User talk:Scu98rkr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.
You might find these pages useful:
You can always experiment in the sandbox.
One more thing: if you leave a note on any kind of discussion page it's always helpful to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~), which is automatically converted to your username and the date and time. Don't do this in articles themselves though as they are not 'owned' by any particular contributor.
I notice you have uploaded some very useful images. These are welcomed, but please provide a bit more information if you can. I think it's important to have a good caption. A rule of thumb I use is that someone coming across the image should have a basic idea of what it's all about without having to have read the article it's linked from. It's also vital to provide information on the source of the image and an accurate image tag explaining the copyright and licensing situation. Examples of good image description pages can be found here, here, and here. I hope this helps.
If you have any questions, see help, leave a question at the help desk, or feel free to drop me a line on my talk page.
Thanks again and happy editing!
— Trilobite (Talk) 15:26, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Goring-On-Thames
Seems to be a copyvio from http://www.goring-gap.co.uk/history.htm - I've placed the page on Wikipedia:Copyright problems --Tagishsimon
hi im new i have no idea wot im doing
[edit] Wikipedia:Manual of Style
And, having edited Letocetum, I commend the Wikipedia:Manual of Style to your attention. --Tagishsimon
hi i no i have no sense of syle but surely i don't need a manual,
[edit] Your User Page
Flattered as I am that you have chosen to adopt my style of user page for your own, can I possibly ask that you remove my sig from the bottom of yours? Many thanks. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
hi graham ive removed the link is this correct ?
- Cool, thanks for that. The manual of style article is worth reading by the way and have a look at Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers for some tutorials and stuff to start you off here. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
tashio hi !
Hi and welcome. Please write in complete sentences. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 20:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
what do u mean ? i have to say i'm not very good at english other langauages or music
[edit] Copyrighted images
Two of your uploaded photos which you had given no information on and appeared not to have been created by you have been marked as copyright violations, as I found them elsewhere on the internet with nothing to say that the copyright holder in each case allowed reproduction. If you own the copyright to either Image:Mgbd.jpg or Image:Lichcanalplan.jpg you need to state this. Likewise if you have been given permission to use them. If you have uploaded any other copyright violating images please get them deleted immediately by notifying an admin. Thanks. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Lichfield Cathedral Image
Hello, I am wondering why you have removed the new picture of Lichfield Cathedral from the Lichfield page.
The reason I removed your image was because it doesn't show the cathedral's most famous feature - namely the fact that it has three spires. I would also argue that the lighting on your photograph is rather too unbalanced. In addition, I feel the caption, 'The West Front of Lichfield Cathedral' is more informative that 'Lichfield Cathedral June 2005' - the date on which your photograph was taken is neither here nor there to a wikipedia user!
Regards Villafanuk (Talk) 14:48, 16 Feb 2006
I feel my picture is better than yours. The light on the day is much better for a start. Also my picture has been on the lichfield page for a considerable amount of time now, and you removed it and replaced it with yours without any notification. If you really think i should change the caption i may consider that. I also feel the date of the picture is important because things change a picture of a picture of building or town one year may be radically different from the next.
Well considering Lichfield Cathedral looks the same now as it did 300 years ago, I don't think there is too much danger of it suddenly becoming 'radically different' any time soon!! Secondly, the fact that your picture has been there for a long time is no justification for it being a better photograph!
Seriously, I'm only interested in producing the highest quality article I can for Wikipedia (as I'm sure you are), and I sincerly believe the picture doesn't do the Cathedral justice - surely you must admit that a picture of Lichfield Cathedral must show all 3 spires - after all that is it's most famous and spectacular feature?.
Regards Villafanuk (Talk) 17:46, 16 Feb 2006
It was nice of you to take a new picture, and i am glad the lichfield page has such comitted editors, but there was already a perfectly good picture there that did not need to be replaced. A good wikipedia page doesnt just need good content it also needs good layout and attractive pictures, and i think my picture shows lifefield cathedral in a more attractive light than yours. In this vane I also feel your other new pictures were making the Famous Lichfeldians section particulary difficult to read and have since edited it. I would like to hear your comments on the new style.
If you really want to add your picture maybe it would be an idea to start a wikipedia commons section for lichfield to contain other media. As in the [La Paz] page.
Best Regards
Roger
Oh dear Roger - I seem to have annoyed you somewhat in changing your original picture. I am sorry to have done so but I assure you that I did not do so to annoy you!! I am merely trying to show Lichfield off to the world in it's best light! The only reason I feel so strongly that the original picture could be improved is because it does not show the most important feature of the Cathedral - that is the fact that it has 3 spires. Perhaps it was overly harsh to criticise the lighting on your photograph, that woulld not in itself be a reason to replace the image - but I do feel that it is important that we try to improve the article as much as possible. I know it may seem that I am splitting hairs, but in fairness, the original photo is not the definitive picture of Lichfield Cathedral in virtue of the fact that it was the first photo to appear. Perhaps your point about the lighting on mine not being perfect is a valid point, (maybe one of us could pick a glorious summer day to try again!!) but at least mine shows all 3 spires!
In addition, I don't accept that messing about with the additional photos I have added will score you any points, it just makes you seem rather petty and missing the point - the reason I placed Dr Johnson's statue photo inset with Famous Lichfeldians is because he is a famous Lichfeldian! If you look at the layout of a standard Wikipedia article, (and I appreciate your input), you will find that text sandwiched between 2 photos, (as you have suggested)is most irregular.
Regards Villafanuk (Talk) 22:59, 16 Feb 2006
I do not think your changes improve the article, I have changed the article again but moved the pictures so the text is easier to read but the picture relate to the various sections. I have suggestted some comprismises but you have not even commented on them, therefore i have changed the article back to how i think it looks best.
Roger
Just re-read what you said "Perhaps it was overly harsh to criticise the lighting on your photograph". The lighting is better on my picture, so im not too sure what your on about here.
The point I was trying to make is that I think you have a point about the lighting on my photograph (taken as it was in the light of February) - and suggested perhaps one of us taking a picture in the summer (when there is glorious sunshine) that satifies both of us. i.e. A photograph in which both the lighting is good (which is your point) and the 3 spires are visible (which is my point).
I think that is the only way out of this argument. What do you think? Otherwise we are going to be going round in circles aren't we!!
Regards Villafanuk 10:19, 17 Feb 2006
Yes i agree
Roger
Hi i was just looking at the lichfield cathedral page, especially your picture of the high altar. It is at a slant in fact all your pictures are at a slant including the one of lichfield cathedral. I just thought id point this out.
It's nice to see 2 people taking such a pride in their wikiprojects! I think you're right they are slightly slanted, I would welcome new pictures that were not slanted provided they don't miss vital parts. For example your picture of the High Alter might have only half of the alter showing!
Seriously though Bodger, you've not managed to come up with an answer to my reason for disliking your photograph - that is the fact that, as nice as the lighting is, the most important aspect of Lichfield Cathedral, indeed its most famous and celebrated feature is totally missing from your photo. The reason I have replaced it for the moment (until one of us has the time to take a better one) is because what is more important is to show the 3 spires - the 'Ladies of Vale' which are referred to in the article. Surely you must admit that this is important to represent to the wiki users of the world who want to find out what's so special about Lichfield.
Do you seriously believe people want to see a picture of Lichfield Cathedral without its 3 spires? It's like having a picture of The Houses of Parliament without showing Big Ben, or a picture only showing the bottom half of the Empire State Building. Can you not see that there is something integral to understanding what is so impressive about these buildings by showing their best, most celebrated features?! Having the main picture of the Cathedral showing only 2 of the spires is not doing the magnificent building justice.
I didn't remove your photo because it wasn't mine, that would be pretty fucking petty, I replaced it because I believe the first picture anyone who is learning about Lichfield should see should show all 3 spires in all their glory.
I'm asking you to be reasonable, and have presented my argument to you in a way that I hope has explained my reasoning. The lighting on my photo is not too bad at all, and surely someone who is visiting the page would rather see a picture of the 3 spires than one that is very bright, but misses it's main feature.
Regards Villafanuk
No i dont really see that it is important to show the 3 spires. There is a separate article on lichfield cathedral, where you have also replaced my picture, which can show its 3 spires. I feel that this article is on Lichfield and having a different picture from your one decreases repetition and i also feel that my picture is a better picture and makes lichfield look more attractive than yours.
Great argument yeah brilliant reasoning. So the first thing someone sees when open the page is an unbalenced picture of some old Cathedral. Without the 3 spires, Lichfield would be very ordinary indeed, it is one of the smallest Cathedral's in England, and it has no original stained glass because it was destoyed during the Civil War. One of the things that makes Lichfield so special is it's 3 spires, the 'Ladies of the Vale' dominate the skyline.
By the way I wouldn't be too satified with the lighting on your photograph - is really is very unbalenced, it goes from very bright to very dark with that big shadow on it - you must admit mate, it's not exactly the last word in photography is it?! That along with the fact that it doesn't show the 3 spires means that it needs to be replaced.
Theres no need to get aggresive. There isnt really anything more to say, i think my picture should go there and you think yours. Until we get a picture we are both happy with the argument won't be settled.
I've not been aggressive in the slightest - I'm merely trying to reach a conclusion to this argument - a main picture simply must show the 3 spires, I'm sorry, but the origianl reason for my replacing your photo stands.
I disagree. I think we should have the best picture, which is mine, A picture with 3 spires could be added to a commons page or the lichfield cathedral page(which it is already on).
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Scu98rkr.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Scu98rkr.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 17:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Do not recreate Ruddy Vincent
You have recently re-created the article Ruddy Vincent, which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 12:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok sorry
For the sake of clarity: The article has been speedily deleted, because it seems to be about a subject but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. If you disagree with the deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 13:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
