User talk:Helix84/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image speedy deletions

"Exists on commons" is not a valid reason for speedy deleting images. Please refrain from using it in the future. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2FMedia 1.) lists it as a reason. To explain what I'm doing: if the image is used on two or more national Wikipedias and it's free, I upload it (or the hi-res version in case there are scaled down versions) to commons: with all descriptions and information that I find, retaining its original name if possible and appropriate, update all references on national wikipedias and then mark them with {{Deletebecauseoncommons}} if the filename is the same or {{Deletebecause|on commons as [[:commons:image:imagename}}. In either case, the image is redundant and can be safely deleted. I know I fail to list it on speedy deletions, I don't do it because I work with a _lots_ of images, but Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion says "either by listing it on speedy deletions, or by adding either a {{delete}} or {{deletebecause|Reason}} header." anyway. Any comments? helix84 08:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the "Proposed other" section? It explicitly states that images being on Commons is not a reason for speedy deletion. Maybe it should be, but it isn't, and images cannot be undeleted in the case of errors. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, now I have read it a dozen times and it's formulated so badly, that I still don't understand what it says. Anyway, what do you suggest me to do with the duplicates? helix84 18:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It says "that an image exists here and on Commons is not a reason for speedy deletion, although some people think it should be". Such images should be listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstood me now, I read the "Proposed other" section many times and don't understand what it's supposed to mean. To me, it doesn't correspond to what you say it means. Sorry. Suggest a clearer formulation in the rules. So far, I have read many policies concerning this and I don't see a single one I'm breaking. And if an image being on Commons is not a reason for speedy deletion, then what's the problem, it won't be deleted. I wrote here my procedure what I do with redundant images. You're welcome to suggest any improvements in it, but as a whole, I don't see anything wrong with it and I'm going to continue using it until you convince me of the negative. helix84 00:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It says:

"The following cases are proposals only, and they should not be used as reasons for a speedy deletion."

The reasons listed in the section cannot be used yet.

"To expand the images category to include an image uploaded to Commons."

If accepted, the proposal would allow "exists on commons" to be used as a reason for speedy deletion.

The proposal has not been accepted, "exists on commons" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion, and the mess you caused by tagging Image:Birth of Venus.jpg as a CSD has been resolved only by the original uploader having retained a copy of the image. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I understand it now, thanks for clearing its meaning to me, you might want to clear it on the policy page, too, because it's not formulated very well there. Sorry about the Venus, it was only one of images I worked with and that I marked it even despite it differed from the other version was a mistake. I expect you'll suggest what I should do against people copying free images from en: to other national Wikipdias instead of using commons:. helix84 19:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what problem you are attempting to describe. All I can say is that if an image is copied from the English Wikipedia to the Commons, there is no need to have it deleted here immediately. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not in the ideal world :/ I started to do that because users from national Wikipedias (maybe novices, maybe old users not aware of commons: existence) are used to upload the same image to 2 Wikipedias instead of using commons:, although they're free and commons is designated for this. In particular, multiple copies under a different name and usually without any copyright info were introducing a mess to slovak and other Wikipedias, so that's why I decided to clean it up. helix84 19:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand the why. You can clean up the other language Wikipedias in whatever manner they deem acceptable. We just don't allow that method on the English Wikipedia at present. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One more thing -- to explain why I'm not going to list them in Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion -- I don't see any benefit over using templates, while it adds a significant amount of work for me because I deal with many images on many national Wikipedias. helix84 00:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it's inconvenient for you. Image deletions are irreversible and an image existing on Commons is not currently a valid reason for speedy deletion on the English Wikipedia. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your signature

Hi. I hope you don't mind my saying, but your signature is a bit of a problem. Server load is a major issue with Wikipedia's speed, and serving images is a big part of that. Your image, while very nice, has the potential to increase WP's server load, and thus slow it down. Cheers, smoddy 20:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed it helix84 21:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cheers, smoddy 21:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Entertainment and Recreation

If you want to merge Entertainment and Recreation, that is fine, but please look at Category:Entertainment and Category:Recreation first. The sematic is: Recreation IS A Entertainment. Each has about 50 subcatories. I can imagine what happened: the "Entertain" page was merely created to help define the scope remained small. It looks like an easy merge until you look at the cats. -- Fplay 06:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up: Bug report

I am attempting to organise WP:BUG. You filed a bug report concerning a search feature you had enabled in your browser. May I ask, have you been able to fix the problem? -- Ec5618 13:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't. But it must be a change in WikiMedia behaviour because I'm sure older versions transformed '+' in address bar to a space. ~~helix84 07:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Opte Project map 1105841711.LGL.2D.4000x4000.png listed for deletion

dbenbenn | talk 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Helix84.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Helix84.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 02:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaning Tower of Pisa

Is there a particular reason you uncapitalized a large section of Leaning Tower of Pisa? Monkeyman^(talk) 02:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a copyedit according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I was wrong with the initial caps which i corrected now. ~~helix84 02:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)