User talk:Scipius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, fantastic job on the Euro pages! Although I'm not totally happy with the pluralized naming (per wikipedia naming conventions), I can't think of a better system of naming right now. Anyway, where did you get those gorgeous images of the currencies? Cheers! --maveric149

Thanks very much, I think I'll be around fixing minor things here and there, but I can't say when I'll find the time for some more extensive articles (there's still quite a bit I might contribute to the Netherlands pages). I got the images from the ECB site, where they offer images of all the coins for viewing, but also as a .zip file (.gifs and .jpgs) for other uses I presume (they can be found at many other sites, though rarely at their full size like here). I did however convert the .gifs to .pngs because of Wikipedia's stance on .gifs, saved a bit in image size as well ;) --Scipius

Hi & welcome. The Euro articles are great. As a semiBrit I found them very interesting; they prompted much speculation down my local pub as to what designs we'll have eventually... -- Tarquin

Thanks, BTW I was surprised to find in gathering information that Britain is in fact already producing euro banknotes. I wonder if that is known to the anti-euro camp... ;) --Scipius

Nice edit of the Provinces of the Netherlands article! I didn't know the names changed twice during the Batavian/French period (of which you still have to add the names). -- jheijmans

Hello, there's discussion on Wikipedia talk:Status of the porting of U.S. Dept of State info about how to desubpage the country entries, or whether to do so; if you're still interested in getting WikiProject Countries off the ground you should go vote about what to do so we know how to proceed. :-) --KQ

- The royal mint already made some possible designs for coins in 1998 or roughly then. You can buy them in sets. - fonzy

Hoi Scipius, you mentioned you would probably be writing on history/geography of the Netherlands. I've been adding articles on the First Anglo-Dutch War and Second Anglo-Dutch War (also Anglo-Dutch War); could you have a look at them, the information in there's still pretty basic right now. Thanks, Jeronimo

Thanks for all the flag images, they're very nice. Are they all from a single source? If so, that should probably be mentioned. --LDC

They're all from the CIA World Factbook, with corrections for the sometimes off-beat colours, as has been discussed in Talk:WikiProject Countries. I plan on a full list of all flags once done with adding them, we can perhaps mention it there, or on the individual image pages. -Scipius
Please mention this on each individual flag by stating the source in the upload summary - doing this will automatically place that text on the image's description page. --mav
Well, I'm going to keep it consistent and not add the source there. Rest assured, it'll be added when I start adding the description on the image pages, which has to be done anyway. Of course, anyone can start doing the ones that are already there ;) -Scipius
That's fine then. --mav

Looks like your medium-sized Libya flag image file got mangled somehow. I went the the CIA site to fix it myself, but I couldn't find any good flags--the only ones I saw there were incorrectly encoded as JPEG, and didn't have original source for me to make PNGs out of (converting JPG to PNG is pointless--the data data has already been lost and that will just make it worse). Am I missing something? --LDC

You're not, but they were converted to .png regardless of policy, because I feel this case does not apply. I tested it on the Spanish flag (large) and couldn't really see any discernable loss of quality. Remember, these aren't photos, they're just drawings and should of course have not been .jpg, but even compared to the mostly .gif flags of FOTW they still look very good. .Png then has the further benefit of getting rid of any patent/license issue (see JPEG) forever and it can also prevent us having to rename the file should anyone ever produce a new .png flag from scratch.
I certainly think they're clear enough, but you can always point out the ones you feel suffer from a loss of quality from the conversion or those that were already lousy as .jpgs. BTW, how is the med-Libya flag mangled? It shows up to me as a green flag of 125x63px, as was intended. -Scipius

In this case, I think continuing as you are now is OK for the important reason you mention: the flags will get called from a lot of places, and making them PNG now will mean we won't have to change all the references to them if we ever do find really high-quality originals to replace them with. And as you say, the sacrifice in quality is minimal, and the file sizes aren't that bad either. But as an example of the problem, look at the manual edit I did on the Lithuania flag. The original JPG-converted-to-PNG had fuzzy edges with gray shadows, speckeled colors, and was 4.6k. Fixed by hand it has sharp edges, clean colors, and is 600 bytes. --LDC

Oh, there is always room for improvement, so good work (though I'm not sure we want to get rid of the edges. They could serve a function in flags with white running to the border). The work I'm doing is not to establish the definitive flags of Wikipedia, but rather to finally supply Wikipedia with a good base assortment of flags, especially since we now need them for the new countries' template. Some countries had flags from the meta server and there are multiple orphaned flag images, of all sorts of sizes and colours; I'm hoping these new ones will become the standard flags, perhaps also for the non-English wikis. Another thing to consider is that most flags are not carbon-copies of the Factbook ones; many have had their colours changed slightly and quite a few were resized to their proper ratios. At least we now have a base from which people can start to work from, should they wish to do so. -Scipius

Yes, I agree that it would be good to have these set the standards for size and such. I can see where edges might be useful, but those should be done in the stylesheet rather than on the flag image itself, and in any case they should be real, sharp, thin, intentional edges--not just JPEG encoding artifacts. I wrote the CIA factbook guys to see if I could get some original artwork, but I haven't heard back yet. --LDC

Original artwork would certainly be good to work from ;) Will you let us know what the response is? -Scipius

Absolutely! BTW, the Libya flag was fine, and displayed fine in my normal browsers, but for some reason IE wouldn't display it. So I downloaded it and re-saved it, and now IE is happy. I'm sure it was just an IE bug. --LDC

Hi! on WikiProject Countries: Moved all the mistaken "Demographics" pages to "Demography" and re-set the redirects to "Demography". Let me know if I missed any. However, that brings up a question. Several articles have been, by persons various, moved to Government_of_Wherever. Should these be moved (and redirects edited) to point to Politics_of_Wherever? -- April

As far as I know, yes. The idea is to have "Politics of <country>" be the main article on everything related to politcs within that country, including the government. Since most we have on many countries is the Factbook info, which deals with more than just the government per se, we should indeed place that info on the general "Politics" page. Once that article is fleshed out, we can probably have a page that deals with just the government. -Scipius

Great job with the flag porting! You still do plan on putting where the flags came from and their copyright status in each image description page right? --mav

Of course, but not tonight ;) Also, I plan to have a link in the description to a list of all flags available on Wikipedia, which needs to be made first. I was thinking of something like Flags of the world, redirecting to List of flags or something like that. I'm undecided on whether we should show the (medium) flags itself on that page. On the one hand that would kinda be helpful, but it would probably be too graphics-intensive (mostly in terms of the number of images). -Scipius
I second mav's kudos. Great work! -- Zoe

Hi Scipius,

In your Provinces of the Netherlands maps, there is a lot of invisible noise that unneccessarily bloats the files. I would like to clean them up, but perhaps you have got originals that it would be better to work from?--user:Branko

Scipius Ave,

Might you be able (time permitting of course), to add a kilometre scale to your excellent map of the Netherlands? It would greatly assist those of us in the antipodes to understand how much bigger New Zealand is from Zealand for example.

Lisiate

Scipius, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on my template proposal for the Dutch provinces, presented in Talk:North Brabant. Jeronimo


Scipius could you possibluy create and place it in the Flag of Alaska, also the reverse an obverse sides of the Flag of Oregon. - fonzy





Sorry, but I'm no good for the US state flags. Most of them contain drawings and coats of arms that are beyond my ability ;) If you could find a good public domain resource for all of them, I'd certainly be willing to do give them the same treatment as the national flags. Until then, I don't think there's much use in starting articles on those flags. Scipius 22:12 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

i already started as you can see by ogin to those links. - fonzy


(This is in reference to my deletion of a Das Kapital article that only contained "moon boom")
wuts moon boom mean? - Lir

I have no idea, Lir, but it surely has little to do with Karl Marx or his famous book. I only gave the text to demonstrate why it was deleted. Now that I have your attention, could I point out that we generally place comments on Talk: pages at the bottom? Thanks. Scipius 13:43 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

Scipius, what is your opinion about the creation of interlanguage links to other wikis when the article doesn't exist yet? For things like dates I think it would be great if interlanguage links displayed differently if the target page doesn't exist yet. But many other things may vary a great deal based upon the different naming conventions of the different wikis (such as people's names). So if I make an edit-interlanguage link to the future Swedish article on Max Planck how can I be sure the article will be created at that title and not Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck. Just thinking out loud and using you as a sounding board. What do you think? --mav

I concur that there's no problem with the date-links, they'll all be added eventually. As for personal names, I suppose the risk of directing to a wrongly titled page is somewhat lessened when it's a well known short-name such as Max Planck, since there will likely be a redirect to the full name. Perhaps there could be a way for the software to automatically see if an interlanguage link points to a redirect page and subsequently fix it? Scipius 14:52 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

I guess that is possible, but so long as a redirect exists then the reader ends up in the right place. It is still a bit worrisome. BTW, I've been mostly holding off on adding interlanguage links lately because I heard of the possibility of having a feature whereby making an interlanguage link in one language will automatically make a reciprocal link. So if I make an interlange link from an English article to a German one then a link is automatically made in the German one (if it exists) to the English one. Cool eh? --mav

That is cool ;) Is there any timeframe for implementation yet? Will it only make interlanguage links between two languages or will the software also check if other language links exist on one of the two and add the links to all of those as well? I suppose interlanguage links will probably be best of with some kind of automation, as it is going to become a massive tangled web of interwikipedian links, especially once all wikis are upgraded... Scipius 15:34 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

Since your message to me made me aware that you're the flag expert, I'm directing this to you -- putting it on the talk page for Delaware a month ago didn't accomplish anything: The state flag that was on that Delaware page was the wrong color. I replaced it with a photo of one the right color, but its ratios are wrong. Would you please get the right Delaware flag into our system? The official state webpage whose link is below the flag image discusses the right colors, and please believe me that having the state flag the right shade of blue (wherever it "flies") is a big deal to people who live here, so I feel a certain obligation to try to get it fixed. -- isis 01:28 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

Well, I'm just the volunteer who added the national flags ;) I'm all for accuracy, so could you tell me what the ratio is supposed to be? I normally reference with the Flags of the World site, but it doesn't say (entry on Delaware here, you should recognise that particular image...). The current image is 2:3 and FOTW has a flag of 3:4. I've coloured in the current image to make it look less like a photo and I can resize it if we have the correct ratio. Are you happy with the colours as they are now? Scipius 22:16 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

No, I don't know what the ratios are and don't know where to find out -- if you read the official blurb on the flag at the link I put under its image in Delaware, you noticed that the State's big concern is getting the color right (because, as I said, it's a real sore subject here), not getting the ratios right -- but the outer dimensions of the flag aren't the ratio I was talking about. What's wrong with the image is mainly that the diamond (and with it the date under it) is too large, because I had to crop the edge all the way around to square it up. I can't judge colors on my computer monitor, because it's too dark (I can't even make out a lot of images, in Wikipedia and elsewhere), but I think it's okay, because it doesn't set my teeth on edge the way the royal blue one did. Thanks very much. -- isis 23:33 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

The flag is 3:4. - fonzy

Cheers for moving my 'to do' list to a user page- I hadn't even noticed up until then that the background colours of the pages were different... Cheers quercus robur

Hi Scipius, I saw your article about the ZuiderZee.
Part of the text hides behind the images. Also text and tables overlap (at least in Explorer 5, Win 2000)
Any idea why this is? Erik Zachte

I now see that on XP/Explorer 6 everything looks fine. Erik Zachte

Scipius just informing you i have a new up to date flag book with all the propotions in. - fonzy, also a book with list of leaders of countries might be useful elese where. - fonzy

Scipius, where did you get the image of the Spanish coat of arms at Spain? I'd like to do an article on it in detail and I was wondering if you had a larger image. - Montrealais

I "stole" it as all of our coats of arms seem to be. I took this image and downsized it and made it transparent. It's not that much bigger I'm afraid. Scipius 20:12 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

on teh flag artciles words like State Flag, Civil flag, canton etc should be linked to Flag terminology - fonzy

Well, sure, but I don't try to use those terms as it is, as I focus mostly on the history of the national flag, without getting into its different uses. Feel free to add them where you think they could be added, but mind your spelling of course. Scipius 23:01 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)

But some countries have more than one national flag I mean the finland has one with out teh coat of arms in and one with it in. - fonzy so to say this is the national flag of a country and leave its as that si wrong as thre maybe 2 or 3. - fonzy

Hi there Scipius, thanks for alertin me on my talk page to your comment on Baldwin I of Romania Talk. You're absolutely correct, I've moved it to Baldwin I of Constantinople now. I can't say I know a great deal about alot of the stuff, but I try to do more good than harm while adding these biographies to wikipedia, as although they may not read great they will encourage more editing and hopefully improve Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the error. Smelialichu 17:54 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Do keep up the good work, Smelialichu. Mind you, "of Constantinople" may not be the best title either, but my aim was to avoid confusion with modern Romania, at least until we have someone more knowledgable write an article on the Latin Empire. Scipius 18:05 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

i ahve a problem perahps you can help: Image_talk:England_flag_large.png

I understand you would like to get the name of the country correct, but most English-speaking people will have no idea of what the United Provinces is, or associate it in any way with either Holland or the Netherlands. It's not a term that is used enough to be familiar. Perhaps you could use a more obvious name, e.g. Republic of the Seven United Netherlands? It's longer, but at least it won't perplex the reader. -- Someone else 23:42 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

I would think "United Provinces" is the more common name, at least the one I've encountered most in English texts dealing with the Republic. The full name is rather unwieldy and I don't think it's any more recognised in itself, except of course for the "Netherlands" bit at the end. The long name for the country is likely also one of the reasons most people just use "Holland", which is incorrect of course. Linking to the Netherlands can also be a bit confusing in certain timeframes. Perhaps something like United Dutch Provinces can be our short-hand? --Scipius 00:01 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
Attribute it if you will to our overweening ignorance, but "United Provinces" will not be recognizable to most who encounter it... we're inadequately Netherocentric. :) I think United Dutch Provinces would be better than just United Provinces, but as long as the "official" name has that nice "Netherlands" bit at the end, I think it'd be the better choice - and would avoid introducing another term. I leave it up to you, just letting you know that "United Provinces" alone will produce befuddlement. -- Someone else 02:01 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

Dear Scipius: Hi! Thank youfor reading my article about Wooster Plane Models. Wh8en I referred to Holland, I meant the country, as I suppose that also 99.9 percent of peopl who speak of Holland refer to too. I had no idea there is a Holland in Mchigan , although I should have figured..this country has a Rome in Georgia, a Frankfort in Kentucky...hell, Ive been to Baghdad!! (Baghdad, Arizona, that is!!)

Well anyways, thanks and God bless yo!!

Sincerely yours AntonioMartin

Nice work in taking on the Mexican states. I've wanted to address that for a long time, but haven't had the energy to tackle it.  :-) -- Zoe

Hello. I was just trying to work out where all the various Talk: Cornwall type pages went, and I tried to redirect one of them somewhere else, but I think I might have just made it worse, since I redirected it to the wrong place... Sorry about that. You might have to delete some of them, I think... -- Oliver P. 23:39 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

I think it has worked out alright. The main talk page (with history intact) is where it's supposed to be and I've fixed a redirect to a redirect. Your redirect wasn't necessary, since the disamb page should have its own talk page, so I've deleted the redirect. No harm done. -Scipius 23:52 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Okay, thanks, and well done for sorting it all out! -- Oliver P. 00:03 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Scipius, the maps of Netherlands and the Zuiderzeeworks you created are most impressive. Tidy, informative and most of all, pretty! If I may ask, how did you make those maps? With which program? Any detail would be appreciated by this novice. --Menchi 07:43 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! I was myself a near-complete novice when making these maps. The method used involved first of all tracing the basic outlines from an atlas map onto paper. This, rather than scanning in the atlas map directly, was done to minimise any difficulty with copyright and such, as well as offering the possibility to adjust certain lines. Next came scanning in the traced lines, followed by adding in colour, names and most detail with Photoshop. Being a novice I only used reasonably basic functions, so I would assume most graphics editing software would be just as usable. Finally, resizing the image and converting it to .PNG to make it suitable for Wikipedia. If you have more questions, just ask. -Scipius 21:48 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Scipius, thanks for your statements on Taw's talkpage. I did not know, if the river's english name is Oder or Odra, so I said on that page, that I don't mind. I think that it was anything but fairplay to be called a propagandist for such a minor detail - so, thank you again for your words. -- Cordyph 09:42 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Scipius.

This is my comment on Talk:India regarding your edit:

The boundary as shown in the map is not recognised by the Govt. of India and many Indians in general. The region in Kashmir under Pakistani control is viewed as part of India. The map shows the region under Chinese occupation. So what's wrong in having text telling the there is some region shown as part of Pakistan in the map but claimed by India?

And currently the Deputy PM (Prime Minister) does a lot of the job the PM is supposed to do (like signing treaties). So I think we should make a mention of him.

I see that you are a flag expert. I would like to inform that Image:india_flag_large.png and Image:india_flag_medium.png are not correct. The Asoka chakra (the wheel at the center) must have 24 spokes. But I don't know how to get a correct, non-copyrighted flag of India. -- Paddu 04:11 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

For the above two questions, see Talk:India. As for the flag, you're right, and the problem is solved. The original flag was from the non-copyrighted CIA Factbook, though from the 2001 edition. You'll be happy to hear that the 2002 Factbook has updated its flags and does include a 24-spoke chakra. I've replaced the flags accordingly. -Scipius 21:48 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Scipius,

Thanks for merging the Helgoland and Heligoland articles - that was quick work! :-) -- Arwel 01:43 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing British Guiana 1c magenta - I don't remember why I thought the collector was the car guy, should have looked at Ferrari first! Stan 12:47 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

That's the wiki-way ;) Good thing no tifosi read that some German sounding "Ferrari" started the Scuderia, they might have deleted the whole page...;) -Scipius 13:01 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

How si saying when Slovenia gained associate membership irrelevant? Its as relavent as when it gains full membrhsip. -fonzy

Because associate membership is nowhere near the same as full membership, which is far more significant and has far reaching consequences. In the case of the 2004 candidate countries associate membership is just something to tie them over until full membership and is thus only part of a greater process. Mind you, it would be useful to include the fact that Turkey has been an associate member since 1963. -Scipius 15:49 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

But its still no reason, not to mention it, Wikipedia has room. Also in my opinon its useful to say when countries gain asscociate membership. - fonzy

Wikipedia has room, but that doesn't mean articles need to mention every little detail in a single place. The EU article is long enough as it is and the Members listing is the wrong place for such info. As evidenced by Turkey, associate membership doesn't mean that much and I would assume all non-founding members were "associated" at some point. You can certainly make a separate list for the dates of each of them if you want, but I would suggest that this is more suitable for the History of the European Union article. -Scipius 16:24 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Scipius. thanks for your work on the list of country name etymologis. I was the one who first added "holland". I distinctly remember reading that the Hol in Holland derived from the same root as "hollow" and "hole" in english and reflected the fact that the land wasnt solid. I dont see how Holland could have ever been very forested since it was naturally a sandy waste.

could you explain? in the meantime i an re-adding my own etymology next to yours. though i undertand 'hol' as a germanic root for would, take "holstein' and the word holz in german. thanks user:tridesch

Certainly. You can see the article about Holland itself to see the etymology I already added there. Holland meaning "hollow land" is a commonly heard folk-etymology, but it's not what most linguists, my Dutch Etymological Dictionary or e.g. this page will tell you. "Holt-lant" dates back to the 9th century and in those days Holland certainly was wooded in parts (in particular the region near the dunes), though most of it would not have been sandy, but rather a peatbog intermixed with clay soils. BTW, I took the liberty to edit that article a bit more, mostly restructuring and adding links, but the claim about New Zealand definitely needed amending ;) -Scipius 19:31 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, re:Republic of Ireland, I've just reverted it back to the original argument. I don't think it's a good idea to revert an article when there's a general consensus that the article is largely good as it is, and that your changes were unwelcome (as the talk page for Republic of Ireland generally shows). What exactly is your quarrel with the present page? Simply that it doesn't follow the normal template for country pages? Perhaps that could be worked out with mass reverts and edit warring. And I really don't think that an article about the Republic of Ireland ought to cover earlier Irish history (and I think it ought to be very clear on what exactly the Republic of Ireland is, and how it came into being). john 21:27 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As far as it goes, some of your individual changes were (likely?) fine, but I think your changes to the historical part were too broad. In the first place, as I said before, the article on the Republic of Ireland ought to have the history of the Republic of Ireland, not of all of Ireland (ack! I'm a broken record). But I also think it's important, given the confusion that it engenders, that the Republic of Ireland clearly explain what the Republic of Ireland is, and how it came to be. Anyway, I'd suggest that you bring up the specific things about the article that you have problems with on the talk page for Republic of Ireland, and see if some compromise can't be worked out, rather than making changes that are likely to be reverted? john 22:09 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Scipius, there is a consensus on the page. It was worked on as a temp version to take into account Jerinomo's observations. All the people who contributed to the page were asked for their opinion. Individual paragraphs were put on individual's talk pages to ask their views. Changes were made based on suggestions. Different users proposed different amendments. They were all agreed. There was universal agreement on the version now on the page. A clear and unambiguous consensus. For you to try for a second time to force your version onto the page when everyone tells you not to is both insulting to people and breaking wiki rules about consensus. Your version is simplistic, factually wrong and inaccurate. Because of the complexity, the R of I page has to go into a bit of depth with background information. People overwhelmingly agreed that that was the right approach. The only way to correct your version of its many simplistic inaccuracies would be to add in a lot of text, the same text as is there now by agreement.

BTW I do understand your concern for the template. I am something of a rules & regulations person myself and have worked on templates in other areas on wiki. But the whole issue of Ireland is much more complicated than you seem to grasp; in fact foreigners in general can be utterly confused about it. One island, two states, a republic that wasn't actually a republic, a state with a president and a king simultaneously, two modern names and a description which is used as a name, a host of historic names with different geo-political meanings, constitutional superiority for a language most Irish don't speak, and constitutional inferiority for a language they do speak, two articles in the Irish constitution and mentioned a different 'nation' and 'state', without clarifying which name applied to which.

As I have discovered elsewhere doing templates on wiki, there are times and locations where you cannot stick rigidly to the template without producing inaccurate facts and causing confusion. The R of I is one of these, as is the Emperor of Japan in the area of royal naming conventions, etc etc. If you don't go into detail explaining the link between different terms and geo-political entities, you risk leaving everyone utterly confused. The fact that the CIA factsbook is so dramatically wrong on the RofI is indicative of the scale of confusion internationally. That is why the template is unworkable in its simple form on the R of I page and that is why there is so little support for its use in the form you suggest and why there is general agreement on the form already there. FearÉIREANN 23:49 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hello there, Scipius (can I call you Skip for short?) I don't feel I know enough about Ireland (oops, sorry, Eire - no, that's not right, I mean Republic of Ireland) to join in this debate. I just don't like it when these disputes arise. I've been on wikipedia well over a year now, and in that time have only seriously fallen out with one person. As far as I'm concerned, if you accept all my contributions in the spirit in which they are made, then I'll do the same for you. Deb 20:04 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just dropped by to say it's nice to see you and JTD are finally on the same page (NPI) about Republic of Ireland. -- Jim Regan 09:50 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the pages looked complete to me. I couldn't find any inconsistancies in any of the pages and nothing was written to suggest that on the talk pages. Some people thanked me when I transfered over the Republic of Ireland temp page. LDan 22:18 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Overwritten flags

Hello, Scipius! I accidently overwrote the original large flag of the Dominican Republic that was already there when I started the upload. Please see both versions and choose the better one; mine is derived directly from the CIA factbook 2003. Sorry. --Romanm 23:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to substitute the old large national flags with new ones from CIA Factbook 2004, mostly because a few of the new ones have better details and the rest should be in consistent (new) color scheme. I already did some uploading in this direction. Of course I'd pay attention if the flags were changed in the meantime (for example, improved colors of Image:Croatia flag large.png). Is this plan OK with you? --Romanm 21:47, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comedy Help

Hi. I'm trying to recruit some people from non UK/US countries to add to our sitcom and television comedy sections. At the moment they're totally about American or British comedy. if you're able to contribute, please do - I am happy to tidy up after you and it may, at least, get others of your fellow countrymen involved. --bodnotbod 22:42, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand Coat of Arms

Hi Scipius,

where did you get this coat of arms from? Is it public domain or GFDL? We use it in the German Wikipedia, too, and now we do a image license review, and found out that we do not have any information on this one.

Best regards, --zeno 12:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS: Same question for Image:Ukraine coa.png and Image:Iran_coa.png.

And where is this Image from? Image:Malta coa.png

[edit] License

Hi, is Image:South korea seal.png public domain ? Tipiac 10:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One

Scipius - I noticed you have previously expressed interest in Formula One and its related articles. I've started a WikiProject on F1 and I thought you might be interested in participating. Thanks! — — Dan | Talk 20:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)


[edit] Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 22:12, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

[edit] Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 21:04, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

[edit] Using fundamentalists' sign

The emblem you uploaded for Iran-related stubs is the most hated sign by all Iranians. It is politically biased and charged with memories of mass-killing and torture. It is like using Swastika for german stubs! This sign is heavily politically charged and is a sign of Islamic fundamentalism. I urge you to omit this as soon as possible. There are thousands of neutral cultural signs for Iran. --212.238.143.99 11:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag Size

Hi Scipius, I notice that you did a lot of the work originally converting flags for use with Wikipedia. I recently made a large number of historical US flags, in much larger sizes than was previously the norm (1520 by 800 pixels). I wonder what you think of making flags of such a large size.

I think that mediawiki is probably much better at dealing with resizing than it was when all of the flags were originally ported, but I'd like to make sure that my making of large US flags doesn't have any negative impacts (given that there was quite a discussion 2 years ago about making sure flags stayed small).

I hope that the new flags are of a format which is useful, but if you have any suggestions about it, I'd be glad to hear them. Also, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. Do you know about the purported support of SVG? Is this in fact coming any time soon, and would it be a good idea to upload svg versions of the US flags?

Thanks, I'll take responses at my at my talk page. --Jacobolus 04:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources of Portugal coa.png and Portugal flag large.png

hi scipius. could you plase add the sources of this 2 images in the commons: [[1]] and [[2]]. ould be very nice of you! Schaengel89 @me 11:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moresnet

I suggested Moresnet as a Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moresnet. There are some objections, perhaps they can be fixed? --Egil 18:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicisation

Hi there, I was reading thru something you wrote, and it said a decision had been made to Anglicise place names where possible. Can I ask what the reason for that was? IMHO designating a Swiss Canton as a State, is Americanisation not Anglicisation anyway, as there is no such thing as a "State" in England. :-) Cheers! Jcuk 08:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] China_coa.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, China_coa.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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 18:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hungary_coa.png: deletion warning

Image deletion warning The image Image:Hungary_coa.png has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

There is a higher quality version of the same image now, uploaded May 2005. Just follow the link on the description page of this image.

KissL 28 June 2005 14:04 (UTC)

[edit] [[:Image::Estonia coa.png]]

[edit] Image:Estonia coa.png

Image deletion warning The image Image:Estonia coa.png has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Splintercellguy 2 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Poland coa.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Poland coa.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.

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Nantillescoa.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Nantillescoa.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks you. --romanm (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Man flag large.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Man flag large.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.

[edit] Image:Moresnet flag.png

I have redone your flag of Moresnet as a PNG (located here), and listed the PNG for speede deletion. In the description ive credited you. --ThrashedParanoid 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Norway flag large.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Norway flag large.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.

--Sherool (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thailand coa.png

As the original uploader of "Thailand coa.png", please be aware that the file name is inaccurate and use of the image is probably in violation of licensing terms. Thailand_coa.png is not Thailand's coat of arms. The real Tra Khrut should have sharp wing tips - the wingtips of Thailand_coa.png‎ are blunt. The real Khrut should have 7 external wing-tips per side - there are 9 wingtips in Thailand_coa.png‎. The real Khrut should be wearing wearing what looks like a high belt which connects to its necklace - the one in Thailand_coa.png‎ is only wearing a necklace. The fingertips of the real Khrut should be pointed directly at the apex of its Monthien (hat) at 45 and 225 degree angles - the one in Thailand_coa.png‎ has fingers that are horizontal. The tail design is distinctly different. The source attributed to Thailand_coa.png is a pay site (vector-images.com), and it seems that the bitmap demo image was copied from the site without requesting or receiving a license. This image should be immediately pulled from Wikipedia. Patiwat 18:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Japan coa.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Japan coa.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!
Image:World map.gif

Hi, and welcome to the Countries WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of counties.


There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? See some model pages such as Cambodia!
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every country article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Shy1520 10:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image source

Image:Paraguay coa.png is missing source. --Ysangkok 21:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Finland_coa.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Finland_coa.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/i/User_talk%7EScipius_7579.html"