User talk:Trounce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Trounce, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Djegan 20:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)




Contents

[edit] Wikipedia version of Phaidon Design Classics book set?

There is a great 3 volume book set from Phaidon book publishers called Design Classics ISBN:0 7148 4399 7. The only problem is it costs a whopping $175/€150. Here's what I was thinking, as far as I know you can't copyright a list so if we could get a list of the contents of the books it would make a great starting point for a Design Classics page/portal/wikiproject (whatever it's called- I'm a bit of a Wikipedia novice). A sort of Wikipedia version of Phaidon's books. I know there are 999 objects listed in the books but over time it could be done. I am not sure where I would go to propose such a project in Wikipedias community pages so I have started here. Any takers?--Trounce 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Luxo L-1

The redirect thing was my fault - I'm a complete idiot! Sorry! Ruaraidh-dobson 10:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SIM lock

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Nigel (Talk) 11:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That & other links have been removed before. Still don't see it as appropriate to the main article. I perssonally would not object to your experience & the link being placed in the talk page - tho others may not agree! Cheers --Nigel (Talk) 11:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Works for me - cheers --Nigel (Talk) 12:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Luxo L1 2006-08-01.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Luxo L1 2006-08-01.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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.

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. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Luxo L1 schematic 2006-08-01.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Luxo L1 schematic 2006-08-01.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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.

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. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:1970Telstar 2006-08-11.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1970Telstar 2006-08-11.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also Image:1974Telstar 2006-08-11.jpg

[edit] On Commons voting

Yes, I disagree with the whole system of one vote as the contentious decision of whether or not an image is granted that status. I'm not sure why Commons is set up that way, but I think the general lack of interest in the project community contributes to its poorly designed procedures. If you come up with a better system, I'd be happy (and grateful) to support it. ALTON .ıl 04:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bialetti logo 2006-07-14.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bialetti logo 2006-07-14.png. 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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bumblebee

Hi, I'd very much like to use your picture of a bumblebee, Image:Bumblebee 2007-04-19.jpg, as part of the advertising campaign for a not-for-profit production of Woman In Mind (subtitled "December Bee") that I'm working on. The theatre is also a charity, see Progress Theatre. How would you like me to attribute your work? Thanks for your great pic! GDallimore (Talk) 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for getting back to me about this. I hope you don't mind, but with the show starting next month, I felt I had to go ahead and start using it before you actually got back to me, but I hope you're happy with the end results.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2007/08/10/woman_in_mind_feature.shtml
http://www.readingarts.com/othervenues/whatson/event.asp?id=SX12F2-A7815217
Those websites wouldn't put a photo credit on, but my plan is to credit you in the program. Thanks again for granting permission and for the great photo! GDallimore (Talk) 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divine Mercy Picture

Someone deleted your picture of the Divine Mercy:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Divine_Mercy_(painting)2007-08-16.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barney Gumble (talk • contribs) 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it was deleted due to stricter copyright regulations on Wikimedia commons. There is a version that is fine to use on Wikipedia here--Trounce 18:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cifra 3 clock 2006-07-07.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cifra 3 clock 2006-07-07.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See here for more on User:Betacommand's faulty bot and his ignorant arrogant attitude.--Trounce 22:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
and here--Trounce 12:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
and on an Administrators notice board here--Trounce 12:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Betacommand. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. βcommand 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Betacommand

I'm having the same problem. My concerns have been deleted five times without a reply from User:Betacommand. I have asked for help in getting a response here User talk:Fuhghettaboutit. At least you were directed to look at the talk page of the bot. My comments were deleted with prejudice. The € • T/C 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted there because it is the first step toward getting a conflict resolution. See: WP:DR and WP:EA. User:Fuhghettaboutit was listed in WP:EA, so I requested assistance. Perhaps we can both team up to try and find out why User:Betacommand is too high and mighty to respond to comments on its talk page. The € • T/C 21:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm dropping the whole thing because of what User talk:Fuhghettaboutit said about the situation. It has become a far less worthy candidate for use my precious time than I originally thought. I hope you feel the same. The € • T/C 05:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: BetacommandBot

I've responded to your post on my talk page. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SpannerA 2007-05-18.png

Thanks for uploading Image:SpannerA 2007-05-18.png. 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) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Added the article that the image is used in as part of the existing fair use rationale to comply with the request that was on the image page.--Trounce 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SpannerB 2007-05-18.png

Thanks for uploading Image:SpannerB 2007-05-18.png. 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) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Added the article that the image is used in as part of the existing fair use rationale to comply with the request that was on the image page.--Trounce 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Luxo logo 2006-08-01.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Luxo logo 2006-08-01.png. 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) 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish postcode edit

To my knowledge An Post have their postcode system as does the Government though neither have revealed exactly how their system works and the delay in introducing a postcode is down to how to integrate them ( since An Post would still be using their system internally ).That's why I thought the link you placed was advertising as it introduced a private firm that to my knowledge hasn't been mentioned before and it appeared to be there to just mention that firm and therefore advertising .

If you feel it adds to the article then re add it and I won't revert it .Garda40 20:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply is on your talk page--Trounce (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I reply where the discussion starts, so have replied on my talk page. ww2censor (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For your Info Trounce.....

Bastun I am struggling to understand how people who obviously know nothing about this, obvious from their comments, persist in holding the article ransom to their ignorance. You refer to our system as a GPS System. The code is not a GPS System it is a geographic code - it can be used on a GPS system as it can on a GIS system and routing systems - and , of course manually if you wish. The tools used do not define a system. The current Post Code system in use by An Post is an OCR based system but you would not call it an OCR code - it is their Post Coding system. Perhaps it may also be a revelation to you if I highlighted that An Post firstly does not want a Post Code system (Quoted in the Article) and secondly will no longer be the only Postal organisation in the country from next year onwards - so any "Post" Code system developed will not be for their use - although there is nothing stopping them from using it. So your comment relating to requiring An Post to adopt the system is not relevant at all and unfortunately highlights again the common mis-conceptions on the subject. Adoption of a Government backed system will be managed by ComReg and the system adopted may not be that recommended by consultants to the Government. There are several other systems recommended by private players such as mine (two others I am aware of) and to be absolutely correct none require backing of the Oireactais - all that is required is popular use!!

It also may shock you to understand that predictions show that 80% of all items delivered in Ireland will be packages and parcels in 20 years time and are already a significant proposrtion now - tahnks to E-Bay and Web Purchases. Therefore, the current quest is not to design a "Post" Code but rather a Post, Parcel, Goods etc Code. Difficult to get these all in one neat "package" so the word "Post" is still used for popular understanding but it would be a mistake in designing a MODERN code to take this litteraly. It may also surprise those who persist on blocking expansive consideration here, that any item delivered to any location in Ireland (post included) travels 95% of its journey by vehicle. Therefore the Code adopted must take this into account. The Postman on the ground has no need for the code -It will have done most of its work before the postman gets on to the street. In fact, with deregulation in 2009, the days of a Postman's "round" will gradually disappear due to dilution of services to many providers who will be hopping from one area to another to carry out their route - all being achieved directly from a vehicle. Therfore, in its widest sense;- Courier, document, parcel and delivery services all require the capabilitities of any adopted Code whatever it is called and 95% of its influence will be everything but to those on foot!! Essentially, therefore the role of a modern "Post" Code is a logistics and navigation one i.e. all deiveries in Ireland, mail or otherwise, thereby requiring routing calculations which are achieved on specialised software where geographic coordinates and road/street digital map detail is critical. Web based purchases comprise part of modern mail and many of these are done by couriers in vehicles. After the routing calculations the next part of the task is navigation - i.e. the driver finding the delivery location or property! The driver does not have a daily route on an exact set of streets/houses - it varies day to day and indeed the driver may never have been that way before. For this reason the final part of the delivery must be designed to improve fuel efficiencies, time economies - this is even more important with the competition generated by deregualtion, the rocketing cost of fuel and the need to minimise carbon emissions. For this reason SatNav/GPS is an eessential tool for the final delivery phase. Near 100% road mapping for Ireland on these devices is leading to a greater demand for a solution to non unique addressing. Furthermore, the nature of modern deliveries is such that nowadays in a growing number of cases, deliveries are made to non structures. A prominent Dairy COOP recently adopted GPS systems on delivery trucks for delivering Grain as this is delivered to Silos which may not be associated with a property and the client may not be around when the delivery is made. Consequently, they were experiencing signifacant additional costs when they delivered to the wrong silo by mistake and had to pump it out again. So Delivering anything is a logistic and navigation exercise for which GIS, Routing Software and GPS are now routinely used. All of these tools have two things in common - the need for digital mapping and geographic coordinates. Therefore, any so called "Post" code developed must take all these requirements in to account. Codes which focus only on the delivery of mail by the traditional Postman will be doomed from inception as, ultimately, there is a greater demand from vehicle based deliveries than foot based postmen. There are many proposals about - one only of which is being currently mentioned in the article on Postal Addresses In Ireland and even then this is being reported incorrectly as that which is reported is technically unworkable. The system I am proposing is designed with Logistics and Navigation in mind using my background in supporting vehicle management and my deep knowledge of Air, Marine and Land navigation (MSc Degree) and near 30 years practical, support and teaching experience. It has at its basis geographic coordinates, which are the primary need of any proposed Code. (My local postman wants to use it straight away on his SatNav in his van as he is new and has taken up to 11 hours to get around his route, not knowing the area!!)

You should also be aware that I was consulted as a stakeholder by the Post Code board more than 3 years ago and I provided seperate advice to a member of the board on matters GPS and and geographic coordinates, position etc.

So hopefully this will have widened the knowledge of all those who are persistant in theire "Undos" in this article and absolutely refutes your assertion that what I have designed is a GPS System and that I have not been involved in the "Post" Code development. Furthermore, the misconception that An Post will have to accept any adopted system should now be permanently dispeled. Perhaps now at least so called "all knowing editors" will not be so quick to write off by input in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garydubh (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Luxo logo 2006-08-01.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Luxo logo 2006-08-01.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. BJBot (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Luxo L1 metric 2006-08-02-.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Luxo L1 metric 2006-08-02-.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. BJBot (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Luxo L1 black 2006-08-02.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Luxo L1 black 2006-08-02.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Postal code

Today some of this edit of yours to postal code was removed by Garydubh as being unsourced which seems quite reasonable. Originally you placed a reference after the, now removed, quote, but moved it up, so it may still apply to that quote, but I cannot tell. Perhaps you are interested in re-editing it, if you can provide a reliable reference for the An Post quote. I don't have access to the reference that you may have used. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Trounce - sorry for the deletionGarydubh (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem,Garry. That quote from An Post came from the Sunday Times article as well. I'll stick a ref after it, if that helps clarify it--Trounce (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Purrfect! - as you know behind the scenes - ComReg have been twisting An Post's arms so that a move forward can be made.Garydubh (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Are they? I didn't know that. I am sure all the vested interests are protecting their own bit of turf and there is no bigger vested interest than An Post!--Trounce (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Anglepoise_lamp_2006-07-07.gif

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Anglepoise_lamp_2006-07-07.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect on 6M

Hey, not that I resent it or anything, but how is the redirect on 6m related to anything? It doesn't seem to fit. Perhaps you could afford an explanation? PwnerELITE (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The redirect on 6M is there because under some of the PAO symbols on cosmetics it has 6M or 12M or 24M etc. When I first tried to figure out what the symbol meant the only thing I could search was 6M or 12M etc. If you have another article that you want 6M to redirect to you could set up a disambiguation page. --Trounce (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay... I did that because 6m also might be a type of digital photography quality measurement. I might make a redirect if I have time...PwnerELITE (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)