Jump to content

User talk:Remember the dot/Archive/4

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


Non breaking Space

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 80 miles, use 80 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 80 miles. With regards to this guideline could ypu please stop removing the correct formatting to ship articles such as your edits on [Trenchant]. Unless there is a new rule that has been implemented usurping this one can you stop? thanks Woodym555 18:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. After I saw your comment, I stopped doing this, but I don't think it's a big deal either way. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, not a big deal, just that it is the minor sort of thing that FA/Ga candidates are sometimes failed on. It is also annoying having to go through articles adding them in, that's all, no biggy, just thought you ought to know that it was breaking the guidelines. Woodym555 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, great. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No rationale

Please accept my apology, seems I got a little trriger happy on the one you encountered. Agreed it does have a rationale. ShakespeareFan00 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

I'm troubled by your comment at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Rationale:


This would be a great abuse of Template:dfu or the WP:IFD process. If the image's rationale is unsound, but the image does qualify as fair use, please improve the rationale, don't delete the image. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. That's what I did with Image:Life9enero.jpg, for instance. What I intended (and apparently failed) to state with this statement was that, from the bulk of unfree images that shouldn't be being used on Wikipedia, most of the current efforts are on those which have no rationale at all. And this effort concentration allows the proliferation of unsound rationales.
In a optimistic scenario, the unusable unfree images without a rationale will be wiped out, and the next step will be to address the images with unsound rationales. But you're right that "delete" is not the only possible solution for an image with a bad rationale. Fixing the rationale is always the first choice.
But just as there isn't a "correct tag" for every image found on the Internet (as some newcomers tend to believe), there isn't a "good rationale" for every non-free image uploaded to Wikimedia servers. Some of the simply can't be used, no mater what one writes as the rationale.
I hope this clarifies my position, and I hope this makes you fell less troubled. And thanks for contacting me for expressing your concerns related to something I did/said. This is such a correct (and simple!) act, but many fail to follow this path.
Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm glad you clarified that. I hope that you are not taking the Betacommand route and demanding that other editors write the fair use rationales, thus causing many valid fair use images to be deleted unnecessarily. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Aintitcool.com screenshot.png

Sorry about that. I deleted so many images today that I knew I had to have messed up at least once. Thanks for catching it for me. All the best, ^demon[omg plz] 01:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PNG bot

I love your bot! I'd like to auto-upload some things via a bot, and I use perl. In your Request for Bot Authorization, you mentioned perl code for this. Where can I find it? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The PNG crusade bot is actually written in VB .NET. For a perl upload script, Mets501 recommended taking a look at Commons:File upload service/Script or contacting Tsca. If there's anything else I can do for you, please let me know. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content

I'm curious what you think of the rant on my user page. I'm trying to figure out who I want to vote for. — Omegatron 05:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I read your user page with interest. I have thought for some time that it was entirely inappropriate for the Foundation to make a POV document (hosted on an external server, no less) Foundation-level policy, and to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack the right of copyright. And you're right that the Foundation should not get too involved in policy-making because it circumvents the discussion process.
At the same time, I am willing to compromise. While we are fighting tooth and nail to keep acceptable non-free images in the main namespace, I am willing to sacrifice non-free images outside of the main namespace. Removing non-free images outside the main namespace does not directly harm the project, and in the case of fair use images it helps us stay on safe legal ground.
The main point I see where I diverge from your views is in the case of replaceable fair use images. It's possible to go out and snap a photo of someone or something. It may be hard, but it would be worth it, to both keep us on safe legal ground and to keep the encyclopedia as free as reasonably possible.
So, there you have my views about your user page. As far as who to vote for, I'm not sure myself, but I don't think I'm going to vote for Mindspillage because she has not been very helpful in clarifying Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and has not been willing to discuss the issue of the International Symbol of Access. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


it was entirely inappropriate for the Foundation to make a POV document (hosted on an external server, no less) Foundation-level policy, and to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack the right of copyright.

Absolutely. I am certain that this Benjamin Tucker-esque anti-copyright POV is shared only by a handful of editors, legitimate or not. It is not the view of the community as a whole, and doesn't belong in official Foundation policy.

I am willing to sacrifice non-free images outside of the main namespace

First off, everyone's operating within the "fair use" paradigm, but this is an arbitrary limitation that wasn't part of the original rules. There's no reason why we couldn't get a photographer's permission to use an image in the Wikipedia namespace, for instance, and the arguments about whether it constitutes fair use or not would be completely irrelevant.
I'm absolutely fine with keeping non-free content out of the Wikipedia: and User: spaces, for instance, though I don't think blanket rules are usually a good thing. There are probably a few legitimate reasons for their use, and this decision should be made using common sense, not arbitrary one-size-fits-all rules.
Using images in discussion about the images themselves, on the other hand, is even more obviously fair use than using them in articles. I think it's quite silly that, for instance, including an image on a talk page while talking about the image itself is prohibited.

The main point I see where I diverge from your views is in the case of replaceable fair use images. It's possible to go out and snap a photo of someone or something.

Certainly. And this should be done and encouraged whenever possible. But that doesn't mean all images should be removed from articles during the time it takes to snap the photo. What's wrong with removing the image after a replacement has been uploaded to the servers? The only legitimate rationale I've ever seen for leaving gaping holes in our articles is that it encourages the creation of free replacements. But that's quite a poor excuse for actions which bite newcomers, piss off regular editors, and prevent us from including encyclopedic information. There are many other ways to encourage free replacement. Doing this when the image could theoretically be created (but hasn't yet) is just stupid. Our first priority is to serve the reader. If there are no free images available, someone should create one. In the meantime, we should use a (legal) non-free one.

It may be hard, but it would be worth it, to both keep us on safe legal ground and to keep the encyclopedia as free as reasonably possible.

Again, "safe legal ground" would be irrelevant if we allowed images with permission, like we used to.

I don't think I'm going to vote for Mindspillage because she has not been very helpful in clarifying Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and has not been willing to discuss the issue of the International Symbol of Access.

She seems to be a good person and a good editor/role model, and I'll support her in any other situation, but because of her connections to this policy, I'm not recommending that anyone vote for her, either.  :-/ The other two incumbents, likewise.
I think I'm going to make a list of the candidates and their positions. Most editors are apathetic, and I'm not very optimistic about any of this, but we'll see what happens... — Omegatron 23:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I really like Michael Snow's statement. Kingboyk's statement isn't bad either, and DragonFire1024's is better than nothing. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I made a list, if you didn't notice. — Omegatron 02:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Making an exception for one specific symbol is not the way to go about it, anyway. The ISA and all similar situations should be allowed. — Omegatron 02:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice your list before, so thanks for pointing it out. I agree that there should be a general exception for non-free international symbols. I thought before, wrongly, that carving out a single exception for the ISA would be less controversial. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
"Non-free international symbols" is even a little too strict. You also thought wrongly that the WMF's licensing policy forbids it.  :-) We can decide to accept things like this in our own EDP. That some people choose not to acknowledge this is quite predictable... — Omegatron 02:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

More discussion at User talk:Omegatron#Non-free content

Crowning moments

Greetings. I'm contacting you because you have experience in dealing with our non-free content policy as it pertains to images. A so-far unresolved issue deals with "crowning moments" for beauty pageant contestants. This specific issue is heated because of previous disputes between the aptly named User:PageantUpdater and the obscurely named User:Abu badali, but the same issue could apply to many other classes of images as well. All parties have made their cases adequately, but consensus is still elusive, so the issue remains open long after other problems have been resolved. Could you go to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_18#Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg and give your opinion? It would really help us to finish this issue and move on. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
(This message was copied to several other image-wonks at the same time.)

admin

Hey. As you are aware, Wikipedia is someone short on image patrollers, especially when it comes to image admins. Seeing your edits, I think you were be a great candidate for adminship over at WP:RFA. I'd gladly nom you if you wanted to take the plunge, let me know of your decision. Wizardman 16:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I would love to be an admin, but considering my views on non-free content, I'm not sure I would gain enough votes. Specifically, I've been trying for months to relax the ban on our use of the International Symbol of Access outside the confines of fair use, and upset some of editors in the process. A few editors screamed that this was in violation of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, even though that document isn't very clear on the issue. So, I'd probably rather wait until the Wikimedia Board elections are over. With luck, a favorable candidate (Michael Snow, DragonFire1024, Kingboyk) will be elected who will clarify for us that the decision is up to us, rather than another candidate who endorses the Wikimedia Foundation's current position that copyright is a form of government suppression. So, a favorable clarification would help make my adminship more likely.
So, to summarize all that: I'd rather wait and see if the Board elections help prevent people from voting against me, saying that I'm against the Foundation. I really do appreciate the offer, and hope that you will keep it open to me. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Very well then. I got another nom I'm putting up today or tomorrow, so I'll wait until after the elections pass. Just let me know when/if you're ready. Wizardman 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, I wouldn't oppose on a basis like that. There are extremely wikipolitical types lurking the woodpile, but I think most WPians are more concerned about admin skills and judgements than they are about the details of the what-the-future-might-hold views of potential admins. If it comes up, you'd probably be in a good position to say that you think that current fair use policy is overly strict in a few very narrow ways, but that this will not in any way color your enforcement of WP:COPY or other policies as they stand. I think one would have to be nutter to still fault you for <gasp> having ideas.  ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
All right. Thanks for the input. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your message...

The perils of using semi-automatic tools, Sorry. Correctly tagged now? ShakespeareFan00 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly by-permission only images at WP:PUI

Hey Remember the dot, I've noticed lately that you've been listing images tagged with Template:Copyrighted at WP:PUI. PUI is for possibly unfree images; if an image is definitely unfree, it should be listed at WP:IFD, where it will be discussed if the image meets the non-free content criteria. Cheers, Iamunknown 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Until recently, we were allowed to use {{PUInonfree}} to allow more than 5 days to investigate whether or not the copyright holder was willing to relicense. Still, I'll keep your comments in mind in the future. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I was unaware of that. You may interested in the deletion discussion for the template. --Iamunknown 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Help:Displaying the international wheelchair symbol

I have nominated this page for deletion, as I believe it is no longer necessary. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Imaginary Barnstar!

Thanks for correcting Image:DDwrt.v23.sp2.png I was lazy and just shoved the closest license I could think of on it. So now, lazy again, I award you the imaginary barn star for doing what I did not feel like doing. The imaginary barn star is the filled with ideas not finished, and requires you to put mental effort into seeing it, I hope you see it clearly. Once again, Thank You!--63.88.124.135 02:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :D (and the imaginary barnstar looks fabulous in my mind) —Remember the dot (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the reminderrr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicki Bookie (talk • contribs) 03:37, 7 July 2007.

old picture

that image is wayyy old. i`ll delete it, i don`t even want it. hey hey hey. 03:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats =]

The Thank You Barnstar
thanks for helping me out! hey hey hey. 05:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, overlooked that. It's now been fixed.

BrownsFanForLife 23:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, would you care to tell me what to do? I've never met the author of this picture, we just talk online. We met on the Myachi forum. I asked if he had a picture of Finger Chux, that I could put on the Myachi website. He said yeah, and sent it to me. He said I could use that image on the article. How am I supposed to quote an AIM conversation? There's no way to source that, you just have to take me word for it. That's the problem with this damn site, no one trusts anyone. He told me I could use it, he sent it to me. But no one gives two shits unless I have solid proof, which I most certainly do not.

There's no copyright. I had to BS that. He took a picture, saved it to his computer, and later sent it to me. There's no tag for that now, is there? -- BrownsFanForLife 23:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Okay, thank you.

FINALLY, someone tells me what to write, where to write it... I'm tired of having to read articles that don't even address my problem. -- BrownsFanForLife 23:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well... The Myachi article that's been debated oh-so-much contains pretty much un-source-able info... I don't know if I've spoken to you about it, because I've had to talk to like a million people... But anyway, most of the info is spread by word-of-mouth, and the few sources I would be able to find are mostly online stores. I just need to know what I can do to satisfy everyone's wants in regards to sourcing the info, while preventing the deletion of the article -- BrownsFanForLife 23:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I have sources, but someone said they're unreliable because it's the website of the product itself. The only other sources are online stores that describe the product being sold (in this case, Myachi). I guess there's just some problem with those sites, and no one sees them as reliable -- BrownsFanForLife 23:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it meant to be like that?

Is the page Template X1 supposed to be replaced with that stuff? Are you just experimenting? If so, then I sincerely apologize, and I'll leave it alone. Savie Kumara 19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just experimenting, don't worry about it. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image formatting

Hi, Remember the dot. I re-reverted Br'er Fox image formatting changes because they are in keeping with the Manual of Style. The MoS reads:

The current image mark up is, for landscape-format and square images:
[[Image:picture.jpg|thumb|right|Insert caption here]]
and for portrait-format images:
[[Image:picture.jpg|thumb|upright|right|Insert caption here]]

I can't find any good explanation for what the "upright" marker does, but it seems to adjust the size of the image so that it takes up roughly the same area as a horizontally-aligned image. — Brian (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Even so, I would prefer removing the "upright" keyword to allow for a better side-by-side comparison. If the 1881 image is too small, it's hard to compare it to the Disney one. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, they seem to have the same visual weight when the "upright" marker is used, so I think it should be OK. If we remove the "upright" tag, it seems to make the 1800s image overwhelm the Disney one. (That said, visual aesthetics are hardly set in stone or something that can be done with computer code, so let me know if you disagree!) — Brian (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Chrissy Conway

I completely agree with your assertion that the article is copied. Previous to my former edit, it was in first person. Although she is notable under Wikipedia's guidelines, there are not many external sources detailing her life beyond the biography given on the ZoeGirl website. If you find anything, I'd be happy to work it into the article. Thanks, lovelaughterlife♥talk? 18:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All right. Just so you know, the picture you added is not acceptable for that article because it's possible to go out and take a picture of Chrissy Conway, so we shouldn't be using a fair use one. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Giorgio de Chirico images are not public domain

Thanks for showing an interest in the Giorgio de Chirico category!

The 1923 US public domain date only applies to published works. Being unique and one of a kind objects, paintings are not considered "published works". Limited edition prints like the woodcuts produced by M. C. Escher before 1923 are published and therefore would belong in the public domain in the United States and other countries where the 1923 date applies. Paintings created by an artist who died 70 to 100 years ago (depending on the regional law) are also in the public domain.

This issue used to confuse me a great deal. I originally uploaded almost all of these images with a pd tag. Justin Foote 00:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out to me. After reading Wikipedia:Public domain#Artworks, I see that you are right. Thanks again! —Remember the dot (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Images for various drugs

Hi, I've noticed that you're removed images for such articles as diazepam, fluphenazine, and trifluoperazine and subsequently flagged them for deletion. I've restored these images to the articles, since they provide some historical context. These drugs were more widely used in the 80s (though diazepam continues to be used widely today), and the images give a flavor for the time period that they were widely used. Andrew73 03:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. It's questionable whether or not these images meet the non-free content criteria, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Advertisements. They would seem to fail 3a, minimal use, 3b, low resolution, 8, significance, and 10, use rationale. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive use of prod

Please refrain from prod'ing articles simply because they are of a particular format. This is blatantly disruptive editing. See WP:POINT for further guidance, and please note that it provides several examples of robotically destructive behavior, closely akin to your beginning at the top of the alphabet and working your way down, prod'ing every glossary-style article you can find. Your third attempt to push your overbroadly anti-glossary personal agenda (after failing at WP:VPP and again with WP:PROD) constitutes blatant forum shopping. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the situation. I brought the issue up at the village pump because I could not find definitive policy either way. I was advised that the glossaries should be deleted, so I PROD'd a few of them. These PROD tags were removed by other editors who disputed the deletion. The first two times this happened, I opened AfDs so that we could reach a consensus on the issue.
I do not have a personal agenda against glossaries, and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian and New Zealand punting glossary I stated:
“ If the consensus is to keep glossaries in Wikipedia, that would be OK, but it looks to me like they're better suited for Wiktionary. ”

—Remember the dot (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian and New Zealand punting glossary

No one other than Radiant! commented at the discussion at WP:VPP until you left your comments there on the 23rd, so this discussion didn't exactly "fail". I placed the PROD tags and opened the AfDs on the 18th, five days before you (or anyone for that matter) commented there. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Radiant commented on your VPP post on the 17th, so I'm not sure what you mean by "five days before you (or anyone...) commented there." Besides that point, I think I follow what you are saying overall. The problem I have is with your basic premise: "If the consensus is to keep glossaries in Wikipedia, that would be OK, but it looks to me like they're better suited for Wiktionary." There already is a consensus to keep glossaries in Wikipedia: See WP:SAL#Format of the lists. There is also a consensus, at WP:CSD that glossary lists that have been determined at AfD to be unencyclopedic should be transwikied and deleted. The issue is more complex than you (among many others; I'm leaning toward believing this to be a documentation problem) appear to grok with fullness just yet, and I cover this in more detail a few topics above. I apologize if I've misunderstood and mischaracterized what you've been doing, but it did appear the way I understood and characterized it. It had an alarming (i.e. disruptive) effect, especially due to the "let's start with 'Aa' and work down to 'Zz'" methodology you chose, the VPP+prod+AfD forum-shopping-like approach, the reliance on a single "go for it" !vote at VPP, and the seemingly willful misinterpretation of WP:DICT, which does not address glossaries at all. Another way of looking at this is that Wikipedia does not need Wiki Warrior R.t.d. to swoop in and save the day. If the community thought that glossaries in general were a problem, it would have already dealt with them long ago, and they certainly would not be listed as one of the main types of valid list article in the Manual of Style at WP:SAL.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"or anyone for that matter" was a poor choice of words. I meant "or anyone other than Radiant! for that matter". My approach to this was:
  1. Ask for clarification at WP:VPP.
  2. As suggested at WP:VPP, PROD the articles.
  3. Open AfDs for a more thorough discussion.
I do not view this as forum shopping, nor was I trying to "save the day". I did not take the fact that the glossaries exist as evidence of consensus to keep them. At the time, it seemed to me entirely possible that the community simply hadn't thought about it. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think we just have widely divergent views on the entire issue. :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Texas Tech University article

Thanks for your input on this article. Can you explain to me what the break ({{-}}) is that you inserted? I'm not challenging the edit, just trying to learn what it is. Thank you! →Wordbuilder 03:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I just figured it out. Does this push the section header down so it doesn't get "stuck" on the side of the image instead of being left justified? →Wordbuilder 03:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly it; I'm glad you figured it out. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Very nice. That will definitely come in handy. →Wordbuilder 04:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding the BadJPEG template to fair use logos

I noticed that you added the {{BadJPEG}} template to a fair use logo back in May (Image:Usclogo01.jpg). I know this was a while ago and I may not be the first one to point this out to you, but we deliberately publish fair use logos in low resolution because it improves the rationale for fair use, since these images are generally unsuitable for hardcopy printing at any size other than very small. Thus, requests to convert these to SVG are not really appropriate, since an SVG is effectively infinite resolution. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, SVG images may be used under fair use. Essentially, if it's possible to vectorize an image, then the image is simple enough that resolution is not of great concern.
Also, the image in question, Image:Usclogo01.jpg, has visible JPEG artifacts and should at least be cleaned and re-saved in PNG format. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

odd request for your bot

hi! not sure if you would have rather had this request on your bot's talk page or not, but i wanted to be sure you saw it quickly. the pokemon porject is currently trying to downsize all the lead images and upload them with consistent, descriptive names. As there are about 496 such images, doing it by hand is rather tedious. If i supplied you with a .zip of the images and a general write-up, could you have PNGcrusader upload them for me? it would save a lot of time. please respond on my talk page. Thanks for your time! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid this isn't what the bot was designed or approved to do. You are welcome to create your own bot and request approval for it (see Wikipedia:Creating a bot to get started), or perhaps use an editing helper such as the AutoWikiBrowser. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

well unfortunately AWB doesn't do anything to expedite the process of uploading images, and creating my own bot from scratch would be almost as time consuming for me (with little programming experience) as uploading the images by hand. but thanks for your prompt reply. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Club_Deportivo_Magallanes_logo.png

I have tagged Image:Club_Deportivo_Magallanes_logo.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. BigrTex 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Question for you: Why did you tag this image for deletion instead of just writing a rationale for it? —Remember the dot (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Because there is no way that I know of to tag it for "somebody who enjoys writing rationales come fix it" other than {{no rationale}}. I don't enjoy writing rationales, don't feel I'm particularly good at it, and feel that tagging images is a better use of my time than struggling with it. ~ BigrTex 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Non-free use rationale

I was confused at first about your speedy request on this one, but I understand it now. I'd take care of it but it's a bit complex and I don't want to butcher it. I've left it for somebody with more experience. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks  20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why I wanted to leave it for somebody else. Maybe the move's not complete yet? -- But|seriously|folks  21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, it's fixed.  :-) -- But|seriously|folks  21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I've got the double redirects fixed as well. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks for taking care of that. Now if we could just have the average user understand what we're talking about . . . -- But|seriously|folks  21:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre

There are a half dozen of us trying to edit the Mountain Meadows massacre article for selection to feature on Sept 11 which is the 150th anniversary of the event. The sandbox edits will show the progression of the editing, complete with stricken and added text. If you look at the edits, it is unreadable as an article. The edits will be incorporated in the main article as we reach consensus on the different sections. Thanks for your comments. --Robbie Giles 11:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the help with Bride burning - its going to be a long process getting that to good article standard but I'm in here for the long haul. Best regards--Cailil talk 21:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) —Remember the dot (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Simple Plan MYplash

The Simple Plan MYplash was found here. — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Viktor Klima

Hi, if you believe that "a free image [of Viktor Klima] might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information" why not go to South America (you may be living there anyway, no information on your user page), check him out and reasonably take his picture? However, I suppose encyclopaedia users would prefer an image where he is ten years younger and Chancellor of Austria. In that case, we'd have to wait until time travel has been invented to take such a free image, wouldn't we? Best wishes, and I'll remember the dot, <KF> 19:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Nc-lang-stub

Any idea what you were trying to do with the last edit to this template? The image seems to have been lost. Krisroe 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the image with plain text so that it would load faster and work better for screen readers and text-only browsers. It should work for you now. (By the way, you will have less problems displaying Unicode characters with the Firefox web browser than with Internet Explorer.) —Remember the dot (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for Image:Rubik float,png

Hello. You were right that my edit to Image:Rubik float.png was mistaken and I'm sorry for that; I really should know better. However, I do find it odd that pictures are deleted if the uploader states it's their own work but does not say under which license they release it. I avoided all image copyright debate here, but if you know the reasoning behind it please tell me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Domitianus coin.jpg

I notice that you've removed the fair use rationale on this image. How can a picture of a 1750 year old coin, one of only two in existence, which is kept in a museum which does not permit photography by the public not be non-replaceable fair use? -- Arwel (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't think there's any copyrighted material in that image, so fair use does not apply. If it turns out that it is in fact fair use after all, then go ahead and re-add the rationale. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:20070520 Lifesize Darth Vader at Lego Store.JPG

FYI, prior debate on Image:20070520 Lifesize Darth Vader at Lego Store.JPG started with User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_11#Possibly_unfree_Image:20070520_Lifesize_Darth_Vader_at_Lego_Store.JPG. I thought this was resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not my baliwick, but I have tried to supply a rationale.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Schoenberg Mondestrunken opening.png

Hi. You've tagged this image as replaceable fair use. I'm guessing this is a result of the original uploader being unclear: he tagged it as a "fair use image" and then expressed uncertainty over whether the music in question was PD or not.

Actually, the image itself is already free - the original uploader created it himself in a music notation program, as stated at the top of his paragraph, and says that he is happy for it to enter PD. The music itself is however still copyrighted, so use of that free image is governed by the sheet music fair use criteria, which it clearly satisfies (it is being used here to illustrate a concept in music theory which was pioneered by that very piece, so non-copyrighted equivalents do not exist and certainly wouldn't have equivalent historical-illustrative power). I can't see how the choice of music can reasonably be replaced by free alternatives, seeing as it appears in a section on that very piece, so I'm assuming you meant the image could be replaced by a free one? In which case, in light of the fact the image is free (maybe obscured by the original FUI tag, which I see you've corrected to the sheet music one), would you be happy with removing the RFU tag? Thomjakobsen 01:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Mingkwai typewritter

I am disputing your objection on signficance. Please the the talk page for the image. Cranky1000

Template:Idw

Hello, I reverted this edit, because both {{idw-pui}} and {{idw-cp}} automatically include the user's signature and they should all work consistently. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 00:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:WikiScanner screenshot.png

Thanks for not using common courtesy and not informing me that my image was not needed anymore. You could've at least told me instead of having a bot do a job you should've done.--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

A use rationale is required by the Foundation. What is being discussed is if we need to write it out in words for each tiny little article or not. -- Ned Scott 05:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The use rationale does not have to be stated explicitly. The Foundation just requires a tag:
“ Yep. The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to set policy that way. ”

—Kat Walsh, [1]

I do not see one person at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 26#A rational change (pun intended) other than you who advocated leaving the policy exactly the way it is. You reverted me anyway. After the thread had been archived and another discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline#Need help on Licensing, I changed it again per that discussion. You reverted me anyway. Consensus does not appear to be on your side and the foundation takes no position, yet you keep reverting.
Please point out to me the other users who have participated in the discussion and are with you on this. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This has been a long-standing policy, long before the Foundation resolution. You made a change to indicate that a rationale is not required for an image unless it is challenged, but this is completely false. A rationale, in some form, is required on all images. This would be true for explicit statements or templates. No matter what you are using, you are providing a rationale, as you are required to do so.
At this time there is no consensus to change the explicit FUR requirement, or even how do go about changing it. I'm sorry, but the community at large does not likely watch every single discussion on WT:FU, and in no way have you established a consensus for the text that you have changed. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
And currently only a few groups of images have strong support for simplistic rationales, such as logos and album art. Even then, things like the template Wikidemo came up with is getting a lot of support, which I think can be considered a rationale in itself. There certainly is not wide-spread support for not requiring a FUR for all images. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Technical question

Sorry to bother you - WP:IUP#Format says that PNG is preferable for screenshots...should existing screenshots in JPG format ever be tagged with {{ShouldBePNG}}, or should the uploader be contacted to request a PNG version be uploaded, and the JPG left alone if they won't do so or are absent? Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 18:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to answer this question. JPEG screenshots should almost always be tagged with {{BadJPEG}} or {{ShouldBePNG}}. Contacting the uploader can also help. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Chinese}}

Your last edits to this template look good, with the exception of "Vietnamese name". I don't want to revert over such a small detail, but can you fix it please? Cheers! PC78 19:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I made a typo in the code. Thanks for pointing that out! —Remember the dot (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh image/text

Please see my comments. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hockey Field.svg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Hockey field.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lucy-marie 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

While you may have strong feeling towards this issue please do not be unconstructive if you can prove that site ripped of wiki and the image is truly a free image then the image will stay if not then wiki ripped off that website. --Lucy-marie 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Right-click the image at [2] and save it to your computer. You'll notice that its file name is "420px-Hockey_field_large.png", which is almost identical to the name generated by the Mediawiki software when it made a raster rendering of the image for the image description page, "420px-Hockey_field.svg.png". Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that someone went through all the trouble to vectorize a raster image in a manner identical to the raster image. Usually vectorized copies of images have small differences from the original raster copy.
In short, the image we have is a vector image. The automatically generated rasterization of the image was copied and used on another web site without proper attribution.
You are claiming that Robert Merkel took the raster image off the other web site, created a vector copy identical to it, and then claimed that it was his own work. This is extraordinarily unlikely. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Anything is possible, it seems highly unlikely that the site would bother stealing from wiki as they seem to be a reputable company in the industry. The image could very welll be a copy for all I know as the image is identical. So In my opinion someone has stolen from someone else and I think wiki may have done so. please provide evidence to the contrary if you have any and not conjecture.--Lucy-marie 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are saying but the tag may be incorrect and may infact be from the site and the tag was used as a cover to upload on to wiki. I think that from now we should let the actual up-loader of the image say something, so we can get some real truth here and not circumstantial conjecture. As neither of us uploaded the image and do not know the truth the only person that does is the up-loader.--Lucy-marie 12:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Shall we let the gentleman talk and find out the truth and the gentleman may have made genuine mistake can we leave this until the original up-loader has passed a comment. You do seem very hasty to spring to the defence of this editor and the image. Also the log has been inactive since February 9--Lucy-marie 19:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I see what you are saying but can we at least let the up-loader have a say before its conclusion.--Lucy-marie 20:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit requests

I wanted to comment about the editprotected requests I disabled. I didn't think they were bad ideas, just that changes to the mediawiki interface should be well advertised, and changes to image licensing should be even more widely advertised. Otherwise it just leads to long arguments when someone realizes it was changed "behind their back". Please don't take any offense. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask to change the image licensing system. What are you referring to? —Remember the dot (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad software

You had asked, on User talk:Gurch, which software Gurch had used to make his ads. He's away indefinitely (not for the moment, as his talk page claims), but I recall that he used Adobe ImageReady. Unfortunately, the software was discontinued (Adobe now develops Adobe Fireworks, which costs approximately US$300) shortly after he started creating the ads. The two events were not related, I assume ;) GracenotesT § 03:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thanks for the answer! :-D —Remember the dot (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem :) GracenotesT § 03:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Discovering Dengue Drugs – Together

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Discovering Dengue Drugs – Together, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. DGG (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I consider this entire series of articles to be promotional spam. DGG (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC) For this one, there are no third party sources for notability--there are no third party sources at all. References from the website of its umbrella organization are not 3rd party refs. Please also read WP:CRYSTAL. Projects that have not yet had results are hard to defend as notable. I am in general extremely supportive of articles on scientific subjects, but I think that this is carrying it much too far. I would seriously suggest trying to keep the article on the main organisation, and asking for the others to be deleted. DGG (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you have changed some license tags in some screenshots I have uploaded. Since I've always been confused by the licence of screenshots, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. All these screenshots are of the X Window system, using a X window manager; some programs are mine. If a screenshot includes elements that are effectively added by the window manager (such as the title bar, the frame around windows, etc.), do I have to include the window manager license? If I instead decide to release the programs in the public domain, do I still have to include that license? Tizio 11:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to include the window manager's license, but I don't think that's strictly required. What's really important is the license of the program itself. You should also state where you got the screenshot from, whether you took it yourself or found it on a web site.
In the case of Image:Xframe.png, there's quite a bit more there than just a simple screenshot; there's also several lines and captions. We need more source information here: who created the diagram, and what license did they release it under? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your message about style issues and footnotes/references

Hi! Just so you know, Template:cite news is the preferred way to cite news sources. Using the template allows us to easily modify references and easily keep all references in the same format. When editing a reference, please do not remove Template:cite news, as you did here. Also, there's no need to name references unless they're used more than once. Thank you.'

My way of including all references in an article is according to what I've found here and here that's close to the APA style. We are talking about footnotes that are references/citations to sources, right? Was not aware that a specific way of citing news articles, although it's a reference like any other printed source.

Also, the reference was used twice, with the long version added at the first footnote (for example, such as this reference), and the shortened version used for subsequent mentions of the same citation (for example, such as in this case). If it matters that much for the sake of style and consistency, go ahead and change the format to one for news articles.

Also, I noticed that you've removed the citation to the second reference, which now conflicts with information mentioned in the first citation to the same footnote in the introduction to the article. This second reference needs to be added back to keep the information consistent. In the introduction, the governor said he made no decision in the first instance, while the point at which you've removed the reference now implies that the governor has a person in mind, which conflicts with what is reported in the article cited. You must have removed the second citation while during my editing session to add the full reference back to the top of the article. I've already provided the diffs in this reply to show both instances of the same reference.

Let me know if you have more questions. →Lwalt ♦ talk 00:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Source for Image:Alisonbechdel2.jpg

Hi, Remember the dot. I just got back from vacation and noticed that you had tagged Image:Alisonbechdel2.jpg as lacking source information. However, you forgot to inform Tvengela (talk · contribs), who is presumably the only person who knows the source (I'd guess that Tvengela took the picture herself, although we need her confirmation for that). I've added a note on her talk page, but I saw that she hasn't edited since November 1, 2006. I'm wondering whether she has an account on a Wikipedia in another language — I'm about to do some searching for someone else using that username. However, this search may take some time. Is it permissible to reset the clock on the speedy deletion, so that we've got a full week to find Tvengela? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We'd probably best delete the image, and then re-upload it in high resolution to the Commons if the uploader is contacted and agrees to relicense. Keeping non-commercial-use-only images is a no-no because of WP:CSD#I3. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there any harm in delaying the deletion for a day or two, to give the photographer a chance to respond? (I did email her a request that the photo be released under an acceptable license.) I know that there is no deadline — but honestly, the reason I'd like to keep the image is that I'm hoping to get the newly promoted FA Fun Home on TFA for September 10, which is Alison Bechdel's birthday, but that's not going to happen if we don't have a free image. If I don't hear from the photographer in a few days, or if she doesn't want to license the image freely, I'll delete it myself, but I'd kind of like to give it a few days to breathe. Is that OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm giving it 7 days, but having an image with a copyright problem is not going to help you get an article on WP:TFA. Feel free to change the tag to {{cc-by-nc-2.0}} if you want the image gone before the 7 days are up. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
7 days should be plenty. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your message about the edit

Hello there...I happened to catch your message while I was online doing research for a marketing project (for my MBA marketing class this time, not for Wikipedia for a change!)

Your apology accepted. I think it's OK now...apparently, someone else has taken care to copyedit that section to somewhat conform the sentence after I posted the request on the talk page. My concern was that, if a non-editing user read the info in the interim, the differences would case some confusion. Whenever I write something, I always step back and look at it from a "reader's" point of view. Just a habit that I carry over from my job as a tech writer.

Many thanks for writing back. →Lwalt ♦ talk 04:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mozilla Firefox logo design.png

I noticed you changed the license tag on this image. We no loinger treat "with permission" images differently than nonfree images. That's fine, we can still use the image, but we do need to write a nonfree use rationale that explains how the image complements the article. I tried to do that myself, but I can't find any reference in the article to this image. The name Desroches isn't mentioned in the article at all. Can you either write a rationale, or explain in the article how this image is significant, so that I can write a rationale? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

LDS Chicago Illinois Temple photos

I loaded three similar but slightly different shots of the Temple to Commons Image:Chicago_Illinois_Temple1.jpg, Image:Chicago_Illinois_Temple2.jpg, and Image:Chicago_Illinois_Temple3.jpg. -- DS1953 talk 04:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! -- DS1953 talk 04:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger icons

Hello! Now that your IE fix is in place, could you please update Image:Merge-arrows.svg to match the other icons that you improved (Image:Merge-arrow.svg and Image:Mergefrom.svg)? —David Levy 04:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What would you like me to change, exactly? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You improved the other two icons to make them resemble the original GIFs. This one doesn't look as good (all of the proportions are off, and the middle part looks sloppy when resized by MediaWiki), so it would be great if you could piece together the elements from the other two to make this one match. —David Levy 05:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How does it look to you now? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The stems now match, but the part where the points interlock still looks different. (The red line appears correct, but the blue line is too thick.) Would it be possible to simply copy over the arrows from the other two icons that you fixed? (Sorry, I don't know very much about SVGs.)
Thanks for doing this, by the way.  :-) —David Levy 04:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem :-) I think I've got it looking right now. I did use Image:Mergefrom.svg as a reference when redoing Image:Merge-arrows.svg, but I didn't copy-and-paste the arrows (in fact, I'm having a bit of trouble copying and pasting from one file to another in Inkscape). In any case, I'm by no means an expert on SVGs, but I have been able to put together a few decent images using the free program Inkscape. If you're interested in SVGs you might want to look into Inkscape. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The icon looks terrific now! I'll replace the GIF's transclusions.
I have a tiny amount of experience with very basic SVG editing (color changes and the like) in Inkscape, but I don't have the hang of it yet. When I have the time, I'd love to learn more (especially now that your IE fix is in place). Thanks again! —David Levy 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Glad you like it! By the way, there's a proposal you might be interested in at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#The article message box meta template to change the icon for the "split" template. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

PNG transparency Javascript "fix" option?

How do I turn off the PNG transparency Javascript code, which I strongly suspect is contributing to slower loading of pages with inline images, and significantly increasing the frequency of browser crashes on my system? I'm currently using "Classic" skin. I was told that you might know something about this. Thanks. AnonMoos 05:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the only way to solve the decreased speed issue (short of upgrading hardware) is to either upgrade to Internet Explorer version 7 or use a different browser such as Mozilla Firefox. Both of these are free downloads. If the new code is actually making your browser crash then I suspect there is something wrong with your computer because no one else has reported increased browser crashes as a direct result of the JavaScript workaround. However, on pages with a large number of PNG images, the workaround may cause your browser to temporarily freeze while the JavaScript code is working.
Please let me know if this answers your question. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I really don't feel like downloading a 50 megabyte Microsoft monolithic update (which will probably end up causing more problems than it solves on my particular system), especially when the problem could be much more easily solved at your end. Your alleged "fix" is not C language code deeply integrated into the infrastructure of the underlying Wikimedia software -- it's superficial Javascript, which serves a purely cosmetic purpose (adding no real significant functionality). Since it's really mere cosmetic fluff (not essential to the basic functioning of Wikipedia), and since it degrades the Wikipedia browsing experience for many people, it's really incumbent on you to add an customization option that allows people to turn off this alleged "feature". Thank you for acting reasonably in this matter. AnonMoos 17:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If we offered an option to turn off the workaround, then people would just turn it off and then complain that they couldn't view some of the transparent PNG and SVG images correctly. If you're adverse to downloading a 14.8 MB update from Microsoft (which will, incidentally, significantly improve the security and performance of your computer), then why not download Firefox? Firefox is only 5.7 MB and can be easily removed if you decide you hate it.
Now, while upgrading is really the best option here, I will take another look at the JavaScript code to see if I can improve its efficiency/performance. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, looking at the JavaScript code again, I do see a couple of ways to improve performance. Please be patient; hopefully I'll have an optimized version of the code implemented within 24 hours. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:PNG crusade bot

Don't you hate mindless bots and their mindless operators? Anyway, are you going to do anything about them or sit there and let >1000 images be deleted by lazy admins with scripts? – 86.157.254.208 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it any more than you do, but I don't care strongly enough about it to write rationales for every single image that passes through the PNG crusade bot. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

ᑎᑎᕋᐅᓯᖅ ᓄᑖᖅ

I saw your reply at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) and that you are using IE7. Just out of interest can you see the syllabics in the section header or do you get little boxes? The thing is I installed IE7 at work and can no longer edit syllabics with IE or Maxthon. Firefox is fine though. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer using Firefox. It does a better job of displaying fancy Unicode characters like these. That said, IE7 on Windows Vista does not seem to have a problem with it (Vista's out-of-the-box Unicode coverage is significantly more complete than XP's). I'm sure there are free fonts out there that would enable you to view these characters on IE7 on XP, perhaps with some help from Template:Unicode. —Remember the dot (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give it try when I get back to work. I'm at home now and after I saw what IE7 did to the syllabics I didn't bother changing over, so I can see them fine. Someone turned on the automatic updates on the work computers and it caused several problems. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, as far as automatic updates, you should understand that by disabling them you are making your computer(s) far less secure and several times decreasing their performance as well. For example, IE6 does not handle a certain kind of PNG transparency properly, so on Wikipedia we have to use a JavaScript workaround that slows IE6 down a bit. IE7 does not have this problem and should actually go a bit faster than IE6, on top of the benefit of significantly improved security features in IE7 compared to IE6. Other Windows updates that you're missing out on are the regular security updates. In short, these help keep your computer's security one step ahead of hackers/malicious users, and failing to install them would leave your computer vulnerable to attack. —Remember the dot (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The updates do get installed, just not automatically. The reason I turned them off at home is MS would also install non-MS updates. At one point with the updates turned on it installed newer drivers for the video card. Both monitors went blank and involved too much sillines to fix. With the auto update turned off but the notification turned on I can check when the message pops up. I can then get the MS updates and follow that up by going to the makers site for any other newer drivers that are available. It's easier that way to fix any problems that occur at home. At work there are only two of us at work that know anything about computers and what to do if an update causes problems. One of us is bound to be on a night shift within a day or two of the updates coming out and we can install them then. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Just reading this. I guess in some cases it doesn't matter if they are on or off. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the extremely late reply. that only applies to updates of the Windows Update program itself. Windows Update won't install Windows patches if it is turned off, but it will still update itself so that it can know whether new patches are available or not. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

Dot,

Hey, I kinda feel belittled with this comment. I "fixed" what I saw to be a fairly obvious typo here, as well as voting. I would have appreciated a more personalized comment, rather than an impersonal template. But either way, thanks for helping me out. —ScouterSig 15:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Mergefrom

Hey I've undid your recent edit to this template. I don't know what you were doing, but you made a mistake and it messed up the template. I think you just made an error in your syntax or something, you should look into it. Atropos 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot request

I was wondering if you would consider coding an image renaming bot, along the lines of PNG crusade bot. (The reason I'm asking you is that I have zero coding skills, and this function would be very similar to what PNG crusade bot already does.) What I was thinking is that {{ifr}} could be modified to include a parameter for a suggested new name, and a bot could do the image upload under the new name (if there's no conflict) and replace the name in the articles in which the image is used. What do you think? Videmus Omnia Talk 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea. It's rather messy to re-upload an image, not in the least because the bot is listed as the uploader instead of the original uploader. This causes all those "your image will be deleted because you haven't provided a pre-emptive defense for why we should keep it" messages to land on User talk:PNG crusade bot, where they are largely ignored. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

template "update"

I admit to reverting the last edit of yours for the temeplate. The graphics images would not show up for the right image. I don't know why the prior edit works for the graphics. I'm using Mac Safari browser.
-- Yellowdesk 00:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Colors

Hi. Could you please explain why you changed the colors on WP:TS in this edit? The previous colors looked far nicer (much more vivid). Where was this change discussed? —Remember the dot (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That edit was performed to match the actual colors now used in MediaWiki:Common.css. AzaToth changed them to "reduce the bleeding," and I then changed three of them to shift the new orange and yellow selections closer to the originals (while hopefully not increasing the bleeding) and to bring the green (which was adopted after AzaToth's edit) in line with the others.
My only interest was in keeping the colors distinct (as opposed to AzaToth's red-like orange) and comparable to one another (as opposed to AzaToth's tan-like shade of yellow and the almost neon-like shade of green that was suddenly added with almost no discussion), but I will note that some people previously complained that the original hues were too vivid. —David Levy 09:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for your reply. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Elder Faust.jpg

The dates I added to Image:Elder Faust.jpg and others are actually rather important (specifically the death date) as a number of images where a free image cannot be created have been deleted, even though the person a no longer living and a new image cannot be created. Rather that added the wording that the person is deceased to each of these article, it made more sens to me to add their birth & death dates. This also helps when there are multiple people with similar names. As for removing the space between the == and a section heading wording, I remove those as a matter of course when I notice them, as they can keep something like this: [[Image:Elder Faust.jpg#Licencing]] from properly linking to a specific section on a page here at WP. -- 159.182.1.4 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of World Community Grid

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article World Community Grid you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 2 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Pursey Talk | Contribs 08:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:AGIAbortionReasonsBarChart.png‎

I saw you tagged Image:AGIAbortionReasonsBarChart.png‎ as having no source. The image looks OK to me, so before I removed the tag, I wanted to see what your concern was.-Andrew c [talk] 17:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In case you don't read the Pump

I have no idea if this is related to the recent PNG fixes or not, but you should take a look here. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for quick review of additions to the PatchGuard / Kernel patch protection page.

Hello,

You seem to have been doing the most maintaining of the PatchGuard page recently, so I figured I'd pose this request here. I made some choice improvements (IMHO of course :) to the article in question. However, if at all possible, it'd be nice to have someone else do a quick once-over of the changes as it seems to me to be a bit awkward to be contributing muchly to that article given WP:NOR and WP:POV concerns. (Or that's my outside view, being not having done all that much Wikipedia contributions myself to date. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

Anyways, would you mind taking a quick glance at the recent changes to see if you've got any objections on Wikipedia-related grounds?

I've attempted to ensure all my contributions on that page were cited, however, some of them are of course linking to materials that I had a hand in authoring or publishing outside of Wikipedia, hence my concern.

Skywing 02:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions look great, thanks :-)
As far as Wikipedia policy, since you made sure to back up your statements with published documents, I don't see any violation of WP:COS. Thanks again, and welcome to Wikipedia! —Remember the dot (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pngfix

Hi Dot, I finally cracked the |thumb and |border problem; in the end, the sulotion was so obvious, I wonder why I didn't think of it before. Display-wise, everything is working perfect now, including transparency in Commons galeries. All that remains are potential problems with click events (imagemaps, javascript), but I haven't found an image yet I couldn't click. Even the toolbar still works. Have a look at Common.js. — Edokter • Talk • 21:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I don't know why it seemed to work on my box; probably had javascript disabled (I'm using the IEDev toolbar). Anyway, have you seen my last comment? How about testing the code as it stands? Behaviourwise I can't find any glitches. And since I'm promoted to admin, I can make the change. — Edokter • Talk • 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I cracked it! I knew it was something simple. See User talk:Edokter/pngfix and please give it a test. — Edokter • Talk • 21:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:WindowsLoadingDriversVPC.PNG

I see that you're disputing my upload, I don't really mind if it doesn't meet fair use, all I would say is that it, as you know, does replace Windowsloadingdrivers.jpg so I was working on the basis of it being precedent, but it's the first non-free image I've uploaded so I don't know one way or another. --BMT 06:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. The issue with this image was that it didn't add anything useful to the article that couldn't be represented with text, a screenshot of Linux, etc. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Remember_the_dot/Archive/4&oldid=1139349551"