User talk:GearedBull:Subpage1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both, I guess. See Wikipedia:Extended image syntax#New syntax for images and scroll down to "sizepx". But yes, it's also my personal philosophy. I think web designers, for the most part, haven't really accepted the new-media nature of the web and spend most of their time fighting it, as if they were designing magazine pages. With the web, the consumer is the final arbiter. Why should you decide what size images are displayed on my monitor? You have no idea what my requirements or desires are. I happen to have a giant flat-panel and I keep my browser maximized; I want thumbnails at their maximum of 300px. A friend of mine has poor eyesight and has to have the text very large to read; he'd like to keep the thumbnails down to the minimum of 100px because any larger and it will excessively crowd out the text. This is all fine until somebody forces the image to 230px, frustrating us both. What's the point? —Chowbok ☠ 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(I got an edit conflict when writing this; guess you're archiving.)

1 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Santor1.jpg)
2 Orphaned fair use image (Image:At&togo.jpg)
3 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mytown.gif)
4 Font sample pictures
5 Cited Edits
6 Image:Dp bio1.png
7 Orphaned fair use image (Image:FRlogo.png)
8 Times Argus Reporter Lady
9 Images
10 White House
11 SVG image
12 MOS as applied to ‘Garamond’ article
13 3RR
14 3RR block

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Santor1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Santor1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:At&togo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:At&togo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mytown.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mytown.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Font sample pictures

Hi GearedBull,

I came accross your font samples and I think they are great. Now I have a request: Do you think it is possible to upload your svg files to Commons for easier use in other versions of Wikipedia? Thanks, --Bries 10:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Aleichem 17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cited Edits

In the Nancy Reagan article, you added a statement that requires citation (most US Presidents...). Could you please provide it?Arcayne 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Jim. Maybe, with the knowledge you have on the subject, you could find a reference that states that by a directed Goodle search or some such. I'll hold off on editing, and giv e you a bit to find something. :) Arcayne 22:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiya Jim. I don't really have a lot fo expereince with image tags. Do you? I wanted to ask you something about them.Arcayne 00:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dp bio1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Dp bio1.png. 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 that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:FRlogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:FRlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Times Argus Reporter Lady

Hi -- I just spoke to the nice lady from the Times-Argus, Susan. I think she was trying to contact you as well. Let me know if you did not receive an email from her. She seemed much more clueful than a lot of reporter-types who I have talked to about Wikipedia. Jessamyn (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

In the Nancy Reagan, it appears that we have a lot of pictures. A LOT of them. I am not sure if the tags are all good, but it might be helpful in making sure that the tags are going to be sustainable. From then, we have to start working on making sure we have a nice balance of images and text. What do you think?Arcayne 02:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White House

Thanks for that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Three Jays (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] SVG image

I have responded to your query on my talk page. You may want to have a look. Shyam ^(T/C) 05:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOS as applied to ‘Garamond’ article

Hi, I noticed that you reverted back some of my changes to the Garamond article a while back (see the diff here). I read through all of the MOS pages regarding titles and the ones that discussed italicizing works of art, and I couldn’t find anything that nullified the way I formatted the Garamond article (I also meant to italicize “Harry Potter” in the sub-heading). Wanting to hear the answer from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, I tried getting an answer from people on the talk page for the Manual of Style (headings) project page (my post can be found here). However, it’s been nearly a month and no one’s responded, so I’m taking up the issue with you. For example, in the Led Zeppelin article, many of the sub-headings under the “History” section are the titles of the band’s albums, which are all italicized whenever they appear in the article or headings. The same goes for the article on The Chronicles of Narnia, whose “The books” section contains sub-sections on the seven novels in the series. Again, all the titles of the novels are italicized in the headings as well as the article itself.

Also, I was wondering why you formatted the section headings so the direct sub-sections of the Contemporary use of Garamond types section in the article is two sizes smaller. In other words, how come the section title (“Contemporary use of Garamond types”) has two equal signs around it in Wiki markup, and the direct sub-headings have four equal signs around them? On every other article I’ve seen, sections and sub-sections are laid out in order: section headings have two equal signs; sub-headings, three equal signs; and sub-sub-sections have four equal signs around them in Wiki markup. In fact, the MOS has a direct guideline to this on their “MOS (headings)” page: see here.

So, I’m going to go ahead and format the Garamond article in the manner in which I think it should be formatted, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, as well as general Wikipedia policy. Let me know if you have any objections to the way it comes out. —BrOnXbOmBr21 02:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope you didn’t take any offense from my original comments above; I meant no ill will by them. I can see you’re very passionate about fonts — I’m very passionate about how things look (what I call “aesthetic” aspects) as well as the English language and its correct use online.

As to your “off the subject” section, I’m supposed to be going back to India next summer with my family, after I graduate from college. I can’t wait — we’re supposed to do much more tourist-related things, and hopefully, visiting Rajasthan will be one of them! (The last two times I was there, we stayed in Calcutta, which is actually where I was born.) —BrOnXbOmBr21 11:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -Will Beback · † · 04:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

Hi, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at James Buchanan, where you removed one section six times in four hours, and as a result you have been blocked for 24 hours. Please use the time to review the 3RR policy. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)