User talk:DieWeisseRose/Archive Jul 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Prominent anarchists

Hello! I'd just notify you that after discussion over at Template talk:Anarchism#Prominent Anarchists section, it's been decided to revert your recent addition to {{Anarchism}} - the list of prominent anarchists. The concerns raised were that "prominent" is ill-defined and is hard to have POV, and that the template is long enough already. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 06:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've responded on the template talk page. --DieWeibeRose 21:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you've got the page on your watchlist and as thus already know, but just in case, I responded to your response. ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Category for Discussion

[edit] User name

Hi! As you know, the correct German for your name is DieWeißeRose. Using a b completely changes the pronunciation and ruins the meaning, though what you are supporting is great. Although known by few, Weib is slangish German for wife or hag. Did you know that it is possible to change your username? Although DieWeißeRose uses a non-English symbol, it is possible to use it in your name with Alt+225. The Anglicized Weisse is also possible. This is only a comment/suggestion, and I am not enforcing anything onto you, but is only a conventional correction. Cheers! Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know it was possible to change my username. I have made the request to have it changed. --DieWeibeRose 21:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, you could simply edit your signature to read DieWeißeRose. :) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PALCOTW

Thanks for your kind words. You've inspired me to put some work in on the current collaboration! --Ian Pitchford 07:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism spam

I see you've inserted identical paragraphs on a letter of protest into articles on many of its signatories. Please don't do this. It's not a relevant and notable enough fact about each of the signers to appear so prominently in an encyclopedia article on each one of them individually. If you want to list the letter's signatories in an article on QUIT or on the letter itself, that's fine. But copy-and-pasting the same semi-irrelevant paragraph into more than a dozen articles is not. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See my response here. --DieWeibeRose 21:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I apologize if calling this "spam" seemed inappropriate to you, but I continue to think that (as I said) cut-and-paste addition of the same borderline-irrelevant paragraph to several articles is a bit more spammy and promotional than encyclopedic. (My description is not a specific reference to WP:SPAM.) You're right that other such material is present in many articles, but it generally ought not to be. Such a lengthy description of a letter or petition belongs in articles on the issues and groups involved in the letters, not in each and every signatory's article, where it adds very little. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See my response here. --DieWeibeRose 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy you're asking for is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Or, if you prefer, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Information in an article should be relevant and informative to a reader interested in learning more about the topic of that article. If you ask yourself what information a reader would want to know in an article about Ken Loach or Brian Eno, the fact that both of them signed this letter would not be a reasonable answer. I agree that a separate article on this letter would likely be deleted as non-notable; but that in itself should be an indication of the wisdom of adding it elsewhere on Wikipedia. It might work as a brief section of the QUIT article, though. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And after looking at the QUIT article, I see there is a paragraph (the same paragraph?) on the letter there, with a list of signatories. That is where it should stay. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See my response here. --DieWeibeRose 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DieWeisseRose that this material is not SPAM using any reasonable definition of that term. It should certainly form part of the QUIT article and articles on the individual signatories if their involvement constitutes a particularly noteworthy act. Any mention should be fairly brief and as well sourced as possible. --Ian Pitchford 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:AhmadElaian86.jpg

Thanks for the notice. I've corrected the fair use rationale for the image. --DieWeisseRose 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a professional photo that I don't think is fair use material. Your rationale could be used for any photo of all time and not fair to the original photographer at all. --Shuki 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you don't think fair use applies. The rationale I provided could not "be used for any photo of all time". --DieWeisseRose 22:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I see now that on June 4th you asked "Couldn't someone replicate the picture and release it for free ...?" Please explain what you meant by this? --DieWeisseRose 22:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

He is referring to the policy that for all non-free images on Wikipedia "no free equivalent" exists or could be made with reasonable effort (criterion 1 on WP:NONFREE). I have some experience with this stuff, but I admit this case is pretty tricky. I'm listing it on Wikipedia:Fair use review so that others can comment too. nadav (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you make a non-free image into a free image? --DieWeisseRose 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The image can become free if the copyright owner agrees to release it under a free license (e.g. GFDL, [[Creative Commons]). WP:COPYREQ gives some useful instructions on how to do that. Alternatively, in many cases someone in the future can decide to reshoot a picture and release it as free/libre content. nadav (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palestine Userboxes

The Userbox which you created, for users who support the Palestinian right of return, has been speedily deleted. Perhaps you would like to call for a deletion review?

Meanwhile, you have created another userbox, which you list as "Support One State Solution". The box, however, states "This user supports a binational solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". These terms are in fact not synonymous. Wiothout going into a detailed political explanation, I support a One State solution, but not necessarily a binational approach. There are many more variants and possibilities. I believe that you should either edit the text of the box, or change its title. --RolandR 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I agree that "most people who support a binational solution have in mind a one-state solution in all of Palestine". But the converse is not necessarily true, which is why I argue that the terms are not synonymous. Thanks for the reference to the binational solution article; I shall make an appropriate edit as soon as I am able. I have added my own comments to the deletion review page. --RolandR 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Since nobody's told you...

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN. Just an FYI. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --DieWeisseRose 19:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox DRV

Just to let you know, if you're filing a DRV for something that was deleted, you should ask an admin to restore the history behind a {{drv}} tag for the review if you're going to place a tag on the page you're DRVing; I've gone ahead and done that. {{Delrev}} is for DRVs that are appealing a "keep" or "no consensus" decision. --Coredesat 06:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure what this is all about but I'll figure it out. --DieWeisseRose 21:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see and understand what you've done. Thanks. --DieWeisseRose 22:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)