User talk:Pagrashtak/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Grand Theft Auto: Vice City images 2 Image:X8 wp6 sxga.jpg 3 Thanx dude... 4 Congrats 5 GA spam on featured template 6 Wikibreak? 7 Ridge Racer 8 Great Bay Temple image 9 Images tags 10 Time to say goodbye 11 Wind Waker 12 RfA promotion 13 Thank for assistance at TfD 14 new day boilerplate 15 Wind Waker 16 Punctuation 17 Fair use images 18 Image:Hagar honi123.gif 19 Template edits 20 Subpages with image licenses 21 Why Revert? 22 I never got back to you... 23 Hi 24 Bicycle FARC 25 "Earth's Moon is not called Luna" 26 audio file bicycles

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City images

Why did you remove some fair use images from Grand Theft Auto: Vice City? These are fair use and can be used in the main article namespace. --Thorpe | talk 13:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

They are not covered under fair use because they are used for decorative purposes. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy, item 8. Additionally, it is the consensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games to not use ESRB ratings or similar decorative fair use images in the CVG infobox. Pagrashtak 14:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:X8 wp6 sxga.jpg

I removed the orpahned tag because it already has an ifd one inserted upon it. Placing the orphaned template upon it is redundant. And, please don't utilize roll-back for those type of edits; its intended for vandalism only. -Zero^Talk

I would have removed the IFD notice instead of the orphaned fair use notice, as suggested by Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, but I'll leave it off since you feel so strongly about it. However, when a user blanks a valid orphaned fair use tag without explanation, I consider it an appropriate use of rollback to restore the notice. If you had said why you removed the tag instead of merely calling it "sillyness" I wouldn't have used rollback. Pagrashtak 22:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not I feel so strongly about it. Its simply the fact that I know the difference between ifd and orphaned, and I purposefully placed it through ifd to carry it through the process. If the image is already pending deletion, then the orphaned tag is redundant, especially considering the ifd tag was present for more than a day or so. Hence I cited it as silly. And no, that's not a valid reason for rollback. Be aware that I never, ever vandalize wikipedia, and policy specifially warns against that. -Zero^Talk 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that Wikipedia policy says not to vandalize. Are you aware that Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion specifically states that orphaned fair use images should not be listed there? Pagrashtak 00:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And I'm also aware that my preference lies with placing it through ifd in the off chance the image has other redeeming values, or if another user wishes to comment on its deletion. -Zero^Talk 06:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanx dude...

That's the 1st time the somewhat rickety AfC worked for me ;D! 68.39.174.238 00:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (PS. Feel free to comment on the PR request that was about, it needs some eyes)

No problem, that's the first article I've created from AFC. I check out the peer review section every so often and thought it would be nice to get rid of that red link. Pagrashtak 01:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Fantastic, so now you are an administrator! I would have come earlier, but could not on account of my sickness from 3rd April to 24th April 2006 resulting into my wiki-absence. I convey my congratulations to you on your elevation as an administrator, and wish you all the best! Have you ever seen me around? I am just curious! --Bhadani 15:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

GA spam on featured template

hi, i see that the "good article" spam has been put back in Template:featured despite objections from several users. this seems to be the way the GA project works: boldly putting something into a page that doesnt want it, then claiming consensus is required to *remove* it again (consensus is never required to put it there in the first place).

this is exactly the same behaviour as witnessed on the attempt to create an article space "good article" star, which i & raul654 finally managed to have deleted (a huge effort since they had already spammed a 1000 articles with it), and on the Community Portal where this non-policy wikiproject has pride of place - its apparently far more important than any of the other dozens of collaborations!

they even had the cheek to remove the "non-policy process" template from the top of their project pages claiming they now had "enough support to be policy" - this is despite clear consensus on the talk page that its NOT policy. an attempt to put it back was quickly removed.

as an admin, would you be so kind as to unlock the template and remove the GA spam? i'm really fed up with fighting these GA spam battles everywhere, its quite tiring. why do they have to constantly spread their GA spam everywhere? hope you can help! Zzzzz 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak?

Hiya, I hope you haven't left us indefinitely. I hope you're having a good wikibreak! Cheers, jaco♫plane 03:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm still here. Work (and life) just got busy, that's all. Hopefully I'll be able to get back in the swing of things soon. It looks like a lot's been going on here... Pagrashtak 03:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ridge Racer

Hi. Since you have this page on your watchlist, please see Here. -Zero^Talk 06:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Great Bay Temple image

It's funny, because I had simply copied and pasted the rationale of fair use from the Termina map include in Majora's Mask. You are right, it was not the correct thing to do, but at the time I had been lazy to correctly filter the appropriate copyright status, which was certainly irresponsible. I don't have time right now, but when I come back online (which is likely going to be in about three hours), I will tidy the rationale. Please excuse this error and I hope you're not mad. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, I think I've corrected the rationale of fair use, but I am unsure of what copyright status it should be listed under. Thoughts? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I have no idea where you got the image, I have no possible way of knowing the copyright status. If you are unsure of the copyright status yourself, you shouldn't have uploaded the image in the first place. Pagrashtak 21:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

An unwise idea, in my opinion. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be all-around. I have a pretty good memory of where I located the image, but as long as it is not found, I don't think it has to be removed from the article until, of course, the seven-day limit expires. Next time, please respond on my talk page so that I receive the "new messages" alert. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I do know where it is located, but the link is disputed right now. I think the best idea would be to go ahead and delete it; I'll add another image in the future (that is not a map) with proper fair use rationale before even attempting to insert it into the article. Sorry that I caused all this trouble; I'm currently in a different time zone and my head is spinning as a result of lack of sleep. Additionally, sorry for troubling you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to ask, is there an article in particular that you feel requires much-needed editing (I need to do something!)? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Images tags

I noticed you removed the "no license" tag from a bunch of images, (one example being Image:Wholetenpre.jpg), even though in most of those cases no licensing information was provided. Why is that? Just adding an image tag like "film-screenshot" is not enough to show copyright info. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the {{film-screenshot}} tag establishes the following:

• The image comes from a film.
• The film is copyrighted.
• The copyright is owned by the studio and possibly the actor.
• The uploader believes that the screenshot can qualify for fair use.

Provided the source is specified, that seems like enough information to spare an image from I4 deletion, don't you think? If you feel this is insufficient, I would suggest you ask the uploader to add to the image page and take the image to IFD if nothing is added in a reasonable amount of time. Pagrashtak 23:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to say goodbye

I wish to talk with you someday again. My final edits will be made on Wikipedia on June 26. After this date, the only edits I will make will be occasional pop-culture updates. Thanks for your kindness and your time. Take care! —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wind Waker

I think the prose is starting to look pretty good, or at least on the level of most featured articles. I'm going to vote keep :) — Deckiller 01:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA promotion

Hi! I was re-reading my RfB recently and I saw your neutral. Would it be possible for you to give your opinion as to what someone should do in that case? Thanks and kind regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, but first clarify what you mean by "that case" to make sure I'm answering your question properly. Pagrashtak 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank for assistance at TfD

Thank you for your assistance at TfD. It really helped! It's been so far behind. I've been doing the dailies by hand since July 1, but there were weeks of closing (back to mid-June), some of which I could not handle. Normally, I poke on CfD.

--William Allen Simpson 05:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. 8 June wasn't going to close itself, right? TFDs are usually my XFDs of choice to close, but I haven't had as much time for Wikipedia as I use to. Thanks right back for your work there too, by the way. Pagrashtak 04:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

new day boilerplate

Why did you remove the NEW NOMINATIONS? That is used as the edit&section=2 target from the /Howto instructions, to avoid edit conflicts. Please donm't do that again....

--William Allen Simpson 00:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it was an unfamiliar header with no apparent use. If I had known that it was there to work in conjunction with the /Howto link, I probably would have left it there. When some strange new item pops up, I'm not in the habit of scouring every bit of a page before I remove it. That being said, is there any way we can do without it? It looks silly. Pagrashtak 01:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Change the process to keep the nominations in standard top to bottom order, instead of bottom to top. That would be edit&section=new. I'm in favor.... You'll just need to convince some others, and then take flack from folks passing by that remember the old way. And probably do it for CfD, MfD, and who knows where else, so that folks don't complain about consistency and confusion.

--William Allen Simpson 19:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wind Waker

Hey, no problem ^_^. Ryu and myself tried to reduce the flowery-ness of the article, but we really need some fresh eyes to help out :) — Deckiller 02:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fresh set of eyes on the FF8 page, it's looking much, much better. — Deckiller 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation

Alright, fair enough. I'll take another look to see if there's any parts of the reception where the punctuation didn't fit the quotation. I suppose if there are, it might be necessary to convert the entire thing to British quotations. Also, I see what you're referring to with the dates. I forgot about that special difference applying there. Thanks. Ryu Kaze 03:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice edits. Thanks for your contributions and suggestions. Ryu Kaze 03:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

Thank you for the follow-up, [1] Pagrashtak. Must have slipped my mind there. Much appreciated. -Randall Brackett 17:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hagar honi123.gif

Please can you delete this as I uploaded by mistake? I don't know how to delete stuff User:Zeldamaster3

That's because only administrators can delete. If you've uploaded something by mistake and want it deleted, just add {{db-author}} to the image page and an administrator will delete it for you. Pagrashtak 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw you added the tag; I've just deleted it. Thanks, Pagrashtak 15:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Template edits

I've reverted your change to [[[Template:Orphaned fairuse not replaced]]], as the same diff you provide above [[[2]] also states "Images which have been uploaded before 13 July 2006 must not be immediately deleted. The editor should be alerted as to the problem with the image and will be given 7 days to comply with this policy." [emphasis mine] Pagrashtak 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I partially reverted so that the exact policy wording is included. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Still one problem: the new two day rule starts from notification of the uploader, not the addition of the template. If you marked an image uploaded today with the template but did not notify the uploader, the image still has a seven day grace period. Pagrashtak 15:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

>_< That was a horribly-worded policy change :( Stifle (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's seems very hard to delete an image under the new rule, unless you have it out for a particular image that you're keeping an eye on. There's also no mention at WP:CSD, which bothers me. I think the template should just state seven days for now until a better system is in place. What do you think? Pagrashtak 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It'll have to be that way. I've self-reverted. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Subpages with image licenses

Do you use User:Pengo/testb, User:Pengo/testbb, and User:Pengo/testselfb? They're showing up in all sorts of image categories. Pagrashtak 17:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed them now. —Pengo 00:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Pagrashtak 00:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why Revert?

Just not understanding your reasoning for reverting The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker storyline info, specifically your comment:

this article has just finished a rather lengthy review to tighten the writing, please keep it concise

"Tighten the writing?" What I added was in general more accurate, more specific, and more informative to The Wind Waker's gameplay. So, by "concise", do you mean less informative? The spoiler warning is there and working, so I see no great benefit in being vague. --Tryforceful 23:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll explain the reverts in the first paragraph as an example:

• on -> in — It's more common to refer to islands as being "in" a sea, than "on" a sea.
• clad in green clothing -> dressed in green — the word clothing is redundant. If you say "clad in green", we understand that you mean clothing. I changed "clad" back to "dressed" because clad is not a common word. It's fine for poetry, but seems out of place here in an encyclopedic article.
• sealed away the evil -> sealed the evil — the word "away" is redundant.
• The boy, known thereafter as the Hero of Time -> The boy became known as the Hero of Time — the reverted sentence is more direct and does not give the false impression that the boy was never called by his birth name afterwards.
• eventually passed into legend -> passed into legend -> "eventually" is not needed.

As I mentioned in the article summary, this article underwent a review that lasted over a month, with several editors voting to remove the article from the list of featured articles for writing concerns. I did keep the character links you added and some of your changes, but many of the changes added redundancies. When I nominated this article to be featured, there were concerns that the plot was covered in too much detail already, so being "more specific" as you said is not necessarily an improvement. Pagrashtak 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright... I guess it's all up for debate anyway, and considering, as you said, that this was a crucially scrutinized article, I understand. By the way, in terms of the "clad in green," I was trying to get closer to what the actual text says in the game (during "The Legendary Hero" movie on the title screen). Looking at the game directly now, I see it says "garb boys in green" and "clothed in the green of fields," so I guess I was wrong anyway >_< --Tryforceful 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, regarding this edit that I reverted, no one arriving at that article is looking for Zora, because Zola does not redirect there. Pagrashtak 03:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This was my mistake; apparently my browser wasn't set up the way I thought it was, and it automatically redirected me to Émile Zola instead of the disambiguation page. But more importantly, do you know what ever happened to the Zola info? It seems to have been lost during merging from Zora to The Legend of Zelda series enemies a few weeks back. --Tryforceful 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If it's completely missing, just add it back I suppose. Pagrashtak 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I never got back to you...

...regarding this discussion on the passed template. Thanks for the work—it's a definite bonus to be able to insert that info and I'll try and do it myself when closing keeps. And thanks also for your general contributions at FAR. I'm hoping we repeat the "save" of Zelda on Sarajevo and Asperger's syndrome. Cheers, Marskell 13:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish I had more time to try and "save" articles; my life took a bit of a turn recently and I've been unable to edit for a while. Feel free to improve the usage notes to help others who don't know about the parameters. Pagrashtak 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Pagrashtak

Your contributions in the FAR/C room are much appreciated. I wonder whether your heritage is from the Indian subcontinent. If so, are you interested in reviewing/editing the odd article by WPians from that part of the world? I've been looking for good editors who are interested in that much-needed task. Tony 03:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're guessing that based on my user name, I've had others ask me that as well. I'm just a garden variety American, though. By the way, I just realized I never thanked you for your input regarding the Wind Waker article. It's really improved since the review. It's good to know Wikipedia has some editors with high standards. Pagrashtak 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bicycle FARC

Hi, your nomination is maturing in FARC. Wanna have a say? Tony 10:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As I just mentioned to Marskell above, I've been unable to edit for a while, but I should be mostly back now. I'll take a look. Pagrashtak 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Earth's Moon is not called Luna"

Re: your edit of the Pluto article. Check out Moon:

The Moon is Earth's only natural satellite. It has no formal English name other than "The Moon", although in English it is occasionally called Luna (Latin for moon), or Selene (Greek for moon), to distinguish it from the generic "moon" (natural satellites of other planets are also called moons).

Just pointing out that there is some merit to referring to Earth's Moon as some other term than "the Moon" in an article that mentions several other moons. Aprogressivist 13:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "Earth's Moon" removes any ambiguity without introducing spurious names. Pagrashtak 13:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The point about ambiguity may be valid with regards to the context and article in question and the knowledge of the average person, but Luna as an alternative term for Earth's moon is not spurious. It is a very common unofficial nickname. See Luna, Moon, Moons. Aprogressivist 13:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You say it is an "unofficial" nickname, which is why I called it "spurious" — it lacks authenticity. I see no need to introduce unofficial names into what is supposed to be a scientific article. I would argue that "planet" is a very common term applied to Pluto, but it is not the official classification, and the article appropriately reflects this. The situation seems much the same.

I would futher add that any mention of using "Luna" to refer to the Moon in the articles you reference above is not supported by any reference and using those articles to justify the inclusion of "Luna" in the Pluto article would violate the spirit of Wikipedia's rule of using itself as a reference. Pagrashtak 14:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede the point, because doing a search on "Luna" on the NASA site gets you this: [3] Aprogressivist 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

audio file bicycles

What I have worked on to date can be found here! I am however no longer working on the file. --CyclePat 13:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

humm... try this link instead.

[4]. Part one!

--CyclePat 13:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)