User talk:Trapper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Request for edit summary
2 Wars
3 Below level
4 New Montreal
5 List of NHL Defenceman
6 Montreal
7 License tagging for Image:Torngat.jpg
8 List of Canadian Ministers of the Naval Service
9 Fair use rationale for Image:La Rouge.jpg
10 Fair use rationale for Image:Live at the Bread Factory.jpg
11 Image copyright problem with Image:Intercolonial Wars.jpg
12 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Going Away.JPG
13 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Montreal Shamrock.jpg
14 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MontrealManic81.gif
15 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:La Rouge.jpg

[edit] Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 13% for major edits and 25% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 12 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear inpolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 03:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wars

There's a list of wars at List of wars 1500–1799. --Sean Brunnock 01:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Below level

Hello trapper, my goodness, where are you? You appear to be here so I will address my comments here. You seem to have left me plenty of space! You'll be sorry (joke).

No, really? I am surprised, I must say. I think you misunderstand. I did not mean the writer's intelligence was below level. Certainly not. Wikipedian editors must be very intelligent to have discovered Wikipedia and want to risk some writing on it.

I mean, such an explanation is not at the same target audience as the rest of the article or the general run of Wikipedia articles. In other words, the writer should not have to explain the term because he/she can reasonably expect the audience to know it. It is only a comment you might find on a critique of anyone's writing. If I were writing a paper for history and asked someone to look at it, whether teacher or peer, I would not then say, oh dear, I fear your comment is very insulting. No insult intended. Some articles need work. Others don't. I don't always write at the same level myself. Sometimes my writing is "below level" and I do not get insulted when others point that out through channels. So I hope that you will accept this explanation.

Now, as to the corrected sentence, you know that many people whose first language is not English write for Wikipedia, and that is fine, I am glad they do. Sometimes though they do not know what is appropriate in English so I try to help them along when I see that problem. I don't think I am harsh. I have seen some noted Wikipedia editors tell them to stick to their own language, which I thought was a little hard.

Now, I don't know if you are a native English speaker or not. Here in New England the topic is pretty well known even by grade-schoolers. If someone used the term French-Indian war(s) anyone would conclude to a war between the French and the Indians, as that is what the hyphenated term means. For that reason we do not use the term, unless someone means some conflict between the French and the Indians. Now, I don't know who the author was and I don't know if you know. However I live in the region, have done so for a long time, and I never saw any high-schooler here who did not know what the French and Indian wars are. It is only people living elsewhere that might not have seen the term. That is why for their benefit I beefed it up in a way that was appropriate to the level.

In fact if you lived around here we could never be having this exchange. I have never seen the usage apply to any other war. We would never think of saying, the German and Japanese war, but if we did, it would not be taken by any native English speaker to be German-Japanese war. But, as a matter of fact, nations seem to devise their own names for wars and will not relinquish them for anyone. Americans fought WWII. The Russians fought the Great Patriotic War and that is that.

Excuse me for taking so much space to explain this personally but Wikipedia is about international education and I felt I should do my share, to give back what I am getting and participate in the common self-education.

By the way, since we are talking about high-schoolers, it seems clear that a battery of articles including Robert Rogers were written by high-schoolers of Methuen Massachusetts, where Robert Rogers was born. They seem to have unbounded enthusiam and I don't blame them. I think though the articles need work. The French and Indian one does, I know. To listen to them you would think Rogers was a true-blue yankee, hey hey, go rangers, all the way, and hero of the American revolution. He was in fact an adventurer whom Washington did not trust and therefore threw in his lot with the British army, causing some harm to the revolutionaries. Like Benedict Arnold he paid for it by having to go into exile. The state legislature of new Hampshire threw him out and granted his wife a divorce. I seem to be going through this with the national enthusiasms of different nationals. I'm all for nationalism, but I doubt history should be altered for it.

Thank you so much for your comment. I hope I have demonstrated that I am not the Wikipedia bickerer splitting straws and and starting a war over it. Do you bite your nail at me, sir? No sir, but I do bite my nail (Shakespeare). I don't bite my nails. Best wishes, old chap, wherever you are from.Dave 03:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. I did repeat the Montreal name just to make sure we got the point across. Delete it if you like. I notice that the tale is told from a French point of view. Oh very well. But, there are some questionable details, such as who was at "Fort Duquesne" first. I suppose, regardless of who was there, the issue would have come up anyway. I'm not working on this right now (I'm trying to expand Robert Rogers) but eventually I will be checking into and fixing these things. What good does it do to pass an exam in the wrong information? You get an A in error I guess. But, I am sure that is deeper than the high-school students go. Merci beaucoup mon ami. Bonne chance.Dave 13:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Montreal

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Montreal Good work on putting this up there, I wasn't sure to begin with and wanted some feedback and after seeing it, I went to the deletion page and found it was there already. Keep up the good work! -- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 22:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of NHL Defenceman

Hello I am writing to you about your new article about current and retired NHL defenceman. Almost a year ago now, we had articles that separated current and retired NHL players and it go so far out of date that it was agreed upon to just have a list of all the players wether they were retired or not. My suggestion about your new article is to just delete it and on the actual player lists, if you are so inclined, just use a (D) after the defenceman's name. In all honesty, I really don't think we need another list, especially one that most likely will never be up to date or even very accurate. Thanks! Masterhatch 23:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. We were just trying to create a list where people can go from the Defenceman (ice hockey) link, we were having similar problems with our list there. Trapper 00:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montreal

Hi, I'm also contributing to the Montreal article and see you've been quite active. Would you be able to post more about your changes on the Montreal discussion page? For example, I see that you 'moved' the 'sin city' material, but you don't specify where, or why. The fact of that sentence is accurate, btw, just lacking a citation.

cheers -- Denstat 07:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Denstat, thanks for the heads up. The sin city info was not supposed to be deleted and you're right, it does need a citation. I initially tried to indicate what changes were going to be made in the discussion but it got too complicated. I'll be sure to be more vigilant in the future. BTW cool school tag on your user page, I might do the same. Trapper 14:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Torngat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Torngat.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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. 05:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Canadian Ministers of the Naval Service

You started this article at one time. No one has taken it up and it has not been expanded, sourced or otherwise improved. Do you have a suggestion as to where one might go to add to this stub. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Stormbay 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:La Rouge.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:La Rouge.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to 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.

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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 23:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Live at the Bread Factory.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Live at the Bread Factory.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Intercolonial Wars.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Intercolonial Wars.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shell ^babelfish 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Going Away.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Going Away.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Montreal Shamrock.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Montreal Shamrock.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MontrealManic81.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:MontrealManic81.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:La Rouge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:La Rouge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)