User talk:Solipsist/archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other pages: main - talk - images - contrib - notes

Talk archive: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15


Contents

[edit] Thanks

For fixing my edit to fingerprint. I don't normally make mistakes like that when cutting and pasting - the cursor was obviously a few characters farther to the right than I thought it was. It serves as a good reminder to use the show preview button, and at least make some cursory examination of the edit after I've done it! Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries, you should see some of the mistakes I make from time to time. I was actually looking at the addition of the 'Croat-Argentine' adjective by User:72.153.198.103, which I thought was a little unnecessary. Ultimately I chose not to revert that, but in the process of checking those edits I noticed the earlier problems which required a complex semi-revert. So the edit summary was just documenting what I was trying to achieve. -- Solipsist 11:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pub games

Hi Solipsist. To answer your question on why I merged some of the pub game articles into the main pub game article: I was going through the various Beer related categories and articles and I came upon a series of very small articles on the theme of pub games. By themselves they were little more than dictionary entries, while the main pub games article was simply a series of links to these very small articles. As you may have noticed by now, it is not my intention to merge all pub game related articles into the pub game article, merely those which are quite minor. My intention is to create an encylopedia entry for Pub games which would involve doing a bit more than generating a list of links, it would involve making some comment on the various activities. Those comments are already on Wiki - I'm just collecting them together in what seems the most sensible place. Links are being provided for the activities which are large enough to generate their own entries. Clearly there will be some borderline cases for which entries are significant enough to deserve their own entries; but I see no problem with someone doing some research on Pitch penny which would involve something more than the current single sentence and then undoing my redirect. Certainly Bar billiards was one which I did consider might deserve its own entry, and might be a good example of the classic borderline. I suspect I have finished adding entries to the article - I am now considering how best to organise it. I currently have it split into two very awkward groups - Pushing Games and Other Games. This is clearly not very satisfactory. Any suggestions? SilkTork 13:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • "I would suggest reverting the changes you've been making today." Ouch!

I hear what you are saying about some of the pub games having a life beyond the pub. And I would agree that Aunt Sally is an odd entry as a pub game - it always seemed to me more of a fairground game. But I took my cue from the comments in the article. I have deleted the redirect on the Aunt Sally article, though I have also kept the contents on the Pub Games article, which will be edited down in time. Clearly I should be doing more work out of the public eye, but this pub games article was not planned and it is simply growing spontaneously so all the stuff is going live as matters arise. My intention this morning was to do more work on the Scottish beer entry. But it looks as that won't be done now as I am running out of the time I had alloted for Wiki work today! SilkTork 13:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh yes! And your comments on the future direction of the Pub games article are very good, especially some inclusion on those electronic games and quizes. All taken on board. SilkTork 13:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi! Came upon the Pub Games article today and noticed the changes. I have put back information on the minor games, but at the same time left the minor articles in place (no redirects! and this time providing links to the minor articles). I'm hoping this satisfies your intention of allowing room for the minor articles to grow, but at the same time allowing a useful single article resource directing people to the major games, but providing simple summaries for the minor games. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers! SilkTork 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Silk,
I really don't think that is a good idea, but I'll pick this up on Talk:Pub games -- Solipsist 20:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self promotion?

Self promotion?? What do you mean?? I'm not a member of the band Delirious, and I don't work for the cathedral! How was I promoting myself? Fine, take out the link to the CU (which I'm not a member of...) but why remove the entire paragraph? I find that rather rude, I spent time writing that, and for many here in Liverpool it's one of the major things we know the cathedral for! Paulfp 19:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK, I take your point

OK, I take your point about there being other concerts there, but I myself have less knowledge of these. I thought the whole point of Wikipedia is that people add information, and then others add even more to that, and that's how great articles are made? Perhaps a section about memorable events could be greated, including both the McCartney and the Delirious (plus others!) concerts. Seems like a good idea to me, and would make the article an even more interesting read. Please let me know how on earth you considered it Self-Promotion, as I honestly don't understand why you thought that.

I've at no point been intending to spam Wikipedia... thank you for point out if my actions were resembling that; it is never the intention. We learn as we go along, and I'm always learning, especially in the last few days.

I also take your point that maybe the CU site wasn't specifically relevant in the "Jesus" article, but take another look at what you wrote:

"Quite why you thought that Liverpool City Christian Union was relevant to the article on Jesus, beggars belief."

"beggars belief"?? C'mon, it's hard not to read that and chuckle. "Jesus" and "Christian" are completely unrelated now, are they?

Paulfp 19:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merger: Rug vs Carpet

Hi Solipsist. I was merely adding the merge notice based on old posts on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I figured, therefore, there was already a merge notice posted.... sorry, should have linked to it. Anyway, it may still be a good merge. Alba 12:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglia Ruskin University pic

Wicked awesome. Thanks. youngamerican (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liverpool Cathedral

User:Paulfp reinserted some text [1] into Liverpool Cathedral which is similar to what you removed. I still feel it's completely inappropriate for the article on the cathedral, particularly with wording such as "remembered as one of the Cathedral's finest days". Do you agree that it should be removed? chowells 19:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it anyway: "An insignificant factoid which is really irrelevent for wikipedia. "huge success" and "remembered as one of the Cathdral's finest days" are opinions, not fact. The URL also doesn't work" chowells 21:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was offline for most of last night. But I support your juedgement call on this one. -- Solipsist 13:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fir0002 FPC

Hi Solipsist!
It's been a while, but here's another batch. Thanks! --Fir0002 05:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saatchi Gallery

Hi, I wonder if you can help out. I have posted extra information on the Saatchi Gallery and it's been deleted 6 times by two new users whose only contributions have been on the gallery. They remove valid information about the history of the gallery, and seem to want to make it an announcement board for current gallery activities! Tyrenius 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you are doing the right thing. The two new editors are to be welcomed. If, as it appears, they are associated with the gallery, they should be able to provide some useful information. However, we don't particularly want the article to be reduced to a concise version. I can see why the new editors may want to remove some of the information on past controversies, but the material you are adding looks reasonable and is referenced. Length per se, shouldn't be a problem - it should be possible to accommodate both sides by reorganising the article a little. In particular, expanding the lead section to give a concise summary of the galleries achievements, before moving on to the more expanded history that you have now.
At the moment, the 'County Hall' section doesn't read quite as well as the 'St John's Wood' section. In particular the last para contains a little more information, in sub clauses, than is entirely necessary - for example I'm not sure we really need to know that Shirayama Shokusan Co Ltd is based in Osaka. Here the revised version by User:Paulx555 reads better, although it glosses some of the points too much, most especially the outcome of the court case. But a version half way between the two would probably work well.
One other thing to consider is that including the details of various controversies in the general flow of the history of the gallery could be giving each controversy too much weight. Its good to mention them, especially since controversy is an important part of the fabric supporting some of the YBAs, but it might be an idea to pull them out into their own section.
Anyhow, you've been getting close to the 3RR recently, so you have done the right thing by asking for more input. I'll try to keep an eye on the article. -- Solipsist 09:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights portal

Portal:Human rights
I, Lucinor, creator of the Portal:Human rights, invite you as editor of Human rights-related articles to start contributing to aforementioned Portal.

--Lucinor 09:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Admin nom

Wow, thanks! This is completely unexpected. I'm leaning towards accepting, but I'll get back to you. I'll tell you my decision in the morning.

Thanks again. Raven4x4x 10:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops!

Green Sea Turtle isn't mine! :-)PiccoloNamek 13:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falkirk Wheel

Hey again! Thanks for letting me know. I mada a tiny change, lift --> transfer, just to reflect the fact they go down as well as up. BTW it's about time I gave out my first barnstar...
Cheers SeanMack 00:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Today's featured picture" title

Hi! I'm just writing to remind you that this is now a part of the main page, so it should not be included on the picture's page. Thanks! —David Levy 01:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll update the generating template now. -- Solipsist 08:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I accept

I have decided to accept your nomination. I was going through the three questions at the bottom of an RFA, and I realised that I could put together reasonable answers for all of them, and that's when I decided to accept. Of course if it fails it won't be the end of the world, and I know I don't have any really unpleasant memories that could be dredged up. So I graciously accept your nomination, and I shall work on those questions right away. Raven4x4x 02:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Raven4x4x 10:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fir0002 FPC

Sorry to be back so soon after the last batch, but I'd appreciate your input in these photos. Thanks! --Fir0002 www 23:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Welcome

Hi.

Thanks for the message you sent me...I've only just found it!

Cheers Kris_sw 02:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the day department

Dear Solipsist,

The usage of the picture of the day has expanded. It is now being copied and reformatted for horizontal presentation on the Main Page's upcoming replacement, and copied and reformatted for columnar presentation on several Main Page alternates. We're not sure we did this in the most efficient way, but here's what we've wound up with:

The pages used for the horizontally formatted pic of the day (for the new Main Page):

The pages used for the vertically (columnar) formatted pic of the day:

One problem we've run into is that the underlying pic of the day is prepared only a day or two in advance, forcing us to check back often for the latest pic updates. On days we aren't available, the pic becomes in danger of being missed which would result in a red link on the page instead of the transcluded pic. There are two possible solutions for this that I can think of (and there may be more):

  1. Combine these departments into the current Pic of the day department, so that all pic archives are prestocked at the same time.
  2. Stock the underlying pic of the day a month in advance, to remove the need to check back daily for updates.

I'm contacting you to begin discussions concerning the transition that will likely take place from the Main Page to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft (which sports the pic of the day daily rather than just on weekends) and for supporting the additional uses of the pic of the day (on the Main Page alternates).

The election for the new Main Page is scheduled to start March 1st, and will run for three weeks. If the election follows the outcome of the most recent poll, the draft is very likely to win by a landslide. So now it's time to figure out how the new Main Page will be supported in case it does win -- and even if it doesn't, for it will become a Main Page alternate if it doesn't win. Both the Main Page Draft and the Main Page alternates are fully operational and the support issues above apply to the present as well as to the upcoming transition.

If the Main Page is replaced, it will still need to be supported as a Main Page alternate "Classic" version.

What are your thoughts on these matters?

What do you suggest?

If you need any assistance at all in implementing a solution to our dilemma (such as stocking the Pic of the day up in advance, or any other solution) I would be glad to chip in, and I'm sure others from the Main Page redesign team would be glad to help too.

But for now, it should be enough to discuss possible plans of action. I've invited several (or will be doing so shortly) key members of the Main Page redesign team to join in on this discussion so nobody is taken by surprise. Scratch that, I've invited them all!

Sincerely,

--Go for it! 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the day, streamlining

Is it possible to have one version of the Pic of the day that all versions could be automatically derived from? Using variables and if/else condition checks, could various code (like the border, or either caption, etc.) be made active or inactive depending on the page it is being displayed on? So that the same code would have different effects on different pages, allowing us to use the same code everywhere? --Go for it! 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sustainability

You really shouldn`t touch material that you don`t understand!!!!! It is absurd to assume that the existing articles are unbiased, and my information is biased. In fact, I am correcting existing errors and biases. I am linking to my website because the information exists NOWHERE ELSE. If it were published, I could cite it, but because I am on the cutting edge of certain areas of study, there is nothing to cite. Your assumption that published sources are superior to unpublished sources is itself an enormous bias. Please restore what you removed, and in the future, stick to editing material that you know something about I am really disappointed in the quality of Wikipedia, which has great potential! But it is dominated by people pushing their own agendas, while claiming to be unbiased. A good example is the mountain biking article, which is pure pro-mountain biking propaganda. Whenever I try to correct it, my edits are erased without any comment. Why is this BS allowed, but efforts to correct it are not? -- Mike Vandeman

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mjvande"

[edit] Another Featured Picture
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Monument Valley 2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 05:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Generate POTD R

I have set up {{Template:Generate POTD R}} to help generate POTD in the format needed for the proposed main page redesign. I suppose this will eventually replace {{Template:Generate POTD M}}. I notice you use number variables (e.g. {{{1}}}, {{{2}}}, ...) in the other templates. {{Template:Generate POTD R}} could use numbers also, but right now I have named parameters there (e.g. {{{image}}}, {{{size}}}, ...).

I have also attempted to separate all the parameters into {{User:Kmf164/POTD/February 22, 2006}} - using {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}} instead of specific dates, and combine that with {{Template:Generate POTD R}} to dynamically create {{User:Kmf164/POTD_row}}. But somehow, I can't get {{User:Kmf164/POTD/December 15, 2006}} to properly transclude into {{User:Kmf164/POTD_row}}. For now, cut and pasting the parameters and using {{Template:Generate POTD R}} could work for generating POTD row.

Let me know if you want the named parameters to be numbers (we would need one optional paramater added for size), or if you think the other generate templates could use the named parameters? -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to take another look at this this evening and see whether I could get the double transclusion approach to work. Although I'm still concerned that that approach is liable to lead to around 10 pages needing protection, instead of 'just' four. I don't suppose you know of a template trick that would allow you to specify the half dozen parameters on one subpage? -- Solipsist 19:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm trying... to put the 6 parameters on the one page, {{User:Kmf164/POTD/February 22, 2006}}. So, there would be just two pages each day that need protection (the actual image page and {{User:Kmf164/POTD/February 22, 2006}} - which would be moved to Wikipedia namespace). {{Wikipedia:POTD row}} could also be protected, but just need to do that once rather than everyday.
The format is similar to that used in Template:Infobox City, where you can make some variables hidden or optional. And I've created station infoboxes for PATH station articles (e.g. 14th Street (PATH station)) that use double transclusion. So, it should be possible here. Though, cut & paste always works too. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The multiple subpage approach used by Commons works, but I am not sure I like it. I've got a test example with {{POTD_M|size=200px}}, which transcludes the pages {{User:Solipsist/2006-02-22/Image}} along with /Mouseover /Credit /Description -- Solipsist 21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are two reasons why I am not too comforatble with this approach. One is the extra page protections required. The second is that every now and again we get an awkward image, such as a wide panorama or an animation, that typically needs more fine tuned scaling and placement. It could also be tricky to see the layout in advance of the day, but there is probably a way around that. -- Solipsist 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


The page, User:Kmf164/POTD/February 22, 2006 has:
|image = Image:Zabriskie Point at sunrise in Death Valley NP.JPG
|size = 200px
|title = Zabriskie Point at sunrise in Death Valley
|mouseover = Zabriskie Point at sunrise in Death Valley
|credit = Photo credit: [[User:maveric149|Daniel Mayer]]
|caption = '''[[Zabriskie Point]]''' is an area in [[Death Valley National Park]] noted for ...
It didn't work, but I tried to transclude this into User:Kmf164/POTD row, with:
{{Generate POTD R|
{{User:Kmf164/POTD/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
|}}

The reason it's not working has nothing to do with using {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}, but something else.

When I replace {{User:Kmf164/POTD/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}} with the exact text above, from User:Kmf164/POTD/February 22, 2006, then User:Kmf164/POTD row works just fine. Maybe some point, I'll figure out what's wrong. Though, the cut and paste approach is fine with me too. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fir0002 FPC Orb Weavers

Hi Solipsist!
I'd appreciate your input in these
Thanks! --Fir0002 www 23:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have a favor to ask

Would you be so kind as to keep the Pic of the day queue stocked up a month in advance? I would greatly appreciate it. --Go for it! 15:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That's good. In fact I see that you have gone ahead and constructed a whole load of POTDs. Unfortunately they nearly all seem to randomly chosen rather than observe the normal POTD order. I can work toward building a head of one month, but it won't happen overnight. -- Solipsist 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Many of them are new Featured Pictures that haven't appeared as POTDs before. So, if they are in the wrong order, rather than editing over them, maybe it would be a good idea to move them to the dates of their proper scheduling, rather than waste the effort that was expended in making them. I have created them as a resource, to establish a one-month buffer. It would be a shame to see all that work buried in the page histories (and moving them would be more appropriate than cutting and pasting them from the historical pages, to preserve their histories). When stocking the pics, I could find no documentation on ordering (please provide links, so that I may catch up on this subject). Let me know what the "normal POTD order" is, and I'll gladly assist in rearranging the new POTDs and moving them to more appropriate dates. Sincerely, --Go for it! 05:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just found one line of instruction on selection order for new Featured Pics (in the order created), though I think we can be a little more flexible, since we can get them all caught up fairly soon (I'll know more once I've made a list of the ones I missed). However, I could find no documentation on the selection of re-used pics over not yet used FPs. A large number of POTDs have been being reused even though there were unused FPs, which seems to break the rule "use in the order created". Unused FPs go all the way back to November. I assume you have been referring to the archives at Wikipedia:Goings-on for a listing of Featured Pictures and their promotion dates? Please correct me if I'm mistaken on this, and provide me with the link to your source data. Thank you. --Go for it! 07:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll find more discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day. The order of promotions can be found from the monthly FPC archives, but in practice the promotion order tends to be reflected in Featured pictures thumbs (we're just moving into group 5), as long as you keep an eye on when the animations were promoted.
At the moment, Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays reuse previous featured pictures, and the current marker there is somewhere in the middle of FP-thumbs-2. However, as Goings-on indicates, we are now beginning to acheive an average of 7 new FPs a week. This means that once POTD moves to a permanent spot on the main page, it might also be safe to move to using just the new FPs.
In practice I also tend to apply a little flexibility, nudging a POTD earlier or later by a day or two - largely to avoid two similar subjects appearing on consecutive days. There are a number of other things to be aware of when writing captions too, but I will go into that later.
It would be feasible to move the POTDs you've generated so far, but when I've tried that in the past I've found it impossibly difficult. The multiple page moves get in the way of each other and its non trivial to calculate date differences. It is actually easier to use the content you've generated for these future POTDs and feed it in as the set of parameters into the various Generate_POTD templates. Believe me, after a year or more of doing this, I've a pretty good idea of the best way to do things. Also remember that one of the principle purposes of POTD and Featured Pictures is to encourage editors to contribute more pictures and spend time illustrating articles. -- Solipsist 08:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As you stated, the new FPs are piling up, so they should probably be posted exclusively. Sorry I missed the instructions. I've compiled the following list, which would facilitate skipping the (new) pics already posted, if you were so inclined.

[edit] 2004

[edit] 2005

[edit] 2006

Raven posted the above to Goings-on, so they are probably accurate. It's a much longer back log than I would have guessed. If this volume continues, how will POTD catch up with the new FPs?

Using the above list, it should be an easy matter to create a schudule for moving the pics to the appropriate dates. Or if you decided to pick up in April where I left off, using the above list, you'd know which pics to skip.

Also, take a look at pic posted for April 1st. That pic seems to fit that date particularly well. --Go for it! 09:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its a good list, but we'll get through it quicker than you would guess. That's 81 new FPs, which is less than 3 months worth if we start using a new FP every day. The critical thing is the new promotion rate. If you've been working though Goings-on, you may have noticed that the rate has been improving. But even the average for last December was just 4 a week. It needs to average at least 7 a week to avoid repeating old FPs on POTD.
As I say, I will probably transition to all new FPs when POTD goes full time on the MainPage. That should also trigger more activity on WP:FPC and help ensure that the promotion rate stays above 7 a week. In the meantime, we need the header tank of FPs and don't want to go through them too quickly. -- Solipsist 09:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

For keeping track of them so we can find them later, I've added the dates to which the pics are misposted, to the list above. --Go for it! 10:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK - getting there now. Wikipedia was wading in treacle last night, but with luck I'll get a chance to sort out the remaining wrinkles for the month ahead today. The panther photo for example is no longer featured. -- Solipsist 07:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And concerning April 1st. Can we leave that pic there? It fits the day's theme better than any other FP I could find. --Go for it! 10:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Its a nice choice, but unfortunately Mediaeval Micky was delisted as an FP over a year ago, so it will have to change. -- Solipsist 07:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears "flaming cocktails" was passed-over by POTD. Can you confirm this? --Go for it! 10:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember this picture being promoted and it does look like 'flaming cocktails' has been passed over - good catch. Sometimes, this sort of thing just turns out to be due to a duplicate or a change of name when the image is moved to Commons. In this case, it looks like it is also missing from FP_thumbs_2, which is probably why it got skipped. At least it wasn't taken by a Wikipedian. -- Solipsist 07:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

My RFA has been successful! Thanks again for nominating me. I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsable use. If I do anything wrong you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 07:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meditative art/Monochrome Painting

I wonder if you could help out. I moved Meditative art to Monochrome Painting, as this is what it is about and people will understand that term. I've changed the redirects. However, I realise now it should be Monochrome painting with a lower case "p". I tried to do that move, but Monochrome painting exists as a redirect (to Meditative art, now changed by me to Monochrome Painting), so the system won't let me do the move. I can't just paste the Monochrome Painting text to Monochrome painting, as I will lose the history. If Monochrome painting was deleted, then the move could be done. I don't know of any other solution. Sorry to trouble you....

Tyrenius 18:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK done - as it happens I drew the original illustration for Yves Klein, I'm not so sure it was intended to be meditative though :) -- Solipsist 06:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've only just noticed. I see your illustration is not quite the same shade of blue.... -- Tyrenius 02:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I thought it didn't quite look like the right blue at the time, but I was trusting the original RGB values in International Klein Blue. It was User:VermillionBird who noticed and corrected the colour values last October. -- Solipsist 07:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I assumed yours was a deliberate mismatch, therefore not being plagiarism but an interpretation (or maybe the rounded corners were the innovation...)...
Tyrenius 13:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi Solipsist,

My name is Fernanda Viégas and I have been studying Wikipedia for a while now (you can see a paper I published on the subject here). I would like to ask you a few questions about your activities as a Wikipedia "photographer" and "illustrator." I am fascinated by the pictorial side of Wikipedia and it would be great to hear about this community from one of its members. Would you be available for an informal interview? Thanks, Fernanda.

Hi Fernanda - yes that should be fine. Contact me on my 'E-mail this user' link to arrange a time. -- Solipsist 06:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raspberries

Hi Solipsist!
I was wondering if you could look through these. Thanks! --Fir0002 www 08:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

Someone keeps changing the pic of the day for March 3 to Loch Lomond (though he hasn't touched the 3 POTD versions for the same day - Lewis & Clark map). Just making sure you are aware of this so that the various POTDs remain in sync. --Go for it! 04:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered why he's so adamant: he's the one who got the picture promoted. --Go for it! 04:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I will have a word with them. -- Solipsist 07:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Even though you opposed, just wanted to say thanks for your comments here]. :) --Rebroad 22:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fish And Chips

I really liked your fish and chips photograph -- very dramatic. So I decided to look you up. Very nice job all around! Sincerely Nathan Beach 20:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Its nice to be noticed from time to time. Although it was oddly hazy out to sea, for the most part there was an unusually clear sky that day. That contributed to two other pictures I quite like: the Cliffs at Hunstanton and a fulmar perched on the cliffs. Unfortunately, the fish and chips themselves were just good, rather than exceptional, like the fish available from a certain chip shop in Aldeburgh. I also vaguely recall an even better chip shop in Whitby. -- Solipsist 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newton the Alchemist

I note you reverted my deletion of Newton as an alchemist from the intro. I have responded to this with some comments in the discussion page (under Alchemist).--Jack Upland 00:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll pick up on the discussion there. -- Solipsist 15:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright info

Hi. I was seeking some info about a copyright problem and was directed here by User:Fir0002 in the thought you might have some information you could share with me about this. The problem is here: [[2]] I'm not sure if there is anything I can do. Do you have any ideas? Any information about this would be very much appreciated. Thanks. SkeenaR 05:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. Much appreciated. SkeenaR 04:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Thanks, Solipsist, for your message. I appreciate what you are saying and I have deleted the external links in question. Best wishes, Andrew User: Andrew Lambert 0502, 17 March, 2006

[edit] POTD prestocked

I've posted about 3 weeks of pics in advance. There are six empty days mixed in, and if those were filled, it would make a whole month. They're on the old schedule, so switching to the new schedule (i.e., posting exclusively from thumbs 05) can most easily be started as of April 19th. Please go back to your routine of posting a pic (or so) a day. The purpose of the buffer is to provide a warning mechanism so that the picture on the Main Page never goes redlink (i.e., blank). If the buffer drops below 20 days, for instance, that's a sign that something may be wrong, and will alert me to jump in and help. The buffer also provides some flexibility (like the ability to take a week off from time to time). I hope you like the adjustment to the system. --Go for it! 10:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April fools day Main Page proposal

Someone has proposed an April Fool's version of the Main Page for that date. Since this involves the picture of the day, I think your feedback and participation may be required. Perhaps you should take a look at the proposal and the mock-up, to give them a guiding hand: Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page. --Go for it! 11:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar time

For oh so long now, I've noticed you actively running around categorising art related articles, fixing them up, adding pictures where possible, removing them when they are inappropriate or copyvios, and generally improving Wikipedia's coverage of the arts. That seems worth a Tireless Contributor Barnstar to me. Thanks for all your efforts. -- Solipsist 00:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks, Solipsist! I'm taking everything I've learned here and using it with a new wiki, Whole Wheat Radio. You'll find me there with the same name as here, and if you like folk music, blues, and the like, tune-in to the stream. Which means I won't be doing much wikipedia for awhile, but I'm having a ball with the WWR wiki! >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shells

Hey there. Remember in October 2004, when you uploaded that image of the newly-hatched baby tortoise?

I just had to take issue with the way you worded the caption.

Describing a tortoise as "free of his shell" can have some horribly unpleasant implications, you see. I know you meant his eggshell, but it took a moment to work that out. I've rewritten it. DS 18:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I can see the problem with the original ambiguity :) I was mostly struggling with translating from the German source at the time. On the other hand is a hatchling's shell soft? If not, is it still called a shell at that time... In any case, the rewording looks fine. -- Solipsist 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your attention is needed

Someone has protected all the POTD row pics way in advance, and there are some corrections to be made, but I no longer have access. Please unprotect them, and please have a word with whomever protected them. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. --Go for it! 01:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Hi Solipsist, first I would like to say thanks very much for your kind comments and observations on my modern art contributions, and the gift of the wonderful revolving barnstar. It was quite unexpected and made my evening.

I've noticed your continual contributions too—as have others too, judging from your barnstars—and was already wondering whether I could leave one for you, when one appeared for me! This is my first time for awarding a barnstar, and I hope it is acceptable!

The Working Man's Barnstar
For continual work on all those essential but unglamorous jobs that smarten up the whole ship Tyrenius 03:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be grateful, when you have the time, if you could cast your eye over the Damien Hirst article, as I would like to bring this up to featured article level. I haven't got enough experience to know what might need to be done, and how far short it would be at the moment. Any pointers would be welcome. I think it has the potential to make a very notable featured article. There is already some very interesting material in there that I had never come across before I started researching for it—and I thought I was fairly conversant with the subject.

Tyrenius 03:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, I'll move it over to my user page later on when I get some time.
I'd noticed that the Damien Hirst article was coming along nicely. It looks quite plausibly feature article level already, but I'll check what the current standards are and see whether I can find any improvements or corrections. -- Solipsist 07:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Re. Damien Hirst, I wanted to see if there was anything glaring that needed to be attended to. I wouldn't want to put it forward for a featured article yet, as there is still some material that needs to be included, for example more about his use of pharmaceutical imagery, as well as a colour supplement article on him that I need to dig out from my files. I haven't got time right now though for that.

Tyrenius 16:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ingrowing Tree.jpg Tree with ingrowing twigs

Hi Solipsist – I somehow missed seeing this before – the tree is a Common Lime (a hybrid, Tilia × europaea; Tilia platyphyllos × Tilia cordata). This sort of twigginess is a normal character of some clones of this hybrid; it is vegetatively reproduced (propagated by cuttings, not seeds), and there appears to be a relationship between production of this twiggyness and ease of rooting cuttings. In other words, the ones that are dreadful for suckering are also cheap to propagate, and is thus a product of human selection. The two parent species rarely show this character, but it does occur occasionally. Although it does look very like a witches' broom, it isn't actually one in this case. - MPF 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MPF, I was happy to accept the witches' broom explanation, although this one sounds even more likely and is just the sort of erudite explanation I expect from the Wikipedia community :). The tree was on a managed estate (Sheringham Park) so there's a good chance they might have planted particular hybrids and slightly uncommon trees like the Lime. The only surprising thing then is that non of the other nearby trees showed the same behaviour. It is possible this was the only Lime, but in other areas of the park the landscapers had planted similar trees together. If I go back there sometime in the summer I will be able to confirm whether this one was a Lime (I'm still no good at identifying trees from their winter twig/bud distribution). -- Solipsist 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My job is done

I provided the pic of the day with a one-month buffer. Consider it a gift. Though I've noticed that you've been letting the buffer slip away. Whether or not that buffer is maintained is up to you. I've gone back to my other projects. Good luck. --Go for it! 23:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help the main page is looking good. I'm still a bit snowed under, but will try to get back to lining up POTDs. -- Solipsist 06:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:Arsenal Emirates Stadium roof.jpg

That's a really nice picture. Did you take it yourself? If so, do you have any more? The one on Arsenal F.C. is a bit out of date and not very nice, and I've been meaning to head out and take some myself; that roof shot might be good for replacing it, but I'd prefer a more general landscape shot as it'd be a better comparison alongside the one of Highbury. Qwghlm 11:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've no good landscape versions to upload and I rather like User:Edward's picture that's already there. I was in Islington in the morning and the general view, from the only road that gets close to the stadium, really needs an afternoon shot. In truth I was in the neighbourhood to photograph a Daniel Libeskind building round the corner, but thought I might as well get one of the stadium whilst waiting for the sun to move round. What I can do is upload a similar but wider shot at Image:Arsenal Emirates Stadium 01.jpg. Hope that helps. -- Solipsist 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Design Comp

Hi Solipsist!
I would like to have a lend on you artistic senses. Could you please have a look at and leave comments on this page? The matter is of some urgency as I have to email my entry by tommorrow night. Thanks! --Fir0002 www 11:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, could you look at the revisions please? Thank you v. much --Fir0002 www 23:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosalind Franklin

You have contributed to the Rosalind Franklin article. It has recently had a rewrite and been had a request for peer review. Your comments would be appreciated. Alun 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonfly on Fir0002 FPC's

Hi Solipsist!
I've got a quite a large batch to choose from this time... --Fir0002 www 11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winglet Edit Summary - an apology

Solipsist, I've just done a rather "catty" edit summary on your winglet pic changes. If I had realised the changes were made by a very respected member of our community I would have looked harder for your reasons for change so aplogies for the Summary. I believe the Privatair winglet pic to be worth preserving in the article so, to make it available to WP readers, I've started a gallery with it. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 18:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Having added the previous example of winglets in F1, I figured the article could use a picture that just concentrated on the winglet of a plane - of all the previous pictures there is nothing to indicate to the casual reader which part of the plane they should be looking at (unless they already knew what a winglet was). I only removed the other 737 image since I figured there wasn't much need for two 737 winglets. -- Solipsist 22:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Ives

Hello Solipsist, nice having met you in St. Yves. I like your nickname and can't imagine you'r an atheist. You might have meant agnostic, haven't you? Foreigner 07:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Foreigner,
I have to confess I don't immediately recall meeting any Wikipedians in St Ives, although I was there last September so its possible. In any case I'm sure it was nice meeting you too - and yes I'm pretty much a strong atheist. I've flirted with agnosticism in the past - in the absence of proof either way, its the only absolutely logical position take - but these days I prefer to take a stronger stance since I'm not really agnostic about other entities that I can't prove don't exist, such as the tooth fairy. -- Solipsist 08:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry having confused you. I only had in mind our virtual meeting in St Ive. I have been there the last time in 1994. Foreigner
might bee of interest too: [3], doubleklick Luigi Cascoli sues for Proof of Jesus Foreigner 12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Ahh I see. Now I'm with you on the St Ives thing. The Luigi Cascoli story is quite amusing, but I doubt he will get anywhere in the long run. In a similar vein, I often wonder why the anti-globalisation protesters don't target the Catholic Church instead of McDonald's restaurants. The Church is bigger, better funded, manipulates governments, has engaged in full blown wars to gets its point across, has a wider global spread, and has been at it far longer. But then I don't particularly sympathise with, nor understand, the anti-globalisation movement.
And you are also right in your other implicit conclusion; that someone who is sitting on the fence on whether anything of the world exists beyond themselves, probably ought to be more agnostic. -- Solipsist 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
full ack, McDonalds is the epiphenomenon only Foreigner 07:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image licensing

Hi Solipsist!
Sorry to bother you again with this licensing stuff, but I recently posted a question on the GFDL talk page, and the answer was somewhat distrubing. Is there some kind of license or restriction to the GFDL I could make to disallow commercial use without permission of the photographer? Thanks, --Fir0002 00:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fir,
Yes, I think that answer is essentially correct. However, as I understand it, one proviso of the GFDL license is that all the prior authors involved in a document (or image) should be credited, and this is something that many users of copyleft content forget to do. So in practice many users of GFDL images are likely to a failed to have observed the license. Personally I prefer the CreativeCommons licenses, since their requirements are less opaque - even so I've had numerous instances of people on Wikipedia getting upset about my placing a © symbol on the image description pages for images I've contributed. Which perhaps shows that even so, these licenses are frequently misunderstood.
As you transition to becoming more professional, you are likely to find that the freedom of the GFDL and CreativeCommons licenses are at odds with your own profit motive. There is not much to be done about this. Most of the point of Wikipedia and other copyleft projects is to make information freely available. There are a number of approaches you can take. One is to limit the sizes of images that you contribute, although the community as a whole tends towards prefering larger image resolutions than Wikipedia is likely to need for quite a while. Another is to remember that Wikipedia was probably quite useful to your own development as a photographer (I'm sometimes amazed at the effort some people go to to help identify the subect of an image I've uploaded) and so it is perhaps only fair to return the favour by continuing to upload a proportion of you images. And finally you can take the view that Wikipedia is a useful tool for publicising your talents.
In any case, it is also worth remembering that contributing under free licenses like GFDL means that you images are released to the world. Even if you thought you were just contributing to Wikipedia, your images could quite reasonably be used by other future projects and photo libraries. They in turn are quite at liberty to try and make a profit from the content. The flip side is that the same GFDL licenses preserve the freedom of your contributions and make it difficult for anyone to profit from them. For example, if Wikipedia was bought out by AOL (as was alleged in an April Fools joke a year ago) and they started charging for access, then the safety net is that another third party is free to copy the whole project and continue to offer a free service. AOL would then have to offer significant added value, over and above the content, in order to justify their charges and you would have to wonder why they bought Wikipedia in the first place when they could have copied the content anyway. In other words the GFDL license is probably your best insurance that people won't be able to make much profit from your contributions in the future. -- Solipsist 20:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Solpisist!
Thanks for your detailed response, but don't worry I'm not thinking of ditching wiki ! :-)
But I am at a bit of a crossroads, as I don't like the idea of people pinching my pix and using them for their own commercial gain. I'm fine with giving my pix for non-com use, but it doesn't seem right for another person to make that kind of gain without at least telling me what they are doing with it/asking permission. Anyway, if for instance I licensed under the cc-by-sa license, does that mean someone can print a book with my image in it, but they can't restrict a reader from copying and using that image? The cc-by-sa states that you need to acknowledge the author right? Well can I put a little line at the bottom of the license asking for the user to contact me for my details? Coz I'd rather be acknowledged under my real name rather than Fir0002, but at the same time I'd rather not put my name up onto the web.
Thanks again for your time! --Fir0002 00:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see. There's not much you can do about other people using your photos for commercial gain. That's part of the deal with GFDL and cc-by-sa and is an ingrained part of Wikipedia. And yes, I think your assessment of the case of someone printing a book is probably correct. They would also need to credit you for the photo. Much the same would apply under GFDL.
On trying to get people to contact you first, that's a little tricky. I also think that holding copyright under a pseudonym is a little dubious; hence I use my real name. But if you don't want to show your real name here, that gets difficult. You could put a line on the image description page asking people to contact you first, although it wouldn't be legally bindng. Another option might be to use the {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} tag and then include a requirement that you be contacted first (see for example Image:V20001.jpg) - the down side there is that that tag doesn't really involve a license of any sort and so may not be as legally binding. It might not be what you want to achieve, but if Flagstaffotos is company (and so a legal entity) then I would expect that you could assign the copyright of your photos to the company and then license the images here under GFDL or cc-by-sa as being from, and so requiring credit to, flagstaffotos.com. Of course that only works if you wholely own the company and always expect to. It probably also has other legal implications, so I had better add; IANL and recommend that you consult a solicitor/lawyer... -- Solipsist 06:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well flagstaffotos isn't really a company as such (it's not registered or anything) it's just what I call myself. I really don't want to get into all the legal issues and stuff that would need a solicitor. I think I'll just have to accept it as a downside to Wikipedia. I think I would probably be best to use www.photos.flagstaffotos.com as the standard credit line, although I might at one stage change my mind and use my real name - that's the handy part of using a personal template for licensing, it's easy to make those changes. {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} sounds interesting, but it still isn't ideal. I've started a similar discussion with User:Gmaxwell after seeing an interesting line on his commons userpage.
I have a slight problem now though. I gave a company the rights to use Image:Chestnuts.jpg as their company logo etc, and they require that they have exclusive (apart from me) commercial rights. I was under the impression at that stage that the GFDL only allowed non commericial free use. As much as it pains me (particularly since it is one of my treasured FP's!) I may need to delete it and maybe try get something similar next season. Thanks again for all your help! -- Fir0002 01:37, June 21, 2006
Ah well the flagstaffotos approach would only work if it were a full company that was a separate legal entity - you certainly don't want to go down that route just to handle a licensing issue.
Your problem with the Chestnuts might be a little bigger than you think. On the whole I suspect it isn't really possible to stop an image from being GFDL. Given your valuable contributions to Wikipedia, its likely that a request on ImagesForDeletion would be honoured. But anyone who had already downloaded the image would be free to continue using it under GFDL and that would include modifying it and rereleasing it under GFDL. -- Solipsist 07:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Bummer. So I can't actually revoke the license? Hypothetically then a user from wikipedia who has downloaded the image could then reupload?! What if I said that my sister took the photo and I uploaded it unauthorized? :-) --Fir0002 09:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on Fir0002 FPC

Hi Solipsist!
I was wondering if you could leave your comments on this page? Thanks! --Fir0002 04:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help? Re: image you uploaded QuoModoDeum.gif

09:05am, 4 Dec 2006 (PST) Hello, I am a researcher at UC Berkeley very much hoping to ask you about an image from the "Eye of Providence" page that you apparently uploaded on 22-Aug-2004, "QuoModoDeum.gif" (see links below.) My query is not about copyright or anything like that, rather at this moment tracing the geneology of emblems and pictographs like the Eye, from the 1500s, which is when this image most likely comes from. My question is: Do you know the source of the image? It is nebulously listed as from an unnamed "alchemical" text. Probably this illustrated emblem was reproduced in several places (originally I believe it is from Paris 1542.)

Regardless of where this specific version of the image was copied from, I believe I have isolated one source for this image, but the epigram/typeset on the bottom appears slightly differently in the edition I have located - "Quomodo Deum", instead of "Quo Modo Deum", which leads me to believe it is another edition. This seems like a small difference...but really it is a clue in a larger problem which is really quite mysterious! (I can get into that later.) In any case, as soon as I get this all straight (in a few days hopefully) I will correct the appropriate text on wikipedia.

Is there any way you can respond or email me? Thanks SO much! cheers!

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_providence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:QuoModoDeum.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload_log_archive/August_2004_(2)

15:21, 22 Aug 2004 Solipsist uploaded "QuoModoDeum.gif" (Quo Modo Deum - alchemical woodcut)

--quomodo 09:05am, 4 Dec 2006 (PST)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/l/User_talk%7ESolipsist_archive11_6d7a.html"