User talk:BigDT/archive200612

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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


Contents

[edit] Boy Scout

Thanks for helping with this article. The guy was blocked late last night for the 3RR vio. I don't see why he doesn't get why it doesn't belong there. PS, I've noticed you've part of the "image policy protection team" -;) Take care and see you at OA stuff. Rlevse 10:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Larrycoker bw mediaguide.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Larrycoker bw mediaguide.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu Badali 23:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of pictures

hi, on august 9th, you deleted several of my pictures that I have uploaded onto wikipedia, may as to why you did so? furthermore those pictures were my property as I had stated with the proper wikipedia media license. your removal of my pictures should be considered vandalism as you did not give a specific reason for removal. anyways, cheers. Austrian Guy06

  • I am not an administrator so I have deleted neither your pictures nor anyone else's. I did, however, nominate three of your pictures for deletion. You can see the nomination page, which gives my reason for nomination, here. Wikipedia is not free webhosting. If you upload pictures that have no encyclopedic purpose, they will be deleted. It's as simple as that. Before you accuse someone of vandalism, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. BigDT 11:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of logos in Betelgeuse incident

Hello, BigDT. I am currently involved in a dispute with two editors about the use of the Gulf Oil logo in the Betelgeuse incident article. It seems to me that this logo does not significantly contribute to the article, and thus fails the eighth point of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. The Total logo has just recently been added to the article, and though I haven't yet said anything about it, I think this image also adds nothing significant. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter; the discussion is ongoing at Image talk:Gulf.png. Thank you for your time. —Bkell (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Vigil Brother Wikipedians

FYI, there's a new template you can use to replace the current one on your userpage. :-) —141.156.240.102 09:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boy Scout

Thought you may be interested in this debate: Talk:Boy_Scout#.22Controversies.22. See you at Fellowship.Rlevse 01:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Accepted Original Motion Picture Soundtrack.jpg

You said: "Hi. I noticed you tagged Image:Accepted Original Motion Picture Soundtrack.jpg with {{nrd}}. Is there a specific concern that you had? It is tagged with {{cdcover}}, which itself contains a fair use rationale, namely, that the image is used "soley to illustrate the audio recording in question". With DVD covers, CD covers, etc, the rationale is usually considered to be obvious and the vast majority don't have anything above and beyond the tag. I looked at the page where this image is used and didn't see a problem with it. Is there a specific concern that you had?"

Well, the criteria has been tightened up recently. All fair-use images have required a rationale, but this is more widely enforced now. My specific complaint with this image is that the article it is used on already has a lot of copyrighted images... six, by my count. This is really too many for an article without much length (though the length is just fine, my complaint is with the image count). This was the first image I found, though, so was the one I tagged as missing the rationale. --Yamla 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catia Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Izaak&redirect=no#Unspecified_source_for_Image:Catia.gif I'm sorry, perhaps I should have added there that me and my friend screenshotted the game then ripped them, does that help?

Sorry, but I donnot know how to use PMs or the other necessities for a conversation.

-Izaak, Lord of the Lotus Clan.

How can I verify that the picture is okay to use on the page "Scotty McLennan?"

[edit] Groves Stadium

Hi, I saw you put in a new image for this article. Thanks, the article really deserves an image :-). Regarding the old image, the reason I deleted it was one of copyright. It was tagged to be used on Wikipedia only, thereby meeting WP:CSD I3. (deletion log) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The image I put in wasn't new. It was old. It was removed in this edit [1]. I put it back as soon as I noticed. BigDT 00:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, I thought you were referring to this removal. It never occurred to me that there might be revisions with good images in the history. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject University of Virginia

Thanks for starting this discussion... as I have been quite discouraged by the userfy judgement to begin with. Below is what I appended to your message... seems like Wikipedia has a bunch of hypocrits as they want to promote the collaboration of data, but alienate users when they have no interest in a subject. Honestly I almost flamed you before really reading your message because you are a VT fan and thought you were just being malicious, but I am relieved to find out that you are trying to help me out. Thanks and hopefully you haven't found as much red tape as I have found contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks again for your support. Jazznutuva 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This WikiProject should not have even been userfied given the other University WikiProjects that have been left alone (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornell University, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio Wesleyan University, Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia Tech, Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin), however I accepted the opinion of the masses to userfy despite the project only being run for 3 days before nomination for deletion. I agree with BigDT with userfy of this project being very discouraging as this project took many hours to create after I had researched that there were several other Universities with projects that had been open for much longer than mine lasted. I'll go with the consensus... but a pure deletion would be mind boggling to me considering the active University projects let continue. Jazznutuva 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you sir for your wonderful comments here . --- ALM 18:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As in all things, I call them like I see them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for winning an argument or proving a point. BigDT 19:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Brighton

I was hoping that the rest of the WikiProject Brighton members would help finish it but it doesn't look that way now. Please keep it for a couple of days while I sort it out, thank you. Unisouth 08:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Ossetia

I read CSD P1 as referring to topics that are not encyclopedic (like Portal:My dog Skip); obviously Ossetia is. MFD is pretty straightforward, but my bigger question is that the creator (Zandweb) was active on November 16th; have you asked them yet whether they want to continue building the portal? Maybe they'll {{db-author}} it for you and save you the trouble. Otherwise it doesn't seem to be in any article pages, so it'll do little harm if it's around 5 more days, and you'll get a greater consensus for your removal than just two people; there's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Ossetia, which seems to be fairly quiescent. -- nae'blis 14:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 14:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing had been done on the portal - it was an empty portal page that takes 10 seconds to create and hadn't been touched since its initial creation. Any obviously delete-worthy portal I found that had any content whatsoever - even lousy content - I nominated at MFD - but there were several portals that had no edits beyond initial creation using {{Box portal skeleton}} and those I tagged for speedies. In my mind, the blank article criterion is clearly appropriate for a portal where nothing whatsoever has been done and MFD would only introduce an unneeded step. BigDT 18:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, looks like CrazyRussian agreed with you, and I didn't realize there was a portal skeleton for these sorts of things. -- nae'blis 19:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bowl games

I noticed that you corrected what i had overwritten. It doesnt matter if God said that Boise State will be going to the Fiesta Bowl, it still as of RIGHT NOW, is undicided whether Boise will actually get the bowl bid. Another Bowl could logically pick them over the Fiesta Bowl. So thats why i was changing all those Bowl "predictions." Dawg1279 06:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • They aren't "predictions". A "prediction" is that Virginia Tech will play UGA in the bowl formerly known as Peach. Miami to the Smurf Turf and Boise to the Fiesta are 100% set in stone and just waiting to be announced. None of the BCS bowls are officially announced until next Sunday - not even tOSU to the MNC. Boise to the Fiesta is 100% completely set in stone, but it will not be announced until Fox's selection show. Miami to the Smurf Turf is 100% set in stone and the article I found says it will be announced on Tuesday. Bowls that are not 100% set in stone (ie, VT+UGA -> Peach) should not be listed, but there is no reason not to list ones that are only pending the formality. BigDT 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I see your point now. Sorry for the confusion. Dawg1279 06:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No problem ... by the way, please consider checking out WP:CFB ... it is a WikiProject on College football and works to provide some degree of coordination/manpower on CFB-related articles. BigDT 06:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democrat Party

Back in June, you participated in a wiki discussion about deleting an article called “Democrat Party (United States).” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_%28United_States%29). It was agree to delete this article and redirect it to Democratic Party (United States) -- the real name of the Democratic Party. However, someone has revived the Democrat Party article. Would you care to weigh in on this at that article’s Talk page? I think a redirect is in order in accordance with the decision we reached last June.

[edit] Orphaned image

Thank you for your message on my talk page. Please feel free to delete Image:BmouthFA.jpg now - I uploaded it by mistake. ChrisTheDude 11:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok ... FYI, for future reference, any time you create a page by mistake, you can tag it with {{db-author}} to request its deletion. BigDT 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PocketCover.jpg

This image was replaced by PocketsCover.jpg, which is currently in use and should be marked accordingly under fair-use; PocketCover.jpg may be deleted. JPX7

Sounds good ... if you do nothing, in seven days, the unused image will be deleted. BigDT 12:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celestial weapons

I'm assuming good faith that this wasn't vandalism, but you seem to have made a rather strange mistake at AFD [2]. I have reverted it. So ... umm ... thank you for your experiment and please use a sandbox next time and all that good stuff. ;) BigDT 00:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen that John Kerry page in my life; I definitely didn't add it into Celestial Weapons. Something went awry, it looks like. Thanks for the AGF, though. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#CFD hiccup. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful what you call vandalism

Fair enough -- there have been a zillion folks insistent on changing the BCS info prior to the official announcements, and that's been what's driving me much of the afternoon. My apologies for getting a bit overzealous...--Mhking 23:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Thanks

You're welcome. Keep up the good work. Regards.--Húsönd 03:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your comments on Daniel.Bryant's ArbCom vote

Hello. It is my understanding that there are no neutral votes or discussion sections permitted on the voting pages for ArbCom nominees, and that such discussion is to take place on the talk page of the vote, or if they are questions of the nominee, on the nominee's questions page. Consequently, I have shifted your "neutral" vote and the following dicussion to the talk page of that vote[3]. - Mark 07:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine ... I was about to do it myself, but you beat me to it. I must confess that I didn't fully and completely read the instructions and I have redacted my lengthy comments on one other candidate as well. BigDT 07:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My answers

Hello BigDT. I'm in the process of answering the questions on my page, and hope to wrap things up this morning over the next few hours as time permits. I just wanted to let you know that I have every intention of answering them as soon as possible. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiChallenge

The VT Defensive Coordinator needs an article, you created the 2006 VT team page and added a DYK about his defense... so I challege you! CJC47 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V

Yeah, uhhh... perhaps you should look at what was revised before you change it back instead of just stalking someone and undoing their changes right away, not everything Vaernnond does is vandalism... unless you'd rather have people spamming "GO TO CHRISTIANITY" on every other page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gargantuan Cat (talk • contribs) 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I clicked the wrong version of the page on that particular revert. I quickly caught and corrected my error. Please consider contributing constructively to the encyclopedia, rather than adding nonsense to articles. Thank you. BigDT 04:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CalvinJohnson.jpg

The uploader removed the deletion notice. You might want to explain to him that simply removing the notice isn't the solution here... —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I will let the uploader know and I appreciate your help. BigDT 00:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the message that kind of explained image licenses. Uploading and managing images is (to me) the most esoteric part of Wikipedia. Then again, copyright has never been simple... or at least, it hasn't been since Mickey Mouse was invented. Thankfully, someone cares. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yo?!

sorry if there's a problem

but dude you should have left the page for a while

I just became a wikipedia user so I am confused about the site

respond asap —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riaazvgm (talk • contribs).

[edit] question

how do you delete your user page and all its history (before editing)

Riaazvgm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riaazvgm (talk • contribs) 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

  • To request that your user page be deleted, tag it with {{db-owner}}. BigDT 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the heads up

I'll correct the error. Thanks for the info! Note: You already did that, I see. Thanks again. Sorry again for the mistake, I have been kinda ham-handed (or is it headed?) lately. Badbilltucker 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beaniebop

Realistically, I don't know that any message is going to get through. I suspect we're looking at someone about eight, who probably really doesn't belong here at all. Fan-1967 18:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's probably true ... but a rude message is going to anger him/her and isn't really going to solve anything. BigDT 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Florida State Webpage

Thank you for reverting the recent vandalism by that user!Sirberus 18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

np --BigDT 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Baptist

Thanks for your revert on this. As a fellow Independent Baptist, you were absolutely right that the paragraph in question didn't apply to all, or even most, of us. Roachmeister 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Any time ... I have a number of Christian theology pages on my watchlist because they are targets for vandalism, POV pushing, and everything else under the sun. Please seriously consider watchlisting any articles like that you see because I can guarantee you there will continue to be vandalism on them. BigDT 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HainesCityFlag.jpg

How would I make it so that it could stay on Wikipedia?--Hornetman16 00:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't include any non-free content in it, then it could be used on your user page. For example, Commons:Category:Florida includes a lot of free graphics that pertain to Florida. If you use images from that category and/or anything that you made from scratch in Photoshop, Paint, etc, that is NOT based on a copyrighted work (in other words, even if you make a freehand drawing of a copyrighted work, that CANNOT be used), then that's fine. Again, this would be something that can be used in userspace only. Anything constituting original research cannot be used in article space. BigDT 00:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So, from what I just read, this is what I understood, if the Mayor of Haines City claims it the official flag of Haines City, Florida it's no longer Original Research and can be placed on the article for Haines City, Florida, right?--Hornetman16 00:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes ... it obviously needs to be verifiable, in other words, the proclamation needs to be published in a newspaper or put on the city website or some such thing, but yes, it is generally considered a legitimate example of fair use to include the flag of a country/state/city on the article about that entity. The image looked a little ragged and would probably need to be cleaned up, but I would assume that if the city were to select that for its flag, they would have marketing people that would take care of such things. BigDT 00:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Who knows?--Hornetman16 00:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Disagreeing

No, I know what your saying, I just hapened to see the image page in this condition. I already talked to the uploader of the new image about it, because really it's just a diamond, with 5 pretty universal political terms, and two scales that are non-traditional in politics. No colour, no lines/graphs across. I just didn't see the old picture at the time it had a fair use image on it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ... I'm not overly concerned about the new one ... just the old one. I have no qualms with anything you did or said ... I just saw the message and wanted to let you guys know what was up. There really isn't an "edit war" there ... just my effort to ensure that it is either really is a free image or that it is properly tagged as a non-free one. It's important that if Wikipedia is going to really be a "free content" encyclopedia that we (1) remove non-free copyrighted material for which there is no legitimate "fair use" justification and (2) ensure that non-free material is correctly tagged. BigDT 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Protecting

I protected Michael Vick and Roddy White as they have been heavily targetted today. DeAngelo Hall seems fine, as it doesn't seem to be that frequently edited. Nishkid64 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast work ... DeAngelo Hall was being hit by the same group of vandals ... just not as frequently. But that's fine ... I will re-request it if it continues. Take a look at [4] ... it was obviously a coordinated pattern. I'll keep an eye on that page and say something if there's anything more. --BigDT 03:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...yeah. I wonder how long it took them to plan it. It seems like it was like 20 people lol. I mean, Roddy White got hit like 200+ times today. Nishkid64 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images for Deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ncwikicol.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 11:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I looked at the place you link and was unable to find a reason. Please inform me as to the reason, or let me know where I can find the reason. Thanks. Martin 10:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
That link was from four months ago. Image deletion discussions are displayed for five days, so it has long been taken down from the main page. To find that day's discussions, look at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 August 25. The particular reason for that image's deletion was that it was an orphan and it was rendered obsolete by Image:Wikimedia-logo.svg. --BigDT 13:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your help with the Wtstoffs stuff. —Chowbok ☠ 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem ... glad to be of service BigDT 06:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flickr copyvios

He seemed pretty adamant about retaining full control of his images, so I didn't bother to ask him. Take a look at the conversation here. Feel free to drop him a note, but I wouldn't have very high hopes. —Chowbok ☠ 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok ... thanks for pointing that out ... that's a real shame. BigDT 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Tagging logos and movie posters as having no rationale?

I have replied to your message on my Talk page. --Slowking Man 05:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD Heading-0/1 templates

Hi BigBT,

I think your idea of having templates with Heading on off ability is great, and probably the solution to the problem. As I have no idea how to code this, could you for one of the templates, I will then insert it into all the other templates. Cheers Lethaniol 12:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See User:BigDT/sandbox for a mocked up version of {{nn-warn}} and User talk:BigDT/sandbox for the way it would look. Rather than do 1/0, the default is off. If you specify anything for header, that will turn the header on. You can use header-text to specify a particular header. PLEASE NOTE: it is important to gain a consensus before adding this code to every CSD warning template. BigDT 13:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That's great - thanks. One question - the first one - does it not need |George Bush in the template so it knows which article it is talking about? Lethaniol 15:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The first parameter is the name of the article ... in my sample, I used George W Bush. After that article name, you put header= and header-text= if desired. I'm not sure I understand your question. BigDT 19:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry should have been clearer - the first line of User talk:BigDT/sandbox is

Code to generate the following warning: {{subst:User:BigDT/sandbox}}

whereas I think it should have that first parameter in, like this:

Code to generate the following warning: {{subst:User:BigDT/sandbox|George W Bush}}

Cheers Lethaniol 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It does - add {{subst:User:BigDT/sandbox|Bill Clinton}} to a sandbox ... you will see the name of the article. BigDT 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which I have chosen to withdraw early at a final count of (10/8/3) as it was unlikely to gain consensus. I will do my best to improve in the areas that were cited as my weaknesses, and will reapply sometime in the future when I have gained more experience. Please always feel free to help me along with a suggestion on how I could improve, and if you ever need help, I am ever at your service. Best as always, Dar-Ape 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Bible/Featured chapter

Hello, BigDT, good to hear from you again. Sorry I didn`t respond to your message right away. I gave it some thought, and I think I would prefer to do the Bible chapters straight through rather than skip around. I know the last three books of Moses are not terribly exciting, but maybe we can speed up the rotation again so it won`t take all year. Let me know what you think. Donnie Love 14:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, what interval would you like to use for Leviticus? Chapter per day? 2 days? 3 days? --BigDT 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Amato Pic

Apologies not needed. I agree it's a bad image (mainly because it's upsized) but replaceability and all that too, we just don't need it. --MECU≈talk 23:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Thanks for your welcome. You may have noticed that I'm trying really hard to reduce wikipedia vandalism. I just wondered if I was following the correct protocol for doing so? should I message a user when I revert their edits?

Thanks a lot :)

Whoops, forgot to sign, and blanked a guy's edit. Fixed.

Tkenna 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work you have done so far. To answer your question, yes. Please see Category:User warning templates for a very long list of templates you can use. The short version of it is that if it is simple vandalism, use one of the "test" templates. If it is likely just a test (ie, blanking a section possibly in good faith, saying "can I really create a page", or just hitting buttons), use {{test}} or {{test-n}}. If it is their first offense and obviously vandalism, use {{test2}} or {{test2-n}}. If it is a later offense or blatant vandalism, use {{test3}} or {{test3-n}}. If they have already been warned and it's obvious that they need to either stop or be blocked, use {{test4}} or {{test4-n}}. Once someone has been warned with test3 or test4 and continues to vandalize, they should be reported at WP:AIV so that an administrator can block them. Thanks again for your hard work. BigDT 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User aclu

May I ask why this is deemed inflamatory? Speedy removed untill I understand. (please reply on MY talk page) ViridaeTalk 08:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Political and religious advocacy userboxes are the main purpose of T1. See [5] for all of the times that userbox has been deleted. You can host the userbox in your user space. For example, if you create User:Viridae/User ACLU, then you can include it into your user page using {{User:Viridae/User ACLU}}. You don't actually need to store anything in template space and under WP:GUS, it is suggested that you do not. BigDT 12:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Dear BigDT. Thank your for supporting my nomination and for considering me a trustworthy Wikipedian.--Berig 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad to do it. I really don't like the farce that RFA sometimes can be. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal ... I find it funny that many problem admins / blatant trolls are defended and defended no matter what they do, but then great users such as yourself are opposed because you spend too much time reverting vandalism and not enough playing politics. Sigh ... BigDT 13:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SVG Image

Regarding Image:UserboxScale.svg. The actual image also contains text, but I had difficulty getting it to show up right on Wikipedia. I made the image in AI and saved it as SVG. When I upload it, it doesn't show up right at all. Any suggestions? --NThurston 16:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea ... the text shows up when I open the image directly ... it could just be that MediaWiki doesn't fully support all of the features of SVG. BigDT 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Christopher Norman

Please see the new comments on my article Christopher Norman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrisnorman101 (talk • contribs).

I took a look at it, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a place for everyone who won some kind of award in school to get an article. BigDT 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not won in school. It is a serious higher education award available to post-graduate students and lecturers only - please see the continuing discussion board

[edit] James Brown

Hmm. Not sure if you read my comment on his page, I offered him the option of proving his real name in confidence the end the debate over the validity of his username, and invited him to reveal only the necessary details. In the context of the situation I find the fact you even mention good faith to be pretty disappointing. Deizio talk 17:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You asked a 15-year-old boy to send you a scan of his ID card. That's never acceptable. BigDT 17:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy? If anyone has acted out of accordance with this guideline it is the user himself. Your concern seems to be a broader disapproval of asking children for personal information which is admirable but I think a little overstated in this circumstance. Deizio talk 18:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
"All users, including children, are permitted to edit anonymously without submitting identifying information." BigDT 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Receiving you loud and clear. Deizio talk 18:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for hunting down the source of the Super Bowl XL foto. That's good detectivity! Tomcool 19:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk

Hi BigDT,

I have addded a comment on the Template talk:Promophoto. Please respond.

Thanks,

Cedars 20:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A policy proposal about images linked from Commons

As a followup of "Penis Vandal Again" at WP:ANI, please consider the Wikipedia:Images for blocking policy proposal `'mikkanarxi 19:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job! I've offered my thoughts on the talk page. BigDT 22:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Queen Rania.jpg

Hi BigDT,

I am not familiar with the copyvio procedures on en:, perhaps you could have a look at this photo? It looks like a copyvio to me: scanned but any prove that the photo was PD is lacking.

kind regards,

TeunSpaans 05:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out to me. I have nominated it at WP:IFD. FYI, there are multiple overlapping procedures for dealing with copyvio images. Images that were blatantly copied from some website with no assertion of permission or fair use can be tagged with {{db-copyvio}}. Possibly unfree images where the source or license is disputed can be taken to WP:PUI. Images missing essential data can be speedy deleted (see WP:CSD for criteria). WP:IFD partially overlaps WP:PUI and also handles deletions for reasons other than copyright. So basically, there's a long list of possible procedures to choose from. ;) BigDT 05:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. As a sysop on the Dutch wiki, I often delete images nominated for deletion which gave been copied from the english wiki. Often the issue is clear, such as fair use, something we do not allow. But once every few months, such as in this case, the situation is less clear, and the uploader on the dutch wiki acted in good faith. However, the procedures here on en: are hard to remember, with numerous tags and procedures for different cases. It would probably take me the better part of half an hour to read through the different procedures and decide upon a tag, and even then there is a good chance I might err. Thx for your assistance! TeunSpaans 06:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome ... glad to be of assistance ... and yes, our procedures are overly complicated and I still have to look around sometimes to find the right one to use. BigDT 06:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Westerfield

Hi. Just wondering if you still have your eye on the David Westerfield section of WP:BLPN that you reopened a couple weeks ago. The controversy has gotten to the point where I've reprotected the article. There's obviously sockpuppetry going on, combined with personal attacks and allegations of trolling. These two are having difficulty concentrating on the article because they're so busy attacking each other. I'm already having difficulty keeping them in one place, switching back and forth between WP:BLPN and Talk:David Westerfield. Any assistance is appreciated. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good grief ... I took a look at the article history and talk page and that's just unbelievable. The things they are fighting over are so minor, too. I left a long message on BLPN basically asking for civility and pointing out two guidelines that are relevant to some of the disputes ... but this one is an interesting one. BigDT 13:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm thinking we can come to some sort of agreement at WP:BLPN if you want to hang in there. If you have better things to do, that's fine too. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Underground

The "orphaned" image is placed again at the right place, I don't know who replaced it. Cheers. Machocarioca 17:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Machocarioca

Ok ... it looks lit it's been orphaned again. I, personally, have no preference which image is used, or if both or neither is used. But if either one is orphaned, it needs to be tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. --BigDT 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ufc-pride image deletion

Thank you for your message regarding the deletion of the image I uploaded. It was uploaded primarily for the wiki entry ufc-pride which has been removed. Unless anyone else in the wiki community finds it useful then I have no objection to it being deleted. Kind Regards Brettybabe 19:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your wording change to {{PRODWarning}}

I don't like the change you just made. I realize you're trying to tie the prodded article back to the author, but in the process you made the wording a bit clunky and a bit "wishy-washy" for the very common case where a single user makes a NN article. The older version, while perhaps a bit curt, does not specify the editors involvement in the prodded article and doesn't need to because generally someone will recognize an article they created. —Dgiest c 19:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"I've added the template to the article" bothers me. I have no particular preference on the exact wording ... I just feel that (1) the contraction needs to go and (2) we don't need to say "the" twice. I'm not picky on whether we tell them they created the article or not. BigDT 19:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
What is bugging me more is the "an article that you helped to create - [[{{{1}}}]] - " which has two pauses in short succession and uses an unnecessary qualification of the authorship of the disputed article. —Dgiest c 19:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, how does it look now? —Dgiest c 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me. BigDT 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brawl of the Wild

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Brawl of the Wild, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Jerry lavoie 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/g/User_talk%7EBigDT_archive200612_0d8f.html"