User talk:Mwtoews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk, talk, talk... Mwtoews 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Requested move

FYI, I am going to de-list your ESRI shapefile → Shapefile move request. The steps for requesting a page move were not followed so no one else had a chance to see or vote on the request. Those steps put the article in a category and make a convenient place to vote. Feel free to re-list the request. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New userboxes

I have deleted a userbox template you recently created, as userboxes should no longer be created in templatespace per the terms of the German userbox final solution. Here is the userbox code so that you can recreate the userbox in your userspace ("userfying") if you wish.

<div style="float: left; border:solid {{{1|{{{border-c|{{{id-c|#999}}}}}}}}} 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: {{{2|{{{info-c|#eee}}}}}};"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: {{{1|{{{id-c|#88f}}}}}}; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|12}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | '''OS:All'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user contributes using ''all'' popular and modern [[operating systems|OS]]es<br>( [[Microsoft Windows|Win]] | [[Mac OS X|Mac]] | [[Linux]] )
|}</div>

--Cyde Weys 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Marc Bell

I was just cleaning out Category:Articles that need to be wikified at the time. I have never heard of subject of the article before, so the article must have been titled with the II at the time and I just went with it. Good that you caught this. HollyAm 22:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darcy's law

you might want to take a look at some recent edits there. the new formula incorporating viscosity i know is incorrect, but right now i don't have time to sort through it and the other changes.  :( maybe if you get a chance you can. tia, Lunch 02:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a strange and foreign perspective, and it looks like there are mistakes (since it mixes ΔP and μ — this (last formula), however, is correct, since it uses ΔH with μ). I think that this article should be presented both from [the more intuitive] Hydraulic conductivity and [more abstract, but general] Permeability (fluid) perspectives (rather than one or the other). Sadly, I too lack time for anything but my Thesis stuff at the moment, so I'll take a closer look on a lighter day. +mwtoews 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thurber Engineering Ltd.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Thurber Engineering Ltd., has been tagged for speedy deletion because its content is clearly written to promote a company, product, or service. This article may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Thank you. KenWalker | Talk 07:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I got your note on my talk page about the deletion of the Thurber Engineering Ltd. article. I intended no offence by marking the article, but it did appear to me that it did not meet the Notability policy for companies. The general understanding that I have is that Wikipedia is not a directory or a place to advertise a company, see SOAP where the advertising requirement is spelled out and the notable company exception is referred to. Although the article was neutral, it really only named the company said what it was and provided a link to the company web site. It appears that the admin that deleted the article agreed that it met the requirements for speedy deletion (see item 11). I think AMEC, listed on the London stock exchange meets the notability test although I have not had a close look at it. I am not an admin I only marked the article as appearing to be advertising so I do not have any way of undeleting it. You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. There is a link there to Wikipedia:Deletion review which might be useful for you. You can find the Admin who deleted the article in the deletion log by clicking on the red link above to the article and then on Deletion Log. The note G11 there is a reference to General - 11 in the Speedy Deletion article above. I do understand that this process can be annoying. It has happened to me too. Anyway, I hope that helps. Cheers, KenWalker | Talk 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look to re-adding it at some point. I thought I had cleared the SOAP policy (which I fully support), and I was going to work on the article some more (more particularly the founders, which are legendary figures for engineering geology in British Columbia). Also, take note that there are many other engineering companies that have legitimate articles, see Category:Engineering companies. +mwtoews 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned above, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the process for having an article un-deleted. The article, in my opinion, did not assert meeting any of the criteria specificed in WP:CORP. It was nominated for deletion as spam and I considered that as a reasonable request. It also could have been deleted as a group lacking notability. The article needs to assert meeting the criteria for any article. You are free to re-create the article once you have enought material to meet one of the criteria in WP:CORP. It is up to the editor of an article to have the article assert that it meets one of the listed criteria. Since I know nothing about the company, I can not suggest what that might be, however simply having interesing founders is probably not sufficent. Also, comparing this article to others that are present and using that as a reason to keep is not valid. It is very possible that those articles would also be deleted if someone looked at them. You should also tag an article that is very short as a {{stub}}. That does not prevent deletion, but is convention for really short articles that have asserted notability for the article. I hope this helps. Vegaswikian 06:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. +mwtoews 07:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Acf.svg

Thank you for your contribution to the Autocorrelation article with a picture. Unfortunately I cannot display it with my version of Firefox (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1): the picture is simply blank. Do you have an idea why is this happening? Nova77 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a very curious question, and I've submitted a bug report about it to WikiMedia. I saved it using Adobe Illustrator in SVG, however it doesn't look right. Perhaps I'll re-render it, and save it through Inkscape instead... +mwtoews 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
...OK, I re-did the graphic using an SVG driver. The native Firefox SVG rendition is still not good (it doesn't dash the lines in the bottom figure), but the WikiMedia PNG rendition shown for most people is okay, and so is the Adobe SVG plugin version.+mwtoews 23:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncivil

If you aren't going to make constructive comments, I suggest you don't make any comments at all. This one borders on being uncivil. Roguegeek (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's just too funny how the tiniest redirect/disambig has spun into a massive discussion about a product that isn't even out, and no-one knows for sure any thing about yet. Everyone seems to think they know what is going on, and hold their ground, even though it is all still very rumor-esq, and not encyclopedia-type material yet. There is loads of other great stuff to be done out there. I apologize if you took offense to that remark — it wasn't directed at you at all — your post just happened to be next to where I posted my remark on the discussion.+mwtoews 15:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
No worries. I didn't take it personally so don't worry about it. Take care. Roguegeek (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accident?

You recently broke the {{test4im}} template when you removed an extra "<". Fixed it for ya. :) -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Opps, it happens, thankx for the fix.+mwtoews 20:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 10:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SVGs

Hi there. Do you have permission from the copyright holders of images including Image:UofC Coat.jpg and Image:Mcgill-logo.png to replace with SVGs?

You'll notice that {{logo}}, with which your SVGs, Image:UofC Coat.svg and Image:Mcgill-logo-w-moto.svg are tagged, is a fair use template. One of the restrictions placed by Wikipedia's Fair Use Policy is that images so used must be of low, or reduced resolution. I understand that you have traced these images using Inkscape: this does not vitiate the copyright-holders interest in them! — mholland 13:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not have permission for these, and they were certainly based on the original and copyright work, and I see your concern here. I'll either convert these to PNG or keep the original version, whose ever is better. Having copyrighted work in SVG format is dangerous to have, and unnecessary. These SVG versions be gone later today.+mwtoews 17:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've also patched up Wikipedia:Logos to specify policies regarding SVG and vector art, since I looked here before, searched for vector (didn't read in detail), didn't find it, and proceeded with making SVGs.+mwtoews 21:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Good work. I'm sorry if that involved any wasted effort on your part. — mholland 22:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Canada wordmark.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Canada wordmark.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot 00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I requested it. +mwtoews 03:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pedotransfer function

I am one of the authors of the "soil inference system" paper. It has been reworded.

[edit] abstraction v. extraction

Hi Mwtoews! Before I changed the word abstraction in River, I checked with Merriam-Webster. That page doesn't indicate removal is a meaning. So I used the more familiar extract. But clicking on abstracting does indeed show that removal is the first meaning. Thanks for the education! Regards, —EncMstr 20:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a rather abstract word – which also hints that I should add it to wikt:abstraction with a reference ... +mwtoews 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soil, et. al.

As a fellow hydrogeologist, I humbly requet your assistance to the soil page, as well as some other pages intimately involved in professional practice such as borehole, drilling rig, water well, etc.. These very basic articles could really use improved description, for the benefit of both the lay public and our practice as a whole.

Thanks! Drillerguy 22:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly take a look someday, however I'm vastly busy these days, so it will have to wait a few months before I can do too much. Now-a-days, I just try not let crap/spam/vandalism on articles in my watchlist.+mwtoews 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Thanks for merge

You're welcome :) But I have a question regarding what you said: Why do you say you have a BSc but not a BS? is it not the same? dont they both mean "bachelor of science"?? -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanations. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguish template

referring to your recent edit to the "Poor" disambiguation page

I'd not realized that Template:Distinguish could take multiple parameters. I will use that feature going forward. Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem … there are many "ins" and mysteries to wikiland that are shared exactly like this.+mwtoews 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Spoiler-season/proposal2

Template:Spoiler-season/proposal2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Evilclown93 00:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright.+mwtoews 20:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No original research policy

From: R.J.Oosterbaan 19:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You wrote:
Hi, I've noticed your edits in the groundwater related articles. However, they infringe on Wikipedia's no original research policy (especially since you tagged on the talk pages "This article was made by ..."). These articles include Watertable control, Groundwater model, Salinity control, and Cumulative frequency; as well as certain sections of other articles. I don't want to be a jerk and list you articles for deletion (some people here would do that .. but not me), as they could be used and merged among other wiki authors. Your contributions to the small niche of groundwater-related articles are certainly welcome, however you should first consider the policies of Wikipedia before investing too much time and effort.+mwtoews 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
My reply:
I am new to Wikipedia (a few days) and already in trouble. I have tried to do merging but was hitherto unable to do so (with 2 exceptions) because I felt there would be too much interruption of the train of thought in the pages visited. Yet, I will not rest, but continue to do streamlining.
I fear some misunderstanding might have been roused by the phrase "This article was made by R.J.Oosterbaan". Herewith I only refer to the entry in Wikipedia (a new page), not to new or original research articles. All information I give comes from old research and existing sources and I am just reporting, referring, citing and pouring available knowledge into a new format, hoping to provide useful information. I guess I am not expected to make contributions merely by "copy and paste" from existing material, omitting any writing and "glueing" on my part. In fact, I could not detect much difference between the approach to the subjects in the pages I viewed and my approach, although there may be a lot of difference in style and emphasis everywhere.
To avoid any more misunderstandings, I will remove the phrase, which was meant to assume some kind of responsibility for what I did and be open for comments. I might also adopt a fancy name (something like yours) to "depersonify" my contributions.
By the way, do you have some authority in Wikipedia and what do you mean with "here" in (some people here would do that ...)"?
Regards, Roland.
From: mwtoews

Hey, everyone was once new here, so no worries if you feel your are "already in trouble", so don't be discouraged about contributing. It can take a few months to get a good idea of how Wikipedia works from the inside (especially if you also want to learn the technical aspects, like including LaTeX math formulas). I can see the work you added is not exactly original research, but it is in paper format, rather than in more of a encyclopedia reference format. I have no more authority here than you; I just contribute whenever I have spare time and resources (I'm working on my Masters at the moment—so my spare time is presently limited). My username really isn't that fancy, since it is must my first two initials and last name, and is the exact same used at my past two universities. (Using any part of a real name in a username is actually quite bold, and I certainly encourage it.) In any case, your work is always credited through the additions in the history—but due to the licensing, it is free and public domain for anyone use to use and modify, so this distinction gets blurred or lost with each edit from someone else. There are about a dozen or so regular contributers on wikipedia that are specialists with groundwater—non of which I know personally, and only discuss things here and there. By "here", I meant the larger wikipedia community—some of which don't tolerate deviation from policies and delete or remove material that doesn't meet it. Feel free to ask me any questions you might have.+mwtoews 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From: R.J.Oosterbaan 22:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Where can I find the encyclopedia reference format?
Is it important to use it because otherwise the articles are seen as original/not verified?

Most of the main articles (such as the ones featured on the main page) are in an "encyclopedia reference format". The main reference is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and other subpages from that article, such as Wikipedia:Guide to layout. I think that all the articles you started are worthy of continuing/editing (and I was even planning to start a Groundwater model article someday). Generally speaking, a good encyclopedic format only describes the general concepts and provides links to other articles that are off-topic. They are also often broken into smaller subsections, which can be read and understood without reading the entire article. Specific examples and case studies should be avoided, since they make the article less-general.+mwtoews 22:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds very logic. I will do my best to follow the Wikipedia guide. It may take some time. In several sites I included examples (illustrations) hoping they might draw the interest of the reader. Yet I see your point and the number of examples will be reduced.
R.J.Oosterbaan 07:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Trevor Jackson.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Image-Trevor Jackson.jpg. The copy called Image:Image-Trevor Jackson.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 02:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Duh.+mwtoews 02:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Groundwater model

(cur) (last) 22:51, 21 June 2007 Mwtoews (Talk | contribs) (25,645 bytes) (wikify)
Nice job.
R.J.Oosterbaan 13:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Keith Fullerton Whitman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Keith Fullerton Whitman.jpg. 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:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. 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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 08:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Promotional materials

We want free. We have chosen not to accept material that may be okay under fair use in the hopes of generating more free items. It has been proven that by removing non-free content, free material has been generated, which, in the end, makes Wikipedia all the better. We don't care if they "release it promotionally" because it's still unfree and in cases where it's possible to generate/replace with a free item, we can not accept it. Many users have trouble understanding this concept so don't feel you are alone. I too struggled with it until I realized that a fair use image only enhances an article at Wikipedia, but a free image enhances every re-use of the article. And shouldn't that kid in Africa be able to see the image too when she loads the "Wikipedia DVD"? MECU≈talk 12:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chadsey Lake

  • Oh I would have waited until "moving" the article in mid-AfD. That happened the last time Lost Lake was up for AfD. Confused many. Canuckle 00:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I did realize that seconds after I moved it ... opps! an honest mistake to confuse a few, sorry. +mt 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GeSHi syntax highlighting

← Ping! --Quuxplusone 22:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deserved

Image:Bstar 500+.jpg The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but who have not received a barnstar. Canuckle 20:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting of Template:Sci/doc

Hi there,

There's a problem in the formatting of this template: there will shortly have to be spaces either side of the multiplication sign (about to be required in MOS and MOSNUM). This formatting is a standard requirement in any case. Are you able to fix this?

Thanks. Tony 12:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watch out for refs! They bite!

When you move content around with <ref>-tags in it, be sure to check whether all references defined by name still resolve to the same reference at the new location. For example, in this diff the reference named "kandr" was broken. It's very easy to miss since the software doesn't give a clear error message. Take care, Shinobu 19:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

EeeK! Thanks for clearing that up! Yup, I'll agree that the Wiki-software is a bit limited for references (I also have similar complaints, such as not being able to view references while editing sections—you must edit the entire article to view the References section to see if they format properly). I'll watch out for those blank reference in the future.+mt 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:VMF icon.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:VMF icon.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. —Angr 20:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed that, and another icon I've uploaded. +mt 21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hydraulic fracturing

I have to disagree with your changes to the page which suggest hydraulic fracturing modifies permeability. The best way to look at HF is that it provides a conductive pathway or conduit for the reservoir fluids to move toward the well in and it exposes a large surface area to the lower producing pressure of the well. My point is that if you say HF modifies perm, or bulk perm or rock mass perm, then you can say drilling the well modifies the rock mass perm. Both of these statements are technically correct, but are not useful ways of looking at the technology or modeling the effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.194.55.74 (talk) 04:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

See → User talk:138.194.55.74#Re: Hydraulic fracturing +mt 05:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Error in interwiki behaviour

Hello

Thank you for fixing that mishap. Interwiki bots currently cannot add interwiki links in the subpage of each template (not implemented). However they do add interwikis between a <noinclude> tags, Which is sub optimal. Due to that, Plus an other issue..I have stopped running the bot on the template namespace until these issues are sorted out. If you notice, These edits were a while back (no recent edits). HTH --Alnokta 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UBC/SFU Coats of Arms

The reason behind my edits in putting the coats of arms into the logo line is in line with all other world universities wiki. For example, Harvard, MIT, Cambridge, Oxford, UA, UT and all BC public universities wiki displays their CoA.

Coat of Arms registered by either the College of Arms or the Canadian Heraldic Authority are public domain images.

UBC: I don't mean to be rude but what you do mean by "I doubt this is true"? The Coat of Arms came from a UBC University Counsel publications, it is a Coat of Arms registered in the College of Arms in UK and thus the image is copyright under the Queen. I had a link to the Coat of Arms information on the UBC wiki page which you overriden. NOW READ!


SFU: Again, it's the same rationale as above and it was released with a press release.

In case you couldn't see properly, the new crest consist of three books instead of the 2 crosses and 1 book prior to 2007. I kept both images because they are both in use while the newer one will gradually replace the old one. But until then, they both officially link to SFU.

I will not revert your edits to the main UBC/SFU wiki page but I've reverted your edits to the images I uploaded.

--Cahk 03:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

→User talk:Cahk#Re:_UBC.2FSFU_Coats_of_Arms +mt 07:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

CoA in Canada can be considered as trademarks under the Trade-marks Act[1]. Pursuant to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), the logos can be displayed on wiki articles (but maybe as you say, as a logo rather than PD).

The SFU new CoA was taken from the SFU Press Release. Because it's an image made and published by the CHA, it is considered as the work of the Governor General and copyright held by the Queen:[2]

The UBC CoA can be obtained from the UBC Visual Identity Guidelines PDF file [3] --Cahk 08:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image source problem with Image:Imagemagick-logo.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Imagemagick-logo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC). 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 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Silly templates ... +mt 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I am a new user to wikipedia and I was wondering if I could get your input on an article that I have just posted. Any comments or feedback would be very helpful to me. Thanks. The article is titled Automated Quality control of meteorological observations. Or this should link to it Automated Quality control of meteorological observations --Amanrye 16:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewind

Oops. That edit was an accident. I don't know how that happened. My bad. I must've pasted the wrong thing. --CrookedAsterisk (contribs • talk) 18:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I figured it was a simple slip-up .. happens to us all. +mt 19:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:VVm.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:VVm.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. -- WebHamster 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This could probably be replaced. I'll delete it. +mt 04:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TransLink (British Columbia) logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:TransLink (British Columbia) logo.png. 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 19:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-free rational added. +mt 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MSc and MSc subject

Thanks, I made the change on my user page - didn't know about MSc subject. I'm wondering though if we should merge the two templates - it's a fairly trivial thing to fix the bug that you found and once fixed why do we need two templates? (I'm putting this on the template page as well - discuss there). Egfrank (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mcgill-logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Mcgill-logo.png. 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) 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TransLink (British Columbia) logo.png

I've removed the Image:TransLink (British Columbia) logo.png from the Translink page as you might be aware of, Translink has changed it name from GVTA to SCBCTA (refer to article) and thus a logo with the old name would not be appropriate to use anymore. --Cahk (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah great ... that's the part of the logo I least liked. I'll make a fair-use SVG. +mt 06:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Inkscape data

Is there an easy way to remove the Inkscape data from SVG files? I've been uploading quite a lot of SVG's lately so if you could help that would be great. Thanks --Tkgd2007 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't really an easy way to do this. I generally use a combination of Illustrator CS and a text editor, and any knowledge on basic SVG specifications for basic types (such as default parameter values, so that certain data can be excluded). I used to use Inkscape, but it felt too clunky and produces really bloated SVG code—it is sad to say (since I support free software) that I really appreciate Illustrator, since it is slick and produces very clean SVG code. Certainly, Adobe authored the SVG specifications, so it is not surprising that Illustrator writes the best output (in my opinion). However, when opening SVG files in Illustrator that were originally saved in the Inscape SVG format, Illustrator will usually retain the "sodipodi" metadata, which is specific only to that application (and Inkscape). I try to remove the sodipodi data using a text editor to keep the code to the standard SVG coding, then reopen/save in Illustrator. Another method is to save the figure as an Illustrator AI or PDF file, then reopen/save in Illustrator again to shed the sodipodi metadata. If this fails, and it is a simple circle, I redraw the object. Often I'll name objects, but remove "Layer 1", since multiple layers are not needed for logos. If you can, find original artwork in PDF format, and simply open it up in Illustrator, and edit then save in SVG. This way you can avoid doing too much tweaking to get around Inkscape's annoyances. The last thing I do before uploading is to remove the second line comment about the software used, since it's not needed.+mt 04:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks a lot. I'll keep this in mind --Tkgd2007 (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Dupuit assumption page

I put a comment on the discussion page at for the Dupuit assumption. Just wondering if you could take a look...

Dannya222 (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. +mt 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Vandalblock/doc

A tag has been placed on Template:Vandalblock/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Giv'r. +mt 21:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ship disambiguation

Hi Mwtoews. I see you reverted my changes at HMS Beagle (disambiguation). You are of course quite correct that the guidelines, as they stand, expect all that extra stuff in the link displays. The guidelines were not designed with the specific vagaries of ship disambiguation pages in mind. Anyway, could I invite you to share your thoughts here or here as a preliminary to either agreeing to work within the existing guidelines or push for change. As things stand I don't see any point in doing further work. Regards --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, reverting hard work isn't fun for anyone. Well at least I read in detail for the the other improvements you made to make sure they would be get transfered. Anyhow, I put my suggestions over here, but I probably don't have much more input than that since I'm not completely aware of the special needs for disambiguation between ships (nonetheless, I'm interested). +mt 05:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you changed a number of the features of this page back. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but perhaps the best way to think of these pages is as a list page, being an article on the history of a ship's name, but incorporating the disambiguation element of directing a reader to a particular ship if they so need. As it stands, the principle of one link per section is not supported by our guidelines anyway. Would you particularly object to me changing it back? Benea (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've reverted the edits. I see your point that it is not a generic disabig page, but of an article for a ship's name. The "(disambiguation)" part of the title implies to me that it is a page tagged with {{disambig}}, but on further inspection it does not have that tag. Sorry for not taking notice of the {{shipindex}} tag, and carry on editing! +mt 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite all right. It's particularly easy to fall into that trap with Beagle, as the index page is at HMS Beagle (disambiguation) rather than just HMS Beagle. No harm done. Pip pip, Benea (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] QCI/Haida Gwaii

thanks for taking that on; and nice tidying job on the earthquakes. There's an issue with the further meaning of Haida Gwaii as including PoW Island, in the Alaska Panhandle; it has its own Haida name too, like Gwaii Hanaas (or is it Gwaii Haanas? aka South Moresby) but it's also part of Haida Gwaii; but not part of the Queen Charlottes. I think it's cited on one of the existing Haida page, I'll see if I can find it.Skookum1 (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. From what I read, Haida Gwaii is a relatively new name, adopted in the early-mid 1970s. +mt 06:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, like a lot of "ancient history" in BC, not much older than the '70s.....there was no Haida nation-state before; rather warring petty kinglets like Anglo-Saxon England; the term is of new coinage, "the ancient name" posited by IanKeir is a fictional ancientness; but it's highly-charged politically to say so in these/those parts...the same claim is made about Salish Sea, that it's a traditional name when in fact it's less than half a decade old or so, although its webhits have been multiplying as the faithful generate/encourage/inflict new uses of it; Haida Gwaii is no doubt what the statelet will be called once the legal technicalities get worked out; the islands are still gazetted as the QCI, especially in other languages; reform English all you want or can get away with; no one else has to or likely will; which is why "Kwakiutl" is still acceptable in German and Croatian and Greek for the Kwakwaka'wakw but it's not in English...don't mean to be sour-grapey....Skookum1 (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WWF logo.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:WWF logo.svg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. +mt 05:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:FSM Pirates.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:FSM Pirates.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The SVG Designer's Barnstar
You have created multiple traced (and possibly original) SVG images and I think its about time you recieve an award. You deserve it, and keep up the good work! -- TIM KLOSKE|TALK 20:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto Airport Disambugation

Hi Mwtoew. I see you have undid my changes to Toronto Airport disambugation a few times. I see your point of directing it to the list of gta airports, but I think that it should be directed to the Toronto pearson page. More people will be looking for Pearson say from all over the world like Tokyo Airport which redirects to the Haneda page as more people will bel ooking for haneda than narita. Same logic. Anyway, most people don't know it's called Pearson and just assume its just toronto airport, so putting that confuses them. Thanks for your attention and please reply.

MessiiskingMessiisking (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point.... it does have some logic..... ya go ahead revert it.

Messiisking (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Telus.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Telus.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Malaspina Logo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Malaspina Logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nike(c).svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nike(c).svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:UBC-Crest.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:UBC-Crest.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)