User talk:Schneelocke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTES

Every page I protect is on the wrong version, of course, so to conserve valuable electrons, just leave a link to the page and a number from the list. Thanks.

Please add new messages at the bottom of this page, and sign them using ~~~~. Thank you!

For older talk page material, please see:

/Archive1 - May 26 2003 - February 27 2004
/Archive2 - March 16 2004 - November 8 2004
/Archive3 - November 9 2004 - July 6 2005
/Archive4 - July 17 2005 - November 16 2006
/Archive5 - December 6 2006 - February 27 2007

1 Commons
2 Image tagging for Image:Linamedina2.jpg
3 Clock Crew, not notable?
4 21 gun salute
5 Unspecified source for Image:Friedrich wilhelm krüger.jpg
6 Placing my work on other language wikipedias.
7 Derren Brown and ToT
8 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ch951231.jpg)
9 Fair use rationale for Image:Ch951231.jpg
10 Eurovision 2007
11 Criticism sections
12 Jia-Ching Li
13 Image:Schmitttrigger_symbol.png listed for deletion
14 Image:Schmitttrigger.png listed for deletion
15 Non-free use disputed for Image:Knorkator zualt cover.jpg
16 Blondi
17 Unspecified source for Image:Escher-selfportrait.jpg
18 Thanks for the sorting class
19 My RfB
20 Thank you!
21 {{Whisky-stub}}
22 Ingo Molnár
23 Fair use rationale for Image:Ds megamix.jpg
24 WikiProject Furry
25 Fair use rationale for Image:Smb2j1.png
26 Fair use rationale for Image:Smb2j 5-2 warpzone.png
27 Re: Thanks!
28 Re: Odd order Theorem
29 Template cleanup
30 Fridrich Method
31 AfD nomination of Fridrich Method
32 Fair use rationale for Image:Tarkus.jpg
33 Fair use rationale for Image:PicturesAtAnExhibition.jpg
34 Fair use rationale for Image:EmersonLakeAndPalmerLiveAtTheIsleOfWightFestival1970.jpg
35 Fair use rationale for Image:TheBestOfEmersonLakeAndPalmer.jpg
36 Image source problem with Image:Karlbrandt.jpg
37 Fair use rationale for Image:4375.png
38 Fair use rationale for Image:Q4 spear.jpg
39 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gruene-bundestag-10.png)
40 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gruene-bundestag-11.png)
41 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gruene-bundestag-12.png)
42 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gruene-bundestag-13.png)
43 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gruene-bundestag-14.png)
44 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gruene-bundestag-15.png)
45 Redirect of Basic Pokemon
46 Speedy deletion of Template:Kiel infobox
47 Speedy deletion of Template:Luebeck infobox
48 Merge RSA numbers?
49 Bad group prod
50 Speedy deletion of Template:Boxed
51 Speedy deletion of Template:33ff33
52 1 E-24 s
53 AfD nomination of COMPET-N
54 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Smb2j 5-2 warpzone.png)
55 Speedy deletion of Codfish
56 CfD nomination of Category:Folk metal groups

[edit] Commons

For anyone who might have doubts, yes, commons:User:Schneelocke is me. :P -- Schneelocke 23:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Linamedina2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Linamedina2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clock Crew, not notable?

The Clock Crew is definately notable, having independantly released two cds and raised money for charity, as well as having place in Internet culture and other things.

I think that the Clock Crew is more notable than the furry fandom, for Christ's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDClock (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. -- Schneelocke 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And your a huge furry faggot :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.178.148 (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 21 gun salute

You added {{Globalize/Eng}} to 21 gun salute article. Can you explain, on the talk page of that article? —mako (talk•contribs) 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It primarily deals with the English-speaking world only. What more is there to explain? -- Schneelocke 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Friedrich wilhelm krüger.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Friedrich wilhelm krüger.jpg. 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, then 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, then 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-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 10:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Svencb 10:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Placing my work on other language wikipedias.

Hi Schneelocke, In reply to your question there are several reasons for my asking people to contact me before placing images on other language wikis. Firstly the GNU FLA gives artists the right to have images they created cited back to them. My asking people not to upload the page to other wiki's without contacting me is between a binding agreement and a polite request. I can't stipulate under the GNU FLA that people MUST contact me but its important to me that the citation remain whatever wiki it is located on. Its something people uploading to other wiki's frequently forget and so thats why I ask that I be contacted rather than just explain this as people don't see it or ignore it. Why is it so important? Because many of my diagrams have been used in work which I have submitted for my university degree or earlier college courses. Having them on wikipedia obviously means the university may worry that I have actually stolen someone elses work from the internet and masqueraded it as my own. I dont mean to 'blow my own trumpet' but the quality of my work and its presence on the internet has obviously raised concerns with them in the past, and so when I upload work it is vital its properly cited so to avoid any confussion over who has made it. To this extent, having links back to me here is incredibly important as I'm sure you can see. Its also why I say where I'm from and what I'm doing on my talk page, its all to cover my backside.

There is of course another aspect to it all, and this is that I have versions of these images without any text on them which will be more appropriate to other language wikipedias. So if people contact me first I can often offer them supreior diagrams. I hope this explains my position on this more clearly. I am hoping soon to petition to change policy to make referencing diagrams to their creators a little tighter as many people are in my position, where they don't want exposure for their work but they do need it to be 100% cited correctly. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there's nothing wrong with requiring attribution for your work - in fact, the GNU FDL requires that to be given, too. I can certainly understand your position, but I was wondering about the apparent contradiction.

As for the rest, why not just upload the images to the Wikimedia Commons in the first place? That way, they're accessible from all Wikimedia projects (including all Wikipedias), and you don't have to worry about anyone uploading them elsewhere without crediting you (which would be a violation of the GNU FDL, anyway). -- Schneelocke 07:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derren Brown and ToT

Thanks for your contribution to this debate. Please check the page regularly and continue to add to the discussion. Coolmark18 10:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ch951231.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ch951231.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer (yes, I'm aware I'm replying to a bot); I originally added the picture to the "Calvin and Hobbes" article, and put it back in now since it apparently vanished. -- Schneelocke 16:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ch951231.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ch951231.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.

BTW, it was removed with mention on the Talk page. Anomie 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with 2., 4. and 5., at least. With regard to 2., I think that 800x552 pixels is a low resolution, since it is not sufficient to allow the strip to be reprinted in a decent quality in anything except for a small size (and if there is disagreement over this, the image could just be reuploaded in an even lower resolution); with regard to 5., the tag says "[t]his image is from a comic strip, or from the cover or interior of a comic book", and while it gives single panels as an example of what might be considered fair use, the list of examples is merely informative, not exhaustive; and with regard to 4., the fact that the publisher does not give permission is wholly irrelevant for the question of whether use of copyrighted material is fair use (in fact, if you have permission, you don't need to argue about fair use at all).

I'm not sure about 1. and 3. The fact that the publisher sells individual strips does not, IMO, mean much, since it still is only one strip out of 3160, but IANAL, and it could be argued that it does. As for 3., I do believe that the strip does add significantly to an article that otherwise contains no strip at all, but again, this is just my opinion.

That being said, I'm not going to be stubborn about this; if others think the image shouldn't be used and/or isn't necessary, I won't mind if it's deleted, but I'll still say that I am 100% convinced that it IS valid fair use. -- Schneelocke 20:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eurovision 2007

Eurovision 2007

Let's be very practical and spread the message widely

vote for west europe to save the contest

VOTES ONLY FOR SPAIN- FRANCE- SWEDEN- FINLAND- IRELAND- UNITED KINGDOM- GERMANY-

I'm not voting for my Favorite Moldova, Ukarine & Georgia

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Littledaniel_93" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Littledaniel 93 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

"West Europe"? "Save the contest"? Bugger off and take your racism/xenophobia elsewhere, please. -- Schneelocke 10:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism sections

this does seem to get used as a "no material that doesn't portray the article's subject in a positive light, please" template

The template was just created two weeks ago, and looks to be in only ten articles so far. Which ones are you referring to? — Omegatron 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell. It's actually been removed from that one now, it seems, but it was attached to the "controversial remarks" section. I think that's a bad development - if someone makes controversial remarks (where "controversial" means that they actually create controversies), and if those remarks are themselves important enough to warrant a mention in the subject's article (actually pretty much a given if they cause a major controversy at least), then it's not an NPOV problem if Wikipedia reports on this controversy. -- Schneelocke 07:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course the remarks should be mentioned in the article. The template nowhere implies that criticism should be removed altogether, does it?
I agree that these remarks work pretty well in their own section. Would it be better to split them up, though? More neutral section titles might be "September 11th remarks", "Civil rights movement", and "Teletubbies", and then put these sections in chronological order with the rest of the article. The "Falwell and apartheid" section, for instance, isn't included in that section, even though it also contains "controversial remarks". I think it's better in its own section.
Even if this use of the template can be seen as an abuse, though, does that really mean the template should be deleted? Do you think that it is impossible to use this template in a beneficial way? {{NPOV}} is abused constantly; should we delete that, too? — Omegatron 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not so much about whether the template can be abused but whether it can be used in a constructive and useful way. {{NPOV}} can, but I'm not convinced about this one. -- Schneelocke 19:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the template is under discussion on the talk page. — Omegatron 17:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jia-Ching Li

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jia-Ching Li, the goat/soy yogurt appears to be a paper he wrote. There is no evidence it was ever widely used or commercialized. Please review the evidence. Thanks. --Macrakis 14:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Schmitttrigger_symbol.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Schmitttrigger_symbol.png, 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. Selket ^Talk 14:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Schmitttrigger.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Schmitttrigger.png, 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. Selket ^Talk 15:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Knorkator zualt cover.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Knorkator zualt cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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.

Geez, it's a fsckin' album cover. What kind of detailed fair use rationale do you need? The templates for these things are there for a REASON. >_< -- Schneelocke 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blondi

I am the author who left the note on Blondi. I did this in good faith and because I wanted the readers to see it. The research I did for the opening chapter was thorough and based upon a supposition. I was not after any free publicity because I don't need it (the book was recented reviewed by the Liverpool Echo and called an Imaginative Debut. I also found your dismissal of self-published work to be a little bit patronising. I chose to self-publish, not because I'd been turned down by everybody, but because I wanted a bit more control over the process. The idea of publishing and distributing ones own work will still remain with the big conglomorates if people have attitudes such as yours (just remember that by using Wikipedia you are also doing self-publishing, with no more validity than anybody else). I'm shocked by your negativity instead of your encouragement. This is not meant to be an angry piece, but a slightly sad one T Harries Author of Zeegpaw - currently in about a 100 school libraries and read by a goodly number of readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.216.249 (talk • contribs).

Don't get het up, please. I was neither ragging on the book as such (although I doubt it's one I'd read) nor on self-publishing books instead of getting an established publishing house to do it. However, Wikipedia has a clear mission and purpose: namely, to create an encyclopaedia, and among other things, this means that we only have articles on subjects that meet certain notability guidelines. A self-published book by an unknown author generally will not meet these, and while providing encouragement to authors and other people is nice, creating an encyclopaedia will always take precedence - I'm sure you'll understand that.

Also, writing articles on topics you're personally affiliated with is generally frowned upon; it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view when there's a conflict of interest, and in fact, it's dangerously close (at best) to advertising.

I know that getting an article you wrote in good faith deleted can hurt, but don't take it personally. :) And also, look at this way: if your book (or you) really becomes notable, somebody else will write an article about it (or you) sooner or later. -- Schneelocke 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Escher-selfportrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Escher-selfportrait.jpg. 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, then 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, then 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:Fair use, 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 00:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Justin Foote 00:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the sorting class

Thanks for putting the Help:Sorting class on the crime by city articles. That's one of the niftiest little toys I've seen on Wikipedia. I was surprised that when I created the articles I structured them so that it could be done so simply. Knowledge of that toy is going to create all sorts of mischief for me now! ;-) Thanks again! Americasroof 17:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Yeah, it's quite nifty, isn't it? One of those hidden little gems that really needs to get more exposure... :) -- Schneelocke 18:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

Thank you, Schneelocke, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Hús ö nd 23:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Obrigado, Schneelocke, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Hús ö nd 23:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos
Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

You're certainly welcome! I'm sorry to hear that you didn't make it... -- Schneelocke 07:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad you made it. :) -- Schneelocke 12:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Whisky-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first!

PS - as to the "why not?" edit summary, mainly because of the number of stubs - there need to be 60 currently existing stubs on a subject for a new category to be desirable for stub-sorting purposes. A more general spirits-drink-stub might have been a better option. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but I doubt I will do that in the future. If there's room for improvement, I will dive in, be bold and do just that (improve things) rather than asking for permission to do so first. That's not to say that discussing things is generally a bad idea, of course, but I neither feel that I (or anyone) should be required to ask permission for making changes nor that introducing new stub types to make it easier for people interested in certain topics to jump and work on those things is a bad thing. (Do consider a whisk(e)y afficionado who wants to help out by improving whisk(e)y-related articles. Do you really think he's gonna jump in and look through the literally thousands of articles in the Drink stubs category to find those that he's interested in? There's a reason why we have different stub types instead of just {{stub}}.) -- Schneelocke 08:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ingo Molnár

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Ingo Molnár, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ds megamix.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ds megamix.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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Furry

Looking for something to do? WikiProject Furry is improving articles on furry and anthropomorphic topics, and we'd like to have you on board.

Our current goal is to raise Anthrocon, furry convention and furry fandom to good article status and beyond - but if that doesn't take your fancy, there are plenty of other articles to work on. Give it a go and let us know how you're doing!

You received this one-time invitation because you are a Furry Wikipedian. GreenReaper 23:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Smb2j1.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Smb2j1.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.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Smb2j 5-2 warpzone.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Smb2j 5-2 warpzone.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.

Both this and the above already have a fair use rationale. -- Schneelocke 07:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks!

I've just replied to you on my Talk: page — OwenBlacker 11:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And again ;o) — OwenBlacker 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Odd order Theorem

I didn't make that statement, but it probably refers to the recent proof by Aschbacher and Smith of the so called "quasi-thin" result. ( I omit the details of the result, but it is a final step in the classification program). The result is available electronically and is due to appear as a monograph soon if it hasn't already. Messagetolove 21:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -- Schneelocke 08:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template cleanup

It seems at some point you created several templates for chemical infoboxes. All of them are now unused. Would you have any objection to me deleting them (listed below)? Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, please go right ahead. It's a bit sad that these were apparently never really used, but as long as the elements' articles have their infoboxen, I suppose everything's fine. :) -- Schneelocke 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fridrich Method

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Fridrich Method, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Oli Filth 22:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Fridrich Method

Fridrich Method, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Fridrich Method satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fridrich Method and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Fridrich Method during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Oli Filth 11:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tarkus.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.

There you go, although I've got to say I have no idea why people consider it necessary that the same points are repeated for each and every album cover used for an album we've got an article on. Ah well. -- Schneelocke (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PicturesAtAnExhibition.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.

Again? I'm really tempted to just say {{sofixit}} now. :P -- Schneelocke (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:EmersonLakeAndPalmerLiveAtTheIsleOfWightFestival1970.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:EmersonLakeAndPalmerLiveAtTheIsleOfWightFestival1970.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.

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

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TheBestOfEmersonLakeAndPalmer.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.

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Karlbrandt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Karlbrandt.jpg. 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 02:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:4375.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:4375.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.

{{sofixit}} -- Schneelocke (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me to fix it, it is your job as the uploader of these images to fix it, not mine. — Save_Us_229 00:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly. That makes about as much sense as noticing a typo in an article someone else wrote and then posting about their talk page about it instead of going in and fixing it. Has it ever occurred to you that Wikipedia is a COLLABORATIVE effort? And for that matter, has it ever occurred to you that it's not me personally who's using this image, but Wikipedia as a whole? If it's fair use, then anyone can (and, if they care about it, arguably should) go and provide a rationale for that - it doesn't have to be me. And that's doubly true considering that there's already a boilerplate template on there that says why it is fair use. I know some people think that that's not enough for unfathomable reasons, but I don't: for me, it's enough. So if you disagree with that, good for you - I guess -, but I don't care. So either go ahead and fix these, or don't, but whatever you do, don't expect me to care about this waste of time. (And on a side note, for someone who states on their userpage that they're "not an editor who will accept template messages on [their] talk page", you sure seem to use them a lot yourself.) -- Schneelocke (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Q4 spear.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Q4 spear.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.

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gruene-bundestag-10.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gruene-bundestag-10.png. 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. — Save_Us_229 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gruene-bundestag-11.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gruene-bundestag-11.png. 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. — Save_Us_229 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gruene-bundestag-12.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gruene-bundestag-12.png. 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. — Save_Us_229 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gruene-bundestag-13.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gruene-bundestag-13.png. 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. — Save_Us_229 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gruene-bundestag-14.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gruene-bundestag-14.png. 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. — Save_Us_229 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gruene-bundestag-15.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gruene-bundestag-15.png. 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. — Save_Us_229 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect of Basic Pokemon

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Basic Pokemon, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Basic Pokemon is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Basic Pokemon, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Kiel infobox

A tag has been placed on Template:Kiel infobox 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>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Luebeck infobox

A tag has been placed on Template:Luebeck infobox 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.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge RSA numbers?

The content of Category:RSA Factoring Challenge is RSA Factoring Challenge, and 54 stubs about individual RSA numbers. The RSA factoring challenge ended in 2007 while most of the numbers were still unfactored. Maybe they will still be factored when it becomes feasible, but the interest in them now appears limited, and all 54 articles seem likely to remain in Category:Cryptography stubs. I'm considering to officially propose a merger of all 54 into a new article called RSA numbers or List of RSA numbers. There can be a detailed lead with common things, and each number can then get its own section with same name as the current stub. The stubs can redirect directly to the section about them. Many of the external links about successful factorizations could be changed to inline references so they remain tied to the number. The category would only have 2 articles left (including the new list), so I suggest to delete it if the merger is made. You appear to have created most or all of the articles and I would like your input before going further with the idea. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm feeling ambivalent about this. On one hand, you've got a good point; it's unlikely that most of these articles will grow significantly. On the other hand, I'm a follower of the "one concept, one article" school of thought, so I'm not generally a fan of merging and deleting articles just because they're stubs (whoever said stubs are necessarily bad, anyway?).

But I can also see why there's little reason to keep an article if there really isn't anything in it that hasn't already been in said (and, for that matter, should be said) in a more general article providing an overview over the topic in question. -- Schneelocke (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the 54 numbers is basically one concept. The only thing I suggest to remove when merging is redundancies. Keep the current details like decimal expansions, known factorizations, who found them, how, when. Seeing it together seems more reader friendly to me than 54 articles with the same opening, a decimal expansion, and essentially nothing else for all the unfactored numbers. I also think most of the current stubs (at least all the unfactored numbers) fail Wikipedia:Notability on their own. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To be quite blunt, I don't care in the slightest about WP:N, but I otherwise am inclined to agree with what you wrote (as said above already). As far as I'm concerned, I'd not be opposed to a merge; I wouldn't initiate it myself, but if you want to go ahead, I wouldn't disagree with that. -- Schneelocke (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made the proposal at Talk:RSA numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have performed the merger to RSA numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad group prod

I added a proposed deletion template to the article Bad group, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. The concerns are mostly that the article is less than a dictionary definition after about four years. Feel free to remove the prod. If this article does interest you, it could definitely use expansion (connected group is undefined, as mentioned on talk page, unreferenced, no context). Certainly more should be said than an unreferenced partial definition, but my quick read through google's results showed it would be hard to do more than this. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Bad group, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

REB fixed this by making it a redirect to the conjecture that they don't exist. JackSchmidt (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Boxed

A tag has been placed on Template:Boxed 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.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:33ff33

A tag has been placed on Template:33ff33 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.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1 E-24 s

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 1 E-24 s, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of 1 E-24 s. (I did not propose deletion; I'm only telling you about it.) Fg2 (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of COMPET-N

An article that you have been involved in editing, COMPET-N, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMPET-N. Thank you. Visor (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Smb2j 5-2 warpzone.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Smb2j 5-2 warpzone.png. 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. NotifyBot (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Codfish

A tag has been placed on Codfish, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TheMile (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Folk metal groups