User talk:BigDT/archive200608

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive. Please do not modify it. Leave new comments on my talk page.
Quick links: Main page * My Contributions * Talk to me * June 2006 archives * July 2006 archives


Contents

[edit] Image:Meroe pyramids 01 x600.JPG

Image:Meroe pyramids 01 x600.JPG Hi. The person who gave permission to use the above image did so on the basis of being credited as the image owner. They didn't give permission under a specific license type - it was a fairly generic approval. I'm not sure what this now means from a licensing perspective. --Gene_poole 04:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at {{Attribution}}. Does this sound like the permission you received from the copyright holder? If so, please edit the page and replace the image templates there with {{Attribution}}. If not, do you still have the ability to contact the owner and request a particular license, such as {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} or {{GFDL}}? Thank you. BigDT 11:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FLCL

As a userbox fan of FLCL, would you be willing to vote for its nomination at Wikipedia's Article Improvement Drive? If elected, it will be the subject of a week-long overhaul, in an attempt to pass in to Featured Article status! Thanks, Litefantastic 17:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please note that those userboxes are merely a copy of everything that is or was in template space, up through the letter G. They are not actually an expression of my views. BigDT 17:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons images

The correct tag for images which have been copied to commons is {{NCT}} ("Now Commons This") if the image title is the same, or {{NowCommons|filename.jpg}} if the name is not the same as the commons, and the correct name of the image on Commons for "filename.jpg". Use this rather than speedy or db for such cases. Hope this helps. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 04:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Most of the images that I have been tagging for speedies are ones where there is no image at Wikipedia, just a blank description page. I'm not asking for an image to be deleted - only a blank description page under I2. The blank description page comes from one of two things usually - either the picture is a former "featured picture" candidate and so someone added {{FPC}} and it was later removed or someone added a description to the WP page that they really wanted to have on Commons. The problem with these blank description pages is that they add the image to Special:Uncategorizedimages, which is a special page that is patrolled to find missing or incorrect image tags. The only other ones I have tagged for speedies where there is actual media at Wikipedia (not just a blank description page) are ones where WP:CSD I9 is met or where the image was only available under a non-commercial license. BigDT 11:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amber Corwin image

Thanks for the heads up. That was the first photo I ever uploaded to Wiki and I screwed it up (couldn't figure out how to put down licensing). I reuploaded it under Image:Amber_corwin_photo.jpg with the proper licensing. The one you notified me about (Image:Amber_corwin.jpg) can be deleted, it's a duplicate and orphaned image. I added the licensing anyway. Thanks, Vesperholly 08:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I will tag the duplicate image for deletion as a redundant copy. BigDT 10:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Ostrow.JPG

The image was taken from a subscription online historical archive, I use several subscriptions so it may take a few days to obtain the original photographers name (a photo this old the photographer is often not known) and official release, but I will do my best to find it and list it with a ref to the (now possibly defunct) agency. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. JayKeaton 12:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISPE.jpg

The image of the ISPE logo was for the use of ISPE members on wiki. I am a member of ISPE. What sort of notification form ISPE do you need that will allow it's use in a userbox?--Tstrobaugh 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. I think the question is pretty well answered there. If the organization contacts Wikimedia's PR department and grants permission for the logo to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License, that would be sufficient. BigDT 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bak ca.jpg

The image I think is currently useless and may be deleted. Thanks for pointing out. --Brand спойт 18:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I only object to the Image:NanotechnologyCenter.jpg picture, the rest I don't care about. However, I was wondering whether I placed the nanotechology picture under the wrong lisence, as the website states that the pictures can be used for personal use, on websites or as wallpaper.--Cornell010 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not free enough. In order to be used on Wikipedia, an image must have no restrictions on its use. It must be free for commercial use and for derivative works. It may very well be that if you email the webmaster of that site, he/she would be willing to release it and provide you with a copy that doesn't have the copyright notice. But as it stands now, images from that site cannot be used. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free_licenses for more information. I hope that explanation helps. BigDT 00:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Possible Userbox Solution

This is a form letter, please don't reply directly. Do, however, feel free to discuss this solution I've come up with.


I've made an unofficial place for all User Boxes (hopefully) safe from overzealous Admins. Feel free to add any you like, edit any there, or just list your already made userboxes there. Also feel free to edit the main page (the user page) in any way that you think might help. Please note, however, that this is a user page and not an official Wikipedia page, so almost any User Box will be tolerated as long as it's within reason. UserBox 03:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Bl Jim Brewer.jpg

this picture is taken from the inner gatefold of a long deleted LP album (on the Storyville label); is it correct to chose the fair use category 'album cover' for such an image ? Or is this category only meant for the front cover as a whole ? What about using only a picture which is part of a front or back cover of an album ? StefanWirz 13:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

An album cover can be used to illustrate the album - using it to illustrate the composer or artist of that album is questionable. At any rate, I don't believe that using a picture from the inside of an album would qualify as fair use. Please see also Jimbo's comments on fair use [1]. Basically, the idea behind "fair use" is that there is no free way to have a picture of a TV show - you have to use a screenshot. The same is true for something like a CD album - you have to use a picture of the album cover. That's the purpose for fair use. Anything else is questionable at best. I hope that helps. BigDT 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons description pages

These pages are deleted when the images were deleted, but I restored them and blanked them so as to preserve the edit history, as required by the GFDL. Please do no list these pages for deletion. The talk page is also used to place the images into en cateogires and tag images as en-Featured Pictures. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 13:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The main concern I have is that the images are currently being added to Special:Uncategorizedimages. I don't particularly care about the existence of the description pages - but they need a category if they are going to exist. I asked about it on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and was told by three different administrators that tagging them as I2 was appropriate. Special:Uncategorizedimages is patrolled to find images with broken tags or other problems and having these images in there is not a good thing. If there are description pages that are being preserved for GFDL purposes where merely copying/pasting the edit summary is insufficient, there needs to be a category created for them. Perhaps they can be added to a category like Category:Commons images with history or something. Is there any reason that merely copying/pasting the history to the commons talk page is not sufficient for GFDL? BigDT 14:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, at least in the case of Image:Assumption Cathedral.jpg, the en description was written AFTER the Commons description and thus could not possibly be needed for GFDL. BigDT 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If they were added to en first, then should probably be categorised here. I'm not sure what the complete requirements of the GFDL are, but it's certainly useful to keep the edit history. If the english page was created after the commons page and is just a duplication, then it should be deleted, but this should be noted in the template so it is not incorrectly applied to other images. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see {{Db-descpage}}. I have modified it to address this concern and I will not tag for deletion any image where the en description predates the commons one. BigDT 14:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image attribution

You left me a message about my image attribution. I have contributed several good photos. I think I should probably attribute them in a way that anyone can freely use them if they give me some sort of credit outside of wikipedia. What do you think of the {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} attribution tag for this purpose. If you think this is the correct tag to use, do know if I should substitute my name after the by in this tag? TonyTheTiger 20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That tag is fine and should meet your needs. If you add {{cc-by-sa-2.5|Please credit TonyTheTiger}}, the tag will be displayed and will include "Please credit TonyTheTiger". BigDT 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone has placed the following tag on some of my photos {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}. What is the difference between that and what I have chosen?

Well, it's not really appropriate for someone else to have tagged your images (unless they were just correcting spelling, etc). That aside, in terms of practical differences? None really. The GFDL license is more restrictive than the Creative Commons license. With both, they have to give you (and any other contributor) credit and any derivative works must be released under the same license. The GFDL gives a lot of lawyer talk and describes random and arbitrary hoops to jump through. The creative commons license is in plain English that anyone can understand, so I prefer that one ... although it doesn't really matter that much. If someone is honest, they are going to give you credit for your work and if they are dishonest, then they are going to use it and they couldn't really care less about your license. BigDT 00:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Unfree images

CentralAvenueCornell.jpg

I have already been through this before. C'mon. I emailed the maker of those picture and he agreed to and I then I forwarded his email to Wikipedia.

ticket number: #: 2006061810007652

If you don't believe me then look through the featured article disccusions on the Cornell page. Research before accussing. Cornell010 22:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Umm ... well ... for one thing, I was not the one who listed that image. But that aside ... there is a template {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}. If you would tag the image description page with that template and indicate the ticket number, then that would settle all questions and nobody would both it. Though I did not list Image:CentralAvenueCornell.jpg on PUI, I did list several of your images on IFD for the same reason. The same is true with them. Tag them with {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}} and the problem is solved. BigDT 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Go ahead and delete it now. I don't care about it. Carmelapple 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If uploading it was a mistake, you can tag it with {{db-author}} to request speedy deletion. Otherwise, if you do nothing and nobody else uses the image, it will be deleted eventually when an administrator processes the category of orphaned images. BigDT 03:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Really long image names

Hi, BigDT. I've noticed you've nominated some images for deletion that have really long, incomprehensible names. What do they have in common? They've been uploaded by different users, but the filenames are all very similar. I'm just curious. —Bkell (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume that they are all from the same filehosting service or something. Perhaps somewhere like FileFront uses that as their naming convention. I really have no idea what they are from. After I saw the second one, I used special:allpages to go and see what else started with X1 - that's why there are lots nominated. BigDT 11:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just delete all the image I've uploaded

Hi BigDT, just delete all the image I've uploaded that you have just sent to me moments ago by message. Many thanks. — Emrrans 04:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hymns of u Praise.jpeg

No worries. Added image history summary. Please remove deletion tag. Cheers.Wilfred Pau 07:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Do you have any plans to use this image on Wikipedia? It is likely that the cover depicted is copyrighted, in which case the image can only be used as "fair use". BigDT 10:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It's been a very long time since I uploaded that image. Frankly BigDT, I've lost all track of it. After receiving your reply I tried to locate its associated article but to no avail. There is none. Then it dawned on me that the article was on zh:wikipedia and not en:wikipedia. Then it occured to me that whilst being a novice, that perhaps (I can't be certain that this is the reason), it was highly probable that I had uploaded it in the believe that the article on zh would be able to link to it. Anyhow, as a direct result of the above, it can be safely said that this image is now redundant. Please go ahead and delete it. God bless, Wilfred Pau 03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balkania truck (deletion)

Hi. Sorry, if this is not the "expected" way I can communicate with you (I am not yet proficient in Wikipedia's mechanisms). I would like to know the reasons for deletion of the above image, as I don't understand the "code" initials. The picture has been published in two of my books and I scanned it from the book itself, as I didn't save the electronic image. Just tell me how I am supposed to categorize it, because it is a very valuable photograph. Thanks a lot. Skartsis

  • It is "your" book meaning that you wrote it or you bought it at a store? If you wrote it and own the copyright, then it's not a copyright violation (obviously). Do you have plans to use it in an article? Wikipedia generally only keeps images that are being used in articles or are going to be. There is another Wikimedia website that you may not be familiar with called "Commons" - see http://commons.wikimedia.org. Commons collects all manner of images and, if you don't plan on using the image here, but someone possibly could elsewhere, Commons may be the place to upload it. BigDT 11:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, after searching my articles I realized I had replaced this particular image, so there is no reason for it to be around; please proceed with deletion. Sorry for the confusion. "My" book means I am the author. Skartsis

[edit] Deletions of images Image:Axis of Evil Map.png Image:Outposts of Tyranny Map.png

Thank you for notifying me. Originaly I created them out of boredom but now they have a usage in Axis of Evil and Outposts of tyranny articles. I have moved the images to commons with exact names so you can delete the en.wiki duplicates --Cat out 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for letting me know. I have struck the IFD nominations as they are now moot. BigDT 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axis of evil and outposts of tyranny maps

Hi, BigDT. Sorry if my comments ("Not orphaned") on the image deletion page for the axis of evil and outposts of tyranny maps sounded as though I was arguing your original point. I had no doubt that the images were orphaned when you listed them; I was just a bit too concise in pointing out that they were no longer orphaned. —Bkell (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you a victim or a contributer?

You seem to be a pawn by NicholasD who is intentionally removing copyright notices. Are you associated with him? He seems to be getting more clever about his attacks, so that instead of just modifying or removing an image and getting reverted, he's removing the copyright notice and then someone like you jumps in and reacts. These more sophisticated attacks are annoying. I haven't figured out who he is yet. Please check to see if someone has intentionally removed a copyright notice before you automatically flag it as not having one. Tmcsheery 15:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Can you point out a particular image in question? I've tagged plenty of images for deletion ... just leaving a message with no context is unhelpful. BigDT 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Activemarker2.jpg Funny I was trying to put that in when I got an error Edit Conflict!!! Tmcsheery 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    • OK ... this person removed TWO copyright notices and I tagged ONE of them as having no source. [2] That makes me his pawn? Good grief. Suggestion: watchlist images that you upload. I saw an image with a watermark on it and in good faith believed it to be likely a copyright violation. I stopped investigating at that point. Do you actually own the copyright to that image? If so, can you remove the watermark? Marks of ownership on images aren't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. BigDT 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm more the pawn because I don't check often enough to notice. I do have them on watchlist, but I only check a few times a week. At least the people in Chemistry aren't anonymous. I see that one of the people doing these thing Hipocrite is permanently changed his name. Tmcsheery 15:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Also I should apologize a bit more, I see you do a lot of work here. Sadly it takes hours to clean up from minutes of mindless or intentional vandalism if there are edits after their work. I think some of the taggers have a dozen IDs and make it look like several people, but obviously you are one of the white hats. Tmcsheery 15:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No problem BigDT 16:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I thought Hipocrite was gone, but I see I was only being teased. I have zero problem with him removing ALL the company Logos, but as he only seems to be removing The PhaseSpace Logo, which was originally submitted by me, I have an issue. I don't think he's one of our competitors, but he seems to not like us. If someone will remove all the logos from all the images, I will stop reverting his silly vandalism. I will keep reverting if he insists on only removing PhaseSpace Logos. Between Hipocrite and Nicholas D I have no time for Chemistry or any other contributions. Sigh Tmcsheery 02:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Company logos should be removed from all free images. If I see a company logo, I strongly question (1) whether the image is really free or (2) if it is the best way to illustrate the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an ad agency. Now, that said, if this person is specifically targeting your company, then that's a bad thing ... but I really don't think having watermarks on images is appropriate at all. BigDT 03:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


          • I have asked Hipocrite to remove all the watermarks from all the images, as that is what I think is reasonable. Since I'm from one of the companies, it might be considered vandalism if I did it to the other companies, but I have no problem with all of them being removed. Also I think our image illustrates the principles rather than just being a glamour shot.Tmcsheery 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Thanks for the heads up for both Image:Conan doyleGoogle.gif and Image:Puppylove.gif, but I never uploaded, created or even heard of any of those images. JayKeaton 19:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting. Please see [3] and [4]. Somehow your name got into the upload log for them - that is why you got notified. Is it possible that another family member or coworker was logged in as you and uploaded them? At any rate, it's moot - they have been deleted - whoever they belonged to. ;) BigDT 21:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Proposal

Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject Animal Rights and Welfare. Cheers, Localzuk (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Va Tech Digital Library

Have you had any luck getting digital images from the Va Tech Library Bugle collection. They have some good historical images of buildings and people at Va Tech. I have not written to ask permission, anticipating that I would be denied permission to post it in the Wiki. Talk to Dr. M 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No. I haven't asked ... I have uploaded one image from there that is public domain because of its age ... but I have not sought any kind of permission. BigDT 12:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vivisimo.jpg

On what basis did you label Image:Vivisimo.jpg as corrupt for deletion, and delete it from the Vivisimo article as "non-functioning"? It's working just fine, and uncorrupted, on all my platforms. Jason Godesky 23:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am using IE6 and it displayes as a red X for me. Perhaps it should be re-uploaded? BigDT 23:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
See Image:Visisimo noimage.jpg for what it looks like for me. BigDT 23:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have downloaded the image, opened it in PSP, and resaved it. It now displays properly. Maybe there really was something wrong or maybe it was just Wikipedia's caching of it? Who knows ... I have removed the speedy tag, though. BigDT 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vibrator.JPG

I have fixed the image to take out the majority of the copyright material. Now take a look, it no longer meets your deletion criteria. Darthgriz98 03:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Srwt.jpg)

Image was dumped due to low resolution. It should no longer be on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Srsrsr 21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. You can tag the image with {{db-author}} to request that it be speedy deleted or you can do nothing and it will be deleted in a week or two. BigDT 21:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:FSFJuly1963.jpg)

Image was the cover of the first serialization installment of Heinlein's Glory Road, but then I found the (preferred) cover of the first edition. Thanks. Signinstranger 16:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ann.jpg

I didn't upload the image. I simply reverted it as someone had hijacked it with another. The original uploader was Feralchylde--Drat (Talk) 22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Orphaned" fair use image Image:AUBCLogo.JPG

This image is not in fact orphaned. It is still in use on the Adelaide University Boat Club page.--EDH 12:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Image:AUBCLogo.JPG is used on that page. That is NOT the image that I tagged as an orphan. Image:AUBClogo.JPG, with a small l, is the image I had tagged as an orphan. It is orphaned and is a duplicate of Image:AUBCLogo.JPG. Thank you for pointing it out and I have now tagged Image:AUBClogo.JPG (with a small l) with {{redundant image}} so that it can be speedy deleted. BigDT 23:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Emina Cunmulaj

I guess it was about time that the image be deleted. Thanks for pointing it out. mirageinred 17:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gyorgy Ligeti.jpg)

Someone dropped it from the Ligeti article. Thanks for the word, I put it back. -- Jason Palpatine 22:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I have removed the tag from the image. Please note that once an orphaned fair use image is no longer an orphan, anyone can remove the tag from the image - it isn't like a speedy tag or something where you shouldn't remove it from an article/image you created. BigDT 00:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Section break)

delete. -Ste|vertigo 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Can I assume this is in reference to Wikipedia:Funny pictures?

[edit] Three Images at Kfar Darom

All three images at Kfar Darom do not qualify for fair use, as they are AP images. I uploaded them over a year ago before I really knew the rules about images, so as they arent fair use you can just delete them without my objections. As for the Massoud image, and related images at Afghanistan Civil War, CNN (for a time) put images on its website that were merely screenshots from its TV coverage, as shown by its overall low quality. To the best of my knowledge these are screenshots, but perhaps once again I dont understand the exact rules about fair use. If these dont qualify, than I dont have any reason to object to their deletion either. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok ... I will tag the other two images on that page. As far as the rules for fair use ... WP:FAIR explains them. The general thing to keep in mind is that on Wikipedia, fair use is intended for something like a screenshot of a video game or a television show. If you are writing an article about NCAA Football 07, there is no such thing as free media that you can use to illustrate it. EA Sports owns the box cover. They own images from the game. Even if you had every resource in the world at your disposal, you could never, ever, in a million years, produce a free image to illustrate that game. The same would be true of a television show, like The Simpsons. There is no such thing as "free" Simpsons media because it is all copyrighted. In those cases, everyone agrees that fair use images are appropriate. On the other hand, a photo of something like a bird or Lane Stadium would almost never qualify for fair use because anyone who really wants to could take a photo of them any time they want. The more questionable case is a photo of someone like Mel Gibson. Sure, he's still alive so it's in theory possible for us to take a picture of him, but it's unlikely that he is going to be readily available to Wikipedians for a photo shoot. So in such cases, we will use photos from a media promotional packet, press release, or some such thing, although this use is disputed and Jimbo himself has said that he doesn't like it and wants to move away from it. In each of these cases, we are using the copyright holder's work to illustrate the work itself or the copyright holder. On the other hand, a media photo is using the copyright holder's work to illustrate some third party. Further, in particular with the AP and Reuters, since they derive their income by selling the rights to use their photos, our use of their photos without permission infringes directly on their ability to market their product. I hope that gives a good explanation. Feel free to ask if I can explain something better. BigDT 20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
So the Massoud image does not qualify for fair use, as it is being used to depict the event pictured rather than the station for which it occured on/the photo itself? ~Rangeley (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Correct. Image:Massoud2000.png would be reasonable to use in an article on, CNN's coverage of the war or some other critical commentary on CNN ... but it is not considered fair use to illustrate the subject of the photo. BigDT 20:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bible Portal

Thanks for your help with the Bible Portal. You`re the first person to take any significant interest in it. I created it almost by accident because I was surprised there wasn`t one. I just followed the templates and there it was. Maintaining it myself has been quite a task! Especially when I can`t really afford to have internet service all the time. :0( You`re also the first person who doesn`t seem to want to add any kind of religious P0V or worse, extra-biblical P0V! I hope it can reflect the best of what Wikipedia has on the 0ld and New testaments only. And frankly, what Wikipedia has is thin and rife with P0V. I`m not a writer, or at least not a very good one, (the one thing I`ve actually written), but I can edit like crazy. And so far, I`ve been piecing together stuff from existing articles. Mostly I just want to get people to read The Bible, so I started the featured chapter; which, I knew from the beginning would be a daunting commitment: there are only a couple thousand chapters! I kept up pretty well for a while, but then I was off-line for a month. I like your changes very much. You may be more technically proficient than me. And I greatly appreciate the help! Donnie Love 03:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm glad to help with it ... I'd love to see it become an active portal and I'd love to see some more editors on some of the theology articles. BigDT 04:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxen

  1. Would you be willing to help me move the current up for deletion transclusions to the new templates? There are so many that need to be done, and I don't think that I can do it alone. My poor wrists and fingers wouldn't be able to take it after a while. Even now I am shrinking at the enormity of the task. I have gotten over half of them done.
  2. Are you still maintaining those userbox lists, or are they just being left alone? If the latter, would you think about getting them deleted as to give me one less place to search through when dealing with the user templates that I have merged? Some of them are a real mess with poor substing.

- LA @ 07:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Have you asked User:Cyde about substing the userboxes? He has a bot that does it and has been used before for that purpose. As for the userbox lists, they shouldn't need to be searched because nothing on there should say (transclusion) when using "What links here", but I will go ahead and have them deleted - they didn't prove to be very useful. BigDT 11:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Cydebot has bugs in it. It messed up my user page when it went through it. Also, I am not subst the templates, I am switching the old with the new. That means that I have to do a little extra on each page for some of the switches. It is long and tedious, and the reason that I started the TfD before having them all done in hopes that the users would see the TfD notice and the switch notice and do it themselves. I think that at least 80% of the users with these boxes are inactive since I have seen them over and over again doing the various switches. That is why I need help, there are thousands yet to be done, and my poor hands aren't up to it.
    • I hope you were not offended by my recommendation to delete the userbox listings you started. It was just a thought. - LA @ 11:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Go to User:BigDT/monobook.js, click view source, and copy the whole thing to User:Lady Aleena/monobook.js. It will give you a little button over on the left hand side of your screen in the "toolbox" that says "Temp replace image". I've set it up to replace {{User GMT}} with {{user time zone|GMT|watch}}, but it could just as easily be used to make any other replacement. (You will also get some cool image deletion buttons if you copy the whole thing. If you don't want them, remove the part from Howcheng in your copy of it.) BigDT 13:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I changed the edit summery message which broke the js I think. The edit summery I usually use, which keeps me out of trouble mostly, is Changed time zone template with master. Hope you don't mind. - LA. The js doesn't like it. Any idea why? I don't know js. - LA @ 13:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
          • The word "don't" has an apostrophe in it. That's bad because a single quote is the string delimiter. You can either change it to "do not" or you can replace the quote with \'. BigDT 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A brief howto on using variables in the Babel Box.

To use a variable or variables in the Babel Box, the pipe must be brought in using another method. In this case the {{!}} template must be used. So, for the GMT and other time zone templates the Babel Box code would look something like this...

|time zone{{!}}GMT{{!}}watch|

It is a workaround that works brilliantly. - LA @ 01:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of time zone templates that are left to be done...if you will do them, I can concentrate on the non-time zone related templates and the last two which have to be done manually since they have variables to them. I have added a lot of templates to that javascript (though for some reason the pop-ups one now works and I now know how annoying it is), you may want to take a look for the first 3 on the list below. - LA @ 10:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:User BST (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:User CET (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:User CST (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:User GMT1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:User GMT10 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:User GMT2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:User GMT5:30 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:User GMT8 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:User UTC-5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:User UTC-6 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:User time diff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:User timezone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Your edits to userpages

Hi BigDT. Could you mark your recent edits to userpages as minor edits so I could bypass them while doing RC patrol. Thanks! — The Future 17:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Shoot ... I didn't even think about that ... they are javascript-assisted edits ... any idea how to do that? BigDT 17:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I know the answer! :) Try My preferences under the tab Editing. There will be a checkbox that says "Mark all edits minor by default". Check that and they should all be minor. :) — The Future 17:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I may have to do that ... I'm trying to find a javascript way to do it though ... other people are going to use this script ... so it needs to be solved for more than just me. BigDT 17:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Too many monobook characters XD Much easier to check the box, no? :) — The Future 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Got it! "document.editform.wpMinoredit.checked = true;" up near the top of the script does it. BigDT 17:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Cool, cheers and thanks! — The Future 17:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Another nitpick - would you mind saying "deprecated userbox" instead of "deleted userbox" in the edit summaries? It's less of a "WTF!?" surprise factor. —AySz88\^-^ 19:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. BigDT 19:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Fairuse rationale

I explained the rationale for the Image:Manhunt map.jpg. Storm05 15:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no way in heck that image could be considered fair use. BigDT 15:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Dang! I didnt know that, okay Delete it. Storm05 15:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/g/User_talk%7EBigDT_archive200608_1c69.html"