User talk:ChadScott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] adding a certificate or rating

Hi ChadScott, I've answered the inquiry that you posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pilot_certification_in_the_United_States#Adding_a_certificate_or_rating...

Sorry if the change wasn't clear. Mexcellent 10:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alameda Aero Club

This article is worthy of retaining due to the history behind the flying club. It is significant to the San Francisco Bay Area. I'm very disappointed that no discussion took place despite my posting of an objection. The person that proposed the speedy deletion does nothing but post deletion notices. Perhaps he/she would like to contribute to the Wiki in some significant way before they start removing from it? ChadScott 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message.
Speedy deletion is just that - a deletion of types of pages that there is wide consensus to delete. The most common reason for an article to be deleted like this is called "A7" - an article about a person, group of people, or club that does not assert the notability or importance of the subject. Hundreds of these articles are deleted every day (see the deletion log), and having a discussion on all of them would clog up processes so badly that no work could be done at all.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such not everything is included, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I am sorry that you are disappointed about the deletion of your article.
There are a few ways you can proceed from here:
  1. You can re-add the article, including evidence of how the club meets the guideline for inclusion of clubs on Wikipedia (citations from reliable sources are the way to go).
  2. I can undelete the article and transfer it to your userspace for you to work on and move back into place when you're ready.
  3. We can move on, leave the article deleted, and try writing about something else.
Please let me know which you'd like.
On a side point, there are some WikiGnomes who don't have time to add content to the encyclopedia but do very valuable jobs making sure that content that should not be here is removed. Please bear in mind that they are an important part of the Wikipedia.
Thanks again for your message and I'm sorry that this has run so long. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and put it into my userspace and I'll continue to work on it and try to make it "notable" enough. However, contrary to your statement, there was absolutely no consensus reached on the deletion of this article. One user proposed its deletion, I objected, and you deleted. I count three people involved in that transaction. That's hardly a consensus. Certainly there must be thousands of articles deleted many or most of them without objection. This one, however, had an objection that was completely ignored. That's what irritates me the most. ChadScott 18:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I was not entirely clear - it is an official policy that articles about clubs which do not assert notability or importance should be deleted. Unfortunately, one person objecting to deletion does not exempt an article from the policy. Thanks for understanding.
The page has been moved to User:ChadScott/Alameda Aero Club so that you can work on it. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the page. On the same policy page you reference, it clearly states, "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." This seems to indicate an objection (dispute) does provide cause for discussion. Such arbitrary criterion as "notable" seems to lend itself to some benefit of the doubt. ChadScott 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The criterion is not "not notable", but "having no assertion of notability". Can you tell me why the club is notable in accordance with WP:ORG? Stifle (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:DA40-G1000.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DA40-G1000.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will 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. -- – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FUC

I have no real idea how to change the current situation. I'm encouraged by the fact that a larger group of people seems to be speaking out against the craziness of the way the current gang has been interpreting things, but I don't see how they can be dislodged. Just reading that talk page never fails to utterly infuriate me. I've basically resigned myself to being utterly incapable of doing anything besides sniping at them. Sorry to not be very helpful, But I'm not sure what can be done. They, after all, have the magical words of Jimbo behind them, and what are the likes of you or I compared to that? As far as I can tell, soon enough the only unfree images available on wikipedia will be album covers and similar. This issue doesn't seem stoppable. As long as there is actually a rule that it's somehow invalid to have an unfree picture of a famous person "to show what that person looks like", we're never going to get anywhere. john k 01:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the whole thing is entirely infuriating. This seems to be the only major area of wikipedia where people are tirelessly working to make wikipedia worse, on the grounds that it's for wikipedia's own good in the long run. john k 12:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Good comments, all. Is it possible that the hysteria to delete images has something to do with long-term plans to convert Wikipedia into a commercial venture (and that all our unpaid labor will have unwittingly served to create something that is quite opposite of what we thought)? I can't really think of any other motivation for their manic activities, since many of the images are clearly on the Internet for promotional purposes and their sources would likely applaud their appearance in our encyclopedia. Badagnani 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the case, they're incredibly enthusiastic (combined with what appears to be a strong dread that Wikipedia could be sued for the use of the images, never mentioning that a cease and desist order would surely be the first step if there were any objection). And there seem to be quite a number of them, many of whom don't seem to add any significant content. Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, is well liked and I haven't yet heard of many objections to the use of these types of fair use photos. Badagnani 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your input at Image talk:Katherine Moennig.jpg, where I'm mired in a circular argument over whether an in-character publicity shot is "replaceable" just because the actress is still alive. Cheers, Postdlf 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in. You may also be able to contribute at Image talk:Samantha Morton.jpg, which appears to hinge on the same issue. Postdlf 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:FordAspire.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FordAspire.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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. 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm, thanks? -- ChadScott 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceability guidelines

Per your "Agree" vote at Wikipedia talk:Images of living people I think you'll find my proposed replaceability guidelines worth a look. Daniel Case 06:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cats

You're a cat owner, correct? This may be unrelated, but I was wondering if you could help me populate Category:Cats in popular culture. I created the category because there were fictional cats in Category:Cats (plus there was a Category:Dogs in popular culture). What is the main difference between Category:Fictional cats and Category:Cats in popular culture anyway? ~I'm anonymous

[edit] Responsibilities of those who cut

Hi Chad,

Here is some food for thought. You cut out some additions I made to the G1000 page. Why, since you have been contributing a bit, I'll leave it at that. But I do note that the person cutting a piece has at least some obligation to place it where it should go. In your comments to the cut you mentioned that it might need to go to some other destination. If you have something in mind, go ahead and create it. If you don't, I'd say the likelihood of it happening is pretty low. One of the problems wikipedia has is the apparent readiness of various participants to cut the additions of others without regard to the value of what is being cut. For advertising-like data this makes perfect sense. For other content... As I said, food for thought only. Aki Korhonen 01:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chad, Thanks for writing back. I don't feel slighted, and in retrospect I agree to some extent about how the additions I made fit or dont fit. I am merely reflecting on a trend that I see happen a lot on wikipedia that might (or perhaps I could even say does) reduce the quality of additions that wikipedia gets. If motivated individuals create content that while useful doesn't fit where they left it, they are unlikely to recreate it if cut by someone believing (rightly or wrongly) that it doesn't fit. Trying to maintain as much of content as possible should be a goal of editing. We might even want to encourage moving cuts of material into sections or pages of bits and pieces waiting for a place to go (perhaps similar to talk pages). As I see it, the only exception is the obvious commercial content which wikipedia is not the proper location for. Aki Korhonen 04:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Star article name

I have started a discussion on the article's talk page titled Diamond Star DA40. Please take a look and leave comments. Thanks. Talk page: Talk:Diamond_Star_DA40. --Pilotboi 16:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)