Jump to content

User talk:Remember the dot/Archive/2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


PNG vs JPEG

There has been quite a bit of discussion about converting JPEG's to the PNG format. You can find the bulk of it here. I was under the impression there was an advantage regarding licensing between PNG vs JPEG when I converted those images you mentioned. So now there are just two advantages to using the new PNG's instead of the original JPEGs...

  1. If someone makes an edit, such as a crop or brightness/contrast change, to one of the pictures and uploads the new version, there won't be a loss of quality from recompressing with JPEG.
  2. If someone finds an original image which came before the JPEGs, he/she can upload it w/o having to losslessly convert it to JPEG first.

Hope that helps. If you would like to continue discussing, please feel free to discuss on that template talk page (here). Thanks! --Anthony5429 06:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What GIF images?

See above-captioned question, re: my talk page —ExplorerCDT 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the subst: from sharedIP templates

Hi RtD, I see that you are replacing subst'ed versions of the {{sharedIP}} tag with an unsubst'ed version on many IP talk pages. Could I ask the basis for this. I don't know if it is correct or not, just in general we prefer to subst: templates as a rule. Could you point me to the policy or discussion behind this? Thanks, Gwernol 19:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two reasons. First, these templates are not listed as subst: under Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Page headers. Second, desubstituting the template allows changes to the template to appear immediately on the IP talk page. In particular, I replaced the GIF image used previously with a more efficient PNG version. If one day this PNG is replaced by an even more efficient SVG, it would be nice to have that change appear immediately as well. —Remember the dot (t) 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that the general rule is that messages left on talk pages should be substituted, but boilerplate notices should not. —Remember the dot (t) 20:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated, Gwernol 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. —Remember the dot (t) 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, WP:SUBST#List mentions that you shouldn't subst those particular ones.
BTW, Thanks for doing this. I never agreed with the original subst-bot for the various anonIP banners. Though I knew the bot was killed, until your recent desubst changes I wasn't even aware the policy had changed. -- KelleyCook 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for noticing my work :D. I didn't even know there was a bot or the page WP:SUBST#List, so thanks for the info too! By the way, I am only working through the list found at Image:School-ip.gif, because I view the desubstitions as part of my larger goal of using PNG images instead of GIF images whenver possible (I updated {{SharedIPEDU}} to use a PNG image which is how I got started on the desubstitutions). —Remember the dot (t) 21:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned images

Hi- I noticed that you changed criterion #I5 on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to refer not just to orphaned non-free images, but also free ones. Please note that it inappropriate to make major changes in policy without discussing them. In this particular case, we delete orphaned non-free images because we are legally obligated to - if we aren't using it anywhere under a claim of "fair use", we have no right to store it. On the other hand, orphaned free images, in an ideal world, would gradually be relocated to Commons or deleted if they are not useful, but there is no reason to speedy delete them. If you would like to propose a change in speedy deletion policy, please use the talk page. Thank you. --BigDT 22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I didn't view this as a major change. I thought this change was in accordance with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. There are a fair number of free images on Wikipedia that are not used anywhere on Wikipedia (articles, user pages, talk pages, etc.) and should be deleted if no one cares about them enough to move them to the commons. Image:Morganstiefel.jpg is one example. It seemed to me that this change of policy would eliminate that problem. Again, sorry. I will discuss the issue on the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion talk page. —Remember the dot (t) 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested to know that there is a tool that makes moving images to Commons EXTREMELY easy. See Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons#tools for Magnus Manske's CommonsHelper. (Please exercise extra caution when doing this - for example, if an image displays a corporate logo prominently, Commons may not want it because it would be a derivative work. We can't really have it as a free image, either, but depending on what it is, it could be fair use here. When I patroll Special:Unusedimages, I take a look at the image. If it is an image that is probably unusable (very bad quality, looks like it was uploaded for a deleted article, an obsolete map, etc), I nominate it for deletion at WP:IFD. The next concern is whether it is potenitally non-free. Most user-created images are going to be large (like something taken from a digital camera). If it's a web-resolution photo, I make a good google search to make sure that it isn't one that actually came from a website. Copyright law/policy is very hard to understand and a lot of people, who absolutely 100% mean well, just don't know what to do and so they pick "all rights released" under the assumption that if you put something on your website and don't say not to use it, you have released all rights to it. So while absolutely, 100% assuming good faith, I make a good faith effort to ensure that the image actually is free. Then, if I'm fairly certain that it's a free image and it's potentially useful, I move it to Commons using that tool and tag the Wikipedia image description page with {{subst:ncd}} so that an admin can move it. As JKelly pointed out on WT:CSD, there's no emergency need to delete a free image, so we can be methodical and make sure we don't loose good, free, content. I hope this helps a little ... --BigDT 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed explanation. I've seen the error of my ways. —Remember the dot (t) 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for the info about the tool for uploading images to the commons. —Remember the dot (t) 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

.gif and .png images

Thank you for your message. I will see if I can find a program that will convert the gif files to png. Best regards. Jogurney 02:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

voip

There is an alt tag on the image at the site saying that it is a public domain image. Poweroid 13:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll be sure to save images as PNGs or JPGs in the future. Ayavaron 01:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Venturing edit

Your recent edits to Venturing (Boy Scouts of America) seemed to be close to blanking the article. While I assume that this was not your intent, I wanted to bring this to your attention so that you can modify whatever it is that you are trying to do. --NThurston 22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this was definently not my intent. It looks like I was doing some quick edits and accidentally saved the contents of Template:BSAseries to Venturing (Boy Scouts of America) by mistake. Thanks for catching my error! —Remember the dot (t) 22:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good and thanks for helping with that article. --NThurston 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. —Remember the dot (t) 22:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Yeah, I know about that, and I usually do sign my posts! :) Sometimes it's frustrating and I don't bother with AIV, though. Thanks for the reminder anyway. Xiner (talk, email) 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"A violent purge"

That rarely works, especially when Primetime decides to perpetrate some malicious page moves. 68.39.174.238 14:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Front Page

Since it's served its use, I can probably delete it, right? — Deckiller 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to delete it quick, I suggest listing it at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. I would just leave it how it is and let it be deleted in a week through the orphaned fair use process. —Remember the dot (t) 03:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiWebsite image

I have found two great pages to put the image on. And one of those pages didn't have an image at all. Unisouth 09:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case, it can be deleted, or you could remove the browser bars and place them back on those pages. Unisouth 08:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggest a faster fix on this

re: this-- this was speedy deleteable. I'd suggest just editing it out of the CFD page and {{db-author}} it. Place an inline comment explaining why you're blanking the section, or annote that you've tagged it with the speedy tag. Best regards // FrankB 19:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for telling me about {{db-author}}. —Remember the dot (t) 22:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How'd you like to solve an issue?

Seeing as how your more up to date with wiki coding matters, how about bending your skills to a daunting change on commons:template talk:interwikitmp-grp and a trial run on Commons:template:X0

re: <b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font>, Here you go, something to do with all that evangelical ferver as well as something worthy of that impressive knowledge in a challenge. I can't get it so far, maybe you can! // FrankB 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I looked at it and if I understand you correctly, you want the template to only display links to the parameters that were passed. So if there's only an equivalent template on two sister sites, only two items will be displayed. I can do that for you. —Remember the dot (t) 01:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
xposts

(one exchange missing)

  • No question, LOL. The worst thing is the initial coding was done by an anom on the commons, so I know not who to thank!!!
         I suspected some link issues last night, but I was more concerned that it would link properly at all... and dragging from the all nighter, even then to 02:00 am. My wife was yelling something fierce too, as that's a few successive very late nights on the wiki's! Not to mention such is hard on an olde fellow likee me-ee! <G>
         In any event, this will morph to shrink and grow as needed, per the plan all along. Name collisions are a regretable likelihood for short template tool names--and everyone wants their tool names to be brief--sort of an collective human nature insanity indicating a fundamental laziness or somesuch.
         I'm sooo sure (Hah!) there exists at least one philosopher that probably made the topic his dissertation! <BSEG> (Now I have to add to my TO-DO-LIST to write an essay to go along with WP:Sure! <G> Seems to have some promise as a topic, at that!) Have a good day. // FrankB 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
New biz

Well, I'll let you figure it out. Drop me a note if you need any more help. And thanks for making the slight change to your signature! —Remember the dot (t) 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou again! They're/It's shaping up, have a look: template:Interwikitmp-grp. Actually, I just added the ALL perameter. Have you any idea of an easy way to define that for self-declaration? i.e. I can switch it on in the interwikitmp-grp## layers, but it should show ALL sister's in the master even if some are going to need political battles going forward. Don't want to be accused of not thinking of them.
  Also, there's still the commons Maps template NEED! ... if you're serious per David Kernow (today, mentioned below too I think) he's about ready to post the integrated scheme(s) on Commons:Category talk:Maps, which structure by the way will eventually filter into our pages here via {{Commonscat1Ra}} and it's breathern, and a big user friendly template is going to be much needed... including here. The goal of that is to make things both easy to find, and easy to file... the template being the KEY aid on the latter. A recipee for getting the categorization right in one or two edits. A good time-multiplier project. It's still in Commons:User:David Kernow/Sandbox, have a look. // FrankB 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Passing update: If you're interested in the above, the scheme proposal is no longer at Commons:User:David Kernow/Sandbox but now here. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

IsoBuster

Hello Remember the dot.

The reason I changed IsoBuster the way I have is that 1) it's a software, what's the point of references to simple facts about what it does? There's a link to the site there if anyone cares to check it. 2) The 3 references all point to the same site, even if not very same page. Migth just as well make it 15, to reference every sentence fragment... 3) The two external links have different domain names but lead to the same site.

To summarize, it's less clutter and less... well, sillyness.

Do what you will, I'm not into revert wars, but I think my changes improved it.

88.154.248.231 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I owe you a favor!

LOL -- You solved a problem for me with your XHTML signature rant! I've had to fiddle with it some on other sister projects, but I never did find a signature that worked on Wikiquote. Your recommended strict XHTML did the job! Everything else I did had a newline inbetween the halves... and suppressed the green! <BSEG> You can pick on me anytime! // FrankB

FrankB <----- THIS ONE WORKED... the /div /div /span was my feable attempt at a work around when I was last in that site last fall... gives me what the below does here... no color, one half above the other. So, Sure, I'm sure... which is why I commented on it failing here. (Has a lot in common with a CDROM that one computer can read, but not my son's, N'est pas? Makes not a whit of sense. // FrankB 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC) OK - give, why's the lower one failing on your page? Now that'z confuZing! // FrankB 09:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • <div> places a line break after </div>. <span> does not place a line break after </span>.
  • Ohh - I've made a mistake. <font> and <span> do not behave exactly the same. The problem is that there's a link within the span, so the browser applies link coloring rules instead of the span's coloring rules. This will work though:
// <b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b>[[User talk:Fabartus|<span style="color:green">nkB</span>]]

—Remember the dot (t) 18:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    1. The sig didn't give color there before, but does it does now! RU shure shure shure I should fix somethin that ain't broken? (OH! We had that onversation! <G>. Dang! Defly gettin ole)
    2. .... yet fails here too on color. (So now I's supposed to think you knew what you were about? Hah! ("I'll try it", he says meekly concluding)

So "// <b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b>[[User talk:Fabartus|<span style="color:green">nkB</span>]]" worked for you? —Remember the dot (t) 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

New Biz

RU familiar with the .CSS files and the Unicode template? Have a look at Commons:Template:Unicode/doc and see what that's all about. I'm seeing the ugly squares all over ported pages when indent or space use the &em sp; character. How does one inline comment to one's browser... or nowiki the stream to it! I think it particularly prevalent on the Wikisource and Wikibooks sites. The connections implied by that guideline leaves me missing a step somewhere. Take a look and see if you can improve it, and tell me where one finds the fonts all that is talking about. Thanks // FrankB 20:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The {{unicode}} template looks great. Many Unicode characters will display in the default font. For those that don't, the unicode template is used. This (in theory) tries a bunch of different fonts, and displays the Unicode characters in the first one that works. Does that answer your question?

And the line you're looking for in Common.css begins with ".Unicode" —Remember the dot (t) 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, you're saying I don't have to call that other template first?... That I should be able to swap things around in that Unicode template, and that should get IE6 to bye the &em_sp; characters instead of the square whatzzits? Thanks, I'll play some with that. If .uncode is what to see, we had the same problem back when on the commons... so swapping fonts around was a solution too. // FrankB 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 

For the record... I just copied this from My Wikiquote's preferences:
//  <b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b><span style="color:green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</span>

So now it's official... I can't be wrong on which one worked, as THAT'S IT! (I've been looking for 'IT' me whole borne daze!) // FrankB 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

'&emsp;' <---- YEP, THAT Character... didn't know how to do that, another thanks!

What are the &em_sp; characters?

If you are using IE6, please upgrade to IE7. IE7 is a free download and it fixes many problems. For example, IE6 does not correctly display transparent PNG images. Transparent PNGs are used all over Wikipedia. IE7 may also fix whatever font issue you're having.

  • A lot of people complain that the IE7 user interface looks bad. That's true, it does look bad. But I can tell you how to make it look almost identical to the IE6 user interface if you want.

—Remember the dot (t) 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I use IE-7 on my laptop, and until I'm sure it's set up so I don't loose edits, It'll stay there, and not contaminate this computer. I simply can't afford the risk... IE auto-update almost loaded it over IE6 on me a couple of weeks back and I immediately disabled that. Sorry time is too precious.

Speaking of which, how would you like to be a real big help? see this, need one to tag categories, preferably that expands r to l banner style, but an adaptation of this would be a good start. Add a peram ART for an article link (See logic in {{Commonscat1A}}
   Need Commonstmp, Metatmp, ..., Wikiversitytmp, copied and adapted into cat suffixed ones like commonscat1 And logic so 'UCase' 'A' defined will default to PAGENAME or to {{{2}}}. Interested -- should keep you off the streets for a while! I gotta go play taxi-dad and do dinner. I'll be back roughly 2 hrs. (P.S. See the Yellow!) // FrankB 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, excuse me? If you finish up what you're doing and then install IE7, you will not lose any edits.
I don't think I want to tackle that project right now, but I will take another look at it in a while (maybe tomorrow). —Remember the dot (t) 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
IE7 installation takes 15 minutes or so. I suggest getting it all started and then going and eating lunch or something. —Remember the dot (t)

If I could finish what I was doing, I wouldn't be running multiple copies of three browsers with tabs! IE6 is the only one I KNOW hangs onto pages long enough for me to backspace and finish a chain of edits over several days, if and when necessary in multiple pages. Some go like that for me--a lot actually, when I'm adding fixups to our content. There are a fair number of articles which contradict one another, to give one reason for such--integration. I do a lot of that in article space.
  Sometimes that can be a week or more before I get back there... usually a section edit. But if the articles were heavily edited, I wouldn't be finding things to expand or reconcile. Shrug. It's half of what I do in articles here, at least.
  IE7 wasn't even keeping edit adds in a preview screen when I linked forward to check a hyperlink... I can't loose ten minutes working on the right language in a paragraph, go off to check something and have it disappear! Happened too often... I don't like to preview either in a big edit more than I need to do so. Firefox has a similar problem... looses the edits if they're timed out, at least in one edit configuration. I may have finally beat that with a settings change, but don't know yet.

Just stopped by to tell you on the signature. Changed to <span color... ... /span version and the color didn't work here. Oh well! Back to exporting templates to the sister's! Cheers // FrankB 05:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • In IE7 and FireFox, the way to avoid losing edits is to middle-click links, or in other words, click with the scroll button. This opens the link in a new tab, so you can click over to it and check it out while leaving your edits intact. —Remember the dot (t) 00:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • // <b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b>[[User talk:Fabartus|<span style="color:green">nkB</span>]]
    produces // FrankB
  • &emsp; appears to work perfectly in IE7. I think it would be worth it for you to get the hang of IE7 or Firefox and stop using IE6.

—Remember the dot (t) 00:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Snoopy wwi ace lb.jpg

Hi. I've responded to your request for a PNG instead on the Image talk:Snoopy wwi ace lb.jpg. Short version - this is a heavily edited photo of part of a badly-damaged lunchbox. I doubt I could get a decent PNG without further hours of work and better software. Sorry! Karen | Talk | contribs 08:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:UWT

I reverted your addition of {{self-test}} as this i not a uw-template. →AzaToth 17:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The {{test-self}} template has been replaced by {{uw-test2}}. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out. —Remember the dot (t) 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Image:Footnote arrow screenshot.jpg

Regarding the note you left on my Talk page about the above image being deleted. Please go ahead and delete it. It was uploaded simply to illustrate a point being made in a discussion page many months ago. The point that was being discussed was resolved at that time, and I did not know how to get it deleted. You would be doing me a favor if you deleted it. - mbeychok 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:TheBroken.jpg

Hi. Thanks for uploading Image:TheBroken.jpg to the commons. Just a couple of things:

  1. Images that are tagged with {{subst:ncd}} (which changes to {{NowCommons}}) should not be tagged with {{orphan image}}.
  2. JPEG images should be left in JPEG unless someone has edited them. PNG images are lossless, but if an image is already in JPEG, the damage has been done and a conversion to PNG just increases the file size.

Thanks again for your contributions! —Remember the dot (t) 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the tag message. Oh actually the PNG image is higher quality. I was the one who took the image and it was originally in PNG format but I had converted it to JPEG and posted it because for a moment I had forgotten that PNG is higher quality. So I went back and posted the original PNG which is not a conversion of the JPEG but the first screenshot taken so I don't think it should be deleted. SirGrant 04:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry so just to clarify once again the PNG image is the original the .JPEG is the converted one. Sorry for the confusion SirGrant 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, thanks for telling me that. You can get rid of the JPEG copy by adding something like {{speedydelete|This image was uploaded in error and is not used. The correct, higher-quality copy is available at [[:Image:TheBroken.png]]}} to Commons:Image:TheBroken.jpg. —Remember the dot (t) 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Images

Thanks for the notification, I've deleted the images myself as they are no longer necessary or useful. (By the way, you said that the images were jpegs, but if you look at the extension, you'll see both of them were pngs ;) ) Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Remember the dot. I would like to thank you for what you did in the article about SpeedFan. I created the article and hoped for so long that anyone may expand it but no one did to the extent that I thought I should nominate the article for deletion because it lacks content but you expanded it and added an infobox and references. You saved my article. --Meno25 07:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :) —Remember the dot (t) 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thought this would raise your eye-brows

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
  Enjoy! // FrankB 06:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

re: Wikimarkup

"Some Wiki programs allow extensive optional use of HTML tags within wikitext, others a smaller subset, and still others no HTML at all. In some cases, restrictions on HTML may be determined by each site that uses the program. It is now actually considered poor etiquette on wiki websites to use HTML in place of wiki markup, despite the former option being available.
  MediaWiki, the software that runs Wikipedia, has a wiki markup language that allows many common HTML tags; it is intended to provide a simple, readable syntax to allow users to use it without knowing HTML." (emphasis added!)
  Jes wanted to make your day! // FrankB 06:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the smiley :D. And if HTML is poor etiquette, I should recommend: 

// '''[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]'''[[User talk:Fabartus|<span style="color:green">nkB</span>]]

Which produces // FrankB. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

Hmm, it looks like that smiley template isn't XHTML compliant...I'll have to go fix that. —Remember the dot (t) 21:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fix BJBot NOW

I am not aware of any current bugs with BJBot. they're some requests for improvement of the way it posts notices but that is all. BJTalk 22:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not checked my watchlist for the morning yet so I didn't see the posts to my bot's talk page. I had no idea marking edits minor didn't warn the user and last time I checked the talk page nobody had told me that marking them minor didn't warn the user. Thanks for the heads up and next time give me a tad longer before requesting it be blocked :) BJTalk 23:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

All right :-) —Remember the dot (t) 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the favicon licencing advice

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the advice you gave me about using the Template:Icon licence instead of Template:Logo. If this image is deleted, it may come in useful in the future. Thanks. --Jatkins 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

You're welcome. —Remember the dot (t) 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for the notes about discussing links before adding them. I think that the links I've added are good ones, but in the future I will discuss them using the talk page. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.78.4 (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Another bug

Fixed that, thanks! BJTalk 14:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi. I noticed that you made a small spelling mistake in the article HPV vaccine, typing "usefullness" instead of "usefulness". Another editor promptly noticed your mistake and corrected it. I'd like to humbly suggest that you consider using Firefox 2.0, which has built-in spell-checking for web forms. —Remember the dot (t) 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish I *was* using Firefox 2.0, since it also has searchable text areas. I'm running Fedora 6, and I did try a development RPM, but it was very crashy. So I am stuck with Firefox 1.5 until Fedora 7. -- Beland 16:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see. —Remember the dot (t) 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

re:images listed for deletion

You notified me that the following images are up for deletion:

As creator and uploader of the images, I say go ahead and delete them. Kevin Baastalk 19:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Mininfo-1.jpg

No trouble at all. I appreciate the work you're doing.

-Gsnixon 00:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

PNG crusade bot

Hello! I just encountered your bot for the first time. FYI, I processed Image:Make Way For Ducklings - route to the garden.png via PNGOUT (my favorite PNG compression program) without any special settings or commands, and it reduced the size by more than 10%. —David Levy 06:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you got a reduction of 10% with pngout, even after the PNG crusade bot sent it through optipng and advpng. I'll have to look into this stunning discovery - an additional reduction of 10% sounds really good. Thanks! —Remember the dot (t) 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome! I'm not sure that the difference would always be this significant, but it couldn't hurt to try. I recall testing some of the other PNG compression programs and getting the best results from PNGOUT. —David Levy 18:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Resizing requests

Please do not make statements that go against policies like Wikipedia:Fair use without consensus, as you did with this edit to Category:Fair use size reduction request. ShadowHalo 05:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FU is pretty clear in stating that fair use images should be of low resolution. If you think there should be an exception for all computer screenshots, you should bring it up at WT:FU or WP:VP rather than stating it as fact at Category:Fair use size reduction request‎. ShadowHalo 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Hello and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your signature uses the following HTML:

<b><font face="georgia">[[User:Kamope|<font color="ff4500">Kamope</font>]]·[[User_talk:Kamope|<font color="1e90ff">?</font>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kamope|<font color="6a5acd">!</font>]]</font></b> '''<font color="2f690d">[[User:Kamope/Signatures|Sign!]]</font>'''

You might want to change it to use XHTML strict, which is considered a better practice on the web. Your signature this way would use:

'''<span style="font-family:georgia">[[User:Kamope|<span style="color:#ff4500">Kamope</span>]]·[[User_talk:Kamope|<span style="color:#1e90ff">?</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kamope|<span style="color:#6a5acd">!</span>]]</span> [[User:Kamope/Signatures|<span style="color:#2f690d">Sign!</span>]]'''

Both versions produce identical results. It's your choice whether you want to use the XHTML strict form or not, but I would recommend it. —Remember the dot (t) 05:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Done! Kamope·?·! Sign! 11:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, thanks! —Remember the dot (t) 16:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Lines

Bro, the lines are hardly Copyright protected, for all purposes, i could have done them. Lets not take it to far, its hardly propable that somebody is going to sue wikipedia for that, considering that it is imposible to prove copyright for the lines. Peace. --Striver - talk 13:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Insignia...

...is now template:logo. Good catch. --Iamunknown 10:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GKsu screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading Image:GKsu screenshot.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. AlistairMcMillan 04:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the Linux screenshot template is the same as the Mac OS X screenshot template, they both have "please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use" at the end of the template. AlistairMcMillan 15:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you point to somewhere that says that the frn template is inappropriate? The talk page for that template says simply "This template is to tag fair use images which lack fair use rationales." You do see that a fair use rationale is required, right? AlistairMcMillan 19:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay I see what you are meaning now. You are misunderstanding the template. It means any template claiming "fair use", not just those specific two examples. AlistairMcMillan 20:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, "generic" in that case means when you use a template to say the thing is fair use, instead of actually writing out "fair use" yourself. If you don't believe me then please ask someone else. The "no rationale" template is for using on any article that doesn't have a fair use rationale, not just certain kinds of articles without fair use rationales. AlistairMcMillan 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Amor De Cosmos

I dont know what the status of this image would be in the United States - all I know is that it is reproduceable as an image of the National Archives of Canada and that both subject and photographer have been dead for over 100 years. Can you suggest an appropriate tag? Fishhead64 06:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why WP has the "public domain in Canada" licensing tag if it is functionally useless on WP. But, nonetheless, according to this chart, it would appear to be covered. I don't believe that the name of the photographer is known, at least I can't find it on the BC Archives or National Archives websites. Fishhead64 19:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added the relevant details: Date approx 1865 (according to BC Archives), author unknown, and a link to the website. Fishhead64 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd made some comments on Fishhead64's page but I see he's already answered them; but do pls see my comments re the extension/extraterritoriality of US laws outside the US as implied by the alleged Wiki policies at question; and I do agree, why have a Canada-PD template if it's meaningless? Don't our own laws apply anymore, or has even "information sovereignty" been sacrificed to the digital "level playing field"?Skookum1 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Wing Commander Jayashankar hanging on inverted biplane.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wing Commander Jayashankar hanging on inverted biplane.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 14:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

icon editor merge

why have you merged the articles to Icon_editor? There are a lots of icon editor and the page will be more of a product listing than an encyclopedia explaining what icon editor is. I think it should be reverted back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.71.219.121 (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not feel that the icon editors were notable enough to deserve their own articles. I think that it's more useful to have a single article comparing the various icon editors than it is to have a short article about each individual icon editor. —Remember the dot (t) 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User Account Control

Please stop adding what amounts a statement of than your personal opinion into this article. You know full well that such material is not welcome on Wikipedia, and I really shouldn't have to take the time to provide you with a link to Wikipedia:Attribution to make this clear. Continued efforts along this line will continue to be reverted, which wastes my time and yours. Provide reliable sources, or stop. Thanks. -/- Warren 05:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not my personal opinion that Ubuntu and Mac OS X offer a similar feature. What part of this do you want a reference for? —Remember the dot (t) 17:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to hold your hand through Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but the short of it is this: Any statements which express a view or opinion must be attributable to a reliable source. It says this right in our content policies -- it's not up for discussion. -/- Warren 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the policies. I'm asking what part of my contributions you are challenging. Are you challenging that Ubuntu and Mac OS X offer features similar to UAC? Are you challenging that the features are indeed similar to UAC? Are you challenging that sudo was around before UAC? —Remember the dot (t) 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Qxz-ad5.gif

Hi. I noticed you tagged this as "should be PNG", and indeed someone's gone and made a PNG of it. There is in fact a reason why I've uploaded it as a GIF – as you can probably guess from the name, it's part of a series (6 in total), some of which are animated and some of which aren't. I've designed a template to display one of them at random on my talk page – and writing such a template is a lot easier if the images are all identically named except for the number. So since some of them had to be GIFs, I used GIF for all of them. If you would prefer that I used PNG for all non-animated images, I can rewrite the template, though file size and image quality don't seem to be a concern. Thanks – Qxz 14:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would much prefer that you set a good example by using the PNG and SVG formats instead of the GIF format. But seeing as it's for your personal talk page, it's not something I'm going to get too upset about. —Remember the dot (t) 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Apprentice UK

Hello, Remember the dot/Archive/2 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:MultiTorg Opera.png

Thanks for uploading Image:MultiTorg Opera.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. KonstableSock 11:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sig

I replied on my talk page. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"XML"

Hi,

I notice on your user page you write:

  • Use valid XHTML - "<br>" should be "<br />"

You are mistaken; this is irrelevant. We are not editing HTML or XHTML here, we are editing wiki mark-up. In wiki mark-up, "<br>" is just as valid, if not even more valid (because wiki mark-up is supposed to be short and simple), and the parser turns it into perfectly well-formed XHTML when outputting the rendered page. — Timwi 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the MediaWiki software transforms it into valid XHTML on the way out, but there are advantages to using valid XHTML in the source of pages as well. You see, because valid XHTML is very consistent, it is less confusing and easier to learn than HTML. Just as wiki markup is simpler than XHTML, XHTML is simpler than HTML. Thus, in order to help new users quickly get the hang of editing pages, it's generally best to use wiki markup when possible, and fall back on XHTML when use of wiki markup is not possible. That way, new users would not see inconsistent, confusing HTML and be discouraged from editing Wikipedia, thinking that learning such an inconsistent and confusing syntax is just too hard. —Remember the dot (t) 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken again. <br> is much easier and simpler than <br/> for everyone but computer geeks (and computer science students perhaps). Furthermore, a cryptic code like <br> is already confusing and discouraging to everyone but computer geeks. Your compaign is kind of pointless :-) — Timwi 09:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference between <br> and <br/> is one character. To a nontechnical person, they're both equally difficult. The advantage to <br/> is that it represents a consistent syntax, which is overall easier to learn. Those that learn a little XHTML by example at Wikipedia can take that knowledge and use it to help them learn XHTML or XML. So, using valid XHTML teaches aspiring web designers good skills by example. And again, because it is more consistent, it can help newbies understand the usage of and differences between the various tags more quickly and easily. —Remember the dot (t) 07:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously not going to change your opinion, so I'll stop discussing this with you. But I am disappointed to see that this attitude that Wikipedia editors should be "aspiring web designers" or anything of the sort is still around. :( — Timwi 09:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that Wikipedia editors should be web designers. I'm saying that those interested in understanding the small amount of (X)HTML we use inside pages will have an easier time of it if we use valid XHTML. —Remember the dot (t) 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea

And I think you might like this one... we could collaborate on making an article that compares and contrasts the privilege escalation mechanisms in Windows and Unix. There are some really interesting things that can be said in this context, like calling out the difference between su, sudo, runas, and UAC, and there's a lot of good, detailed documentation we can draw on. Readers could draw their own conclusions about what approach is "better", and then the articles on UAC, sudo, etc. can all link to that. If we stick with the factual details, we can avoid the issue of trying to answer questions like "who came first?" or "who's better?".... What do you think? -/- Warren 19:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine. How about if we call it Comparison of privilege escalation features? That's a mouthful, but I can't think of anything shorter. Also, though it is a good idea to create this article and link to it on User Account Control, sudo and su (Unix), sudo still deserves a brief mention in User Account Control. In the sufficiently brief "Similarity to other operating systems" section, the first line could be "Main article: Comparison of privilege escalation features". Similar sections could be added to sudo and su (Unix) if you'd like. —Remember the dot (t) 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I've been thinking about names... I was looking at privilege escalation and doing some looking in to how the term is used. It's definitely a lot more common in the "security exploit" field than it is in the "legitimite" sense, which is making me second-guess the use of that specific term. Microsoft uses the word "elevation", and I'm seeing the word "elevated" being used in conjunction with setuid. But "Privilege elevation" sounds pretty rough, too, doesn't it?
Hmmm.... What if we went with something more basic like Elevation (computer security)? It'd fit nicely into Category:Operating system security since we don't appear to have a decent article which discusses the concept. -/- Warren 05:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Elevation (computer security) still sounds kind of ambiguous to me. Also, since there doesn't seem to be a universal term to group UAC, sudo, and the like, we should probably stick with a title that starts with "Comparison of". That would make it clear that it is a comparison of the various programs, and not just a discussion of the general concept. In short, since the concept doesn't really have a name as of yet, we should say "Comparison of..." to avoid making the article title imply that the concept has a name.

So, how about Comparison of action authorization features? It has a nice ring to it :D —Remember the dot (t) 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A good point indeed. Who'd have thought that such a ubiquitous concept wouldn't have an agreed-upon term? Oh well. Authorization is a good word, though... what if we combined it with privilege, e.g. Comparison of privilege authorization features? -/- Warren 06:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I like the word "action" rather than "privilege". To me, sudo and UAC let the user authorize actions. The actions could be modifying privileges, modifying the contents of protected system folders, etc. "privilege" implies giving or removing permissions, whereas the UAC/sudo/su/runas concept applies to authorizing a wide variety of possible administrator actions. I suppose what's going on under the hood is that the user gives programs privileges to do certain things, but the average user probably just thinks of it as confirming or denying an action. —Remember the dot (t) 06:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, I think "action authorization" gets the idea across clearly and concisely, and "privilege authorization" is a more technical way of looking at it. I'd like people to be able to see the title and instantly remember what concept it refers to, no matter what their level of technical experience is. —Remember the dot (t) 07:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've thought about it some more and concluded that it can be looked at both ways. For example "privilege authorization" more accurately describes the "Run as administrator" command than "action authorization" does. So Comparison of privilege authorization features would be fine. —Remember the dot (t) 07:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As a newcomer, I would like to suggest Single-process privilege elevation. In all cases, whether it's an "action" or a "privilege", the granting of such privileges is done to a process. The term "process" has a consistent meaning throughout both Windows and Unix and in the computing concept of multitasking in general. Even if you're authorizing a single "action", in all cases you are granting privileges to a process (that may discard those privileges or terminate itself after the "action" is completed). Such a term is also consistent with su, sudo, runas, and other manifestations of the same thing. I strongly prefer "elevation" over "escalation", as "escalation" has a connotation of being forced, that isn't applicable to su or runas. Reswobslc 00:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten the Comparison of privilege authorization features article started. I welcome your input on how to improve it. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Afghanistan.jpg

You inappropriately tagged and removed this emblem from its proper article. Please don't make judgements on Scouting articles. It's not in a template, it violates no use rules, and it follows the Scouting WikiProject MoS. Chris 01:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise, thank you for your hard work in PNG conversion! :) Chris 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How this image is currently used on Afghan Scout Association fails fair use criteria number 8: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." If you want to include this image in the article, display it as a thumbnail and write an appropriate caption for it. Displaying a tiny 20px wide copy of it next to the text is not a good idea. —Remember the dot (t) 06:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Image on WP:PUI

Hi, an image you uploaded, Image:Canadian Number 7 cigarette package scan.png is on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, already for a while. I don't think anyone informed you about that. Garion96 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Need sources for the following:

[1] - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cow tipping

Thanks so much for your comment! My understanding of the guideline was that the reason for caution in changing ones comments is that "Other users may already have quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise reacted to your statement." Was there another user who did this in Talk:Cow tipping? Thanks so much, --Shirahadasha 22:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(replying to your message on my talk page) Perhaps you might want to propose editing the guideline to reflect these additional considerations. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI the Wikipedia:Talk Page guideline was recently changed to relax a prior prohibition on editing talk and permit changes in certain circumstances. See the discussion about this change in the guideline in Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Removing or changing one's own comments. I agree with this relaxation and believe my edit was consistent with it. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to register your view and discuss reverting the guideline back to its previous stance, which had been complete prohibition. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses

Thanks for the tips! I look forward to testing my new knowledge!--Vbd (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your request for a third opinion

Hi! I try to help out with 3O and saw your request on the page:
Image:Samus's cameo in Galactic Pinball screenshot.png: Disagreement over whether stating what video game this is from is adequate source information, or whether the person that took the screenshot is also needed. 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed it because I can't see who the dispute is between. Perhaps you should try listing this request at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions or place a link to the place where the discussion is going on. Thanks.
Seraphim Whipp 13:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9

User:Lucky 6.9 is, or was, an administrator who resigned. There isn't much use in warning him. If he's on Wikipedia, he's on under a different name not known to the public, and likely not as an administrator. Reswobslc 01:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, warnings for something done two months ago are not really useful, especially since they have not edited since then. Warnings should be more for current things rather than for past happenings CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the info. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Towel day05 oren.jpg

File:Towel day05 oren.jpg

hi, i uploaded this image from hebrew wikipedia. it is GFDL there, can u remove the tag? GOER 15:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Having read the guidelines, I disagree and think you are being overzealous in this case. Chris 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

ShouldBePNG vs. BadJPEG

Hello, Remember the dot. I've noticed that on some of the images I'm watching you've changed a {{ShouldBePNG}} tag to a {{badJPEG}} tag; for example, Image:Citadel Calendar view showing menu view en.jpg. I am curious about your reasons for doing so. I tagged that particular image with {{ShouldBePNG}} because the ideal file format for that image is PNG; it doesn't make sense for a screenshot to be an SVG. So I used {{ShouldBePNG}} because it seems to provide a clearer, more specific suggestion than {{badJPEG}}. I have also recently begun using {{ShouldBePNG}} on fair-use images instead of {{badJPEG}} (for example, Image:CXXVI.jpg), because it appears that the general consensus is that fair-use images should not be SVGs.

You appear to have a different interpretation of what these tags mean and how they should be used. Perhaps the wording of the tags needs some improvement to make their purposes clearer. Maybe we should have a specific {{JPEGShouldBePNG}} tag that indicates that a JPEG image should ideally be a PNG (not an SVG), and that emphasizes the "derived from a non-JPEG source" part of the message of the {{badJPEG}} tag to avoid JPEG artifacts. What do you think? —Bkell (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I interpret {{ShouldBePNG}} to mean "mindlessly convert to PNG" and {{BadJPEG}} to mean "has too many JPEG artifacts to mindlessly convert". How about if we use ShouldBeSVG for "re-create as SVG" and use BadJPEG exclusively for "re-create as PNG"? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. BadJPEG can be used in situtions where having either a PNG or SVG would improve the situation. ShouldBePNG is still valid in the places like the screenshot that is JPEG. Yes, your bot will not be able to help that image, but we knew that there were plenty of images like that already. If you want only mindless conversion, I'd suggest that the bot be run only on GIF images. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This conversation seems to have diverged onto two different talk pages; see also User talk:Bkell#ShouldBePNG vs. BadJPEG. —Bkell (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this conversation has forked, let's continue it at Template talk:ShouldBePNG. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

MEXICO BORDER IMAGE

I DIDN't TAKE THE PICTURE...
I FOUND IT ON THE INTERNET

THEN I USED PHOTO SHOP AND
ADDED THE LINES AND THE LETTERING
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for fixing my images

Hey, thanks for converting those images I uploaded into .PNG format. 'tis much appreciated! -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's nice to know my work is appreciated. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

PSTN.gif image

If the GFDL and CC license are mutually exclusive then under the GFDL. Else both. Luis F. Gonzalez 14:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Towel day05 oren.jpg

Well, it was pretty straightforward, but I did it... --Sagie 17:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Appo2 pic

I looked up the translation in spanish, and it means "seems to me completely unjust to have what one deserves". just wanted to tell you. Oh, and there are other really cool pictures on Crepuscular rays that you should see. Mathwhiz 29 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the tip. I thought the cartoon said something like that. And the crepuscular rays pictures do look really cool. I've stuck the one I like the most my user page. Thanks again! —Remember the dot (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi! I think the first version of Image:User_Account_Control_administrator_dialog.png looked nicer. The one with the aero effects.. What made you change it..? --Rebroad 15:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Remember_the_dot/Archive/2&oldid=1080771584"