User talk:BigDT/archive200607

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive. Please do not modify it. Leave new comments on my talk page.
Quick links: Main page • My Contributions • Talk to me • Jun 06 • Jul 06 • Aug 06 • Sep - Dec 06 • Jan 07 a • Jan 07 b • Feb 07 • Mar 07


Contents

[edit] RFA thanks


I give you credit for creativity, but good grief, that's big! Congrats ;) BigDT 22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King of Kings

Actually, King of Kings is in reference to the song, King of Kings which is Triple H's current theme music. King of Kings, in my signature, has no other meaning to me. — The King of Kings 04:51 July 03 '06

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Irish-Americans

Hi, I am contacting you as you commented in the deletion discussion for these lists. You may not have realised that recently some users have placed conditions for inclusion on these lists that many users find unreasonable. Currently, no common sense is permitted in judging whether a person should be on the list. Even if a person is sourced as having both parents born in X Country, or if they say "my family is X", or "I have X blood" we still can't list them. Many users disagree with Jack'O Lantern and other users who have adopted this position. For more discussion related to this and proof many people disagree see Talk:List of Estonian Americans, Talk:List of Greek-Americans, Talk:List of Polish-Americans, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_deductive_reasoning_original_research.3F, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#ethnicity.2C_hyphenation.2C_and_membership, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Deductive_inferences_in_OR. Please also see the continuing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Irish-Americans. Thanks Arniep 10:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't wish to read through all that please state your support or opposition for my proposal here Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans. Thanks! Arniep 11:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Iranian copyrights

Hmm... So, is it realy just "we feel like using it" and "decoration "? I mean, Don't they have the "clear purpose" of showing the Iranian economy and achitecture? How is one supposed to visualize that, if not by examles? --Striver 01:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The picture of the car is a completely different issue - that is a photo from the news media. Even if a news media photo is of tremendous benefit to an article, that is not permissible, unless the photograph itself is the subject of the article. As for the hospital and the Mofkham House, policy #8 says, "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." The Mofkham House is not discussed in the article. The hospital is not mentioned in the article. Qajar architecture is not discussed in the article. There is no way that either of those images are central to the text of the article when the article doesn't even mention them. Even if they were, there would almost certainly be a free equivalent available (policy #1) - surely, somewhere (perhaps on Commons or on an Iranian-language Wikipedia), there is a free photograph from the Qajar era. BigDT 01:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi BigDT,

I have cleared this issue already with other editors and admins in the past. These images can be used because Iran and the United States hold no mutual copyright agreements or relations [1], therefore the WP:FU laws do not apply, and Wikipedia is under no legal obligation vis a vis these pictures. We should make a template for this so this doesnt keep happening again. As for the Mafkham House images, instead of tagging them for deletion, you could have notified me first, and I would have added text to the corresponding articles to alleviate any FU concerns.--Zereshk 16:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then fair use is still the wrong tag to apply. I don't think, though, that just because we (America) don't have a treaty with Iran on the subject means that Wikipedia is free to use anything it wants from anyone in Iran. Perhaps this should be discussed to determine what the policy is. I have posted a request for clarification on the issue at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... BigDT 17:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I posted a request for information about Iranian copyrights at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.... One user replied with this link to a message from Jimbo Wales on the subject. BigDT 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi BigDT,

The Jimbo Wales statement has come up for debate before. regarding the statement:

"Unless there is something particularly strange about the copyright situation in Iran, we should generally respect Iranian copyright law as best we can, the same as we do for other countries around the world."

two things can be said and have been brought up before:

  1. Regarding the first sentence, the copyright situation in Iran is anything but usual. Iran is not a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, or its extension WIPO Copyright Treaty, or WTO. This is e.g. stated here in non-technical terms, and is also stipulated in WIPO's own Berne membership list.
  2. Regarding his second sentence, in "respecting Iranian copyright law as best we can", the fact of the matter is that we are doing just that. Nowhere on Wikipedia have we allowed any image to be uploaded with its origin from Iran that has an unclear copyright status. The only exception being images from Iran's Cultural Heritage Organization. And the reason is that their images are strictly promotional; they are in fact encouraged for use in media such as WP, because the images serve as a form of publicity for them and for Iran. I have been to their offices on many occasions, done photography for them, and used their images. We are actually doing them a service in using their images. I dont see any reason to ban usage of these images. It highly enriches wikipedia, and entails no legal consequences whatsoever, and it actually does ICHO a service. But we can make it clear that this exception doesnt extend to any other image from Iran. Only ICHO.--Zereshk 13:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If it does them a service and you frequent their offices, why not just get a letter of permission to release the images under the GFDL license? That would completely put to rest the question. BigDT 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine. So please dont erase the pictures during this process while I correspond. And I certainly do hope this will put to rest all such silly obstructions in the future. They are getting quite irritating. I dont know why people are so adamant in getting rid of any article or picture about Iran we try to put up. As if it's a politically charged thing or something.--Zereshk 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not an administrator and I have no capacity to erase or not erase a photo. I nominated your three photos because they have patently incorrect fair use claims - not because I care one way or the other about pictures from Iran. If photos from Iran are being deleted, then the solution to that is to provide sufficient information on the media pages to prove that either (a) you have permission to use them under the GFDL or another free license or (b) they qualify for fair use under WP:FAIR. If the information isn't given on the media page, then neither I nor anyone else knows the justification for keeping the image. BigDT 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please adopt your state

I am trying to improve Girl Scout articles in the United States. Please help fill in some blanks for Girl Scouting in Georgia! Thanks, Yours in Scouting, Chris 02:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well ... aside from the minor detail that I've been to Georgia three times in my life and know nothing about Georgia or Girl Scouts ... BigDT 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox index

Hey, I think your work is awesome. I hope you continue the project. It's a real pain to find boxes without an index. Jessesamuel 01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words ... I may finish it up at some point ... but as of now, most things are userfied ... although, it may be useful as a tool to see what was missed at some point. BigDT 02:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webmovie

Hi, I've taken the liberty of redirecting webmovie (which you just added to proposed deletion) to web film as they both seem to be the same thing. Thought I'd let you know. --PhiJ 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] myg0t

Hi, I noticed you had some history reguarding the myg0t article. Well, the article is up for DrV, and I ask that you post your thoughts on whether or not it should be undeleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#myg0t - thanks, cacophony 23:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cornell

I have just started WikiProject Cornell University, an attempt to thoroughly cover topics related to Cornell. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Thanks! —mercuryboardtalk 05:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong

Your knowledge of the law and the process of downloading images and in other areas is wrong.

  • The process of downloading requires an immediate categorisation. Many of the categories are poorly defined and inaccurate. I and others used to download things without categories and then once downloaded added in the templates. This however is no longer possible with the bots. Even in the few seconds it takes to update a file once downloaded, the downloader will still find that their userpage will have been defaced by a bot claim that they did not insert the required information. This flaw has been pointed out repeatedly but not fixed. As a result, to stop the continuing defacement of pages with false bot claims it is necessary to insert a category while downloaded. If due to the shoddy wording of the options the image falls between two categories or whatever, users have to post the least wrong one. So categories like {{political event}} etc have to be used, to dodge inaccurate bot attacks. If you want people to stop using these inaccurate categories then you will have to get those responsible for the bot to fix it. Until it is fixed, those categories will continue to be used by users. Accusing users of adding in false claims is grossly unfair. The problem is with flaws in the download procedure and the bot, not the users.
  • The claim about the picture of the queen and the pope suggests you don't know how photographs are taken in the Vatican. Unlike some other locations, where numerous photographers and television crews are admitted, in the Vatican to avoid an unseemly scramble in frequently limited space has its own photographer and camera crew and they then supply their images to all media outlets, without exception (they even supply their photographs to anti-Catholic publications). The image from the BBC website is a Vatican photograph. The issue of Vatican images was discussed numerous times on WP. The overwhelming consensus was that they are perfectly legal to use. They are issued, with no conditions, by the Vatican to all publications; print, broadcast, books, magazines, encyclopaedias, school books, pamphlets, etc. If, as you seem to think their use is not permissable, that would mean that practically every image of, or taken in, the Vatican, would have to be deleted because they too are all taken by Vatican photographers and crews for issue. Wikipedia would have to delete every image of every pope taken in the Vatican, every image of every religious ceremony in the Vatican, every image of the Apostolic Palace, the Lateran Palace, etc. All these images are taken by the exact same source as this one, the Vatican, and all are issued, without restriction, by its press office. Indeed the classic official image of Pope John Paul II, which has been copied worldwide by the billion, and has appeared in every publication on the planet at some stage, as well being hung in churches worldwide, would be unavailable on Wikipedia, making Wikipedia quite literally the only location on the planet supposedly not able to use it. That is quite frankly ridiculous.

Your knowledge of the law on fair use is not accurate and you are misinterpreting rules in ways that were never intended and, as in the case above, frankly both ludicrous and unworkable. The nonsense is shown in your claim about the image. Mantillas are (or more ofter were) worn to meet popes. People need to be able to see what a mantilla is. As they are only worn in the Vatican at meetings with popes, the only source of images of them will be from the Vatican. So there is no alternative but to use this image, an image from a source Wikipedia uses widely, in fact the source Wikipedia uses most widely throughout the encyclopaedia. Jtdirl 19:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • If it is necessary to pick an incorrect license temporarilly, why not correct the license once you upload it? I pointed out several of your images that still have incorrect tags applied. I didn't "accuse" you of anything. Stating that the images are incorrectly tagged is a statement of fact, not an accusation. You have given a logical reason for it and assuming good faith, I accept that reason, but I fail to understand why the incorrect tag cannot be corrected after you complete the upload.
  • As for Vatican photos, you are correct, I have no idea how the Vatican sends out photos. The image description page offers no such rationale so I would suspect that the vast majority of Wikipedians would be unfamiliar with this claim. If the Vatican supplies these photos free of charge for anyone to use, why not simply state that on the description page and provide a link to the policy? As it is, all you did was provide a link to a news media site using the photo that gives no indication that it is a freely available image.
  • As for my knowledge of the law or fair use, please feel free to correct me on any area where you believe I am wrong.

BigDT 20:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded unduly critical, mate. I have been suffering from severe physical pain for the last few weeks and it has left me rather grouchy. (I am chewing painkillers like sweets at the moment!) I and others weren't sure if, in taking off the other caption we'd then be botted again!!! If we know we can be sure of that we can be free of that "pleasure" then of course they should be taken off. What happens is that if someone is working on a number of things, constantly going in and out of old images just adds more work when in fact we may have moved off to another topic completely and forgotten about an individual image.

Re the Vatican: it is confusing. There was a template created to list Vatican images and their context but that was deleted, so users then end up linking to where the image was displayed, not where it came from. Organisations which use these images don't state they are Vatican images because they don't have to.

In the media (I do some media work) we often like to maintain that something was taken by our photographer or film crew — it sounds good to the viewer. Newspapers and TV stations don't explain to viewers and readers the concept of pooling where one agreed photographer takes images that then everyone uses. People would expect that if the Queen meets the Pope, that it would be the BBC who would record it, or if President Bush meets the Pope that it is CBS/NBC/ABC etc who were there, not the Vatican's own guy. I simply know how these things work because I work in the media and have had dealings with the Vatican Press Office — I am on their email list. In any case, as mantillas are worn exclusively in relation to meetings with popes, the only images available are going to be news agency images in the Vatican. Ordinary people aren't able to be there to photograph the head of state wearing one unless the head of state goes walkabout with tourists (and their cameras) in St. Peter's Square, etc. So there is no alternative to those images. If there was, I'd use it immediately. (I spent an hour searching for alternative images. News agency images are only ever used by me as a last resort where we need to be able to show something and there simply is no other way of doing it. Jtdirl 21:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That explanation sounds reasonable. Why was the template deleted? Unless the reason for deleting the template is that there was a dispute over the copyright status of those images, why not just add some scaled down version of what you just told me to the image, preferably with a link to the Vatican press office where the policy is described? That way, there will be no question that the use of the image is considered fair use.
I guess my only remaining concern was Image:Eamon de Valera (portrait).jpg. Do you know the original source for the image? It might still qualify for fair use even if the original source is not PD. BigDT 21:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA thanks

Hello BigDT/archive200607, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship (especially right after tagging several of my old pictures for deletion), which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 07:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets delete every image taken by a digital camera

Your rationale for deletion of pictures that don't appear elsewhere on the Internet seems to imply all images taken with a digital camera will have to be deleted, unless the user has posted them elsewhere. How do you verify those images? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 11:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • If someone claims to be the person who took the photograph or created the artwork and there is no reason to doubt their claim, there's no problem there. However, in the case of some of the images you have uploaded, you don't make a claim either way. For example, with [2], you have tagged it as being licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution License v. 2.5". That statement needs some justification. If this is a photo from a family scrapbook that was passed to you and you own the rights to it and have scanned it in, just say so. I, and most others, will assume good faith. The same is the case with Image:Kahrar-Charlotte 04a.jpg. But if they are images you found somewhere, then you need to tell exactly where the source is. In other words, where does one find the "James Gerard Kennedy archive"? BigDT 13:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 15:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CTMU

Hi—sorry to bother you. I replied to your comment at the CTMU deletion review, and thought you might like to take a second look. Thanks. Tim Smith 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's never a bother. I read your comments ... and honestly, my opinion is unchanged. Wikipedia really isn't the place for novel theories. BigDT 05:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NCAA Football

Thanks for the Photo Edit... that's a good change CJC47 19:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of help ... and I'm really glad you uploaded it - it's nice to have a separate image to distinguish ourselves from WP:NFL. BigDT 20:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting

Glad to see you joined the project. RandyRlevse 23:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've messed with Scouting articles here and there ... I figured I might as well list my name ;) BigDT 23:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List/AGF

(This converstation will take place on your talk page, or not at all - I have more important things to deal with on mine) You posted on my talk page that a certain revert I made wasn't in fact vandalism. You claim it was a duplicate list, and therefore should be deleted. On closer inspection, I found that it wasn't in fact a duplicate list, but instead a more concise and better-organised version of the other one, therefore making this list, in my opinion, the one that should stay, as opposed to jumbled and bad-to-read other list. I counter-request you to assume good faith when dealing with people who service the community tirelessly by reverting vandalism. I will not revert it back (as it's a content dispute), but please AGF when accusing people of not in the future, as to aviod the hypocritical state of affairs that have arisen in this case. Killfest2 (Talk) 01:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah! A friendly missive from a kindness campaigner! The offending message (of inadequate importance!) may be viewed here Bravo! 64.198.252.146 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been wanting to clean that section up for a while. Honestly, I wish someont from Tech who is more familiar with the Corps than I would work on it. Either way, whether he picked the right or wrong list, I'm pretty sure that it was a good faith edit by someone genuinely wanting to contribute to the article. I apologize for my choice of words ... it was not my intent to imply wrongdoing on your part or to imply that you do not do a good service. BigDT 02:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. Having absolutely no knowledge of the topic myself, I'll leave it to you guys who know something about it to fix it up. Killfest2 (Talk) 02:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I never let "having absolutely no knowledge" of topics stand in the way of some forcible kindness campaigning! What is this? Some kind of encyclopedia? Bravissimo!! 64.198.252.146 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Running Man Barnstar
The WikiHokie award: given in appreciation for creating so many new articles and making so many substantial contributions to existing articles about Virginia Tech. --CJC47 23:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you - I appreciate your kind words. BigDT 03:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page.
Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing!

NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm.
Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

[edit] Re: Image:ADSK Founders.jpg

The most I've been able to get about the copyright status of that pic is that Autodesk owns it and said Duff can do whatever he wants with it. So "presumed" is right. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem if you or someone else knows more about it, with someone changing the license to be correct or putting it on IFD. I'm just blindly going through the uncat image list [3] and adding licenses where I can, tagging for deletion where I can't. BigDT 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Awarded to BigDT for his observance and alertness of the finest quality to expose and uncover the B list. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL ... thanks ... but I didn't actually discover it - I just brought it to ANI. Gurch is the one who found it [4] ... I followed a link to Cyde's talk page for something unrelated and saw it there. BigDT 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes... I've given a similiar one to him as well. ;) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm dying over here, you guys are actually giving each other barnstars over this?! Hahahaha, if only you knew what this was actually all about. --Cyde 17:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, rather than mocking us or being insulting, it would be more productive to simply tell your great purpose for the list. Everyone, as far as I can tell, was added after disagreeing with you guys in an RFA. To me, that says that its likely intent is to be used for revenge and/or pointing out hypocrisy in the event that anyone on the list eventually becomes the subject of an RFA. Am I close? BigDT 17:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry BigDT, you're not close at all. The reason I find it so funny that you all are giving each other "Defender of the Wiki barnstars" is because you've uncovered an inside joke and utterly blown it out of proportion. I find it hysterical. Here's a hint: "B" is not just an arbitrary letter. --Cyde 18:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, this is some of the more surreal Wikilawyering I think I've ever seen. I deleted B because I thought that would put an end to it; obviously it did the opposite, and other people ended up recreating it in their userspace (why don't you go delete those too?). And now there's a separate Q that appears to be different than B (I dont' really know what the Q is all about). I don't think CSD G4 remotely applies in this instance. I changed it from "Speedy delete" to "delete" because it wasn't a proper speedy deletion, not because it was a proper normal deletion. It was just a "rouge deletion", but that doesn't look good in an {{mfd top}}. I don't think my comments are a valid excuse for Xoloz to go to wheel war over. --Cyde 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm done arguing with y'all about it. Whatever devious, humorous, and/or inside joke you had for it, it's gone far enough. As you said so often in the UBX debates, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to have pretty user pages. BigDT 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes consolidation support

What's on the slab
Do not use these templates yet

You have recently either supported my userbox consolidation efforts or at least applauded them. Currently, I am putting together another larger batch of userbox deletions which will have master templates. (The master templates are not "live" yet.) Would you be willing to support me in this and any future consolidations? There will probably be a lot of resistance at first to this, so having a group of people supporting me would be greatly appreciated.

At the moment, 5 master userboxes are in the works to replace 72. That may increase significantly if I can get the sixth one to work as I would like. Some of the templates to be replaced are widely used, but with the consolidated templates there is more funcitionability.

Please let me know, you can click [edit] above as this conversation is transcluded to all.

Sent to: Aeon1006, Andrew c, BigDT, Billpg, Brian Olsen, Cyde, Gperrow, Khaosworks, Luna Santin, Marcus-e, MiraLuka, NKSCF, Pegasus1138, Phil Boswell, Plange, RedZebra, Rfrisbie, Riana dzasta, Stefanmg, and Tuspm
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting use of transclusion. :) Can't promise I'll always vote to support, but I imagine that in many cases I will. Feel free to let me know when you post them (I tend not to watch TfD too often), and as always I'll be more than willing to lend what technical advice I can. Luna Santin 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Lady Aleena, as noted in an earlier discussion with you, I think consolidation is fine for thematically related userboxes. However, I also support diversity through mass customization, so I'm more inclined to support consolidations that maintain display differences in images, colors and especially wordings. That's easy enough to do with parser functions. I wish you all the best. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
As per the two posts above, I might very likely support it but I'll determine it on a case by case basis. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't overly care too terribly much. I will say that I think having generic userboxes is a good thing from one standpoint - it helps newbies learn Wikicode. If you can't just add {{User Hokie}} to your page but instead have optional parameters like {{User Hokie|year=2001|border=maroon|major=CS}}, that's definitely a good thing. BigDT 22:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Same here - case by case. I only voted on the Doctor Who box because it was part of the Wikiproject, anyway. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Just let me know when you need my support LA, Most od th eboxes I use are aprt of a wikiproject anyways or made myself Aeon Insane Ward 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't use userboxes, I only got into this because of the Doctor Who project. But I'd take a look on a case by case basis, certainly. --Brian Olsen 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with BigDT. Userboxes with optional parameters taught me how to use Wikicode. A master template isn't a bad idea... hell, it should be like that for most userboxes. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I do like this use of transclusion. I think I'll vote on a case by case basis, but I do like and support the idea as a whole. —Mira 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd also take a look on a case-by-base basis. --Gperrow 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have appreciated your efforts so far and will extend my support to similar "consolidation" projects. RedZebra 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you know of anyone who may be interested in this, just transclude this to their talk page as it is transcluded to yours. - LA @ 06:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs up! Stefanmg 11:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa ... time travel! ;) BigDT 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... I always copy some of previous posts. It's easier... I just forgot to change the date Stefanmg 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So Far I like what you have done! See your Talk page to find out How much! Aeon Insane Ward 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One concern I have about this form of communication on a topic that admittedly might be controversial is the potential for accusations of recruiting for votestacking. What are others' views on this? Rfrisbietalk 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I had wondered about this, but unless I am mistaken, this is an uncontroversial tidy up operation. Stephen B Streater 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As a lot of you have said, you will take my recommendations on a case by case basis. That tells me that you are ready, willing, and able to tell me when I have crossed the line. - LA @ 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is just anticipating a potential issue so you can prepare for it. If anyone ever puts up a stink, you might want to disclose this page is here. But then again, it might never come up. :-) Rfrisbietalk 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Since we don't vote on Wikipedia it should not be an issue hopefully. Aeon Insane Ward 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other consolidations

[edit] Myers-Briggs

  • ENFJ: 26
  • ENFP: 48
  • ENTJ: 30
  • ENTP: 46
  • ESFJ: 15
  • ESFP: 7
  • ESTJ: 19
  • ESTP: 8
  • INFJ: 43
  • INFP: 80
  • INTJ: 135
  • INTJ2: 45
  • INTP: 151
  • INTP2: 34
  • ISFJ: 13
  • ISFP: 13
  • ISTJ: 69
  • ISTP: 42

Rfrisbie...have you thought about getting your Myers-Briggs templates deleted in favor of the combined one that Thadman created? That would be another 18 deleted. I did a survey of how many people were using each...

Some people have more than one of these on their user pages, so some of those are duplicates. I know that some look like a lot of people use them, but once we get people migrating from individual templates to master templates, it will get easier and easier to consolidate them. Hopefully we can keep user templates in Template space if we can show that we can police them. - LA @ 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi LA, of course, we all know they're not “my” templates. I just moved some to userspace as part of the effort to find a userbox compromise most people could live with. I wasn’t kidding when I said I support diversity in userboxes. Although I think Thadman’s userbox {{User:The Thadman/Userbox/MBTI}} is cool, it displays differently than the others – only one color scheme with a set of profile scores – and it doesn’t use categories . I don’t have any problem with it or another template designed to consolidate the existing features of the other boxes for “elegance” reasons, as long as no features are lost. However, I do not see a “need” to do it. On a web site that went from 1 million articles to over 1.25 million in about four months, I really consider the number of userbox pages to be a non-issue. I’m also not aware of any material debates on keeping userboxes in templatespace if someone polices them. Maybe you can show me a link or two on that. In this particular case, it’s even more superfluous because all personality boxes already are in userspace (User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Personality) and the Wikipedia directory page was deleted. [5] Rfrisbietalk 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
See my comments on GUS on the WikiProject Userboxes talk page. - LA @ 11:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. What that shows me is that you are very well-intentioned in your efforts, your rationale for this process as a means to keep userboxes in template space is not supported by consensus, and the specific case of the Myers-Briggs templates does not apply, since they already are ugly in userspace. Sorry, I'm still not convinced of the need or consensus to do this. However, if you're still interested in combining the boxes for "efficiency," without changing the displays or categories, it's fine with me. Rfrisbietalk 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have only gotten one reply to my initial statement. I wish that more people would comment for I really want to keep user templates in the template space. I will never use a user template in user space. - LA @ 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that LA I have been dealing with other issues, I agree with what your doing it should make things a lot simpler. Aeon Insane Ward 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOTR

I've found a few more that may be worth consolidating: the LOTR userboxes. Luna Santin 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at those, however the merged template would have to have standardized wording. I will give it a good think. - LA @ 04:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live master user templates

I have made four of those master templates live. I will not start the TfD process on the ones they are replacing for at least a week. I want to see how well they catch on without a TfD first. However, do you think that I could slip a little note onto the to be TfDd templates noting the new master without too much censure. The message would be in the box appearing on the user pages like a TfD, but not as obtrusive. - LA @ 06:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. What do the others think? Æon Insane Ward 06:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 11:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the card game user templates have been marked with a message about the master template. The ones which are of different design are not marked as of yet. - LA @ 22:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for deletion in progress

Here are the TfDs in progress...

August 7

User chess variants
Card game user templates
Idol series user templates
Newspaper types user templates

August 11

Prison Break
Law & Order series

Go take a look and tell the community what you think. - LA @ 07:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Checked them out, went delete on all. Great Job LA! Æon Insane Ward 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Aleena's userbox consolidation desk

If you find a group of userboxes which you think could be merged, place them on my userbox desk. Please alphabetalize them over the Edit section with NEW in the section name so it stands out a bit. I currently have 6 projects there. - LA @ 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More user template deletions

To those who are still watching this, please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 25/User templates and give your opinion. - LA @ 08:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:197390990kpPsRO ph.jpg

Please stop locking up my own picture. Thank you.

Norum 23.07.2006

I tagged that image, and many others, with {{nld}} because it had no source or license information. You have now provided the relevant information and that is sufficient. I will take no further action in that matter. BigDT 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Even if it is self pic?

Norum 23.07.2006

[edit] This is getting too stupid

This is getting too stupid. I'm out. --Cyde 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slash B,Q lists

I try to visit MFD daily, and have seen a bunch pages along the lines of User:Kelly Martin/B, User:Kelly Martin/Q. There are apparently mirrors of these around as well (e.g. User:Amgine/B). Not sure what the list are (apparently im famous or infamous enough to make them) for, but they seem to be gtting speedy deleted upon request. If you come across more, could you (if you haven't already) try to ask the creator-owners' to remove them if there is no clear violation before bringing them to MFD? MFD gets waves of userpage deletion requests from time to time, often ending up with a no-consensus situation (excepting pure adverts). I amy be missing something here though, talk page me if you have any more info. — xaosflux Talk 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going to make up a list that had names like User:WinHunter, User:Hare, and User:Field_gg and see if anyone gets the reference. (Bonus points to anyone who replies to this message and correctly gets the reference.) BigDT 03:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ac-greeklife

I've known this might happen for a while. Here's the thing. I work for Austin College in the website-photographs division, and my employer knows that I am using this picture on the Wikipedia page. I am allowed, even encouraged, to use it. But I couldn't find a copyright that would work for such a situation. Can you help me figure out which one will be the right one?

As for the logo on my userbox, what about the other college userboxes that have a picture of their school's mascot on them? Did those have a different copyright from the picture on mine? Again, that picture comes from Austin College's own photos, which I have access to and permission to use. Frecklegirl 04:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"By permission" images are not permitted. There is a tag {{PermissionAndFairUse}} that may be used to tag images where specific permission has been given to Wikipedia to use the images. However, those must have an accompanying "fair use" rationale. If your school would be willing to release the image under the GFDL license or release the image into the public domain, then, obviously, it could be used. I am going out on a limb and assuming there's no way they would release their logo into the public domain, but it you work for them, it couldn't hurt to ask about the photo. Depending on how formal or informal things are, it may be that they would be willing to release the photo. As for other schools using logos in userboxes, if you find one, be WP:BOLD and remove it - they are absolutely 100% not allowed. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United States. Just about all of the school userboxes just use the initial letters of the school in plain text. A few use a photograph. A few use a fake logo. If anyone is using any kind of "fair use" image in userspace, it is supposed to be removed, regardless of permission. I hope that helps. BigDT 04:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Tulane

  • The image you removed from the Template:User Tulane is used by permission and not under the doctrine of Fair Use. This is explained at Template talk:User Tulane and in several previous edit summaries. The permission letter can be referenced here. --Dystopos 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Eww ... I don't know what I think about that ... even with permission. Our userpages are GFDL, meaning that it has to be possible to create derivative works that are GFDL. Use of an image that would not be GFDL makes that questionable. With fair use images in articles it's different because if it's fair use in an article, it would be fair use in any conceivable derivative work. However, I honestly don't really care enough to argue about it ... but regardless of that, you may want to put some kind of warning on the template itself - surrounding it with <noinclude> ... </noinclude> so that it doesn't get transcluded. That way, the next person to come along doesn't just make the same change. BigDT 05:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe that's why the University requests that the "TM" remain visible; so that any creator of a derivative work would be aware that the image itself is a trade mark. I believe that the same is true of a logo appearing under fair use on an article. If someone makes a "derivative work" of an article and uses a Fair Use image in a way that exceeds that provision of copyright, the creator would not be able to defend herself based on the rights granted by the GFDL. I can conceive of many such conceivable derivative works. --Dystopos 05:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • That may be ... but at any rate, you probably still should put a warning label on the template so that the next person to come along doesn't remove the image. BigDT 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I have done that. It would also be nice if people checked to see if a Fair Use claim was in use before removing content based on policy about Fair Use. Thanks for your communication. --Dystopos 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cavalry tactics

I don´t quite get the sense of your edit there. Wandalstouring 10:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Are you referring to this one? [6] When tagging an image for speedy delete because of a lack of licensing, as I did to Image:20041212002910723.jpg, it is customary to place that tag anywhere the image is used so that those involved in its use can provide licensing if they desire. If it's obviously a copyvio image that cannot possibly qualify for fair use, I usually don't bother, but in the case of ones like this, if someone can provide source for this image and provide evidence that it is freely licensed, the image can be kept. The tag is just a warning that if you want to keep the image, it needs source information. BigDT 11:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture and comment in Commons

You left a message on my user talk page regarding message left in the en.wikipedia name space vs. the common name space. I post the original image here in en.wikipedia, but it was moved to common for other edition of wikipedia. On one hand, I am glad that someone's taken care of it. On the other hand, I've never logged into the common name space before, so I honestly don't know how to do what you have suggested. If you think my comment is in the wrong name space, then please move it for me. Just like someone moved my picture, you are welcome to move my comment. Kowloonese 18:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok ... thank you for your reply. I have placed your comment on the talk page at Commons [7]. FYI, at Commons, just as at WP, you can edit without an account. If you would like a Commons account, you can register for one at http://commons.wikimedia.org. Commons caters more towards media that is usable on any project (not just English Wikipedia), whereas media here is deleted or moved to Commons if it is not in use. BigDT 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Like en.wikipedia, I think commons won't let me upload pictures if I don't have an account. So when my image postings were moved to common, I basically was disconnected from my own uploads after the move. May be someday, I would sign up at commons. Meanwhile, I still continue to upload to en.wikipedia. Kowloonese 18:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Correct ... unless you register you cannot upload. To be honest, the main reason I originally registered on Commons wasn't for uploading, but it was to prevent someone from ever being able to take my name. On the Virginia Tech message boards, there is a troll who likes to impersonate established users ... so I'm in the habit of snagging my username anywhere I care about it. But then the Commons upload page seemed less convoluted then this one ... so I just started using that one. BigDT 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some {{db-noncom}} tags of yours

Hey -- I've come across a few db-noncom tags of yours on images like Image:England world cup celebration.jpg, where stuff written there says explicitly that the content is licensed under the creative commons license. Is the creative commons license no longer acceptable? I thought it was okay. If you aren't saying it's unacceptable, you could help by tagging these images with {{cc-by-2.0}} instead. Thanks! Mangojuicetalk 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It depends on exactly which Creative Commons license they use. That particular image, for example, uses the "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0" license. "Non-commercial" and "No derivative works" are problems. The license that image uses is this one [8], but the tag you have added is this one [9]. They are both 2.0, but are not the same 2.0. Anything with a non-commercial creative commons license uploaded after May of 2005 should be speedied. BigDT 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah! I see now. I made a couple other similar changes, I'll go back and fix those too. Maybe this calls for a new template: {{db-ccnoderiv}}, perhaps? Mangojuicetalk 19:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't know if the "noderiv" part qualifies an image for speedy deletion or not. The "NonCommercial" part does, but I have no idea about "noderiv" images. They obviously aren't allowed, and I have just taken them to IFD on the rare occasion that I have found one, but I don't know if they are speedyable. BigDT 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I was already thinking along the same lines, and just created Template:Db-ccnoncom. Cheers! Mangojuicetalk 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Very nice. Incidentally, when I looked at Category:Speedy deletion templates to see what else was there, I noticed {{Cc-by-nd-nc-2.0}}, which is a redirect to {{Db-noncom}}. It may be worth considering changing it and the other similar redirects to instead redirect to your new template. BigDT 20:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Great minds think alike ;) Already done for several of those. Mangojuicetalk 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

I saw you declined an RFA nomination a few weeks ago. Let me know (on my talk page, I'm gonna stop watching yours) if you ever decide you want the tools, and I'll be glad to nominate you. Mangojuicetalk 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you, I appreciate the offer. BigDT 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Eq ar val-edo c-e.jpg listed for deletion

The owner gived me the premission to use this image.... You can contact him here (btw, look at pic's history too [10])--DrugoNOT 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • That is fine. I will make a note of it on the IFD discussion page. However, in the future, please do not remove deletion notices until the conclusion of the discussion. BigDT 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Hilary Duff

Did you know that this template is up for deletion [11]? According to "What links here" [12], you are the only user.--Runcorn 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for letting me know. That page it is on is just part of a massive list of userboxes - I created it blindly from special:allpages. The original purpose was to be of assistance in the German userbox solution but it didn't turn out to be as useful as I had thought. I have no interest in anything on there and no objections to anything userboxes referenced being deleted. BigDT 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Say it ain't so

  • "I'm reconsidering whether I really want to be involved in the project at all..."

What's the conflict de jour again? Is it userboxes now, I thought we were done with that. Oh no, it's long signatures, did we make enough of a mess with that one? Cross-space redirects, black-book lists, hairstyles, cabals...

First I'd point out that the same few names keep popping up in these brouhahas. Second I'd point out that we seem to still be making Feature Articles, inspiring new contributors, and generally doing good things despite all the noise.

I'm in the thick of it half the time, 'tis true. But I've found my pace in article space, and it would be a shame to lose you. So if there is anything I can do (or stop doing!) please do let me know.

brenneman 03:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of a dead wikipedian image

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/051306.html

Frankly, just do it if you think it is best for wikipedia. I do not think this image damages wikipedia, but what I am sure of is that deleting images of beloved dead wikipedia is a bad move from a community perspective.

Anthere

You may want to consider discussing the issue on WP:IFD. BigDT 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

Hi, I don't think we know each other here at WP, but I see you contributed to the recent deletion review on CTMU. You might be interested in this MfD which seems to be a consequence. ---CH 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User image notification templates

Do you know where I can find templates to notify a user who uploaded an image that about various copyright information? —Centrx→talk • 06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What specifically are you looking for? Category:User warning templates has all of the user warning templates. {{Image copyright}}, {{Image fairuse rationale}}, and {{Image source}} are the three templates for use with nld, orfud, and nsd, respectively.
Usually, if there is anything I want to communicate more than what is on those templates, I just create a message from scratch. BigDT 06:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Meroe pyramids 01 x600.JPG

Image:Meroe pyramids 01 x600.JPG Hi. The person who gave permission to use the above image did so on the basis of being credited as the image owner. They didn't give permission under a specific license type - it was a fairly generic approval. I'm not sure what this now means from a licensing perspective. --Gene_poole 04:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at {{Attribution}}. Does this sound like the permission you received from the copyright holder? If so, please edit the page and replace the image templates there with {{Attribution}}. If not, do you still have the ability to contact the owner and request a particular license, such as {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} or {{GFDL}}? Thank you. BigDT 11:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/g/User_talk%7EBigDT_archive200607_403c.html"