User talk:Himasaram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Peter Diem

Dear colleague, I have now two new renditions of the Austrian State flag with eagle. The so-called heraldic and the so-called artistic version - both are used in Austria due to conflicting interpretations of the Coat of Arms of Austria by two competing flag factories. The one that sells the "artistic" or "grey" version is a bit cheaper and therefore wins more tenders. The other one produces the heraldically correct flag with the truly black eagle for the army and other agencies.

In both cases THE TONGUE of the eagle must be shown just below the red stripe in the WHITE field. This, unfortunately, is not the case in the Wikipedia. I would be very glad if you could take note of this situation and put the correct svg version(s) into Wikipedia. They can be downloaded from

http://oktogon.at/laender/laender.htm

Please be so kind and let me have your opinion on that - I would be very obliged if this long lasting problem could be finally solved

With best regards Peter Diem onlineforschung [at] eunet [dot] at —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.158.208 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Matcha

You're probably aware of this already, but macha is not a mispelling. It's actually the Hepburn version of the Japanese word (まっちゃ in hiragana). David.Monniaux 09:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. Take a look at: Hepburn#Double_consonants. "Matcha" is the correct Hepburn spelling, as "macha" is missing the "t" for "っ" -Himasaram 10:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Woops, I didn't pay attention to consonant doubling. My bad. David.Monniaux 18:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, my concern was whether "macha" was a commonly used spelling of the word in English or not. If so it should be mentioned in the article according to Wikipedia rules. After Googling the terms, I concluded that Matcha and Maccha were far more common than Macha, which in fact apparently is the name of a Gaelic god. :-) -Himasaram 20:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Natural religion

I can see why you changed the redirect, but did you look at the brief article which was originally there? certainly, the term "natural religion" isn't normally used in the context of natural theology. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still, "natural religion" is mentioned as a synonym for "natural theology". Also, the term "natural religion" can't be found anywhere in the humanism article or talk:humanism which make the redirect very confusing. So I propose we create a disambiguation page instead. -Himasaram 15:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the term "natural religion" seems to have been invented by the creator of the article (a personal essay or original research), which is why I made it a redirect. My worry is that you've retrieved some of the original research for the disambiguation. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See also the articles that he's created: Church of Reality and Doubt based, and the VfDs on them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand your concern. However, comparing Natural theology and the original Natural religion, don't you think they express the same ideas after all? Especially the sentances: "religion based on reason and ordinary experience" (natural theology) and "religion that believes in reality the way it appears from the human perspective" (natural religion)! -Himasaram 18:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No — natural theology claims that one can come to know supernatural truths through reason, while this person is talking about a non-supernaturalist religion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right. That's a good explanation.. Well, then I once more suggest that we make Natural religion simply point to Natural theology. The author of the original Natural religion is not reliable according to you, so wouldn't it be safe to ignore what he wrote? Also, the article mentions "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" as the title of book on Natural theology, so my theory that the terms are synonyms seems likely. -Himasaram 20:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hume does use that term in his title, it's true, but it's no longer used in that sense (and he was actually doing philosophy rather than theology). In religious studies it's used (albeit rarely) to refer to the notion that there's some sort of natural, spontaneous religious apprehension common to all human beings — in other words, neither natural theology (indeed, almost the opposite of natural theology) nor the non-supernaturalist, humanist religion of the original article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have strong reasons not to make this redirect. I think the best course of action now would be to delete Natural religion. -Himasaram 13:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That would take a VfD (which I'm pretty sure would result in Delete), but let me see if I can save it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I leave it up to you. This is a bit out of my league. :-) -Himasaram 17:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

That flag is nowhere to be seen in the Middle East, because nobody calls themselves "Aramean". That flag has not been adopted by anybody, nor the Syriac Orthodox Church. It is only flyed by some Syriac Orthodox members in Sweden and Germany. Chaldean 16:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, so maybe it can be captioned "Syriac Arameans communities in northern Europe" or something like that instead... -- Himasaram 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
They are not considered an ethnic group and there church does not recongnize the flag. Its a made up flag, like the Chaldean flag. By posting it, your legimitizing it. This is false. Chaldean 02:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
However, the apparently regard themselves as an ethnic group, which is something that should be mentioned in an encyclopedia! -- Himasaram 03:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About {{FOTWpic}}

If you use this tag, the image will not get deleted. Use it in conjunction with {{Db-noncom}} to get rid of the offending flag if it was uploaded after May 19, 2005, and there is no fair use assertion. Jesse Viviano 06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! However, I am only marking them with {{FOTWpic}} to put them into Category:FOTW images. When I have created (or found) a replacement image, I nominate them for deletion separately. --Himasaram 06:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Jesse, the non-commercial tagging for the original FOTWpic template is my fault; Himasaram, thanks for your work on trying to sort out my images and putting them on the Commons. Your work on the flag images is pretty nice too, happy to have you on board. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hi, just wanted to say thanks for your work on Korea-related articles (most recently tidying and tagging various cuisine-related articles). We'd be delighted if you'd care to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea, where we've just been getting ready to start a "Cuisine Working Group," and maybe sometime soon a linguistics working group too. In any event, happy editing! Hope to see you around. Cheers, -- Visviva 13:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation Visviva. I have joined now. I'm not a terribly active wikipedian, but hopefully I can contribute something at least. --Himasaram 02:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jang Yeong Sil Photo

Thanks a lot for your photo of Jang Yeong Sil's statue! I went through a lot of troubles & failed. (Wikimachine 23:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

Glad you liked it! I'm not entirely satisfied with it though -- the angle is not perfect and his face is covered by his hand. It was hard to get a good shot due to the traffic outside the station. See my other try at Image:Jang Youngsil 2.jpg. Cheers, --Himasaram 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tan Kem Dae

Hi Himarasam, could you put on the fair use tag then? I can't seem to find it & I'm not quite sure how the justification works. But I'm glad that you're interested in having as many pics as possible. That's my goal too. Only reason why I put it on deletion process was that, well, I was reminded of its unknown copyright status & also I thought that in order to put it onto Wikipedia Commons it had to be perfect in terms of copyright data. (Wikimachine 04:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Kim Okgyun

As I did in Ahn Eaktae, I'm in process of hand-drawing Kim Okgyun in order to avoid copyright infringement. Could you delay the transfer to Wikipedia Commons for a sec? How about 2 days? Thanks. (Wikimachine 04:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

Removed the copy to commons tag. --Himasaram 06:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rotumaflag.jpg

Hi there! I honestly don't remember uploading this image, though I've uploaded so many that I cannot be sure. At any rate, I have no objections if you remove it. Cheers! David Cannon 08:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request: Dual license Image:Tutanchamun Maske.jpg

Regarding this...

Absolutely. Permission's granted. If you want me to add a copyright message on the image's page, just let me know what the appropriate wiki code is. (I don't hang around here as much as I used to... and have lost track of what tags to add to images for appropriate usage rights!) - MykReeve T·C 12:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the permission, MykReeve! I don't believe you need to change anything here. The image on Wikipedia will continue to be under the GFDL license, while the same image in the Freeciv repository will be under the GPL. --Himasaram 04:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help re graphics

As I see that you are very involved with the graphic side of Wikipedia, perhaps you would be able and willing to advise me on how to transfer imgages from the Indonesian Wikipedia to the English one. Specifically, I have recently created a page for Poncke Princen, the former Dutch colonial soldier who went over to the Indonesian rebels in 1949, and I would like to put there his picture from the Indonesian page [1]. So far, I did not suceed, and would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks! Adam keller 17:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Download the image to your computer, then use the Special:Upload page here on Wikipedia. In the summary, you have to specify a good license. I can't read Indonesian, so I can't tell exactly which license it's on over there, but it looks like it's under copyright. In the case the author has released all rights, use {{copyrighted free use}}; in other cases use {{fair use}}. Good luck! --Himasaram 02:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Gallery of city flags a "mere collection of media files with no text to go with the article"?

I would argue that it is instead a structured list, and think it (and other flag galleries like it) belong in Wikipedia, not in the Commons. Granted, this would be a much stronger article if more city flags had articles written for them, but I think having lists of flags like this actually encourages the writing of such articles. But I think removing such graphical lists from Wikipedia would actually result in the loss of a valuable information resource, representing considerable collective editorial effort. --ScottMainwaring 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my overreaction! I thought Template:Copy to commons, despite its name, implied a move to commons and thus the deletion of this article from Wikipedia. No problems at all with a copy -- thanks for adding that tag! (Though I do wish the explanatory text it expands into was clearer about the tag's meaning and implications...) Cheers, --ScottMainwaring 05:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Documentary Film

Himasaram-

Hello. My name is Nic Hill and I'm directing a documentary film about Wikipedia. I am following Jimmy Wales around the world and documenting the movement. I'm traveling to India with Jimmy in late February but I'll be in Seoul from feb 17th to feb 19th. I see you are living is Seoul. I was wondering if you would be interested in meeting up when we come to town? or if you know any Korean Wikipedians who might be interested... Any language is ok. So far we have filmed at Wikimania 2006, Tokyo, and Hong Kong.

Please take a look at our movie trailer... http://www.underdogpictures.com/wikidoc/wikienter.htm

Thank you for your time. Please contact me if you are interested in being a part of this documentary film.

-Nic Hill director nic@underdogpictures.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UDP (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Flag

It's all yours. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle! --Himasaram 00:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banksy Rocket Boy image

Added fair use rationale to Image:Rockboy.jpg. Please consider removing tag. --Knulclunk 18:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blade Runner (game) article

Hello! I have written some comments at the talk page to an article which you have previously seen and edited; would you like to add to them somewhat? In my view the article is above that of a Start class; we will need a couple of opinions in addition to mine own to get it there. See what you think; here is the talk page - comments would be great. Thanks! - D-Katana 15:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illustrations

Look, I no longer give a damn about images I import. You want to delete them, then go right ahead! Dean Thomas

[edit] Image:NZflag_proposal-dignan.gif

Hi Himasaram - I'm a little perplexed as to why you added a "no source" template to Image:NZflag_proposal-dignan.gif. I uploaded a copy of this flag at the request of another editor, and gave it the standard gfdl-self template to indicate that I had created the image myself. I am James Dignan, the designer of this flag. I don't think Wikipedia needs to worry too much about copyright on this one. Grutness...wha? 09:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about missing out the colons! As to uploading to commons, feel free to do that - I always seemt o make a mess of trying to move images over to there, so I'd be very happy if you did it :) Grutness...wha? 03:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV for "Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story"

Dear Himasaram, this upcoming Wikidocmentary film article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review on today, because a recent decision to retain it on Wikipedia has been appealed and it is in progress in reaching an ultimate consensus. You may wish to support for restoration by contributing it to the review. Since you had involved into it in regards to this upcoming Wikidocumentary film by Nic Hill, so please do help out and try not to hesitate to voice out your advocated opinion! Otherwise without you commenting about it, this article would never had existed. Pole Heinz Tower 14:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NowCommons

Hi Cohesion, I noticed that you removed the {{NowCommons}} tag from Gallery of flags with animals; now, how do you suggest we should notify readers/editors that an article has been transwikied to Commons? Regards, Himasaram 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see what the intention was. I added {{commons}} to the page, does that seem to work for what you needed? The template that was there is a date based template meant to mark images that exist on commons that should be deleted from the english wikipedia. - cohesion 03:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess it's better than nothing. However, gallery articles at the 'pedia are going through a permanent transwiki process, as have recently been agreed on somehow (you never quite know with this project, though) so it is highly likely that this and other gallery articles will be deleted from the 'pedia eventually. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of city flags. Some articles, such as the city flags one, has been deleted, while others like Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements has been turned into soft redirect pages. --Himasaram 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought it might be a candidate for deletion, and there may be specific tag for this transwiki project. Or you might just want to nominate it foe deletion. If you meant to mark it for deletion let me know and I will nominate it for you. The template that was being used is definitely for images though and is linked to CSD:I8, placing the including page in Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. - cohesion 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Ryukyu flag

This image should be visible now.
This image should be visible now.

I think I've gotten Image:Ryukyu Islands flag 1875-1879 cs.svg to render correctly now. Thanks for letting me know about the issue! -Nameneko 06:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to work now, yes. Nice work - you even reduced file size by 2/3! ^^ --Himasaram 09:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar

Hi. Your restoration of the flag icons to this article precipitated another edit war about the applicability of the Northern Ireland flag which, as you may know, has no official status. I've removed them again and I am asking you not to restore them. More generally, this sort of use of flag icons seems to add no encyclopedic value but merely to be a decoration, and a divisive and inaccurate sort of decoration at that. See WP:FLAGCRUFT for an attempt to rationalise how we use flags in Wikipedia. Best wishes, --John 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Terribly sorry for having started that edit war. It was definitely not my intention. Having flags in sister city lists is AFAICT a de-facto standard here on the 'pedia, so the Gibraltar article not having any stood out in my eyes. Anyway, not giving the status of the flag a second thought, I simply used what was default for the Northern Ireland flag template. If this design is not official, it should IMO not be default either because otherwise unsuspecting editors like me will keep on adding it all over the place in good faith. If there's no good neutral replacement, I'd say we put up the flag of the sovereign state that governs the region as a placeholder, i.e. the Union Jack. --Himasaram 23:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Aw no problem. I never thought you had acted in bad faith for a moment. I'm sorry if my message was a bit snippy. You raise an interesting point though, about flag icons in this section of city articles. Where would be a good place to discuss this centrally, do you think? --John 03:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure. Maybe starting a thread at the Wikipedia:Community portal is an adequate first step.. BTW, what in particular do you think we need to discuss centrally? --Himasaram 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What encyclopedic purpose this de facto usage serves. My opinion would be that they are purely decorative, often divisive (as in this instance) and constitute a dumbing-down of Wikipedia. Flag of England England doesn't actually tell you anything that England doesn't. I love flags, in their proper place, but am opposed to seeing them used like this. --John 06:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The flags give a good visual overview of the geographical extent of sister city agreements. To avoid controversy, though, it might be a good idea to allow only sovereign-flags in those lists. --Himasaram 03:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liszt's flags

...and it's an essay I happen to agree with. :) I personally can't stand those little flag icons, I think they are needless clutter and look kind of amateurish. (There are exceptions, for example I have no problem with using flags to denote the combatants in a military event infobox.) But in the case of biography infoboxes, I think they're unnecessary. K. Lásztocska Review me? 13:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LSPR flag

Bäste Himasaram! Thanks so much for creating the file Flag_of_Latvian_SSR_1919.svg‎! However, in order to make it more historically accurate, I'd request that you revise it the read "LSPR" or "LZPR" in the top corner. The image by Mark Sensen on http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/su-lv_h.html is based on an article in English that transliterates "ССРЛ" as the initials of "Sotsialisticheskaia sovetskatia respublika Latvii", i.e. the Russian translation of "LSPR" and "Latwijas Socialistiska (sometimes also spelt at this time: Zocialistiska) Padomju Republika" from article 30 of the original Latvian version of the constitution. Compare the flag photos further down on this same website, or the image at http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Latvia.htm . If you could make this relatively simple amendment, I'd be very pleased. Also, you knew of anyone willing to make an SVG of the state emblem depicted at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/su-lv_h.html (also described in art. 30 of the LSPR constitution), that would be greatly appreciated as well! — Zalktis 16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for pointing that out. I was actually somewhat confused because of the conflicting statements and chose to believe Mr. Sensen because he cited a source. I'll see what I can do about the emblem, but don't hold your breath. ;) --Himasaram 05:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Schleswig-Holstein

Hi Himansaram

I noticed your edit to the First Schleswig War article describing the blue-white-red flag of Schleswig-Holstein as not contemporary. AFAIK, the same tricolour was used by the secessionist administration during the 1848-50 war. See also: [2] (section: Civil flag / Landesflagge). I also heard it referred to as such when Queen Margrethe visited Schleswig many years ago, but if you know of any other flag used by this administration, I'm all ears. Btw, have you checked the Prussian flag? It was the only image I could find that matched the painting shown on Battle of Jasmund, but it doesn't seem to be supported by {{Country data Prussia}}. Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 07:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Valentinian. I'm on a bit of a flag crusade at the moment, removing flags that are used out of their context. I know there is a lot of opposition to using flags at all in infoboxes, so their incorrect use gravely undermines the cause of us who like to have them there.
I did some rudimentary research before removing the Schleswig-Holstein flag, but it wasn't enough apparently. Feel free to put it back (or I'll do it when I come around to it.) Sorry that my crusade claimed an innocent victim!
On the Prussian war flag - we could add it to the country data template as alias-war. It doesn't seem to be the only Prussian war flag, though. See for example [3]. --Himasaram 07:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The Prussian situation is indeed confusing. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the different flags. Anyway, I've restored the Schl.-Hol. image on the First Schleswig War article. Valentinian T / C 09:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag template documentation

Hi Himasram, you may have noticed my recent work on the country data templates, using a new documentation system. I'd appreciate any comments you have, since you are currently frequently working on those templates. Thanks, Andrwsc 23:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

They are certainly more informative now. The syntax of the country data templates seems to be a bit more abstract, but I guess easier to use and maintain. All in all, very sleek! --Himasaram 01:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well yeah, I haven't documented how to write the documentation (!) yet, but the idea is that the set of values in the noinclude section is used to automatically generate the template documentation (e.g. replacing the way we used to document flag variants). Andrwsc 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patent Cooperation Treaty - languages of publication

Rule 48.3 PCT currently only mentions eight languages of publication. To my understanding adding Portuguese and Korean is only a proposal. Am I wrong? Thanks. --Edcolins 14:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Saw it on the news and thought it was final. Should have checked my sources, sorry. --Himasaram 05:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Interesting development actually. I have added a note in the article about these proposals. --Edcolins 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V, WP:RS

Thank you for your contribution on Korean related article. However, when you create articles, you don't provide sources for its validity such as Mudo. If you don't provide any source, it doesn't merit its existence. please add information or citation if you think it should be in Wikipeia. Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Barbro Holmberg.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Barbro Holmberg.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)