User talk:Rockfang/Archive 1
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. |
AFD
I am nominating them correctly, see WP:AFD for multiple related pages, it says you nominate the first one, and everyone there after is to be headed with the title from the first one to group them together. Ejfetters 21:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Metallica
The first sentence should introduce the band, not glorify them by saying they are award winning. Mentioning the awards would be appropriate after the first sentence. Once i've finished re-writing the article i will mention their total Grammy wins. M3tal H3ad 08:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Citation needed
I'm curious as to why your bot did the following change: [1] It doesn't affect how the article looks. --Rockfang (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The date moves the article from the category:Articles with unsourced statements to category:Articles with unsourced statements since December 2007. The change in template name is canonicalization. Rich Farmbrough, 22:39 17 December 2007 (GMT).
Help Requested
{{helpme}}
I need help. I tried fixing the error at [2] by doing the change [3] but all that did was move the error [4]. Might someone be able to fix the article so no error shows up at all? --Rockfang (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- What is the actual original link that you are reusing the reference from. Sunderland06 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is because there is no reference called "OhmyNews" in the article. In order to the error to go away, the first instance of that reference must look like this: <ref name="OhmyNews">Citation text</ref>. I'm not sure what the reference used to say, if indeed it ever said anything at all, so I'm not able to fix this. If you know what link the reference is supposed to display, you can fix it as stated above. If not, I'd recommend you simply replace them with {{fact}} tags as you did before. Sorry we can't be of more assistance. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
{{Reflist}} removals
I noticed some articles (Tyra Banks was an example) where you removed the {{reflist}} template with the edit summary "per WP:FN" - I was wondering why you were doing this. Thanks - Videmus Omnia Talk 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Howdy. I was trying to get references sections to coincide with the guideline here: [5] It states that if the list has 9 or fewer items then "references/" should be used. If it has 10 or more then "reflist" should be used. --Rockfang (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Appreciate your good intentions - however, it's probably not worth the effort to go around changing the templates. Personally I prefer to always use {{reflist}} to get a consistent look, even when there are fewer than ten references. Since WP:FN is just a style guideline and not policy, it's no big deal, really. It's definitely not my place to tell you how to spend your time and effort here, but some people might not like the change. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for your opinion, but I'm going to keep doing it. --Rockfang (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate it if you didn't. Please get talk page consensus first. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for your opinion, but I'm going to keep doing it. --Rockfang (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Appreciate your good intentions - however, it's probably not worth the effort to go around changing the templates. Personally I prefer to always use {{reflist}} to get a consistent look, even when there are fewer than ten references. Since WP:FN is just a style guideline and not policy, it's no big deal, really. It's definitely not my place to tell you how to spend your time and effort here, but some people might not like the change. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
To add to what's been said above, WP:FN is a style guideline and constitutes little justification to remove and replace the reflist template where it has been used. Wikipedia can always use editing and expansion, but removing a standard template for consistency's sake accomplishes very little. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Here (Adrian Belew album) - cover art
Can you look at the history for me and answer a question? Would you really have deleted that? --Brian McNeil /talk 21:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. If you are referring to this change: [6], then no. I personally think when I added the tag about no rationale that it would been enough. If after 7 days the cover art was deleted, then I would have removed the image from the article. Also, just a friendly bit of info. For album covers, you need a licensing boilerplate and the rationale section. I edited the image's page to reflect this. I also resized the image to fit with the low res requirement. If you add any more cd covers, you might want to use the formats I used on this album. --Rockfang (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Aces High
Thanks for making the effort to bring the impending deletion to someone's attention, after discovering that the uploading user's page is blocked. If you run into this problem again, a better place to take it than the Songs Project, is likely the talk page for the band's article. But I did take care of it. Thanks again. -Freekee (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging
You may be interested in this tool when you are tagging images. I makes the whole process easier since you with one click both tag the image and notify the uploader, and all within your web browser. It will save you some time. Feel free to ask me if you want help installing it. Rettetast (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I'll check it out once I'm done with the Beatles album covers. I don't want to have my noobness with it screw up images that are possibly high profile.--Rockfang (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Installed at User:Rockfang/monobook.js. Just clear your browser's cache (Ctrl-F5 for IE, Shift-Ctrl-R for Firefox). BTW. If a non free image has a too high resolution, you can tag them with {{fair use reduce}}, and someone will fix it shortly. Rettetast (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Is the inclusion of formal fair use rationale sufficient enough to remove the image tag? I think so.Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Not in the case of Image:Pastmasters1label.jpg and Image:Pastmasters2label.jpg. The most recent non revert I did to both images was not for a lack of rationale. I admit they are there. The changes I made are due to the fact that the images are not low resolution. I suggest you read this. One of the above images is twice the size stated and the other is 4 times the 300x300 suggestion.--Rockfang (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not to suggest instruction creep, but where the specific objection is image size it'd be good if the notification included this. A good percentage of contributors upload and cross their fingers (like I did with the Adrian Belew one above), there's a degree of hope that if it isn't quite right there is enough detail to work out what is required. --Brian McNeil /talk 21:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmc (talk • contribs)
- Not in the case of Image:Pastmasters1label.jpg and Image:Pastmasters2label.jpg. The most recent non revert I did to both images was not for a lack of rationale. I admit they are there. The changes I made are due to the fact that the images are not low resolution. I suggest you read this. One of the above images is twice the size stated and the other is 4 times the 300x300 suggestion.--Rockfang (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Image Uploading
The whole idea behind preloading the template is that a lot of new users don't know what a fair rationale is or they write an 8 part rationale that doesn't include the source, resolution, or intended article. This then makes it an invalid rationale. BcB tags it, admin (probably) auto deletes it, and we lose a good image. If the summary is pre-loaded, at least the user gets the idea that they should probably enter something after the = sign, completing the rationale properly. As to the edit summary issue, that I don't know how to fix. Mbisanz (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
High resolution non-free images
Hi there. I've just gone through a load of hi-resolution non-free images you tagged as being too high resolution, and replaced the deletion tags with {{fair use reduce}}. Could you use that tag in future? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing. Thanks for the info. Is that template the same as {{non-free reduce}}?--Rockfang (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. Don't mind me. I just spotted a whole load of South Park images claiming to be used in the episode list article... Carcharoth (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, sod that. Far too many of them. There are enough South Park editors to do that themselves. Carcharoth (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. Don't mind me. I just spotted a whole load of South Park images claiming to be used in the episode list article... Carcharoth (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Help Requested (#2)
{{helpme}}
Could anyone possibly fix the rationale I used on Image:Polysics - Polysics or Die.jpg please? It seems the album name messed it up.--Rockfang (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have isolated the problem. It is the name of the article - I am guessing the fact it contains the '!!!!'. Despite this, I do not know how to fix the problem. Hopefully someone else should come along soon and be able to help you more. Thanks, Tiddly-Tom 09:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A couple of things
- Templated messages are removed from my talk page, please don't send them.
- About Image:Metallica and justice for all a.jpg. That wasn't helpful tagging. The rationale for the ...And Justice for All (album) is valid and is still valid. If you see a non-free image being used on an article that doesn't have a rationale written on the image description page, it is better to remove it from the article (i.e. [7]) than to tag the image for deletion when there are valid rationales that are being used. In a nutshell, Image:Metallica and justice for all a.jpg had one good rationale and a bad (non-existent) one for the other usage. When one good one exists, don't tag for deletion, remove the ones that violate WP:NFCC.
-
- Response
reply to your query
Ask Admin BigHaz. He took care of nom'ing all the Metallica songs that weren't singles for AfD. The concensus was redirect them all. If you look at all the Metallica albums... none of the non-singles exist anymore. Every song used to have its own article. Which was just superfluous overkill and useless. BigHaz can explain the history. 156.34.212.152 (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've replied on my Talk page. Not sure if you've got it watchlisted or not, but there's a link to one of the AfDs there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
High Voltage FUR
Hi Rockfang, thanks for your message re: Image:Acdc_high_voltage_international_album.jpg. I'm guessing that your concern is that there is not a FUR for each use of this image, not that the one FUR provided is invalid. However, that's not immediately clear from your message. Is that accurate or do I assume incorrectly? I had avoided providing FURs for the song articles which use that image as I am not yet certain that this counts as fair use. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to investigate the current consensus on that. Anyhow, if you can clarify the "10c" problem, I would appreciate it. Thank you, GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- After looking at the fair use tag on the image itself, it does appear that I have surmised correctly. So, I will take a look into it. Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- In at least one person's opinion, using an album cover image in an article about a song on that album does not comply with Wikipedia's fair use policy. So, I've removed the image from all the song articles, none of which had provided a fair use rationale. I believe that this should bring the image into compliance with this aspect of fair use policy. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Goldmember
Image:Goldmemberfoxy.jpg. Are you not aware that oversized images are also not really permitted also? -I reduced the size of it I just felt like getting rid of the other. You're not dealing with a beginner here lol! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 11:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Tagged images
Sorry about the confusion of my posted then deleted entries. In reply to your comment on my talk page, the answer is both yes and no. I got in a rush after noticing that the first one was tagged incorrectly, for reference it was Image:801 image 04.jpg then the next several were tagged correctly, as the FUR was linked to an article that the image was not used in and the article that used the image was not mentioned in the FUR. I have simply been correcting those FUR's and then deleting your tag. My guess is that you may have done the exact opposite of me, tagging bunch that needed tagging and accidently tagging one that did not which is why I did not bother to repost as a single mistake can be easily understood, but a series of errors needs to be addressed to avoid it for happening in the future. I have also become upset because of Betacommand and his bot, which has unfortunately tanted my view of thoes tagging images with the incorrect tag. Dbiel (Talk) 00:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
FAIR USE RATIONALE
I added a fair use rationale for Tempted and Tried. I would have thought that IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BLOODY OBVIOUS. Alan (talk)
- Is that better?Alan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Guess WHAT? All fair use images NEED rationales, no matter HOW BLOODY OBVIOUS it may SEEM. tomasz. 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Billy Squier - Don't Say No.jpg
About Image:Billy Squier - Don't Say No.jpg, could you please explain? I'm not too sure what you mean; after all, I do explain what it's used for, and the origin. If the matter is, however, the templating (as in a {{ }} template) (or lack thereof) and such, when I uploaded the album art for Billy Squier's Don't Say No, there wasn't that auto-templating thing, so I typed out the fair-use rationale. So again, would you mind being a bit more specific and/or explain? Ta. Qwerty (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think I've filled it out now. Would you care to remove the tag and strike-out the comment on my talk page now? Thanks. Qwerty (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Everything is fine with it now. Originally, when I tagged it all that was on it was a description of what it was and where it was gotten from. It didn't state why we should be able to use it in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline. Thanks for adding the rationale.--Rockfang (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Non-free use disputed
I've fixed both rationales. Thanks for the note. Jogers (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
RE: Fair use rationale for Image:Festival_airlines.gif
Provided proper rationale, must have forgot to do that when I originally uploaded it. Marcusmax (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Image resolution
Replied here. I uploaded new versions of both Image:Pastmasters1label.jpg and Image:Pastmasters2label.jpg with res reduced to 300x300. I dorftrottel I talk I 14:32, December 27, 2007
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
2003 GSSE image
"The image comes from http://www.nocmalta.org/gsse.htm, the official website of the 2003 GSSE, and will fall under fair use for the 2003 Games of the Small States of Europe page only. matt91486 13:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)"
This was already in the rationale section, from November 5, 2007. matt91486 (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Monsters of Rock
Is this addition for Motorhead sufficient?--Alf melmac 14:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Alistair_Maclean_-_Athabasca_book_cover.jpg
The free use rationale should be sufficient, as there is a valid link to the article in question. If you have tagged this image for other reasons, please clarify. --MChew (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see that there is a link to the article on the page, but the rationale section should state the name of the article the image is used in, which it currently doesn't.--Rockfang (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Tagging images
When tagging images with tags that could result in the removal of the image, as you did to Image:Calvin & Hobbes - Hobbes.png, it is considered common courtesy to leave a note on the relevant articles' talk pages so that interested editors are informed of the problem and have opportunity to fix it. Please do this in the future. Thank you. Anomie⚔ 12:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion. I only do this when the original uploader has been banned. --Rockfang (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The original uploader could have left Wikipedia (either formally or informally) without being banned, or even indefinitely blocked. They could also think "I don't care if it stays or not, someone else can handle it if they want it kept"; this is especially true now as some people are getting upset over the enforcement of the new NFC criteria on images that were uploaded back when such formality was not required. They could also simply be on vacation for more than a week, and coming back to find their image has been deleted because no one else was informed would not be a good "welcome back". Anomie⚔ 00:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Invalid fair use rationales
Please don't leave me messages about invalid fair use rationales in images I uploaded. I have them all in my watchlist. I can't fix them now because I'm very busy but I'll do it when I have some spare time. Thanks in advance, Jogers (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Bogdanb#Unspecified_source_for_Image:From_Which_of_This_Oak.jpg
Hi! I imagine you're swamped by questions like this, sorry. I've already added a "non-free album cover" tag, and a rationale. I'm not sure if that's enough, you last message seems to imply that it also needs a "non-free fair use in" tag (though the article where it's used is already mentioned there). Is it?
Secondly, you say the source must be mentioned. I'm not sure how to go about that, I've had the file for a long time from a website I don't remember. The file appears several times in Google's image search, but I doubt any of those sites will still be there in a couple of months. I have no idea how to determine the copyright holder (it may be the band, the cover artist, or some label), especially since the image is the cover of an old, very limited edition demo. There's even less of a change to find who originally scanned it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdanb (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- In this instance, I would suggest finding another suitable version of this image and use it to replace the one that is currently on Wikipedia. That way you know what the source is.--Rockfang (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would, except that it's a very rare, old casette (200 copies, ten years ago), so there are only three or four images of it on the net that have circulated between sites for years. (I've done a long search previously on this cover.) bogdanb (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi
You put template:image-source on my userpage regarding an image I uploaded. I was just wondering whether you could point me in the direction of some information on how to correctly cite a source for an image. -- Bobyllib (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- For an image, a source could be a number of things. If you scanned the image from a CD cover, this could be the source: "The image is from a scanned cd cover." If you got the image from the web, just link to the url of the page the image is used on. Let me know if you need more examples. I'm happy to help out.--Rockfang (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Can you have a look at what I wrote at Image:TheLoungsWeAreTheChamp.jpg and Image:OobermanTheMagicTreehouse.jpg and let me know if those would be considered acceptable sources please? --Bobyllib (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Clock Tower image
I added the obvious source that the developers of Clock Tower, human entertainment, created it. Is obvious information that is based on basic common sense sufficient? If not, please elaborate. The image was indeed taken from the web quite a while ago. The site quite possibly could not exist anymore and that cover art image was harder to obtain that normal. If we are done here, then I would like to request that you never leave a message on my talk page again. William Pembroke (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- If the image was taken from the web, we need the url of the page it was gotten from. If the original url cannot be found, a new suitable version with a known source should be uploaded.--Rockfang (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: re: this edit
Where is the source info?--Rockfang (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Silly me, read it a little too fast. It's got proper source info now, thanks for catching my mistake. Melesse (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
RE:
I'm sorry. I've never done that before so I didn't know how to do it correctly. I will keep that in mind next time I attempt to do that. Sorry, Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
List of SST Records bands
Don't worry, I will. At the moment though, I'm focusing more on The Replacements. CloudNine (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: regarding Image:Shiri.jpg
Could you please verify that the uploader of the above image has permission to release the image under the GNU FDL and CCA licenses? For some reason, I highly doubt he does.--Rockfang (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The ticket linked to were to do with permissions for several unrelated images, and after searching I couldn't find any other permissions tickets covering this image. I removed the permissions template from the image page. It's probably the result of someone not knowing what they're doing and copy-and-pasting the image description page from somewhere else to get the templates they want. --bainer (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
FUR for "The Monitor.jpg"
Two reasons mainly:
- To flesh out and clarify some of the points with in the FUR, especially where the piece was first published.
- to condense to the template for images used in a single article. Which is, last I checked, the same default the upload wizard uses.
What's there now still has the syntax for the multi-use template, which can be used if the image is used in other articles at some point in the future.
- J Greb (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Image:Eq2_level_60_mount.jpg
I updated the Fair use rationale, what makes it still invalid? Could you point me to an image that has a valid FU rationale, please? - TexMurphy (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please look at Image:Texas AMU logo.png. Notice how it has separate rationales for each use?--Rockfang (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've updated it, could you have a look and remove the tag if the rationale is adequate please? Also, can you point me to the WP page where Fair use templates and/or practice is explained? Not being rude or anything here, I've been looking for a good explanation. - TexMurphy (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Venusonahal.gif
The template you added to Image:Venusonahal.gif explained exactly nothing, Please explain why the fair-use rationale is incomplete. AnonMoos (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Re:clarification
It was orphaned because you orphaned it. Generally, it's a little more polite if you leave a message on the article's talk page notifying the regular editors that an image being used on the article has an improper rationale. Even bots do it nowadays. Naturally, you could have just changed the target of the fair use rationale to the article it was actually present in, rather than tagging it, since the everything was fine except that. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I orphaned it because I was following policy. It was being used in an article that it didn't have a corresponding rationale. So, I removed it from the article. It is the uploader's responsibility to provide proper rationales.--Rockfang (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's just a courtesy to alert the relevant people about an image that may be deleted. Some (or most) uploaders are not aware of Wikipedia's image policies so it's best to notify both the uploader and the talk page of the article in which the image was used. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- In some cases, I do. If the uploader has left Wikipedia either voluntarily, or is blocked or banned. In these situations I typically either put it on the article talk page and/or the project covering the page.--Rockfang (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. I guess my suggestion is to go for the article talk pages first since more people see them (and are watchlisted). Axem Titanium (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- In some cases, I do. If the uploader has left Wikipedia either voluntarily, or is blocked or banned. In these situations I typically either put it on the article talk page and/or the project covering the page.--Rockfang (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's just a courtesy to alert the relevant people about an image that may be deleted. Some (or most) uploaders are not aware of Wikipedia's image policies so it's best to notify both the uploader and the talk page of the article in which the image was used. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Music commoners crown.jpg
The fair use rationale for this image has been clarified and expanded. Nickaubert (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Removing Images
Please do not hide images like you did on Final Fantasy VII. If the image does not have a proper rationale, then either give it one, or place a notice on the talk page. Hiding the image does not solve the problem. --PresN (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- A non-free image cannot be used in an article if it does not have a corresponding rationale. At the time, the image did not. So I did indeed fix the problem by commenting out the image. If someone adds a non free image to an article, it it that user's responsbility to add a corresponding rationale.--Rockfang (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed prod from Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth, it had a prod removed on it once before
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atamachat 00:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Christina Milian
I noticed that you removed the audio of the song "Dip it Low". Instead of just removing it, or hiding it, couldn't you have added the fair use rationale yourself? I'm not sure how to do it, and you could have easily done it. Corn.u.co.pia (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Whoever added it to the article is responsible for adding a proper rationale.--Rockfang (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Help regarding bold in watchlists
{{helpme}} On WoWWiki when I view my watchlist, new changes are bolded. How do I do that here?--Rockfang (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe you would check the "Enhanced Recent Changes" box under the recent changes tab of your preferences. You can also look here for an idea on another way. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- If that does not do it ask over at Wikipedia talk:Watchlist help. They will know for sure. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your first suggestion totally changed my watchlist. That is not what I want. I would just like page names to be bolded if they are updated since I last viewed my watchlist. The page you mentioned in your final suggestion hasn't been used in 2 years. The page it links to hasn't been used since June of '07 (with the exception of 1 section). Do you have any other suggestions?--Rockfang (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- This sounds like an extension that your other Wiki uses, but Wikipedia does not. I'd suggest contacting an administrator on WoWWiki - they may be able to give you the name of the extension which does this, which you can look up on the MediaWiki site, and (possibly) copy the javascript code into your personal script file. I'm not sure if this will work or not, so I'll leave the template up. If it gets removed, assume someone else read this and thought it a good idea as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information and suggestion. I have asked the question here. Hopefully someone there will be able to assist me.--Rockfang (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good to hear - hopefully that helps. Since the helper bot on IRC is getting a bit annoying, I'll go ahead and take the helpme down - if things don't go as well as planned, let us know again. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Try User:Ais523/watchlistnotifier.js.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- You can add that script by typing {{subst:js}} on Special:Mypage/monobook.js (which is your personal scripts file; you should only add scripts writen by users you trust). That script has two effects; one is the watchlist bolding as you request (it bolds all changes since last time you viewed your watchlist, which isn't quite what you asked for but is easier to implement and almost the same), the other is a message at the top of your screen (like the new messages bar, but much smaller and less obtrusive) whenever your watchlist has changed since you last looked at it. (If you like, I can make a stripped-down version of the script that just has the bolding). The script is also incapable of remembering what to bold when you close your web browser (as it works using temporary cookies), but that only affects the first time you view your watchlist after opening your browser. The bolding that you're used to is part of the same code that handles email notifications, and isn't installed here for performance reasons (it's also on Meta, if I remember correctly), so an separate script is the only way to gain a similar effect. Hope that helps! --ais523 14:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I added it. Thanks for the help. Could you make a stripped down version like you mentioned above? With just the bolding part?
Also, if anyone else reads this, the code to add the "full version" to your Special:Mypage/monobook.js is {{subst:User:ais523/watchlistnotifier.js}}Use the better suggestion below. --Rockfang (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I added it. Thanks for the help. Could you make a stripped down version like you mentioned above? With just the bolding part?
- You can add that script by typing {{subst:js}} on Special:Mypage/monobook.js (which is your personal scripts file; you should only add scripts writen by users you trust). That script has two effects; one is the watchlist bolding as you request (it bolds all changes since last time you viewed your watchlist, which isn't quite what you asked for but is easier to implement and almost the same), the other is a message at the top of your screen (like the new messages bar, but much smaller and less obtrusive) whenever your watchlist has changed since you last looked at it. (If you like, I can make a stripped-down version of the script that just has the bolding). The script is also incapable of remembering what to bold when you close your web browser (as it works using temporary cookies), but that only affects the first time you view your watchlist after opening your browser. The bolding that you're used to is part of the same code that handles email notifications, and isn't installed here for performance reasons (it's also on Meta, if I remember correctly), so an separate script is the only way to gain a similar effect. Hope that helps! --ais523 14:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Try User:Ais523/watchlistnotifier.js.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good to hear - hopefully that helps. Since the helper bot on IRC is getting a bit annoying, I'll go ahead and take the helpme down - if things don't go as well as planned, let us know again. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information and suggestion. I have asked the question here. Hopefully someone there will be able to assist me.--Rockfang (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- This sounds like an extension that your other Wiki uses, but Wikipedia does not. I'd suggest contacting an administrator on WoWWiki - they may be able to give you the name of the extension which does this, which you can look up on the MediaWiki site, and (possibly) copy the javascript code into your personal script file. I'm not sure if this will work or not, so I'll leave the template up. If it gets removed, assume someone else read this and thought it a good idea as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
[outdent] Reply to comment on talkpage: No problem, glad I could help. Oh one more thing, just writing {{subst:User:ais523/watchlistnotifier.js}} isn't the best idea, while it does work, any new changes made by ais523 won't be transfered to your monobook.js it would be better to import them using importScript('User:ais523/watchlistnotifier.js'); or even simplier use {{subst:js|User:ais523/watchlistnotifier.js}}.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. Makes sense.--Rockfang (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't tested it, but {{subst:js}} ought to work as a stripped-down version of watchlistnotifier.js, if I haven't made a mistake. (You'll have to remove watchlistnotifier to use the stripped-down version, as they conflict with each other.) Send me a talkpage notice if I have made a mistake, because otherwise I quite possibly won't notice. --ais523 21:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Comgall
The original 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain, so while it's pretty useless to have copied the St. Comgall article - available on Wikisource) - it isn't a copyvio. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Tag removed
Hi, please would you explain why you removed this tag on Empty vessel? - Fayenatic (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Explaining why I did what I did would be pointless, because it has already been reverted and I don't want to get into a revert/edit war.--Rockfang (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
All Time Low image
I replied on my talk page, but short answer: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 January 31/Images Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Adding functions to other user's pages
Hello,
Noticed you tried to help out Moshikal by adding an archive function to his talk page.
While it may be a good idea for him to archive his page, doing it is his choice. By all means suggest that he may want to archive or weed his talk, but you don't have the right to add or alter functionality on another editor's User-space pages.
- J Greb (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'll repeat: It's his page. You adding a function that will remove things, possibly before he has a chance to remove it is a statement that it isn't his page.
- His page his right to chose how he maintainse it and not have another editor fore thier solution on it.
- - J Greb (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a policy that states that what I'm doing is wrong? It's not like I'm completely deleting his talk page or blanking it. A user's page and talk page can be edited by anyone. Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space --Rockfang (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Stop and think. And I mean real think hard. You are imposing your standards on another used talk page. You are making dicisions for them in stead of suggesting that they might want to do some thing.
- Also, see Help:Archiving a talk page, second paragraph. You are not consensus. - J Greb (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a policy that states that what I'm doing is wrong? It's not like I'm completely deleting his talk page or blanking it. A user's page and talk page can be edited by anyone. Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space --Rockfang (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Nettie Moore closure
It's not normal to close an AfD after 12 hours or less with only two responses unless it's clearly disruptive or frivolous. Looking back, I realize that it was a bit frivolous (but not in a vandal-ish way) to have put those songs up for AfD anyway, and that I should've just redirected in the first place. (This is why we don't stay up editing until the wee hours!) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- No worries here. Was just curious. Thanks for the reply.--Rockfang (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
invite
LukeTheSpook (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Image:Blackparaemcrse.jpg
Could you elaborate on what specifically? I can't find that anything is missing from the rationale myself, which is why I declined the speedy. I have just deleted the old version of the image, which I probably should have done previously, but I don't see any reason to delete the current version. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. I'll go through the items one by one.
- 1.What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage?
- Neither are addressed in the rationale.
- 2.To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image?
Lex Luthor
Hi - I restored the NFIO tag to the article, but unlike most editors I deal with on fair-use issues it appears you have a good grasp of the policy. So ... can we justify 12 non-free images on this article? Black Kite 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I think some of them can be justfied. I think the ones in the Origin, Relationships, One Year Later and Countdown could all be removed though. I don't think they depict anything much different than the infox image.--Rockfang (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema#Request_for_Comment_-_Integrate_two_versions
--Skyelarke (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, but with that article I was just interested in the removal of unsourced comments.--Rockfang (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Brainiac Ship.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Brainiac Ship.jpg. 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) 12:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
maybe he was born in Australia? ;)
When you have a moment, could you explain the WP:AUS part of this edit?--Rockfang (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Rockfang! The article is in the [[Category:Fictional Australians]], which is on the list of categories the bot is going through to add banners. If you have any more questions, let me know on my User talk:SatyrTN talk page? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
{{Prod-2}}
No problem. :) Thanks for letting me know about the proposed deletion of Moruth Doole - looking at that article, I don't know why I didn't try deleting it myself, but I'm just glad someone did! Terraxos (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images
Regarding this edit, please note that all the images on that page have been resolved. Three of the four blue lins are on Commons (so can't be dealt with from here) and the remaining one has been determined to be validly available under a free license. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Cry-of_karawan.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cry-of_karawan.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. Rockfang (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- My rationale was that This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots.
If that is not acceptable, please delete the file, many thanks .--Ghaly (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest reading WP:RAT. It shows what an image rationale consists of.--Rockfang (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Isthmian_League.jpg
I have tagged Image:Isthmian_League.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Er, if you bothered looking at the history of the image, you'd find that I did not add the fair use rationale. There was no requirement for one back when I uploaded the image. I know the rationale isn't valid now, but it really is nothing to do with me. I just do not understand why the original uploader of the image is always held responsible for any subsequent changes to fair use rules that invalidate every image on Wikipedia. I'm sick of it. It would be much easier — and more useful to Wikipedia — if editors who find invalid fair use rationales fixed them, rather than whining to users who have probably forgotten that they uploaded the image in the first place. - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Two pics of Murton
Hi, you tagged a couple of my pics last night: Image:Murtoncolliery.jpg and Image:Oldpic.jpg. They are both from the archives of the Sunderland Echo. I thought I had made that clear on upload, but probably hadn't. I've had another go, hope that they are OK now.--seahamlass 09:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just looked at them, and they look fine. FYI, if you want to link to images, you can type them in like a normal wikilink, just put a : before the word image.
- This: [[:Image:Oldpic.jpg]] will show up as Image:Oldpic.jpg--Rockfang (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That change
I marked it as vandalism because you removed a whole paragraph. Not just a typo. Superstarwarsfan (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh duh :P Wow am I stupid. Sorry about that Superstarwarsfan (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair Use Rationale tagging
Hi Rockfang. Recently you tagged some audio samples I uploaded (Image:Rammstein - Bestrafe mich (sample).ogg, Image:Rammstein - Ohne dich (sample).ogg, Image:Rammstein - Zwitter (sample).ogg) with {{no rationale}}. It is fortunate that I am still around to defend and update my edits. When an editor is no longer around to maintain his work, does that mean it should all be deleted because no one else could be bothered to update it for consistency with current policy?
These files do, in fact, have rationales, despite the fact that they are not tagged with {{Non-free use rationale}}. I urge you to use more discretion when tagging media for deletion. Rather than robotically applying the destructive {{no rationale}} tag it would be better if you inserted {{Non-free use rationale}} and moved the existing information into the proper fields. This does take more time, and in some cases you may have to add {{no rationale}} anyways, but you would avoid undoing others' work. ~MDD4696 17:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is the uploader's responsibilty to make sure media files they upload follow and keep up to date with policy.--Rockfang (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- When I tag images or other media with various templates, I am helping people out. I typically notify them on their user talk page letting them know that something they uploaded may be deleted soon. If I didn't notify them, the chances of their media being deleted increases. In a sense, I'm helping out the community twice. By making sure media on wikipedia is up to standards and also by making sure editors media contributions don't go to waste.--Rockfang (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
regarding this change
Indeed there is a rationale there. According to wikipedia policy Wikipedia:NFCC#10c (which I mentioned in the article and in my edit summary) there needs to be a separate detailed rationale for each use. There is no rationale on the image's page that corresponds to Bahram Bayzai. The only rationale there deals with Bashu, the Little Stranger.--Rockfang (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Heads up
Thanks Sometimes I get a little ahead of myself. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for fixing my edit to Image:MashEpisode72.jpg. Wikipedia:NFCC is such a trainwreck of half-legalese and mumbo-jumbo, I didn't notice the "separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item"" down in section 10, subsection c, in the middle of the paragraph. (-: Thx. — MrDolomite • Talk 21:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit weird
I like to keep red linked categories on my user page. There are a few of us out here. Thanks for telling me about it. - LA @ 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
{{CPI(M)-politician-stub}}
Sorry -- I should be less terse in my posts. :) A new template, {{CPIndiaMarxist-politician-stub}}, has replaced {{CPI(M)-politician-stub}}, so the latter type needs to be orphaned, i.e., removed from all articles and replaced with the former type. "Upmerging" is done by creating a template but using a higher-level category for it to feed into. For example, currently {{Blekinge-geo-stub}} on an article deposits it into Cat:Sweden geography stubs, because there aren't yet enough articles on Blekinge County geography for it to merit its own category. I hope this makes sense. Thanks for your message - Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- , Yes, replace is the last step. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: thanks for the laugh :)
I wondered whether anyone would spot that comment :) Grutness...wha? 06:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Metabolic pathways discussions
Hi there! It's at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/March/19. There's also an older discussion at Discoveries. To find these, click on the template link; when you get to the template, select "What links here" from the frame on the left, and either browse through or use the "namespace" option to select Wikipedia pages. Something from Deletion or Discoveries should show up. I'll try to remember to post those once the logs are removed. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Fun, fun, fun
See my additions to your comments at Koavf's talk page. As you can see, this is an ongoing problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
