User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Thanks a ton...

...for correcting the misspelt "Yatching" to "Yachting" in Homi Motivala, P. K. Garg and probably other articles as well. --Gurubrahma 09:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Yatching strikes me as a particularly unfortunate misspelling; most words in English which contain a vowel followed immediately by tch (or are pronounced similarly) relate to unpleasant practices or bodily functions—retching, felching, belching... Fuhghettaboutit 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Never mind

You were right, that's the correct spelling for both forms, apparently. Skinmeister 20:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow the above post confused me, because I never saw your prior edits. I see the issue now through the history log. Got ya. I try not to change commonwealth spellings, and in fact, have changed in the past americanized (americanised) spellings to commonwealth spellings in articles that are UK specific subjects. I am not aware of any issue with regard to vigour versus vigor, but you seem to have come to the conclusion it is not a mistake. If it is, please feel free. As for me, I'm going to be even more aware of this issue in the future. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the correction...

...and the proofreading on the Selectron Tube. OldZeb 06:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI Marco Benz

Marco Benz was recognized as a Poster acoss the nation of the United States to recruit soldiers is worthy of its own by Marco Benz to be chosen. The U.S. Navy has done so with Marta_Tuyet_Dodd and she is there is a notable her own here on wikipedia.Saigon76nyc 14:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Marta Tuyet Dodd was:
1) The first Vietnamese-American to be was selected as a Recruiting Poster for the United States Armed Forces out of a selection process of 17 Sailors throughout the world for the campaign, which was featured in The Navy Times.
2) Is the webmaster of "Navy Girl" which describes her personal experiences and her desire to serve her country.
3) Navy Girl has had nearly 904,250 hits since she started it a year and a half ago a
4) She also established a e-newsletter called called "One Military Parent" for members of all branches of the military
In Contradistinction, Marco Benz
1) Has also ben claimed by you (I think) to have been given poster status by the military, still unsubstantiated, and
2) Happens to be a descendant of someone notable which is irrelevant to his own notability and
3) Nothing else.
I invite you to make your case more convincingly. --Fuhghettaboutit 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Hi. In re. your comment on AfD, see also this search and this search for a comparison of the "unique" hit concept. Note that it changes daily -- Microsoft is now in the 700's and I'm in the 300's, as opposed to Microsoft's two-something-billion and my ~90,000 for actual total hits.

But basically, what it comes down to, is that's where I'm getting my numbers to explain how "unique" hits -- the number of hits before Google says "we've excluded some stuff now" -- aren't a measure of anything. Cheers :)

Adrian Lamo ·· 23:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that it says "Results 301 - 346 of about 664,000,000", but can you please explain what you "turned on" to have that come up. Something in google's advanced preferences? or some extra (hidden in the results) search function you place in the URL code? I would really like to know. When I repeat that search, I no longer get the initial parameter, i.e. "number - number of about number." So you must be doing something I don't know about, Here's what I get when I repeat: "Results 1 - 100 of about 664,000,000". Also, when I initially did the search yesterday the total was much higher, why does it change!? Thanks. --Fuhghettaboutit 03:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge it's not any specific advanced pref -- I delete my Google cookies semi-regularly, so it's unlikely they'd know what search options rock my boat. It *might* be that you generally don't advance far into the search results -- bear in mind that to get to 393 is something like 30 pages at 10 hits per page. I do tack on a &num=100 to my searches by hand, to increase the number of hits per page, and eventually it'll stop partway through and say it's eliminated (x) number of results. The total number of results it displays before that point is the "unique hits".
Some people think that means that all the other hits beyond the exclusion range are duplicates, and that's why you see users on AfD alleging that (topic) "only" gets so-and-so many "unique" Google hits. That's just not true. It's Google's attempt to bring you relevant results, yes, but the methodology it uses to determine the cutoff numbers is much more complex and in no way implies that the rest of the hits are duplicates.
I'm not implying anyone is deliberately lying to fix AfD results, just that they might have an unclear understanding of how results get vetted. Heck, I don't fully understand Google. I just try to have a handle on how it works before I hit people over the head with it :)
If you wanna get the same results you see in my link, try adding &num=100&start=900 to your search URL. Hope this helps -- I'm not the clearest person in the world sometimes, and I'm not always completely correct, but I try.
Adrian Lamo ·· 04:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Talk about not looking carefully. I failed to notice that this was advanced into the search—that you had scrolled to the end of the search. I see now. I will definitely use this method in future, thanks. Like I prefaced my comment, I don't disagree with you. Google is a tool, not an end-all-be-all of notability. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem. It's always good to have more people around AfD who can effectively clarify the whole "unique hits" thing for folks :) Adrian Lamo ·· 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pool glossary

You seem to be the most active editor on the pool-related articles, so I was wondering what you would think if I created an article giving the Glossary of billiards terms its own article. Each term could get its own section, which would allow us to link to each term directly from other articles, rather than just sending readers to the top of the glossary in the billiards article and making them find the word themselves. It would also serve to keep the billiards article a reasonable size.

I don't want to piss anybody off by doing it, but I think it's a good idea if it's followed through on the rest of the pool articles. What do you think? Kafziel 18:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Then, in the billiards article, we can link to the that article using a {{main|Glossary of Pool and Billiards related terms}} tag (I think that's what that forked article should probably be named). However, the glossary is already fairly extensive. Certainly some sections can be expanded (especially if clarity is an issue), but I'm not sure we should actively seek to make each section larger just for breadth's sake, and I think it would be unwieldy for each of the numerous definitions to have its own section heading (what a ridiculous table of contents that would result in!). Please feel free. Note that I made quite a few links in other articles to the subsection in this article, which will have to be redacted once the change is made (I think that's what you meant at the end of your message, but I wasn't sure). --Fuhghettaboutit 00:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that a number of redirects should be made, so that people can stumble on that article without first coming to the billiards (or other) articles. Likely most will find it that way in any case, but, here's some candidates that come to mind for redirects pool lingo, billiard glossary, pool terminology... ack—I'll have to give these some thought. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. And I don't mean that we need to expand each entry further (they're very good already), just that we should give each one its own heading so we can make internal links like [[Glossary of pool and billiards terms#English|English]] so that way the link will go straight to the right term. Kafziel 03:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
the more I think about it the more I like it. The billiards article itself can now have tons of wikification that it couldn't before. The only thing I still wonder about is the massiveness of the table of contents. Is there a way to turn that off in an article? --Fuhghettaboutit 04:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dogo Canario

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alano_Espa%C3%B1o.jpg

The source link says Dogo Canario Perro de Presa Canario

The source doesn't say anything about a Perro de Presa Canario, and the dog looks nothing like a Perro de Presa Canario]. The source is Wikipedia Germany's article on Alano Español. I don't speak German but canario sounds quite a bit to me like "canine." I looked in a few german dictionaries just now but they weren't able to translate that word --Fuhghettaboutit 15:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dog photos and free distribution

Thanks for trying to fill in dog articles with photos, but in general fair use photos for the dog articles have been rejected. First is Wikipedia's policy, "It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use. " Second is the test in fair use "The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original." Because everything in WP is generally promoted as free distribution, the assumption could easily be made that images are, also, so the potential for widespread distribution of a copyrighted image used without permission could easily occur. (And I'm not sure that we could justify it simply under "wikipedia is educational" anyway, in reading the various policies and dfinitions.) But, thirdly, once there's an image in the article, individuals are less encouraged to add images that *are* free distribution. So I'm removing those photos from the articles. Elf | Talk 18:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to give this some more thought, but for the moment, you should not remove the (dog) postage stamp I uploaded under a different license, and probably also, you should leave in the two images that were taken from other language wikipedias (well, there goes hours of work (18 other images already found downloaded, and text written for upload))--Fuhghettaboutit 18:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree that sucks. I am sorry; I hate to see anyone (myself included) feel like they're wasting or have wasted time.

On your response--Not convinced on the stamp, either; if you read the text of the fairuse template on that item, it says (it might be fair use) "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)", which isn't the case here; although that restriction might apply only outside the U.S., I think we have to be aware of the worldwide use of WP. For others, the text in the copyright template says "...where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" which isn't the case for dog breeds--contributors are adding dog photos all the time. So reading the displayed template text is sometimes useful.  :-)

As for items from other wikipedias--here are some tips:

  • Copy exactly the same info & license as provided on the original page. For example, just now I tracked back Image:Alano Españo.jpg, which you marked with "free use", using your link as a starting point, to de:Bild:Dogo_Canario.jpg, which seems to indicate that it was taken by someone named Sandra Schmidt and that it's released under GFDL (you can tell both by the icon and the text, "GNU Freien Dokumentationslizenz"). So it would be the same here.
  • Yes, you do have to download it & upload it again if it's in a foreign-language wikip. But, in the future, to make it easier for future people to use the same image on other language WPs, you can upload it once to Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/), copy exactly the text from the image on the other language image, and then it can be used in any language just with the usual syntax (e.g., here, "Image:name.jpg") and no one else has to go through the dowload/upload/etc trauma.
  • For dog breeds, we have a cheat-sheet working copy here, some research by another WPian that helps us to figure out what breeds are what. This indicates that the Dogo Canario and the Perro de Presa Canario are the same thing and not the Alano. So I don't know what to make of the image... However, it's true that other languages might use entirely different terminology for various breeds. It's crazy-making. Even our own article says that Dogo Canario is and isn't the same as the Presa Canario.

SOOOO anyway--

Also, you might check the articles as to whether there are already good images further down (e.g., there was in the Bernese Mountain Dog article) that could just be moved up. I'll wait on more changes if you can backtrack and find the correct info for various images in other languages and put it on the image pages here. Ask if you need help with that. Elf | Talk 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing--if you can give the source URL to the page that contains the info about an image, not just the image itself, that's much more helpful in confirming the licensing claims. For example, Image:English White Terrier.jpg gives a source URL that points me to only the image; I can't confirm from that the painter or the date or whether it's claimed there to be an English White Terrier, etc. Thanks. Elf | Talk 22:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'm relatively new to the necessary due diligence required in wikipedia's copyright/licensing schema, but I have been trying to comply with the restrictures. After, I left the above message, I read through a few pages and I did see that the postage stamp is only normally permissible in an article where the stamp itself is the subject (argh). As to the English White Terrier, I looked for the painting independent of the print site, but couldn't find it. I was able, however, to confirm independently that the painter died in 1883 so if the painting is indeed by him, it appears to fit public domain licensing (life of author plus 100 years). I think for the moment I'll stick with text edits, and for images, only those clearly unproblematic like movie posters and dvd covers.

It has gotten more complex in the 2 years since I've been editing here, mostly because WP can afford to be pickier as time goes by & they no longer have to rely on copyrighted images but can follow their goal of having free-use images. So nowadays I, too, usually stick to photos that I've taken or that are very very clearly provable as being in the public domain. (English White Terrier--still would've been nice to have a link to the page where the painting & painter was identified.) Elf | Talk 22:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/u/h/User_talk%7EFuhghettaboutit_Archive_3_ca90.html"