User talk:Fosnez/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] TDVision Accusations

Hello, just wanted to alert you that your name was brought up as a self confessed "inclusionist" whose philosophy is against that of the spirit of wikipedia. Not sure exactly what that means I'll have to look it up. 3dtech 05:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for that. I have placed a responce to the comment Fosnez 07:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saving TDVision AFD

Greetings, it is good to see the citations going into your article. I think this should definatly been enough to "save" it... Fosnez 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I noticed there still was a comment for a weak delete even after the changes. I'm going to be working today to cite more sources. This is my first foray into wikipedia so I don't know exactly how it all works. It's still hard to tell from the discussion page what the consensus is. 3dtech 13:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats ok, Wikipedia can be a scary place to start off with. Do not be two concerned about the weak delete. I don't think it will be deleted now, but you can never been too careful. The good thing about AfDs is if it gets kept this time then thats it, its always in the Wiki (Think of it like Double Jeopardy) - Fosnez 13:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skyrail Rainforest Cableway map

Excellent, your response time was very quick! Could you do one for the Kuranda Scenic Railway? - Shiftchange 01:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I will do it, but not right now.. It is a much bigger map to do... Fosnez
The map for Kuranda Scenic Railway has been created, uploaded and released. Please let me know what you think. Fosnez 08:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
In case you wanted some detailed feedback I would definately suggest using a large font for names, using black or a darker grey for roads and railways. Optionally I suggest you move scale and compass headings to corner or side, make maps more square shaped, add a border and if there are more features add a legend. In this case I would extend the river to edge of map and I think showing the waterfalls was a nice touch. - Shiftchange 02:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for your feedback. I have edited the map and after fighting with wikipedia's .SVG scaler, I have uploaded a new version. I link the rectangular map is better in this case because in thumbnail view it is more visible on the article's page, and it also"fits" the content better. Feel free to critique the new one. Fosnez 03:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Howdy

Just checking in. I found a message that was apparently accidentally truncated before it was archived. I took the liberty to go back and fix it for you. If you decide you need any help with archiving or whatever, don't hesitate to contact me (or most other admins). Best, --Kukini 17:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OH...and I noticed all the GREAT work you are doing here. Keep it up! We are very glad to have you amongst us! --Kukini 17:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJ's for Cairns

Hi Fosnez!!Thanks for you interest in what I added. In actual fact, I was involved in a conversation with someone from Cairns Central who hinted the possiblity..It isn't hard evidence I know :(, but it's the best I can give as a source.


[edit] SVG version of Image:Building and ship comparison.png

Could you please upload an SVG version of Image:Building and ship comparison.png? Newer Corel Draw versions export to SVG. Andrew_pmk | Talk 07:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, I actually uploaded it before the .png version but wikipedia refuses to render it. The wikipedia page is here direct link (that works) is here Fosnez 12:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that there is a bug in CorelDraw. Both Wikipedia and Firefox refused to render your SVG. Nevertheless, I was able to open and resave it in Inkscape, which made Wikipedia render it. Unfortunately, it appears that Wikipedia has a bug that caused the SVG to render incorrectly (the resaved SVG worked perfectly in Firefox) so I had to made some modifications to the image so that it renders correctly in Wikipedia.
Since you seem to have added an additional example of a large ship to the PNG file, but not the SVG file (the Queen Mary II), I have not replaced references to the PNG file with references to the SVG file. Andrew_pmk | Talk 18:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It turns out that the bug that is causing this problem has been fixed in a newer version of MediaWiki's SVG rendering software, and that a simple version upgrade needs to be done by the Wikimedia developers. I have filed a bug at [1]. Once this bug is fixed, uploads of CorelDraw-created SVG files should work in Wikipedia. Andrew_pmk | Talk 19:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, I have uploaded the latest version, with the extra ship in it. Unfortunatly it is still not displaying 100% correctly... but it is better than it was. Have a play with it if you want. - Fosnez 01:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It's now fixed. Andrew_pmk | Talk 04:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks mate, did you want to put it on some pages? I did but someone removed it, admittedly it was a while ago, but I don't feel right in adding them again. - Fosnez 10:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cairns map

No worries, glad to help :) --Astrokey44 10:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

Oops... sorry. There's only so much you can see from the diffs, and I evidentially have no clue what dube means. I make mistakes when I do this, sometimes, tell me directly so I know. Thanks! Gscshoyru 12:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok, I ment to type "Dup" but my fingers are moving faster than my brain at the moment. No hard feelings here :-) Fosnez 12:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Album covers

Please stop uploading higher resolution album covers. Copyrighted images on Wikipedia should be low resolution. For more information, please see WP:NFCC. 17Drew 02:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, All images I have uploaded have been "To give a visual description to the topic being discussed and further enhance the article as a whole". I am yet to see a good argument on what defines "Low resolution", in my opnion, 500x500 is a low resolution - you certainly can't print it out and use it, and is quite common on album art images on wikipedia. Album art is used to "enhance the article" - whats the point in having it there at all if we are going to use shit quality pictures that you can't see any detail in, like the one that is currently used Here. - Fosnez 03:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
See Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old. Copyrighted images shouldn't be more than around .1 megapixels (500x500 is more than twice that). We justify using copyrighted album covers on Wikipedia because they are being used in the article space at low resolutions and displayed at 200-300 pixels wide. Uploading at higher resolutions goes against the policy of not using copyrighted material unless not including it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. 17Drew 05:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Chop Chop (Australian English)

Hi and thanks for starting the above article. I have left some thoughts about the article name on the article talk page and would be interested to know your thoughts. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 01:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the page as requested to Chop Chop (Tobacco) - Fosnez 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Image

Greetings, I have recently visited an old article that I had added an image to, only to find that you[2] had removed it because it was apparently "ridiculous" and then procedded to remove it from the other articles it had been added too[3][4][5]. Would you care to explain why it was "ridiculous"? This image clearly shows the sizes of some of the largest buildings/ships on the planet. (And before you comment on the fact a starship is included, it was put on there to compare it to the Aircraft Carrier USS Enterprise.) - Fosnez 14:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planet killer

Hi, I am trying to rewrite Planet killer in light of the AfD. I've started a user subpage at User:Wl219/List of fictional weapons of mass destruction and would appreciate your comments. Thanks. Wl219 20:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily

As someone that occasionally does NA closures as well, I would advise you that per Non-administrators closing discussions "closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided." if something actually qualifies per WP:SNOW, someone else will certainly come along and close it accordingly. Moreover, for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolster Day you still need to add an {{oldafdfull}} tag to the talk page. --Tikiwont 13:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, It's my fist invocation of the snow clause, and my first non-admin closure... I was being bold, perhaps a bit too bold, but so be it. Regarding the "edited heavily", I did see that, but inferred that this meant editing prior to the article Afd, to stop the original creator of the article from using it. Fosnez 13:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not about being bold, but avoiding conflicts of interest by anyone, non only the original creator. This closing rule applies actually also to administrators, just that in case of a Non-admin it can be overturned by any administrator. Since you have referenced the article above and now also Gumtree (which is of course a good thing) and argued for closure on the basis of those refs, you shouldn't close it yourself, no matter how clear it seems to you and also not in the case of a withdrawn nom. Doing so repeatedly, might eventually bee seen rather disruptive than helpful. In any case happy editing!--Tikiwont 13:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification, I think I understand now Fosnez 13:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helicopter Shark

You indicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helicopter Shark that you supported the article, but did not enter an explicit !vote on the AfD page, either delete or keep. As your comments appear to be only a comment, and not a !vote, they may be discounted or ignored by a closing administrator. Let me know if I can help with anything regarding this article. Alansohn 05:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Thankyou for your message, but my Keep statement is the 8th from the top. I then commented later down the page Fosnez 05:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, and thanks for your input. My brain seems to have shut down for the night, even though my fingers still keep typing. Alansohn 05:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats ok, we all have those days/weeks/etc :-) - Fosnez 06:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TDVision

No problemo, I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it :) Gatoclass 13:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closure of Stanley Dunin AfD

Since you have closed this discussion, could you please add some reliable sources that discuss Stanley Dunin to the article. If you are confident that the subject is notable, perhaps you will take some responsibility for improving the article? Tim Vickers 02:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, thankyou for checking up on the AfD closure, its always good to ask :-) I closed the AfD for a couple of reasons. The nomination said that the person the article speaks about was not notable. Google searches should be avoided in notability discussions, especially when this person's notable events took place before Google was around, or the internet was even invented. According to the definition in WP:N notabillity is "Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject." Notabliity has been established by citation of The New York Times, Detroit Times and Letter from Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan to Secretary of State. While I agree the article needs a massive cleanup and many more citations, deletion is not the answer. Perhaps you could place some {{fact}} tags where you believe citations are needed? Fosnez 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise you were an admin, the statement about adding tags was not ment to be patronizing. Fosnez 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the notability of Mr. Dunin, but I think that a non-admin "snowball keep" closure, after less than three hours, of an AfD that includes multiple delete opinions is definitely out of line. I'll probably be taking this one to DRV when I get the chance, unless someone beats me to it. Deor 03:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Unclosed, non-administrators shouldn't be speedy-closing AfD's after less than six hours, especially when four people have expressed opinions to delete. I do this per the clause "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrato", at WP:DPR#NAC. Daniel 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that you have the right to re-open it, and by all means do. The nomination for deletion was for non-notability. I snowball closed the AfD because notabillity has clearly been established by sources and therefore the four opinions for deletion are clearly irrelevant. Fosnez 03:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not your decision to make, although I agree with your assessment. AfD's are to determine consensus, ie. everyone's opinion. Daniel 03:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I would respectfully assert that it is my decision, WP:SNOW was invoked by another editor, upon reading the AfD and Article I agreed with the SNOW request and closed it, but as I have said before, I welcome the reopening of the AfD. Fosnez 03:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:SK#Applicability, point one. This closure was clearly out-of-line, and I suggest you rethink your snow closures in the future. Closing a debate which was nominated in good faith by an established editor and was being extensively discussed after a mere ten hours, ie. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of conversion of Jews to Islam, is also inappropriate for a non-administrator. Please be more careful and conservative with closing AfD's on the future, and refrain from closing them prior to five days. Daniel 03:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)`
Hi Fosnez. Do bear in mind that WP:SK outlines some very restrictive sets of circumstances where discussions should be closed early. For one thing, its usually not a good idea to close discussions where anyone is still advocating the deletion of the article. Also bear in mind that WP:SNOW implies that there is no chance the article will be deleted - that's very hard to be sure of after a short discussion. It might have that the first few contributors will want to keep an article but that all subsequent contributors will think it should be deleted. That's why we generally keep discussions open for 5 or 7 days. Discussions really should only be closed early where there is no chance of the outcome changing, not just where you feel the nominator's arguments have been refuted. WjBscribe 03:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I would comment that WP:SNOW != WP:SK. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of conversion of Jews to Islam had a snowball's chance in hell of resulting in deletion - hence its closure. I diagree that my closure of Stanley Dunin was out of line, but it may have been too bold. As SNOW says, the snowball test can be applied to an action only after it's performed, and is thus useful for learning from experience - as this has been. Fosnez 03:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of conversion of Jews to Islam after only 10 hours of discussion and with only 5 people had responded to it. In my experience such discussion attrack upwards of 20 commentators - its hard to work out what the other 15 would have said from the first 5. SNOW is not about the merits of the nomination, its about the progress of the debate. The name is a metaphor - as the snowball rolls down the hill it gathers speed. Reflected in a discussions that means a accelarating pile-on of comments in one direction, which I can't see there. Frankly, I can't imagine any case where a snowball close should happen if only 6 people have participated in the discussion. WjBscribe 03:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The direction of a debate is set by its nomination. If the nomination was invalid, as this one's was (as indicated by the number of Strong Keep and comments) then there is no point in continueing the AfD process. If you feel that this article has valid reason for deletion, please relist it with a valid nomination. Fosnez 03:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not for you to assess early the validity of the nomination - that is for those who participate in the discussion to do over the course of those discussions. Consensus is then assessed at the end. Early closes should only happen where the result is a foregone conclusion - which is not something you are in a position to assess after only 10 hours and 5 comments. No one (admin or not) should close discussions that early. Please let discussions run longer in future - its does no harm and reflects the fact that decisions should be made by consensus not on the whims of one person. I could revert your close and relist the debate but as you say this isn't a bureaucracy and I have no strong opinions either way about that article. Please work within the appropriate policies (WP:SK and WP:SNOW) and if in doubt just express an opinion - if the result is as obvious as you think, someone else is bound to close the discussion the same way. WjBscribe 04:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for your advise. Fosnez 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
An illustrative example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Darwinism, which certainly looked alike a SNOW candidate after the first day, with only the person who created the article arguing to keep it. However, with re-writing on the second day, most editors looking at the new version of the article are saying it should be kept. Please remember that not everybody has a much free time as we do, and some editors do not check their watchlists every day. You may have acted over-hastily here. Tim Vickers 04:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seaswift

Very nice! The only reason I deleted the original was because it was an ad, which of course yours is not. Good work on the new version. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No.

I don't know who you think you are, but it is highly unconstructive to drop a templated user warning on a longstanding admin's page for a good faith (and correct) edit. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, a couple of things.
  • Admin or not, I fail to see why a templated responce would be any less "unconstructive" than me sitting here and typing the same thing out manually. The alternative would for me to have not left a message for you at all.
  • Although I am not making a bad faith assumption here, I would warn you that perhaps, as the nominator of the AfD, that it would be best leaving the Rescue Template alone until after your AfD is complete. Otherwise you may be accused of a Conflict of Interest.
  • I have reworded the Template to be less "demanding"
  • If you have further issues with the template, I suggest you note then on the template talk page. - Fosnez 05:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • We have a very strong essay called "Don't template the regulars". Instead of leaving a warning in the first place, you should have talked about it, perhaps asked me why?
  • I changed the entire template. It has nothing to do with my individual AfD. If that's what you think the "conflict of interest" policy means, you need to reread the policy.
  • You did not reword it. You simply reverted it.

[edit] COI

I was serious when I asked what on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest says you can't defend something that you don't want deleted. The thing is that whatever is saying that need to be fixed. I have seen multiple AfD's where the original editor has argued for keep. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comment. As I was saying on the template deletion page, I wanted to stay out of it because Swatjester seems to have some kind of vendetta out against me and the article rescue squadron, but with his posting in the template deletion, I also had to. Fosnez 07:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. Just wanted to make sure that the COI page didn't need fixing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

I happened across the Article Rescue Squadron earlier, as I was reading Andrew Lih's blog. When I saw your recent post on the talk page, and check out the stuff, I was a bit surprised. I must say, all this fervor to delete and/or severely restrict the squadron seems rather counterproductive to me. The incredulous statements of, "Who do you think you are?!?!?!?!?!" don't help much either. Kind of depressing. Hope this doesn't lower your opinion of Wikipedia too much. --Iamunknown 08:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your kind words of support on my talk page and the other pages your commented on. It is good to see a positive tone now and then (I get people cranky because their AfD somethimes result in a keep) but I'm used to it now. Hopefully what doesn't kill the ARS, makes us stronger (We are dyslexic of Borg, your ass will be laminated ... etc). - Fosnez 10:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Fosnez, sorry for not replying until now. Glad I could offer kind words. Let me know if you need anything. --Iamunknown 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Rescue

Greetings, just a quick query, the Template:Rescue has now got a yellow border, I know this may sounds picky, but I chose the serious tag because what is more serious that an article that contains encyclopedic topics being deleted? Style does not really handle it as we (the Article Rescue Squadron) are not editing the layout of the document, but adding citations and sources to prevent it from being deleted mistakenly. I am refraining from editing the Template due to other issues, but could you please reconsider your edit? Fosnez 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Fosnez,
I think you may have the wrong person because I definately didn't edit that template..i've actually never seen it before. Sorry I cant help! Loopla 10:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that... multi-tabed browsing strikes again :-) Fosnez 10:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was me. I've changed it to orange to match the other templates such as {{unreferenced}}. Neil ム 10:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
A little unrelated, but I noticed this - everyone is allowed to post on the administrator noticeboards. That's what they are for - to raise incidents that require admin attention. Neil ム 11:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I know, I was a little cranky then (but trying my absolute best to remain civil), I was unsure as to the "legality" of responding to your own incident, but thanks for clearing it up for me (Hopfully it won't happen again any time soon) Fosnez 11:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rescue move

Already stated -- I suggested "article rescue team". Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Action Research (charity) at AfD

Thanks for your work on this article, Fosnez. Although the original nominator has now withdrawn their nomination, someone else has called for deletion based on the current state of the article, so the AfD remains open. Perhaps you'd care to formally comment on the AfD? Ah, I note you already have, sorry! Espresso Addict 20:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Resque Squadron Move Request

Greetings, I'm tring to get the current move request sorted so we can move on to other ones if we need to. Would you mind stating your position in: Article Rescue Squadron Talk #Requested_move, Thanks Fosnez 11:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. My first preference is "Article rescue squad" (I left a more complete comment at the survey.)
Have a great day : ) - jc37 03:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, but what I really need is a Support or Oppose !vote to the specific name of "Article Rescue" - Fosnez 04:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
As I said there, I oppose it. - jc37 04:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the comment. But as I think I have just demonstrated your opinion is not really all that obvious, perahps you could change the formatting of your comment to something like this:
  • Oppose it being just "Article rescue". - jc37 03:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Choices, choices... In preferential order: "Article rescue squad" (squad instead of squadron - gives more of a sense of emergency vehicles); "Article rescue team"; Not a fan of "squadron", and not a fan of "crew" or "group", and though I laughed when I read "Rescue Rangers", I think Chip 'n Dale might get jealous : ) - jc37 03:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron efforts

Hi Fosnez. I read the talk page thread about whether the Article Rescue Squadron actually does anything. We really need to keep track of this to encourage others to join and actively participate. . You should start a sub page to keep track of the Article Rescue Squadron's efforts. Basically, I envision a table with headings such as article name, AfD link, date added to Article Rescue Squadron category, diffs showing contributions by the Article Rescue Squadron, date removed from Article Rescue Squadron category. -- Jreferee t/c 04:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Article Rescue Squadron seems to be more of a Wikiproject task force. You might want to consider following Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide so we can get WikiProject Council approval. -- Jreferee t/c 18:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your post on my talk page

Thanks for your post,

I've done two things. First, I have replied to your original post about the template and so on. I wrote that on the project talk page. Second, I replied to your other question about the TFD decision and your feelings on importance of placement. That's with the question you posted, so it's on my talk page.

You have my view at TFD, and that should go some way to support your contention that there is a valid case for "doing more" when an article can genuinely be improved. if you have further questions, let me know, but for the while you have not hit a dead end, you have fairly good encouragement from me (for what its worth) to continue developing the idea as you're able. Go to it! And good luck :)

If you want to ask more, let me know of course. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] response

Response on my talk page. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ping

Just curious, do you use IMs? --Elonka 07:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Alas, Skype is one that I do not use. How about AIM, Google Talk, Yahoo, MSN?  :) --Elonka 07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, nope, I'm online but am not seeing anything. Try dropping me an email: elonka@aol.com --Elonka 07:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Template:Rescue

Greetings, Thanks for your work on the Template. I have a concern however that the image looks like a sweet, and not really like a life preserver as it is supposed to? Also, I found an error in the SVG's XLM as well. Would you mind if I changed it back? Fosnez 02:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you asking. Most editors just revert with a two-word reason in their edit summary. Yeah, you're right it does look like a sweet. I didn't realize it at the time, since I saw it mixed in with a bunch of other similar-styled icons (Nuvola), and it looked like it was suppose to at the time. By itself, however, it's a Cream Saver. The only issue I have with the current image, is that the outline on the inside is too thick. At it's full size, it looks good, but at smaller sizes it doesn't. Rocket000 02:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine, I'll revert the change and fix the image tonight (I created it and have the orginal.. somwhere :-) Fosnez 03:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciated much...

... that you held your stand against now-demised user MartinDK on Articles for deletion/Zerg. A few days before that, he brutally deleted some material I'd added to an article, without explanations and using the same insulting language. As I had to leave on a no-internet trip shortly after, I haven't had the time to reinstate the material yet. At least, now maybe I can do so without expecting the same brutish reactions. And thanks for providing me with the {user incl} tag, btw. Neat. · Michel (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Question About Cairns

I was reading up on the Cairns City Council page and was wondering something I was hoping as you have many more edits than I do, and a history on the page if you could help me with this one.

On the page Cairns City Council is the criticism section necessary, I mean it is an issue that is close to 15 years old, and seems to be not major in the scheme of what the Cairns City Council does. I did not want to delete it without talking it over with someone.

Thanks,

Erick880 (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Using original names for geological features?

Just received and read your note regarding my use of original names in preference to official names (Queensland names register)..

As you have noted, I am keen and fairly committed to create articles within Wikipedia referring to geological features of the North Queensland region by their original names, the first of which was that freestanding monolith and tabletop mountaion, Ngarrabullgan.. followed by the others you've identified ..

You will note that with the clear exception of 'Lake Eacham/Yidyam' I found there was NOT any pre-existing entry for the actual geological features .. eg their was no pre-existing entry for the mountain (Ngarrabullgan), no prexisting entry for the laks (Ngimun (Lake Eurtamo), and regarding Gabar (Fitzroy Island), there was an entry for the National Park/Protected Area, but none for the geological feature/island itself (there was rather a simple redirect for anyone searching for Fitroy Island)..

In all instances I have referenced the source of the original name, plus I have included links to the official Queensland place names list .. there was no harm meant or intended .. rather I have started working on Wikianthropology project documenting cultural landscapes of north-east Queenslnad .. and all the places named are significant both within mythology and for the antiquity of those myths ....In all cases anyone doing a search under the conventional name will find themselves at the relevant article/pages?!!

The pre-existing Lake Eacham entry was in large part a recreational/tourist blurb about the lake with a link to the caravan/village within it's vicinity .. and, on investigating it's name, the Queensland place name's list itself described the name (which I think was also recorded by Meston in the 1890's) as being an anglosizing of the original Aboriginal .. thus I thought the shift justified, knowing anyone doing a search would still end up in the same place ..

Apologies for the length of this reply .. but, in the end, should the above practice be considered to offend Wiki naming conventions/practices .. and should you find it offensive .. perhaps I(?)/we could use a version of Queensland National Parks emergent (re)naming practice and shift to articles labelled Ngarrabullgan (Mount Mulligan), Queensland; Ngimun (Lake Euramo), Queensland; Yidyam (Lake Eacham), Quenesland .. Gabar (Fitroy Island) .. or, perhaps, vice versa ie Mount Mulligan (Ngarrabullgan), Lake Euramo (Ngimun) etc ... Please, let me make agreed/agreeable changes immediately upon receiving your advice/ feedback? With good cheer and thanx Bruceanthro (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've now started moving, then editing in the manner you suggest, though, perhaps I might leave Ngarrabullgan asit is, as there is already a Mount Mulligan on Wikipedia, being the township?? I hope the last (relating to largest of these cultural landscape contributions) is acceptable .. noting the Mountain is known as Ngarrabullgan within the international archaeological literature etc?! I'll await your further comment before moving the last .. using the move tag of course!! Bruceanthro (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Svalbard Global Seed Vault.jpg on Commons

Hi, thanks for modifying the licence template for a better one! Best, --Antissimo (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing AfD within less than an hour???

Only three people commented on the AfD, and within 45 minutes you close it as WP:SNOW What is going on here?

The AfD hadn't been running for nearly long enough to get even something approaching a consensus, still less had it been running for long enough to form a considered opinion as to whether it was WP:SNOW.

Mayalld (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,
WP:SNOW is there to stop a process that is obviously going to fail. I included in the closure my rational (the fact the the encylopedia britannica has an article) and after closing the AfD I proceeded to address the concernes that were innitially raised in the AfD (Mainly the lack of sources). I hope this is helps? Fosnez (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I know what WP:SNOW is about. I also know that it is patent nonsense to imagine that you can declare it 45 minutes into a 5 day discussion after three people have joined in the discussion. Your rationale is not a rationale for closing the debate. Rather it is a rationale that you might wish to put forward as a keep argument, and which others might wish to argue against. The sources that you added are actually press releases from the organisation, and consequently don't count as 3rd-party sources.
I have relisted the article. If after the AfD has run for a non-trivial time there is an overwhelming consensus one way or another, then by all means, close it WP:SNOW, but that sure as hell won't be after 45 minutes and 3 comments.
Mayalld (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This was rash. WP:DP#NAC is for non-controversial closes. All you did was force someone to start another process instead of allowing this one to show clear consensus. I don't think there was any risk that the article would be deleted. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, with all due respect, you really shot your own argument in the foot about my actions "being rash", to quote your comment on my talk page:
  • I don't think there was any risk that the article would be deleted
and now to quote from WP:SNOW:
  • If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.
As you have so well pointed out, the articles had a snowballs'c chance in hell of being deleted, so the process did not need to be run, the fact that the nominator started another process, instead of reopening the original AfD, is neither my, nor your problem. This has been an application of the Snowball test and I have been vilified by at least two ([6] [7]) other editors that felt the same way. As said above, this is said with respect, my actions were not rash, but were rather well within my rights, as the nominator was well within their rights to reopen the AfD after I closed it. Fosnez (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, relax, this isn't personal. You say you're "well within your right", but AFD isn't editing and you should give more weight to achieving consensus. As an instructive example, TenPound Hammer is an editor I generally like, but he was closing AFDs based on SNOW right and left late last year, many of which ended up on Deletion Review. See here and here for some of the pushback he got and take it into consideration. The "right" as you put it for non-admins to close AFDs should be exercised lightly and rarely. I do it whenever it seems likely to save somebody some work. I would never do it where a dispute might arise and I strongly recommend you use similar restraint. --Dhartung | Talk 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please see WP:RS.

In the deletion discussion for The End of the World (animation) every single source you cited was unreliable. Per WP:Don't template the regulars, I don't want to lecture you on basic Wikipedia guidelines because you're a veteran editor. However, it's important you realize what they mean. This kind of behavior seems to come from the Rescue Squadron often. While protecting good articles is a good thing, this policy is only makes sense if you can back it up with WP:RS and WP:V. The existence of a number of random hits on Google does not constitute WP:RS or WP:V. See WP:GOOGLE. Zenwhat (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I would like to thankyou for not templating me :-) Anyway, yes I am fully aware of what reliable sources are, and often add them to articles. This is why I didn't add them to the article, but rather left them on the AfD for discussion. I actually meant to leave a comment not a keep, but I forgot to change it - I have now. Establishing notability for Mimes is always hard because they are very rarely covered by "traditional" media - and if they are it is usually trivial - eventhough they may infact be notable due to their impact on "web culture" - lolcats would be an example of this.
Regarding your second comment about seeing issues with how members of the Rescue squadron source articles. If you can provide examples please do so on the project's talk page - we are a newish project, so some users may not be following proper procedure - we need to nip this in the butt to prevent the project from getting a tarnished name. The proejct has done some good work and with support from the rest of the community we will continue to do so. Once again, thankyou for your comments. Fosnez (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Corey Delaney

An editor has nominated Corey Delaney, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corey Delaney AfD

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Corey Delaney. Since you are interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Benjiboi 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New.com.au article on the deletion of Corey Delaney

My comment on the News.com.au article:

As the author of the story on Wikipedia, I was a little supprised that it was deleted. It complied with wikipedia's natability critria (Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject). But to have a news.com.au page written about my little article? Brilliant! For those that will doubt that this is the "Real" fosnez, I will also post this comment on my talk page on wikipedia. If you would like to discuss this article further, please contact me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fosnez

So there you have it! Fosnez (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Surreal Barnstar
For you efforts in enhancing the notability of four respectable editors[8] Gnangarra 11:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

::One thing though, on my barnstar you said "For you efforts in enhancing the notability of three respectable editors" but I count four editors mentioned in the article (Bebe Jumea, Mattinbgn, Dihydrogen and myself). Was I not counted as a "respectable editor" because I originally created the article in question, or am I just reading too much into this... Fosnez (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I could just say it was an error on my part, I could sneak in and just alter the tagline or I could let the four fight over who three are....Ummmmmm Gnangarra 12:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy blanking

Hi Fosnez. Sorry, but I will not unblank. I have made my feelings known about writing about minors at the AfD and I feel this blanking is justified. Now that he has been charged, even news sources have stopped using his name and blanking his face. If you want it unblanked best to raise it at WP:AN/I. Once again, sorry. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 07:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Letter that I posted at the village pump where there was discussion on deleting the Corey Delaney article

I am very surprised how conservative Wikipedia is - granted that now Corey has been arrested - leaving me to wonder why the big bold brave guardians of public safety aren't out looking for senior figures in drugs syndicates, white collar embezellers, people ripping thousands off the tax payers via tax or welfare fraud, people planning racist terrotist violence or people perpetuating domestic violence on family members and partyers - public comments have a legal implication

- but the case itself is of tremendous relevance in terms of media cultures, teen cultures, celebrity and even a sort of bogan media jamming. What other middle class kid could attract more attention than Wall Street or George Bush to be the most requested download on CNN?

TEEN party pest Corey has been a top-rating US news story as the tale of his riotous Narre Warren party amused and shocked global audiences.

On a busy news day where Republican US presidential hopefuls contested the Michigan primary, President George W Bush visited the Middle East and Wall St suffered a large fall, the story about a Melbourne teenager wild night topped them all.

American ws giant CNN said the story about the party - organised by 16-year-old Corey - while his parents were away on a Queesnsland holiday - was the most downloaded on its website today Herald Sun Melbourne


Corey is a real part of world culture today and therefore Wikipedia should document it - he is out there in the media - if you can think of a way to turn the article into an issue rather than a biography - and therefore avoid naming a minor that would solve the impasse

I think this decision to delete the article speaks more of conservatism, ignorance and blocking the circulation of information than protecting a minor and there should be more complex thought around this debate


I read wikipedia a lot but don't know the protocols however - and am sorry that my vote did not count - one wonders from what rock some people crawl out from and I think there is a great deal of stupidty and hypocrisy here

thanks for your letter

BJ


Bebe Jumeau (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brisbane meetup

Riverside Precinct Brisbane Meetup
Next: In Discussion
Last: February 10, 2008
This box: view • talk • edit

Delivered on behalf of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Giggabot (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Cairns City Council

Fosnez,

Thanks for the advice, I will remove it. Nice to know some other Cairnsians are editing so strongly, I work for cityofcairns.com. Anyway, thanks for the advice, I mayhave more questions in the future as I am new here. Erick880 (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purloining

I hope you dont mind they are all useful links that I think I will need to spend a great deal of time on in order to increase my abilities. Erick880 (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane 2

Hey there. You've expressed an interest in attending this - please see the project page to confirm your attendance and the proposed date/time/place. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Pyne (Cairns Mayor)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Tom Pyne (Cairns Mayor), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corey Delaney DR

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Corey_Worthington FYI. Benjiboi 07:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, I'll definitely let you know --AW (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Tracker InfoBox

No worries! Have a good one.KarsKormak (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eletion systems

I moved your paragraph about the master key to Premier Election Solutions#Security issues. It's better to keep all the voting machine-related stuff in that article, and keep the Diebold article about the parent corporation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's very confusing, and the name change hasn't helped much. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another List of Supreme Court cases has been nominated for deletion

There is a discussion going on here. I though you might be interested in commenting due to your previous comment here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interjection

This edit's not really okay. I see what you were trying to do, but it has several untoward effects:

  • It presents your additions as someone elses.
  • It causes the edit I wrote, to seem unbalanced/non-neutral in a way that is not my norm, and which others will believe was originally written that way.

I've moved the additional links to a bullet below it, which probably handles it better. Thanks :) FT2 (Talk | email) 15:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use gallery

I think you may have misunderstood my edit at Transmutation circle. Please see WP:FU#Images and WP:FU#Unacceptable_use. Those images I removed are copyrighted, non-free images. Galleries of non-free images are generally prohibited because non-free images are only allowed for critical commentary on the image itself, not just for identification, and generally fair use images need to be minimal within an article; 7 in a small article is overkill: the lead image is enough. The same applies to the screenshot, which is used for decoration of an article where only one sentence refers to it, and in the context of something visible in the screenshot, rather than the show itself. Hopefully it makes more sense now and you can see that I was not trying to be "unconstructive." Dmcdevit·t 10:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
While I both understand and am aware of the policies you have quoted, I don't believe they apply in this case. Here is why:
According to US CODE TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107:
..the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
  • the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  • the nature of the copyrighted work;
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market' for or value of the copyrighted work.'
To sum it up, the images I have produced are for educational purposes, are a small part of the original copyrighted work (the Full Metal Alchemist Series) and the creation, use, and distribution of these images under fair use has no effect upon the potential sales of Full Metal Alchemist video or printed material. Fosnez (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)