User talk:VegitaU

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page! I will reply here to all your comments, so please keep an eye on this page as I will probably not notify you. Please remember to sign your posts!

Archives
Siderian: From Genesis to 22 August 2007

Rhyacian: — 1 September
Orosirian: — 27 September
Statherian: — 28 November
Calymmian: — 10 April 2008

Contents

[edit] "Hatez meh teh troophers"

Just a quick reminder here: It's conducive to a collaborative project to maintain civility at all times and assume good faith within reason, including with people we disagree with. Please keep this in mind in your future contributions. Thank you. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, right. I just hate 9/11 Truthers. Not for being Truthers, but for completely ignoring all facts that contradict them as Government Propaganda... -- VegitaU (talk)

[edit] First class

If first class is rows 1-5 it looks like there are 7 fatalities and 4 with serious injuries, assuming that the assigned seats were the seats used. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Wait, that's strange.. I didn't notice there was a separate "lounge" - Perhaps it was a three class aircraft and it calls the actual first class lounge. But even so the NTSB said that it could not establish a relationship between documented seat map and survival in the crash, so I would have to say "one person who was documented as being in first class survived." WhisperToMe (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a little help please?

This edit and previous edits to the same page: I've messed up my reference, and can't quickly spot what I did incorrectly. I have to dash off, a friend has an emergency and I have to leave immediately. Would you please look over my edit and fix it if you have time, please? User:Pedant (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be strange for me to ask you for help, but I know you are familiar with the material and can do it. User:Pedant (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Layout

How would I go about obtaining a layout like the one on your user page? Any input would be greatly appreciated. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just click 'Edit this page' on my user page and copy the code. Paste it onto your own page and change whatever you need to change. That's what I did originally. I took the code from User:Jimbo Wales. User:Thx2005 has a similar layout. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. This should help greatly. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving

I'm still in favor of moving - I got sidetracked with other stuff, I guess ... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 - Tachyonbursts

Don't worry too much about Tachyonbursts. I suspect he will self destruct in the coming days, and we can get back to trying to build a nominateable article. =) --Tarage (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've put in a complaint at WP:AN/I. I guess we'll see what happens. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tachyonbursts

Goading like this[1] isn't really necessary or helpful. He's on a topic ban and I'm watching him. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So you've just seen his two edits on the 9/11 article? How exactly is topic banning enforceable then? -- VegitaU (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing those edits to my attention. But it's not necessary to twist the knife. It would be unfortunate if even more editors were to come under editing restrictions. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive Edits

Why don't you contact me with a civil inquiry before you accuse me of 'disruptive edits'?

If perhaps you paused to examine the nature of my edits, you'll notice that I was trying to rectify the discrepancies in various 9/11 related pages. United Airlines Flight 93 has a total of 45 in its 'Others' section and a total of 44 in its 'Summary'. United Airlines Flight 175's 'Summary' lists 56 passengers, but its 'Nationalities' section lists 47. September 11, 2001 attacks lists 64 fatalites (including hijackers) for Flight 175. So if you've set yourself up as a policman for these pages, why don't you rectify these discrepancies yourself? If I wanted to vandalize anything, I'd go to a PC cafe with an anonymous IP. Davidabram (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I was wrong. -- VegitaU (talk)

[edit] Images for deletion

Hi VegitaU! Noticed that you left a few messages on the images from Google Earth as nominated for deletion. Google Earth gives licence to use the images as long as the attributions including the Google logo attribution are preserved. I have recently used an image from Google Earth in one of my publications for a Springer's journal and it has been accepted. The reviewers there had visited the copyrights of these images and have reconfirmed that they are copyright free. If need be I can email you the uncorrected proof (it is not online yet). But, that would be a last resort as I would like to maintain anonymity on Wikipedia. Let me know if you still think that there is a copyright violation. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 06:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I do know that I left my message in your talk page not too long ago, but your tagging is causing a cascade of effects which can be partially evident with a quick look at my talk page. Ciao Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 12:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have been on wiki after my messages above. May be you missed them. Please respond to them on why you still think the tag you added is valid. Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 07:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't mean to ignore you. I think two people messaged me at once and I only caught the last one. Anyways, WP:NFCC and WP:NFC lay out the policies with respect to images. The images I tagged, first of all, weren't being used on any mainspace article. You can't have fair-use images on userspace. Secondly, as you can see here, you uploaded the images with a GNU free-use tag which Google Earth and Google Maps do not fall under. Google is holds the copyrights on its images and services. So I changed the copyright tag to reflect this. Thirdly, I tagged the image for deletion because, as mentioned in the Wikipedia policies, you can't use a fair-use image to illustrate something that can be photographed. That is, if there's a possibility of a free image, then a fair-use image can't be used. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess if it is not a GNU free, then please advice me on what does it come under. Google earth, as the link I have provided in licence, would let tell you that they do allow it to be used for non-commecial purposes. Please do go through the licence part before you tag them. As I mentioned earlier, Google Earth image as this one was part of a recent paper I had submitted to a well aclaimed journal (can not mention more details here as I really do like to maintain anonimity on Wiki but do feel free to demand for a uncorreted author's proof from the journal if you need one) and they do agree that it can be used for academic and any non-commecial purposes. The image was not uploaded for my userspace, but for an ongoing discussion on jurisdiction of water falls of which this one is used for. You should have seen the links at the bottom of the image page and it was you who removed them from the archives of the talk page [2]. Not only that the very serious dispute being discussed doesn't make any sense after you removed them, the discussion is still going on and we need the archives to be visited ever so often untill then. Please do respond asap since I do not want to remove the tag myself and violate the rules, and the time is closing down on the deletion. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It goes under what I tagged it: a non-free software screenshot. Which means it needs a fair-use rationale, which is immediately violated when taken into context because these waterfalls can be photographed in real life, they are not historical pieces (i.e. now gone). Because they are considered "replaceable", they can't be used on Wikipedia, regardless of what research paper used them or what Google gives users permission to do: Wikipedia rules.
As for your discussion, the rules I mentioned before are clear: no fair-use outside of mainspace. I've been deleting Google Earth images for a long time on Wikipedia. If you feel you need someone else's opinion, please go to WP:DR and resolve the matter -- VegitaU (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
First it is not a screen shot, but an output. Please refer to this page for copyrights of Google Earth images. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI photographs of the falls are already there, but what we need there is the topographic map with small features shown clearly, as well as, the political boundry. This is what the discussion there is about on the falls article. The image is very much irreplaceable. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think Google policies trump Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia? If a map is what your arguing for, Wikimedia has tons of maps! Please see the dispute resolution page if you need clarification. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't have one for this and as I already said, why look for another source anyways, when it states that you are free to use it for non-commercial purposes? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Because you can create one. That's the beauty of Wikipedia; if something's not the way you like, change it. See WP:WPMAP for more info on creating maps. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I think you are not seeing the point. IF I created one, we can't use it to discuss. We can creat one for the mainspace, BUT not to show as reference. Google maps doesn't show the resolution we need to in this discussion. To be more clear, we need to be able to see where the actual border crosses over. On the waterfalls itself, or on an island next to it. If it was availabe on google maps or wikimapia, then we would have just provided links. Unfortunately it doesn,t. Even NASA world wind doesn't give that resolution. Google Earth is the only one that does. Hope I have explained myself enough. Thanks for the patient replies and I really do not intend to troll on your page. But as you may agree its best to discuss. Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, am a real thick daft nut, I don't know what you mean by it sounds good to you!!!! Are we going to get rid of the tags or it stays there? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh. No it stays there, but you're more than welcome to discuss it with others. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. Anyways, you haven't been rude in your replies and so I shall try to put this as gentle as possible. Please do not leave warning messages on user pages, unless, it is unavoidable. Talking about replaceable things, a warning message can be replaced with a milder tone message of pointing out copyright stuff and initiate an healthy discussion. Its just for the next time for you. I, when I find myself in need of leaving a warning message to a new user, who would other wise be considered a vandal, leave him/her a {{welcome}} template, which lists the rules and guidelines of wikipedia. The user will obviously see his/her edits being removed/reverted and also get the message why. If it goes further, then you leave a warning. This is how I work and trust me, it works. I can quote you two examples of new editors (former vandals by others intepretation) who are now great contributors. Thanks for your time anyways. I will get back in touch with you, if the image survives deletion process. As a good will gesture, it would be nice if you can strike off the warning you left. It won't take a second for me to just remove them, but I believe in building good gesture relationships within Wiki editors. Ciao Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 23:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:Cairo - Mohandesin.PNG

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to :Image:Cairo - Mohandesin.PNG, you will be blocked from editing. This image is copyrighted. Do not change templates to claim free-use or public-domain status. VegitaU (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Really, is that what you think I did? First of all, this images is from Google Maps; which is a free-use AND a public-domain.
Second, threatening to block me...WOW, didn't u see my contributions to Wikpedia. I would like you to take a look at some of my contributions:

Plus all my other corrections to valuable information that was placed in a wrong way or was even wrong. So just blocking because of something that stupid, even if I was wrong (which I am NOT), is the stupidest thing I ever heard around here. I am sorry if you think that, but I guess you go around doing whatever you want cause you're an admin here.
Anyway, go ahead do what ever you want...Abdallah (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No that's not what I think you did, that's what you did. I'm not interested in your contributions or questioning how good an editor you are. All I'm saying is you can't remove copyrighted tags and replace them with free-use tags. Google Maps are not free-use maps. Google does not release them to the public, they just allow the user to view them through their website for no charge as a gesture of goodwill and a way to get more people to use their site and invest in their projects. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright then, my bad! Thought that Google Maps was a free software license...but I did not have bad intentions, I did not remove Google Earth from the distribution of the image...
I am sorry for that tone earlier, but I still think the threatening to block part was useless and offensive as well. Cheers, Abdallah (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted bit on the 9/11 article

Hey, a few weeks ago you deleted a large section of mostly my edits on the article about 9/11. Here are the deletions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=209845217&oldid=209742514

Could you explain it? You said that they were redundant and poorly sourced, but they were not redundant (where else on the page is it?) and not poorly sourced (I was very careful about citations). Also, you replaced it with text that didn't capture the essence of the information: you left out al-Zawahiri in the list of signers of the 1998 fatwa, despite the fact that in the stuff you deleted, I cited an article that said that he was indeed not only the author of the fatwa, but the key figure in al-Qaeda's operations. Ssmith619 (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I can never get all my reasons out on the edit summary; apologies, I'm sure you've worked very hard on this and I wasn't trying to cheapen your contributions. I've been revising the article and deleting everything that's not absolutely necessary to try and shorten the 110K + size. The 1998 fatwa was signed by a variety of people, but the central figure remembered is Osama bin Laden. There's a link to the fatwa in case the reader wants to go see what it's all about. The 9/11 article even still says "signed by bin laden and others." -- VegitaU (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sinebot

This bot did not vandalize your page, the "look at this" edit was separate (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVegitaU&diff=211391071&oldid=210911272), sinebot just took care of the {{unsigned}} part like it is supposed to. — xaosflux Talk 03:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant Frogger123's edit. -- VegitaU (talk)

[edit] Removal of talk page comments

Just a friendly reminder that removing other users' good-faith edits on talk pages (such as this edit) can lead to accusations of vandalism, even if you consider the comment unnecessary. Please bear this in mind in future. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 23:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Airlines Flight 11

Hi VegitaU. I'll take a look today. Finetooth (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. That's about as far as I can safely go. Best of luck with the rest of the FAC. Finetooth (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I noticed that you do not yet have email set in your preferences. That might be helpful should I need to send some reference material for an article. I have some material that is not directly, at no cost, available online. Regards --Aude (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop with the vandalism

Please stop arbitratary deleting comments on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. Nobody died and make you god of the page. Kauffner (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The above warning appears to be nonsense. VegitaU appears to be working within the arbitration decision and helping to enforce it. VegitaU, let me know if you need further help on this issue. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)