking at Special:Newimages, I see that you've uploaded a number of files lately (Image:CYXX.JPG, for example), which only have yellow "license revoked" placeholders on them. Is something wrong with the upload? Please check. Thanks, Mysekurity 03:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help you delete them, if it is in fact a mistake. -Mysekurity 03:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd delete them myself if that were the case. Clear your cache and check the file histories. Pagrashtak 03:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just checked the histories. What's the deal with the license revoked things? Why not just delete them? (I'm confused...) -Mysekurity 03:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Once an image is released under a Creative Commons license, it cannot be revoked, so rather than delete the images, I restored them. Pagrashtak 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_CVG

Why remove the flags? i thought they were very useful for showing which country and date the games are to be released for. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games/archive16#Flag icon for North America. Pagrashtak 21:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Physics

Hello. You recently edited Template:Physics to alter the layout. The old layout was actually intentional - we had a complaint about the amount of space the template took up on the talk pages of articles, so I condensed it (see the talk page of the article). I'm unsure about whether to revert your change or not: I do think it looks better as it is now, but the complaints about the size of the template may start up again. Are there any changes you could implement to reduce the template's size again? Thanks. Mike Peel 07:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange, this was actually my motivation for editing the template. On my display, it's smaller under the new revision. I can probably make it smaller - I'll look into it tonight. Pagrashtak 18:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss

Hello Pagrashtak. I've closed your nomination for the deletion of {{deprecated template}} as merged and redirected. Please discuss with the users involved next time; syntactic transition is much more complicated in a single template. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 18:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was attempting to discuss the matter — that's why I opened the TFD. I wasn't expecting you to close it less than four hours after it started. I don't mean this to sound like I'm pointing fingers, since you were only being WP:BOLD, but you created a fork of the template and began implementing it without discussion (as far as I am aware, my apologies if this is not the case), so I felt that TFD was an appropriate measure.

But to the heart of the matter — what was wrong with the old template? Why is it necessary to organize templates by month? I didn't see anything on the talk page explaining this. Pagrashtak 02:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the syntax unilaterally because there is rarely interest in streamlining obscure background processes, and such changes are very rarely challenged (or even much noticed). I apologize if my response was curt; nominating a template for deletion is a rather unfriendly way of opening a discussion. :)

The new template was temporary, and simplified transition to the new syntax. Categorisation by date makes it easy for users and bots to determine whether a deprecated template is still needed. The former categorisation made no difference between {{fn}} (transcluded on ≈1200 pages) and {{indefblocked-nonlatin}} (transcluded nowhere for ages), which made it extremely difficult to actually deprecate those templates that are still used. Further down the line in the deprecation process, dated categorisation simplifies judgements on whether a given template can be safely deleted; whereas {{fn}} should definitely not be deleted, {{indefblocked-nonlatin}} has long fallen out of use and is no longer needed.

The new syntax assigns a variable to the old template name, which makes it functional as a notice to users attempting to use a deprecated template. (Such a notice should only be visible once all transclusions have been updated, of course.) The former method, which derived the template name from the PAGENAME, would display "{{Fuuchild}} is deprecated" if the deprecated template was transcluded on User:Fuuchild. Often the only users aware of deprecation where those that tried to edit it, since no notice whatsoever was (or could be) displayed on use. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 17:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Get Back references

Gack. Sorry about that. Thanks for pointing it out. Raymond Arritt 12:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Low importance / no importance categories

Hi Pagrashtak, could you take a look at this thread? Do you think there is an easy way to convert the "no importance" to "low importance". Couldn't we just change the cvgproj template so that when an article is rated as "no importance" it gets placed in the "low importance" category? Thanks, jaco♫plane 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)