User talk:SteveBaker/archive1

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.

Procuring images

Steve, thanks for your suggestions on Talbot Tagora images. I actually know that all, if you'd look at the sources of the Tagora article you'd find the Simca Talbot Club there :D I was just focusing on procuring some other images (have quite many from one forum already), and I am really looking forward to seeing your email to the AMC Matador guy, the boilerplate ones I linked to in the WikiProject discussion aren't really that great. I don't speak French, so the French sources are quite out of the question (unless I get some French-speaking Wikipedian to help me), but there is one guy in the UK who seems to be a know-it-all on Tagoras and I think he had like three of them, I just need to dig out his email address.

Anyway, I would be really glad to know your opinion on the Tagora article in its entirety, the picture notwithstanding, especially now that the sentence was corrected. Perhaps you could say whether you totally object this nomination or maybe even conditionally support if a free picture is procured? I also think this whole picture discussion is quite irrelevant to the nomination, so if you share my thoughts on that perhaps we could move it here :D

What do you think about my idea about institutionalizing the Free Picture Procurement process, with a bit of a competition spirit, trying to beat the general targets and also to be the first to "complete the brand" you selected? Bravada, talk - 19:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. I know I owe you the section on Mini Spiritual concept cars. I'll get down to that when I'm done with the current business!

I'm not sure where this 'boilerplate' thing came from - I never wrote a boilerplate message for people to send. In fact, I think it's better not to do that - let's be more personal - show that we care. What I actually did in the AMC Matador case was to send an eBay 'question for seller' to the guy that was selling his Matador. It simply said: "This is a bit cheeky - but would you mind if I used the main photo of your AMC Matador to illustrate the article on the Matador on Wikipedia? There isn't a single decent copyright-free image out there that I can find. Good luck with selling your car - it looks nice." - when he replied saying that is was OK - I asked him if he would release the image into the public domain without copyright restrictions and he replied that he would - and asked that I send him the URL of the article - which I did.

This technique works every time. I have a (non-Wikipedia) web page[1] for MINI Cooper owners where I attempted to get one photo of every possible paint scheme for the car (there are about 100 combinations!) - I asked dozens of people for photos, just asking nicely. I wasn't ever once refused by any car owner. The only refusal I ever got was when I asked the car manufacturer to use a photo of one of the cars from their web site! SteveBaker 20:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I guess it's a bit more complicated than that. I believe one needs to get a permission to release the pic into public domain with the full understanding of the issue from the author. I thought you have some ready lines on how to do that swiftly, but if not then I'll have to come up with something. I already committed a massive post explaining the issue to my fellow forum members and am already getting responses, so I guess I'll deal with that too :D Bravada, talk - 20:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve! I was wondering whether you got my email with my correspondence with Dave Chapman, and/or perhaps had some time to contact Dave yourself. I must say there are some really massive efforts by many users and persons I managed to talk into that :D to procure a Tagora image - as of now, I have replaced the brochure image with an outright publicity (press) photo and added a rationale following the example given by Outriggr. Do you believe the article as is is a good FA candidate? Could you perhaps express your view on its FAC page? Bravada, talk - 11:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like my Spam filters caught your message and dumped it into my low priority mail queue - sorry about that! I've tried a less formal approach and emailed Dave Chapman - we'll see how it goes. SteveBaker 13:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I must have really written too many Tagora photo requests and now I got categorized as junk mail :D Must work on the quality of my emails :D And how do you find the article now? Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve! As you might have seen, I have managed to finally get some free photos for the Tagora article. Perhaps you could take a look at the article now and see whether you still have reservations as concerns its FA nomination. I would be grateful for our definitive support or opposition - the Tagora is currently the first in line to be kicked out of the FAC list, and I would hate it to fall through because not enough "votes" were cast. Even if it's an "oppose" it would be good, as I hope you would give some directions as to how to improve the article further.

I was also wondering whether you got any reply from Dave Chapman, as I believe the article could still use more/better pictures. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 12:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No - I didn't get any kind of a reply. We need to find some other members of that club. SteveBaker 14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. In the meantime, I have found out that Keith Adams might actually have a Tagora [2], and he seems to have been behind the creation of the whole Rootes-Chrysler.co.uk site. He might actually be a WP editor, as the user who created his entry and several related ones has a login suspiciously similar to his email handle... Bravada, talk - 14:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mini photo

Hi, I notice you were a prominent part of shepherding the Mini articles to featured article status and thought you might like to take a look at another Mini photo showing a family receiving the keys to a brand new Morris Mini Minor. Don't they look psyched! Pedant 20:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! That is a VERY interesting photo - the car has no chrome grille - it's like the Mini pickup truck and van which had the grille removed to save money. Then there is that very exciting set of cow catchers around the front of the car. I've never seen a Mini like that. MANY *MANY* thanks for that photo. SteveBaker 12:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a Mk I Mini - but I don't think it can be 1959. Minis weren't sold in the USA until late in 1960 - but in any case, the badge on the bonnet is from a much later Mk I. Up until about 1965 cars either had the Morris badge or the Austin badge - they didn't get the 'MINI' badge until later still. I'm going to ask around some local experts and see if we can get a more accurate date. Where did you get the photo? SteveBaker 12:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you dramatically boost the image brightness you can see a bunch of Morris Minors in the background - so presumably this dealership sold lots of Morris cars (and yes - if you magnify the bonnet of the Mini, it's a Morris badge). SteveBaker 03:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh didn't know...

Happy Birthday Steve :D

World Jump Day

Thanks for adding that additional information onto the end of my comment (and moving my comment into a new section) about the numbers of people changing.

ArbCom

I noticed your comment on the page, yet there are many examples from above, even from edits on the page you refer to. This is a peculiar stand to take on the issue. --69.232.50.106 22:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I call 'em like I see 'em. Look at CoolCaesars posts to Talk:Computer and tell me what's wrong with them. I don't always agree with what he says (like the debate over what photo to use) - but he was polite and argued reasonably. That's not to say he doesn't 'lose it' from time to time - but all I've personally seen has been OK behavior. SteveBaker 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiarthurhu

I noticed you intend to take Wiarthurhu to mediation for violation of Wiki rules. There is an open User Conduct Request for Comment on Wiarthurhu: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wiarthurhu. You may find it of use (or not)--Mmx1 02:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And your opinon of the conduct of Karmann? I'm the one getting run out of town. --matador300 23:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You know this Mmx1 fellow has accepted that he was in the wrong on most of the points of dispute on the F-14, and he was the first fellow to demonsrate the sort of conduct I'm finding in spades on the automobile project. As a manager, do you think you could show some leadership and tone these guys down? Sheesh. No fun being chased by guys bearing pitchforks. --matador300 23:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not yet run into Mmx1 and have had little to do with Karmann - so I have no opinion. I also don't have an opinion about the F-14 kerfuffle. I don't edit aircraft pages because I design flight simulators for the US military - and I'm mortally afraid that I might accidentally let slip something I know about a plane that I'm not supposed to mention - and since I'm not a US citizen, that could wind me up in a dark cell somewhere on the coast of Cuba. So I'll stick with articles about cars, computers and other things that take my fancy. I will say this - the disputes over F-14 appear to closely mirror your behavior on Automotive pages - and since your behavior on those is utterly outrageous - I'm prepared to give the guys who oppose you on F-14 the benefit of the doubt - it's not about content it's about behavior - and in your case, I don't like what I see. So, no - I'm certainly not getting drawn into a debate about the nature of the F-14. SteveBaker 23:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out, the RfC is a User Conduct RfC, not a content RfC - specifically for addressing violations of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Having failed to reach compromise through the mediation process, I requested discussion of his conduct via a User Conduct RfC. While my experience with him and the posted diffs in my account were in relation to the aviation content which we disputed, all User Conduct issues are open to scrutiny in a User Conduct RfC. --Mmx1 01:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Chaparral pictures

Who do I have to ask to get an OK on posting models on that article, or should I just put on my flak jacket and helmet and see what happens? --matador300 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You completely miss the point of Wikipedia. You don't ask permission - you look at the WP guidelines - and if you think you are doing the right thing, you just 'be bold' and do it. However when someone reverts your work - you shouldn't get all defensive and paranoid - you should rationally discuss with the community of editors the reason it was reverted - and not get into revert wars by repeatedly reposting things that a majority of other editors think is wrong - no matter how right you personally believe you are. So it was not in any way "wrong" to post your pinewood derby racer onto AMC Matador the first time - it was a bold experiment that you evidently thought made sense. What was wrong (terribly wrong) was that after several other people (myself included) patiently explained that we felt it was unsuitable, you flew off into revert wars - diatribes about how everyone is out to get you, you posted the same photo in a couple of other inappropriate areas, you added junk text to try to further justify it, you accused me of vandalism, you violated WP:3RR, you engaged in flamefests about every change we made to the article...I could go on. That in turn got you a nasty reputation that's going to be exceedingly hard to shake off. Now you have a bad reputation (deservedly IMHO), your 'bold moves' just come off a bloody annoying and every time you do something like that, you'll have a battle on your hands. So for chrissakes don't put on your flak jacket, helmet and aspestos underwear and 'be bold'...now you have to play as a team member, do more listening than talking and wait for tempers to cool off. You've really upset a lot of normally mild-mannered people (me included). It's really quite hard for me to talk to you at all - let alone politely. Right now, I think a mandatory one year ban from the site would be the best fix for you...but I'm not an admin - so I don't get to do that. Better still would be if you just voluntarily took a Wikiholiday for six months. In short - PLEASE GO AWAY AND STOP ANNOYING ME! SteveBaker 14:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

AutoProject

Hi Steve, I thought I'd pop over here to make contact outwith the project page, to clear up that my recent post wasn't intended to undermine the work people have done in trying to deal with matador/warty/whatever name he's using, but really was aimed at maybe being read by him, and it was an attempt at a fresh approach. Maybe naiive, but I thought it was worth a try. Anyway, I feel like because of the way that it's written "to" everyone, maybe it's offended you, or made you feel the need to defend the process which has already been engaged in, and if so I'd like to apologise for that. I'd also ask that we stop discussing it over there, because that just makes it harder for me to appear to remain neutral without using weasel words, and undermines what I was trying to achieve. It's a silly situation: the more I write about it, the more I feel like I'm writing one of his diatribes! Cheers, – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly OK - I was not upset at all. I replied because you said that you hadn't been involved in the preceeding fracas. You suggested a perfectly reasonable approach - but truly we are way beyond that. If you trace back through all the history (and, trust me, you don't want to do that), you'll see that on several occasions we've tried to tone back the conversation - only to have this guy add a twenty paragraph diatribe against individuals on his user page or something. We get a consensus view with him over some article - he seems to accept that, waits a week, then sneaks his original text back in again. Clearly you were unaware of our efforts to do this - so your suggestion was good - but we are beyond that.

Your second suggestion that we take things through mediation was also a 100% correct statement of 'The Right Thing' - and I just wanted to reassure you that we are indeed doing exactly that. We are slowly and steadily proceeding through the Wikipedia processes - and sooner or later, one way or another, we'll get things back to normal.

I certainly didn't intend to sound hostile or critical to you - I just wanted to bring you up to speed on the progress so far. SteveBaker 17:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please contact me on IRC in #wikipedia-medcab or by e-mail at your earliest convenience. CQJ 17:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed you. (I'm IRC-averse) SteveBaker 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Barnkey.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Barnkey.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Automotive Barnstar

I can obviously see you know how to make excellent contributions for images used on Wikipedia. Congratulations on the design of the barnstar. --Will Mak 050389 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the honor - I shall carefully carry it over to my user page - being especially careful not to chip the paint. SteveBaker 17:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, but I'm sure you could touch it up if you needed to... You're welcome. --Will Mak 050389 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Mini pickup.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mini pickup.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 19:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Civil War

Why are you guys still fighting the civil war in Texas? Who cares about ugly, Dowdy A.M.C. cars anyway, nobody bought them except wasps and fags.

This is an encyclopedia. People come here to look things up. They don't only look up cool cars - sometimes they look up the lame ones too. So every article is important - and quality matters. The riot over on AMC Matador has less to do with the Matador than the principles at stake here. We have one participant in particular who has caused grief and upset in almost every area of Wikipedia that he's touched - the problems had to be resolved somewhere. AMC Matador happened to be one of those 'somewheres'. Sad but true. Predictably, the person in question ended up with a one week ban - time will tell whether that had the desired calming effect or whether we have to suffer more grief before a longer or even permenant ban is required. SteveBaker 02:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

harzardous auto activities

Woah there! You on IRC? --Interiot 12:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No - I dislike IRC. SteveBaker 12:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Better for real-time communication. Anyway, yes, per Category talk:Hazardous motor vehicle activities, there's a lot of overlap with Category:Driving techniques, but I hadn't intended to actually merge them... Does that delineation make some sense? I guess my gut feelnig on it (which isn't entirely encyclopedic) is that a lot of articles already fit naturally in Driving techniques, and shouldn't be copied to Hazardous. THere were some articles that could be wedged into Driving, but were actually reverted (somewhat rightly) when I tried to do so, and I think those should go into Hazardous instead. I can make Hazardous a subcategory of Driving to make that more explicit... though not all Hazardous are strictly driving techniques (eg. trunking, skitching) --Interiot 12:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No - I agree - I'm only adding the new cat to the hazardous ones. SteveBaker 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but things like Hill jumping... that's an important part of professional rallying... [3]

Whereas things like Doughnut (driving), I agree should be moved to Hazardous, since no rally driver uses it, and "driving technique" implies (at least to me) moving from point A to point B, which doughnuts aren't about.

Or maybe they should be merged because there's no encyclopedic way to break apart the two audiences (people interested in doing legal things on closed courses, and teenagers wanting to do risky things) --Interiot 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss it over on Category talk:Hazardous motor vehicle activities SteveBaker 12:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mini Cooper Technology section

Steve, I have been editing this section over the past few days. I removed the part of the sentence stating that the electrohydraulic steering gives better acceleration out of corners. Yes, it does indirectly take power from the engine by way of the alternator, but the effect is negligible. At idle, RPMs don't drop, like they do on a standard hydraulic power steering car, at least on my 06 Cooper S. If we must have that part of the sentence back, I would leave it at "gives better accelleration." or something to that effect. Thanks almabes

But saying that the electric power steering doesn't take power from the engine is VERY misleading. It takes exactly the same amount as a conventional power steering unit does. The difference is that the electric unit takes the power out continually - in small amounts - in the form of increased power demands from the alternator - instead of (as with conventional units) having power taken from the engine in one big chunk while you are actually steering the most. The consequences of that (and the specific reason for it) is that the MINI is designed to be fantastically great at cornering. So when you stomp on the gas at the same time as steering out of a corner, you don't get the characteristic loss in power due to driving the hydraulic steering pump - so instead of having 100% of engine power in the straights and 90% in the corners, you get maybe 99% all the time. Not what you'd want in a dragster - but great for a go-kart! I'll concede that the text that I put back could express this in a better way. But we absolutely can't say that the electric power steering doesn't take any engine power - that's just not true - it's a matter of WHEN it takes it, not how much it takes. Let's try to figure out a better way to phrase it that we can both live with.

If you drive your MINI VERY slowly for hours on a very twisty road - you can actually flatten the car battery! Some friends of mine were in a 4th July parade in downtown Dallas - and they were going at a walking pace - weaving in and out of each other's paths. After an hour or so they discovered that they didn't have power steering anymore and when they stopped to find out why - they couldn't restart the car without a jump start because the power steering had flattened the battery!! SteveBaker 21:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are a fellow 'S owner BTW! My '05 S Convertible is the orange one partway down the article. The green MINI parked just behind it is my old '03 hardtop which I sold just after I took that photo. There is a photo of my beloved (but horribly unreliable) '63 classic Mini at the top of the Mini article. SteveBaker 21:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I must have had ovens on my mind when I added cornering bake control...oops thanks for fixing it. almabes

Thanks for rewriting the 'FAKE BONNET SCOOP' sentences. Your version reads much better. almabes

Thanks for your text edits to my new input on the Mk II MINI - I liked them and it reads better now. Leedslad25 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Tux is male?

Thank you for rewording Tux's lead. Regarding Gown as a female alternative to Tux...is Tux male? I wouldn't state that Tux is gender-neutral, but perhaps you could point to the discussions that led to the introduction of Gown?--Chealer 00:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess nobody ever discussed Tux's gender - however, he is universally called 'he' and not 'she' - so it's a generally accepted fact. The discussions over 'Gown' went on many years ago between half a dozen amateur games writers (of whom I was one (TuxKart, Tux - A Quest for Herring), Jasmin Patry (TuxRacer), the guy who wrote 'XTux' (I forget his/her name) and the person who wrote SuperTux were all involved. We all pretty much agreed that we needed to share a set of common characters - and some conventions about what Tux likes and doesn't like, what things stand in for 'extra lives' and that kind of thing. The intent was to write a 'style guide' such as (for example) Nintendo maintains for Mario, etc. We all agreed on calling her 'Gown' - but there were issues for each of us with making her pink. In 2D games, she looked great as a pink penguin - but in 3D it was hard to make her look like a penguin at all.

So we eventually agreed to disagree. Most of the people who went with pink/purple 'girl' penguins called her 'Penny' and the 3D crowd called her 'Gown'. Of course a very large number of planned games never make it to the outside world - let alone getting "finished" - so in the end, only a couple of games actually used "Gown" and a couple of others "Penny".

As far as I know, the discussion was via private email - so I doubt we could find a concrete reference. But the fact that there are characters called 'Gown' in quite a few games is some kind of proof that this did indeed happen.

SteveBaker 03:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added a ^{[citation needed]} on the sentence explaining Gown's origin. If no one else can provide a reference, perhaps the content should be adapted. --Chealer 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I could probably find a document in which this was discussed - but it would be one that I wrote - which falls foul of the WP:NOR rule. SteveBaker 15:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for the information already.--Chealer 02:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Guess What...

		The Automotive Barnstar
		Hereby I award you this very first-ever Automotive Barnstar - obviously for creating it, which might sound simple but is really brilliant, as well as the countless "automotive" contributions to Wikipedia! Bravada, talk - 03:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks, I seriously wasn't expecting that! Gee, this whole thing looks quite a bit suspicious, if we were in my country, we would already have a special parliamentary commission going after us... But the award is too nice not to accept it! Thanks again, Bravada, talk - 10:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Water fuelled car

I have put a comment on your edits on the discussion page... Man with two legs 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Linux

I see you also like Linux! regards, a Linux user.(see tec of userpage) Widefox 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I've used it since the very first usable release that Linus made - and I was using Minix before that (recall that Minix was what Linus used to bootstrap Linux). I'm fortunate that I also get to use it in my job (I design graphics systems for flight simulators - we use Linux exclusively) - and at home we are a 'Microsoft-free-zone'! SteveBaker 14:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Tyre

thanks for the spelling fix on Tyre. It might finally be ready. If you have a shorter version of that line, it could do with it. Widefox 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember - someone came to the disambiguation page knowing what they were looking for. We don't need a complete definition of 'Tyre' here - we only need enough description to allow users to know whether this is the meaning they are searching for or whether it is one of the others. So - keep it simple. SteveBaker 00:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Computer/Temp

Hey Steve. I made a little more progress on the rewrite of the Computer article and described what I've done on its talk page. Would you mind taking a look since you're the only other person who has done any real work on it? The only major thing I think it has left is rewriting the very important section on stored program architecture and maybe adding some content about hardware/software interface. Anyway, I left some notes on the former topic, so please let me know what you think. -- mattb @ 2006-10-26T19:06Z

Yeah - I'll take a look at that tonight. The biggest fear I have in switching the temp article into the mainstream is that there is information in the present article that needs to be pushed down into some of the daughter articles or else we'll have gaps in our information coverage. We really need someone to review the present mainstream article and to check that everything it says that's not said in the temp version is down in those other articles. But - yeah - I'll get onto fixing up the stored program architecture section later tonight. SteveBaker 19:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Following up

Following up on your posts at my talk page and the MedCab request page.

Give me a few moments, here. CQJ 18:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Answering your question Steve

I am thinking of trying to get featured article status some time in the future.Senators 08:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA questions

Due to my own experience, I suggest that you expand upon your answers, and quickly. I wish you well : ) - jc37 17:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh

Regarding this edit summary: I'm not sure why, but it made me laugh pretty hard. Way to keep your humo(u)r while working here! Thanks for the chuckle. -Phoenixrod 08:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

...although...it is both true and something I can find at least one decent in-print reference for - perhaps I was a little hasty in reverting! SteveBaker 15:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mini car

Hey, in the discussion, I suggested offering the dispute to WP:3 for a third party's opinion b/c the discussion was limited to you & me & a comment by Kusunose.

Do you agree? (Wikimachine 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

Your RfA

I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity! Redux 17:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I know you would have made a good admin. I feel bad about this outcome. I hope you will try again. Yes, I know it's silly trying to comfort you this way. Nevertheless, I wanted you to to know. Keep on the good work! --Pan Gerwazy 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto : )

As an aside, we can always use another perspective at WP:CFD and WP:UCFD. - jc37 08:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

review please

Can you please write what you think about my article HSV Senator Signature there has been some major changes to it. Senators 08:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Fixing" noinclude directives

Check again, I do believe my edit actualy fixed that problem... --Sherool (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I saw the problem and saw that yours was the only recent change - so I assumed you'd caused the problem. My profuse apologies. SteveBaker 14:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Automobile

I re-protected the page. Sorry if it seemed that I did it for no reason, but I guess I should have mentioned that I was just testing it out to see if people would vandalize again.

Nonetheless, I have semi protected the page again. Nishkid 64 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, temporary semi-protection has it's uses - for example, when one determined vandal keeps hitting an article over and over again using different sock-puppets or simply coming in on different IP's using an AOL account or something. But Automobile isn't like that. We're rarely (if ever) hit by the same vandal twice - that much is obvious because the style of the vandalism keeps changing - as does the IP address and such. We've twice before tried a temporary semi-protection and on neither previous occasion has that helped. The level of vandalism is totally unacceptable - that much is obvious from my study of the statistics. So semi-protection needs to remain in place until or unless Wikipedia comes up with alternative ways to protect us from these idiots. There is no point in (even experimentally) unprotecting the article because there is no underlying reason for vandalism to decrease.

This pattern of vandalism is clear in a tiny minority of WP articles - these are the ones that (mostly) American school kids would think to visit. Car, Computer, Drugs, Music...it's easy to guess the titles which are most heavily vandalised in a purile manner during US-daytime/weekday hours - just think like a bored 15 year old kid and you'll get a badly vandalised article every time. These articles are mature - "finished" even - they don't need much genuine editing - so the VAST majority of edits are vandalism correction.

On the other hand, if you look at article that they'd be unlikely to visit - then they are either never vandalised - or they are hit repeatedly by just one vandal over a short period. Look at (picking one at random) "Baroque Music" - it gets hit for a few consecutive days - then not again for a month. The kinds of articles that benefit from anonymous editors are typically obscure. I've gotten some good anonymous edits to Tire code (for example) - it would be disasterous to semi-protect those because once in a while, a non-Wikipedian who is an expert on the topic will happen on it and fix really important things - then never make another wikipedia contribution in his/her life. Those people won't both to get an account - and we mustn't put them off. But those people don't contribute to these 'big topic' articles like Automobile or Computer. SteveBaker 16:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Review thanks

Thanks for the review HSV Senator Signature but can you please help me with the model history you mentioned. Senators 06:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

PLY + STL

Steve, can you be more specific about the text on the link to PLY from STL? I'm not sure that the "in common use" portion is true, at least for 3D Systems stereolithography equipment (I think they "own the term", at least here in the States). --GargoyleMT 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

3D systems don't own the term 'stereolithography' here in the States. Read the Wikipedia article Stereolithography for example! Stereolithography systems in general do often support PLY. SteveBaker 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a pretty wide statement, and I'm glad you called me on it. 3D Systems does have a trademark on "SLA", and have patents on some portions of the technology (the recoating system, in particular, I've heard). Sony seems to have withdrawn their technology from our market, but their technology certainly was "stereolithography" too. SolidView and Magics both have support for PLY files, but 3DLightyear does not. SolidWorks doesn't have an option to export PLY files. Perhaps some clarification of "common" is in order, since it doesn't match my experience. Clarifying the Stereolithography article is on my todo list. A few of the rapid prototyping technologies could use specifics about their commercial implementations. --GargoyleMT 00:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'll tone it down a bit. I'll grant that 'common' is the wrong word there. THe problem with this general 'rapid prototyping' field is that the terminology (and the technology) hasn't had time to settle down yet. Thanks for the input. SteveBaker 01:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That works, sorry to be a bit pedantic. I'd really never heard about PLY before you mentioned it on RP-ML. There may be more acceptance using technology by other vendors, in different countries, or in academia, but I've not come across it before. --GargoyleMT 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's an excellent format - simultaneously more compact, more generalized and better specified than STL. There are also several tool and library sets for it. Because PLY was used for the phenomenally accurate scanned datasets of The Digital Michelangelo Project, the tools work well for really large amounts of 3D data - when most STL tools fail miserably.

My deleting of the vandal warning

I'm not sure what else I could do. I thought that was the best course of action. Why complain about it if I wasn't going to fix it. If you have some advice on how I could have handled the situation better I would appreciate it --Trödel 03:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Write eloquent counter-arguments, scream, shout, complain using unprintable 4-letter words - but never, EVER edit other people's Talk: postings. It's tantamount to censorship - and the Wiki community won't tolerate that in Talk: space. (Except deleting personal attacks directed at you on your OWN talk page...maybe...but I wouldn't do that). SteveBaker 04:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

HSV Senator Signature

There has been a good amount of information added to the article HSV Senator Signature you should check it out. Senators 06:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not gay either

Hello, fellow AFC patroller! Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 22:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rejected Articles

Your rejection of some of my articles appears a little strange to say the least. OK, so The Kaiser's Last Kiss may not be notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, but plenty of the others DO appear to meet the guidelines. Falling was written by a well known author, who has got a page here, while Beyond Black was shortlisted for this year's Orange Prize for Fiction. I can't help feeling that you are now being somewhat pedantic with my submissions and, I am afraid to say, picking on me. Therefore, I have left a note on the Articles for Creation page requesting that another editor - who is perhaps a little more fair minded - reviews them. 217.43.199.206 00:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that unless you clearly explain WHY the subject meets Wikipedias article guidelines, we can't easily tell whether to include it or not. For books, you need to explain why both the author and the book are significant. 99% of book article submissions are just 'The author is called this...Here is the plot' - and that's simply not enough either to justify the existance of the article - nor to get it started. Wikipedia isn't here to store plot synopsis for all of the hundreds of millions of books that are in print. Please read the associated WP: guidelines. SteveBaker 00:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop

...biting the newbies, that is, speciffically 217.43.199.206. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 00:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm only trying to explain the requirements for articles relating to books - newbie or not - the requirements are the same and need to be clearly explained. SteveBaker 00:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Beyond Black

Hi Steve. Yes, I did contradict your rejection, but the comment you accuse me of making is not mine. It had been added before I looked at the article. As far as I understand it, the user asked for another editor to review their submissions, so this is what I have done. In my opinion, the article does meet the guidelines, and I have marked it as a stub so that it can be expanded by someone else. No offence meant by this, and I hope none has been taken. By the way, if you want to reply to this message, it's probably a good idea to leave it on my talk page. This will ensure that I can read and respond to it. Cheers Paul from Brum (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)