User:Cornellrockey/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is kept for archival purposes only. To leave a message for User:Cornellrockey, please use his talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Cornellrockey/Archive01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 04:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) ==Email==Ò

In the second box down on the left hand side there is a toolbox witgh the fiollowing

What links here
Related changes
User contributions
E-mail this user
Upload file
Special pages

Use the 4th button down to email another user. You have to fill in your own email address in the preferences, which you get by following the link on th ehorizontal bar at the top of the page, SqueakBox 21:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to revert!

To revert a page on Wikipedia, Click on the Page History link. There will be a list of pages with a number of columns. Clicking links of the general format (time), (date) (year) will take you to a page where you can view that previous version of the page. Find the latest good version of the page from the Page History list, then go to Edit Article from that old page.

There will be a warning that you are editing an out of date page. Ignore it, mark "rv" or similar in the Edit summary, and click Save page without typing in the edit box. The page should come up exactly as it previously appeared! --AlexWCovington (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you were wondering about messages like "(Reverted edits by x (talk) to last version by y)." Admins have a rollback function that can do this. Most of the time that you see this, users have modified their monobook.js script to add this functionality. You can give this a shot if you want that functionality — I haven't tried it, but it should be easy (just look at other users' monobook.js files). btm 06:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cornell Pix

Well, if you liked that new picture for the Cornell page, then you might like the new picture I added to the "Big Red" page. Perhaps you can find a better way of incorporating it. --Xtreambar 04:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've just been collecting them over the past year. I have a bunch of them, mainly from scouring the internet. --Xtreambar 16:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Willard Straight

I just noticed the Willard Straight entry. It's nicely done... good work! I also noticed you had a discussion about the 1987 Ivy Lacrosse championship -- I found this Yale Daily News [1] that confirms that Cornell won (outright) that year. btm 06:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HP / UP Flag

I didn't mean to upload it as Highland Park.. I put it up on the images for deletion page. Dunno what they did about it. It's not up on the Highland Park page though, at least I don't think it is..

If you know of a Highland Park flag, I'd love for you to upload it. Drumguy8800 23:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/05/12/17a

[edit] Deletion of 'left wing wikipedians' category

Hi. I saw you're (like me) listed in this category which is up for deletion. Hoped you'd like to vote in favor of keeping it... Thanks! Larix 02:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Futurama userbox

Good idea, thanks for letting me know about it! It's now displayed with pride on my userpage. :) - Wezzo 07:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your hockey team userbox

Hi, if you need help with creating a userbox for your team just tell us which one it is and I'll create the box for you, you'll then be able to use the code to create others if you have other passions. take care, Captain scarlet 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Posted the userbox on my user talk. Give us a shout to see if it's ok for you. Captain scarlet 11:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bag of tags

Added the black background for you. You should see in the code where to change it (background-color command) and the text color is controlled by the "color" keyword. -- Jbamb 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ECACHL

I'll root around for a new Colgate Logo... I'm sure there's one out there somewhere. BTW, I loved your Big Red Hockey userbox... I put it on my userpage as well! Masonpatriot 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alma Mater

Thanks for the category thing. Seems like a good idea. - JustinWick 03:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] policy on american elementary/middle schools not having articles

(Copied from User talk:DESiegel):

I'm going to do some cleanup of some american city articles and I want to be ready to cite the policy that elementary/middle schools traditionally do not have their own articles. Where would I find this? Cornell Rockey 15:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know there is no such written policy, and the trend on recent AfDs suggests that there is no consensus for such a policy. I personally believe that only fairly exceptional or particularly noteworthy schools should have articles, even at the high-school level (and still more at lower levels), but that view has not commanded a firm consensus. I predict much opposition if you intend to merge such articles. See Wikipedia:Schools for more on this issue. DES ^(talk) 15:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The best way I've seen it done, IMHO, is to roll all the schools into the page for the city they're in, and if there's enough content to give the schools their own page (which there seldom is), then link to it from that city page. But DESiegel's right -- there are almost as many ways to do it as there are schools mentioned on Wiki. JDoorjam 14:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I recommend being extremely cautious in editing these school pages. People are very protective of them and you could end up in a big dispute if you try to AFD them or move/merge them. Just be careful and don't make big changes. My advice, for what it's worth. --C S (Talk) 18:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Chan-Ho's definitely right. I should say organizationally that's the best way I've seen. But once a school has its own Wiki page, good luck corralling it anywhere else. JDoorjam 19:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice guys. The work I did was on Charleston, South Carolina just eliminated the articles before they were written. Cornell Rockey 20:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the suggestion! --RayaruB 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

All you said was "permission to upload it", no mention of GFDL, CC, PD, etc. Did you friend intend that use in a commercially-sold version of WP was OK (not hypothetical, they're already doing it for German version of WP)? That's why we like the tags and the specific licenses, they spell out all the possibilities clearly. {{Permission}} is just a fallback based on what the description page actually said. Stan 21:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You've used tags already, for instance Image:StPaul (CA-73).jpg has the tag {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, which is just a USN-specific form of the basic public domain declaration. (We have lots of Navy images, so it's convenient.) Wikipedia:Image copyright tags has a full list of the options and explanations. Stan 22:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You didn't have it tagged as anything, which is how it came to my attention (the project Wikipedia:Untagged images is going through and tagging the 30,000+ untagged images that have accumulated). Your tag on Image:Lynah salute nov 5 2004 jpg.jpg is perfectly fine; some people don't like PD because for instance it's legal (albeit sleazy) for someone to take the image and claim it as their own. GFDL and CC are more restrictive about that sort of thing. There's no best choice, just read the WP articles on each and decide which you like best. Stan 22:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compliments

Thanks for the compliments! It is a bit crap the way people vandalise / stuff up the Natasha Richardson article. AnAn 22:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just wanted to say...

Thanks for your help in the article about Sheryl WuDunn! It is visibly improved.--Elizabeth of North Carolina 04:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Same Birthday

Dude, you have the same birthday as me, and you are a Wikipedia person, that's awesome, email me at my email address on my page! --Shaunnol 03:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Carolyn_maloney.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carolyn_maloney.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 13:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Carolyn maloney.jpg

No source is given on the image description page. A source is always required so that it is possible to determine who the copyright holder is. Without a source, we have no way of knowing whether it was made by the federal government. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 23:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prepare yourself for hilarity

You'll never guess who wrote his own biography on Wikipedia, which was promptely removed. Cracked me up. Cheers, JDoorj a m Talk 14:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: too complicated

The two templates cencerned (User democrat + pro-choice), have both been deleted under CSD T1. This is the new deletion criteria for templates, which forbids polemical or inflammatory aspects. To contest their deletion, you are welcome to refer to Deletion review. Good luck and I hope that helps! Ian13/talk 14:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:userbox war

I'll gladly help to save 'divisive' userboxes, I'm just not sure how to do so. Point me in the right direction, and I'll readily be your ally. Cornell Rockey 16:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Well first of all, you can monitor Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, in case any come up on there. But since that's been a rare occurence lately, the main option is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. The only problem is, the ones on there have already been deleted, so you may be voting to keep something that you'd rather not! But those are the main sources for the time being. Thanks for your help! --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 16:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just subst'ed all your userboxes. Basically, your userboxes used to be neat, clean little templates that, whenever anyone would load your userpage, would pick up their little Wiki phone and call over to the template page, where all the ugly code is, and say, "Hey, listen, if all that ugly code were actually on this page, instead of being over there, what would it look like?" And the template says, "Well, it'd be a little box with the flying spaghetti monster in it." And your user page says thanks, and hangs up the phone, and puts a little flying spaghetti monster on your page. The userbox deletionists are cutting the phone line, so when your user page calls over, there's just that "line disconnected" sound, and it shows up as a red link on your page.

So, what I did was, where your page used to say have templates listed as {{template name}}, I changed them all to say {{subst:template name}}, which calls them up and says, "yo, you and your ugly-ass seven or eight lines of code can all come crash at my place if you want." And so that deposits the content of the template right onto your page. Now your user page doesn't have to call the template over every time your page loads; instead, it's already on the living room floor of your user page. The downside is, the code on your user page is totally cluttered now, so if you want to change the text on your page, you gotta wade through all that crap now. The up side is, ain't no one gonna take your FSM box away from you (unless these people expand the anti-userbox campaign to going page by page). The new speedy deletion policy only applies to templates, and because your userboxes aren't templates anymore, they can't be deleted as being too "divisive." Btw, if you go up to templates that still exist and look at the code, you can change the text and picture to be whatever you want it to (without saving) it, copy and paste that code into your user page, and BAM! you have your userboxes. So if you want to recreate any that were deemed too "divisive," that's the way to do it. (That's how I made my "protect your userbox" box.)

Cheers, JDoorj a m Talk 22:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider your self ath'd. JDoorj a m Talk 05:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The nature of atheism

Believing in the absence of god/gods/whatever still falls under the religious realm of your personality. Atheism is a religious belief. Cornell Rockey 05:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that to refute you, I was simply clarifying the official definition of the term. See atheism and antitheism. It's a small distinction, but important nonetheless :) TKarrde 05:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] btw

The Flying Spaghetti Monster templates were speedy-deleted this afternoon. You have one of the few remaining copies of it. JDoorj a m Talk 05:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suggest

you can suggest, but chances of me doing it are minimal. i don't have any image editing software on the machines i use to contribute to wikipedia. plus, aren't there close to two hundred of them now? that would be a colossal task. you're welcome to it, of course. ... aa:talk 21:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cornell campus

I recently began a new project regarding Cornell which is a page on the history of the Cornell campus. I thought that you would be interested. Check it out here. I secured a bunch of useful pictures. Unfortunately, I do not have time and will not have time for quite some time to work on the page. If you want to bring the page to fruition, feel free to do so. --Xtreambar 05:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Allen Boyd.jpeg

I noticed that you tagged the page Image:Allen Boyd.jpeg for speedy deletion with the reason "Allen Boyd has a better picture that is also in public domain. this pic serves no purpose". However, "Allen Boyd has a better picture that is also in public domain. this pic serves no purpose" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use one of our other deletion processes, proposed deletion or articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Or, in this case, you can use WP:IFD giving the reason "orphaned" (OR). Stifle 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, this is the first time anyone has pointed that out to me, even thought I've used the speedy deletion path many times to get rid of orphaned/obsolete images I've personally encountered/obsoleted. Honestly though, it is little nitpicky rules and procedures like this that make the more complicated aspects of wiki difficult for regular users to deal with. I don't blame you, but administrators and higher-ups, in general, have made honest, hardworking, proper-copyright-respecting contributors jump through hoops to improve this encyclopedia. I’m not blaming you, its just that frustration can sometimes get the best of me. G'luck and happy wikipedia-ing. Cornell Rockey 17:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It's close to CSD:I1 (image redundant), but it does not appear to be an exact copy in lower resolution. I'm loathe to speedy images when there's even a shadow of doubt that the image is not deleteable, because image deletion is not reversible. Stifle 19:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dingell Photo

Wow that Dingell-JFK photot is just amazing! Where'd you get it? Wolverineblue 21:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Ritter

Hey, Cornell Rockey! Just wondering, how is that pic search going on for a picture of Bill Ritter? We talked about that a while ago, and was just wondering where you were at with that (I'm horrible at uploading). Editor19841 23:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey nerdy... nerd

I took a shot at rearranging the images so the text doesn't get all bullied around. Hope it helped. JDoorj a m Talk 19:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oyodo alongside Zuikaku image - deletion tag

Hi there! I noticed you changed the above image in the article on the Oyodo light cruiser to another one (same image but different file) and marked the original one for deletion.

I was wondering if it's better to move all the links from the 'other' image to the original one and delete the former instead, because that image's title is mispelled: Oyoda alongside Zuikaku, vs. Oyodo alongside Zuikaku on the version tagged for deletion.

Just a thought :)

Stele 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pompoms.gif

You placed the {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} tag on this image. This tag is to be used *only* for fairuse images. It is never to be used for public domain images. {{NowCommonsThis}} has been placed on it, so an admin will remove it, after confirming it's on Commons (which it is). {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} is one of a group of speedy tags, used to deal with violations of WP:FAIR, and one effect of it, is it causes an automated message to the uploader indicating an image may be in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. This image is not. I really dislike the suggestion that it is. Note, if I seem picky here, keep in mind, it's actually illegal to use a copyrighted image without proper license, so it's not very nice to have it suggested, when its not the case. --Rob 22:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A much more serious problem

The above was just a technical/principal/procedural issue. However, most of your other {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} tagging was seriously wrong, as these images weren't on Commons. You're use of this tag, risks permanent loss of public domain images, that could be useful. Sometimes, an image is removed by an article, and other editors feel it should be put back. Sometimes, PD images, are actually replaced improperly with copyvio images (very bad), and the switch isn't detected until a while after. If, in that time, the PD image is deleted, the article may be left with no image whatsoever. Ultimately, these images can and should go to Commons, and you could move them there if you wish, and tag them {{NowCommonsThis}}. But, the loss of some of these images, with transwiking, would be quite unfortunate. I request you remove all of the remaining improper tags yourself, before anything of value is accidently lost forever. Properly sourced U.S. military images are quite valuable, as we have a high degree of confidence they are legally in the public domain. Also, sometimes such images, once available online, cease to be, and can't be regained (even if people know where to look, which they often don't). --Rob 23:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you were *NOT* nominating any articles for deletion. You were tagging them for speedy deletion. There is a huge difference. If you wish to nominate images for deletion, you can use the {{IFD}} tag. This gives other people a chance to discuss and oppose the deletion, if they wish. And a number of the images, if nominated, would likely garner keeps. Wikipedia is a community, and deletion decisions, should be put to the community, for discussion in normal non-copyvio scenerious. Please, do not try and by-pass the community's process. These images pose no harm, and hence there's no urgency for them to be deleted. I expect you to remove all of the improper tag yourself. --Rob 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, if any of those images, really did need deletion (like duplicates), its not my fault for them being kept. It's entirely your fault, for using the wrong tag. --Rob 00:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, when you informed me of my "mistake" regarding Image:Oyoda alongside Zuikaku.jpg I went and placed what I thought was the appropriate speedy tag for the image. Somebody (properly) removed that tag also, since it's used in user space, and can't be speedy deleted (by the tag you used, or the tag I used). It turns out the appropriate tag is {{redundant}}. The same person who removed my tag (properly) has also saved numerous other such redundant images from speedy deletion (properly so). --Rob 08:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxen

Hey man, I added the Cornell userbox. I also turned a few at the top back into templates. The userbox war seems to have largely died down, and those are all pretty non-controversial, so I figured it'd make it easier to edit your page if there was less code in there. Gimme a holler if you want a hand with anything else. Cheers, JDoorj a m Talk 15:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)