User talk:Hapsiainen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No
Solicitors

Don't ask my help on pages I have never contributed anything significant. Don't tell about wiki projects I haven't participated. Don't advertise election candidates.

Hello Hapsiainen and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

No! It is not correct. Thankyou for bringing it to my attention. Tannin 23:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I left a response for your comment on my talk page. Pollinator 02:03, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "I'm more interested in categorizing articles ..."

[edit] Image:MichelineBernardini.jpg

The page says its from Bikini Science, but I can't find any text that says the image is in the public domain or that it's otherwise compatible with the GFDL. Did you get explicit permission to use this image on Wikipedia? Regardless, it'd be great if you could add an image copyright tag to the image. Thanks! --David Iberri | Talk 18:26, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Before I uploaded my version, there was a scruffier version of the image. I saw it, and supposed that it would be legal to use the image. I have tried to find out the picture's copyright status. I believe the picture was taken in 1946, because then the bikini was introduced. And the picture must have been taken in Paris. I don't have any other facts about it. If the picture is still under copyright protection in US, the copyright must have either been renewed in 1974 or restored in the 1990s. So there should be a mention about it in a archive. But I don't know the name of the photographer or the magazine that published the picture, so I don't know what to look for. -Hapsiainen 20:16, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I've added a {{PUI}} tag to the image for now, indicating that it is a possibly unfree image. If you think a better image tag applies, feel free to change it. Thanks, David Iberri | Talk 20:40, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
You say WP:PUI is meant for images that are both unfree and not in fair use. Actually, PUI is intended for possibly unfree images, not just images that are known to be unfree. Also, you gave no indication that you believed the image was used under fair use -- that would require you to put the {{fairuse}} tag on the image page, along with reasons for why you think fair use is applicable. You are welcome to add the tag, but the fact still remains that it may not be a free image, so I don't see why it should be removed from PUI. --David Iberri | Talk 19:17, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
That discussion concludes that {{freeuse}}-tagged images should be removed from WP:PUI, but your image didn't have that tag, which is why I listed it there. If you tag it and give some reasons why it should be considered free use, I'd be more than happy to remove it from WP:PUI. Best, David Iberri | Talk 22:51, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. I've removed Image:MichelineBernardini.jpg from WP:PUI. --David Iberri | Talk 00:29, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Hapsiainen, the email address of bikiniscience.com is "Rosebush Judson <judson@rosebush.com>". Please drop me a note on my discussion page, if you are making any further process, or general Mr. Rosebushs responsivness. Also wanting some of his pictures, but let us first check that one -- Test-tools 11:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ringed snake???

I noticed your change of grass snake to ringed snake in Common toad. I know there is a stud article called ringed snake, but I have never in 42 years heard them described as anything but grass snakes in the UK (and I have had them as pets), so I think most British readers would find the term confusing. And as the only English speaking country where the snake is native is the UK I think we should go with the usual British name. I will take my argument over to the Ringed Snake page when I get the chance! Billlion 22:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Stipe

NO, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE IS STIPE. All my life I've been pronouncing it Stripe. On www.ateaseweb.com (Radiohead site which frequently mention St(r)ipe) I see him as Stripe. Even I think that on www.nme.com he is known as Stripe. I didn't do it just to fuck with the tread. I did it with an itention to correct this "mistake". If I'm mistaken - ok, it's me. I fuck it up. But don't bann me because one blunder. I'm not a wanker... I'm doing my best about Radiohead, Oasis, Blur and britpop overall...

[edit] The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Umm, well, there you go. That's what user talk pages are for, to a certain extent. As one grump to another, I appreciate your feedback. --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Subpages

Hi! I read your question about creating subpages at Wikipedia:Help desk#Subpages don't work. As I have posted there, creating a subpage to the list you mentioned works just fine for me. You might want to try again and if unsuccessful, to describe your actions in detail. Good luck. --Plek 10:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: List of music videos: A

Good evening. On 23 Jan, you nominated List of music videos: A for deletion. I just closed the discussion on that article by redirecting it to the original article. In your nomination, you noted the problem with forks in articles. I agree. However, I prefer to solve them with redirects. A big part of why I prefer to solve them that way is that a redirect does not require a VfD vote nor an adminstrator to take action.

In your nomination, you noted that there seem to have been more of these popping up. If you are so inclined, I believe you could use Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of music videos: A as a precedent/justification to be bold and redirect the others as appropriate. Thanks. Rossami (talk)

[edit] Autofellatio

There is at least one other photograph in that series handing around somewhere, which shows clearly that the man is fellating himself and not a penis dildo or another man. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

SORRY for editing volcanos.


[edit] Image copyright

Thank you for the message on my talk page. Those were some of the first fotos I uploaded when new to Wikipedia. I have uploaded many more all correctly tagged. I hope the following information is sufficient for your needs:- [1] [2]. Giano | Talk 14:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Elizabeth II

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] images

The images you list were taken from Ron's site which permits this for non-commercial and educational purposes. If that is not adequate, please delete them. the Dalmatian Pelican is a copyright free image from 777life, probably not tagged since it is a larger version of an image that may have now gone?? jimfbleak 04:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cochineal image copyright

You are right, I have started Crimson article 2 years ago and a Cochineal by-product has resulted. I don't remember where the questioned image came from nor what is the license. I have removed that image from cochineal article. I think it is right to delete this image now

[edit] REM

The links to Buy.com are one sentence excerpts from reviews and are pointless. I don't want to get into a revert war, but any superior additions of mine that are reverted will be changed back. It seems to me you're just getting sore because your efforts were improved upon. BGC 15:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's quote here, what I first wrote to your talk page for other readers' ease: "You have worked on album related articles, but you have also destroyed other people's work by removing the excerpts of reviews, which used Buy.com as their source. Please read the guidelines of WikiProject Albums closely. They allow such links and review summaries, if the original article isn't available online. They even allow review summaries without links, if one really can't find any quote online. You have deleted correct and useful material from articles about several R.E.M. albums. I'm reverting it. I don't even dare to imagine, what you have done to other album articles. IMHO you don't deserve a barnstar. You should absolutely start reverting the review excerpts and links that you have removed. -Hapsiainen 14:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)"
And now my response: I am not the only one who thinks that Buy.com excerpts can do as a source, if they have something concrete like a number of stars. I still appeal to the WikiProject album's opinion. I'm only adding the reviews back, not removing any text. I have noticed a couple of errors in them, and admit that they are often my fault. But I have gathered most of the reviews, so I have made the most of mistakes, too. -Hapsiainen 15:39, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] images

I can see that there might be a problem with Ron Eggert's images, since his terms for use may not be totally in line with GNFU. Do what you want with those.

I can't see why the Liz Leyden images are a problem. At the time I downloaded them, her site waived copyright on the images, with just a request not to link and therefore steal her bandwidth -surely this must be puplic domain by any criteria? jimfbleak 05:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever Liz Leyden's website says now, at the time I uploaded the images, she waived copyright, might have changed wording since, but I don't know if you can reclaim copyright once released - as always, I leave it to you - seems a pity to lose her images though. jimfbleak 04:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
At no time have I waived copyright: something I've been advised that you can't actually do anyway. My copyright notice has always been the same.
Did you think it might have been much easier and better mannered had you sent me a nice email asking permission to use my images?
Liz Leyden
I didn't upload your images here, so don't blame me for it. I later noticed that Jim Bleak had uploaded some and they didn't have a correct copyright notice. I visited your website. I started looking for your images in Wikipedia. (Basically, I just went through all the images that Jim Bleak had saved here.) Then I notified other users about those images. [3] I thought that they were not fair use because it isn't very difficult to take photographs of birds. Some other users thought that they are fair use because there are not replacement images yet, and Wikipedia is an educational, non-commercial website. I managed to get rid of some (not sure whose) non-commerial images by finding replacement images. I have also searched from other Wikipedias, if they have copied your images. Many people interpreted that the images are public domain, when they read the image description written by the image uploader. Now the images here don't have such misleading copyright descriptions any more.
If you want to remove your images from Wikipedia, you announce it in Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. This page has a probably complete list of your images here, just look what Hapsiainen has written there. [4] Many of your images are still used here because they have on replacement yet. But Wikipedia is a non-commercial website, and you allow your images to be used to non-commercial purposes. The animal articles in Wikipedia are educational, too. We have a policy to avoid using images, which you can use only for restricted purposes. Fair use images by US copyright law are accepted, though. That's why I originally tried to get your images deleted here. -Hapsiainen 13:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion announcement

I actually preferred Image:BonaparteGull23.jpg to some others and it included an immature bird as well. Enough said. On Image:Larus philadelphia, California.png, why did you bother converting it to .png when .jpg is the prefered format for photographs? --Big_Iron 10:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I misspoke, the use of jpeg for photographs is a policy, see Wikipedia:Image use policy. There are some trade-offs between image size and quality, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but .png is generally not felt to be a replacement for .jpg. --Big_Iron 17:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
My comment related to the word "obsolete" which means "having been replaced". The update that replaced the image in question did not conform to policy and so was not valid. I have no objection to it being replaced by a better picture if that happens. --Big_Iron 21:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] album box 2 debate

hi Hapsiainen, i assume your vote is for delete, so i've appended that to your comment. (well technically i suppose i've pre-pended it :P) please correct this if i am wrong and i apologize if you did not want me to do this. i've continued the discussion there rather than here so that everyone can read it. cheers. (incidently, Jag talar svenska också, men bara liten.) —deanos {ptaaglek} 23:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gmail

As I'm still a newbie to Wikipedia, I'm just wondering...

Why did you remove the See Also links just because they were already in the text?

I can imagine myself going into a text and just wanting to find further reference without needing to read the whole text to be able to do that. And those links you've removed are good references.

Sorry to sound bitchy, but I may be missing something here, and I wish to know. :)

--Cawas 20:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

See Also my talk page, since it's the place we've continued.

--Cawas 06:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] REM revert war

I don't know what this template revert war is about, but I'm seeing it happening on a number of articles. Please resolve this problem through discussion (or provide a link to an ongoing discussion) or I'm going to start locking all of these articles. I have left the same message for BGC. Gamaliel 20:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The album template discussion 1 & 2 and the review links discussion are in WikiProject Albums discussion pages. You can see that I have tried to resolve the conflict. The template conflict is really wide, in theory it could cover all the album articles. -Hapsiainen 21:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The only thing you've "tried" to do is enforce what you want, without looking at the facts that the template is valid, because it was never deleted. BGC 21:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Please, discuss in the project page. Here hardly no-one reads your comments. -Hapsiainen

[edit] BGC/infobox dispute

On the suggestion of an admin, I'm preparing an RfC regarding user:BGC (formerly user:PetSounds), particularly with regard to his conduct in recent disputes. Assuming I can draft a reasonable statement, would you be willing to certify an RfC? I'm not asking for a binding commitment, but simply an indication that you believe it's appropriate to bring the dispute up to this level. Monicasdude 22:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I am willing. People have already tried to resolve this elsewhere, and the situation hasn't changed. -Hapsiainen 02:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude...

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to him. That ID number (from one of the R.E.M. article reverts) is his own. And it's not the first time he's used it. BGC 23:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's the contributions page for the alternate user name: [5]. I know how this guy works. Trust me - it's intentional. BGC 03:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I left a comment on Talk:List_of_wikis you might wish to see.

I left a comment on Talk:List_of_wikis you might wish to see.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 02:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation pages

I was under the assumption that rivers were not exactly places. It's not 'Multiple-geography names' it's 'Multiple-place names'. Rivers were on the normal disambiguation pages when I started, so I was just going by precedent. At any rate, I didn't go through everything of mine you removed, but the first one I checked was Baranof - which if you'll check, disambiguates to both place-names and a non-geographic page, so it's not a pure multiple-place name disambiguation page.

If you can cite something other than your opinion I'll be happy to change my ways... but I don't really think I'm doing anything wrong. --W.marsh 19:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

But just for the sake of not annoying anyone, I'll list rivers on the placename disambig pages, after reviewing Placenames. --W.marsh 19:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Since you're apparently not going to reply.. you also might consider reading WP:AGF and think about the (incorrect) assumptions you made about my intentions. --W.marsh 23:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
You assumed I hadn't read those pages when you said things like "I quote the part that you didn't notice". I just took some offense to being belittled like that over a minor misunderstanding... adding a few rivers amongst what is probably now well over a hundred legitimate and helpful additions. --W.marsh 01:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Hap—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers.Tony 15:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivory Coast move

Since you participated in previous discussions on Ivory Coast, you might be interested in the requested move at Talk:Côte_d'Ivoire#...Requested_move. —  AjaxSmack  00:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Monsteralbumrem.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Monsteralbumrem.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:REMNewAdventuresInHiFi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:REMNewAdventuresInHiFi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Reveal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Reveal.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)