User talk:Wikiacc/Archive08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Nazi?

How do you know that making something bold is Nazi. You made a big mistake. Iranians are proud of their heritage and having that in bold does not mean anything Nazi. That is a personal view of yours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.196.139.250 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

The Nazi remark was simply a speculation on my part, as the word "aryan" is usually used in the context of Nazism. However, having the Aryan part in bold is not exactly necessary in an encyclopedia article (in fact boldface is used sparingly in most articles), even if it is part of Iran's heritage. —Wikiacc • ¶ 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Architecture of Africa - new AID collaboration

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Architecture of Africa was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help…

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dijxtra (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

Maintenance of AID

Hi there,

I see you have been updating votes on AID nominations. Maybe you will be interested in my proposal to coordinate such maintenance work on AID: Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive/Maintenance. --Dijxtra 12:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Image tag

Greetings,

Im not sure if I put the right tag on this image: Image:Persian art collage.jpg

Please advise.--Zereshk 23:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's tricky. The image seems to be fine GFDL, with the exception of the painting in the background. I'd suggest finding an older (PD) painting with a similar look, and using that instead. Sampling (especially for artistic purposes) is allowed by copyright law, but would probably fall under fair use, invalidating the purpose of the image.

See what you can find. —Wikiacc • ¶ 23:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I can do as you say, no problem of course. But I am wondering: considering that we are displaying it inside the Persian Arts Box at a 150px width, what if I re-upload a shrinked down version of the entire image from its current size to 150 px? Will the radically reduced size/resolution validate its use under a GFDL (or any other retainbale) tag?--Zereshk 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

...any news on the latter question?...--Zereshk 02:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'd think if the image was shrunk so that no discernable unique traces of the painting are left, copyright could not be claimed on that part; however, IANAL, so it may in fact still be copyrighted. Ask some of the folks at WikiProject Fair Use, who have more expertise on the topic. —Wikiacc • ¶ 20:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ive just uploaded an improved version, the image is nearly 300 years old. But Im not sure about which tag, so I put both tags up. Thanx again.--Zereshk 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on the RFR poll

Hi, Wikiacc, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Talrias,

This issue is primarily due to flaws in the RFA system, along with a recent spate of wheel warring among admins. Adminship, however, should be "no big deal". Creating a separate rollback class merely addresses the symptoms, not the underlying problem. (See also my reply to Tmalmjursson on the same topic.) —Wikiacc • ¶ 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RFR is not intended to be a solution to the problem of RFA being a big deal. It's intended to be a solution to a much more important problem, that of vandalism on Wikipedia. It helps solve this problem by giving more good contributors access to the rollback privilege so they may swiftly remove vandalism - which helps people doing RC patrol which is one of Wikipedia's most tedious jobs. We should do all we can to make it easier for them. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks!

Okay, this is perhaps a bit overdue, but thank-you for your support in my recent RfA! I passed with a final vote count consensus of (82/1/0), which was a lot of support that I really appreciate. I'll try to live up to the expectations; and on that note, if there's ever something I do wrong (or don't do right), please spit in my general direction. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sofia won!

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Sofia was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help…

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dijxtra (talk • contribs) 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

Thank you!

I would like to thank you for your support for my candidacy for the Military history WikiProject coordinator position. I am now the Lead Coordinator, and I intend to do my best to continue improving the project. If you ever have any questions or concerns regarding my actions, or simply new ideas for the project, be sure to let me know! —Kirill Lokshin 00:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

images...

Greetings,

The image Image:1(8).jpg is uncertain in its source. Please see.

Also, as to your request for verification about that Mashad tomb image, I remember I did take a bunch of pics from the tomb 2 years ago. Ive been sifting thru my slides but cant find that exact one (so far). If not mine, its an CHN (Cultural Heritage News agency of Iran) image. But I cant find that photo's link either. I uploaded that image quite a while ago.

My solution? Erase it. I'll upload another one of my slides of the tomb from another angle.--Zereshk 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This image seems to have permission. What tag would best fit it though? Image:Metallic Parthian.jpg

Thanx--Zereshk 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The permission doesn't seem to be "free enough" as it is for non-commercial uses only. We have stopped allowing such images as they may cause legal problems for our reusers (such as answers.com) and for us if we want to release Wikipedia on DVD or another format that would require charging money for purchase. It won't be deleted for now, as it was uploaded before the announcement, but it may, unfortunately, be in the future. Wikiacc (¶ | ∞) 20:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN

It seems that we both were trying to fix BJAODN at the same time - I finally got the infobox from Leet to work - mainly by looking at what was originally put in the source, and manually creating what would have been output. – ABCD^e✉ 23:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)