User talk:Wikiwoohoo/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

DSG logos

Hi. I am new to Wikipedia and I've started off by updating some articles with images. I have noticed you have renamed and altered copyright details for PC World (store) and The Link (retailer) logos I had added. I was wondering what the reason for this was and hoped you could explain this. BTW please don't see this as a complaint; if there are rules I have missed, I like to find out about them :-). One other thing, although some of the company websites still refer to DSG retail, the parent company for PC World & The Link, and therefore the copyright holder, has been known as DSG International since last month. In fact, they haven't been called DSG Retail for several years, but some of their sites were obviously never updated to reflect that! --Throup 22:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if me replacing your images with newly named (but identical) ones was a little annoying. I just thought that giving logo in the file name was a better idea and wouldn't cause any kind of confusion with other images that may be uploaded later. Does that answer your question? If not let me know and I'll be happy to elaborate. If you need any help with using Wikipedia and getting to know it just send me a message and I'll get back to you and hopefully help you as best I can. Wikiwoohoo 18:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I wasn't annoyed with you changing the files, just a little concerned that I may have misunderstood accepted naming conventions. I guess in this case it's down to personal opinion, so I'm happy to go with the way of least confusion :-). BTW, I have edited the copyright notices to refer to DSG International again as that is the new group name. I am looking forward to editing with you in the future. Throup 18:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for all your WikiContributions! --FireFox
Thanks for all your WikiContributions! --FireFox

Your RfA

I have removed your self-nomination for adminship from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, because it was not properly formed. Please do not write your nomination directly on the RfA page. Instead, create a separate nomination subpage Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo, copy&paste the RfA nomination template from the RfA page to there, and fill in the form by giving your user name, RfA ending time, and responses to the candidate questions. — JIP | Talk 15:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Old account and RfA

I saw your note at User talk:FireFox regarding your old account. I went to Special:Listusers and dug around. What I came up with the following possible accounts:

  1. GRANTKINSEL
  2. GRANTSVG
  3. Grant
  4. Grant 100
  5. Grant Fletcher
  6. Grant Hayes
  7. Grant Henninger
  8. Grant Hulley
  9. Grant McMurray
  10. Grant W
  11. Grant Weaver
  12. Grant baker
  13. Grant muir
  14. Grant thomas
  15. Grant-o
  16. Grant0323
  17. Grant1
  18. Grant65
  19. Grant666999
  20. Grant80
  21. Grant937
  22. GrantHeaslip
  23. GrantM
  24. GrantNeufeld
  25. GrantRNieddu
  26. GrantRocksIt
  27. GrantShirreffs
  28. GrantW
  29. Grantave
  30. Grantb
  31. Grantb88
  32. Grantbaer
  33. Grantbaker
  34. Grantbhoy
  35. Grantc
  36. Grantcole
  37. Grantex
  38. Grantf44
  39. Grantfuller
  40. Grantg
  41. Grantgamer
  42. Grantham
  43. Granthor
  44. Grantingram
  45. Grantlabt
  46. Grantm
  47. Grantmaxwell
  48. Grantmccallum
  49. Grantmcox
  50. Grantmil
  51. Grantmorrice
  52. Grantnevill
  53. GrantsaUK
  54. Grantslaw
  55. Grantss
  56. Grantstevens
  57. Grantwar
  58. Grantwarrell
  59. Grantwin
  60. Granty
  61. Granty50
  62. Granty567

On most of these accounts, there is no edit history. You can check the list yourself here and here. Do any of those look familiar too you? If so, please let me know as soon as possible. I've looked at the edit histories of all of these, and the only candidates that I found that made any sense were Grant, Grantslaw (I don't think this one is correct), and Grantwin.

On your RfA, it is highly unlikely that it will pass because people have become very focused on the number of edits admin nominees have these days. In the five oppose votes that have been registered so far, not a single user has come up with any other reason to oppose than pure edit counts/time on Wikipedia. I think their reasoning is flawed. I have looked at a number of your edits and found you to be a helpful, courteous person. You are making solid contributions to Wikipedia. Your distribution of edits across namespaces shows an interest in things beyond writing articles [1], in addition to work on articles. These are great qualities in favor of your being an admin.

I would like to note some things that I think you need to improve on before being an admin:

  • Your use of edit summaries is 53%. This needs to increase. I personally prefer to see admin nominees using edit summaries at least 80% of the time, and preferably 90% of the time. For part of my rationale regarding why this is important, please see this diff.
  • Your activity level is, in my opinion, too low. An admin needs to be actively involved in issues to remain engaged with users with whom they are having a discussion or especially a debate. For part of my rationale regarding this this is important please see this section of my talk page.

Under my admin voting measures, you qualify very well with the exception of the above two points. I'd vote in favor of you being an admin if it were not for the above two points. If you increase your participation level and maintain it for a month, and increase your use of edit summaries, I'll nominate you myself. I think you're otherwise very well qualified.

I would like to raise one additional point however. Since late June, I've been keeping statistics on the admin nomination process. What I have found is that admin nominees with less than 2,000 edits have only a 48% chance of successful nominations. Once you clear 2,000 edits, that figure rises to 83%..a full 35% increase! You can see more information about this study at my admin nominee charts page. I think if you increase edit summaries and raise your activity level, we can get you the admin tools before you get to 2,000 edits. But, be aware of the study; you will have to answer people's concerns if you are nominated again before 2,000 edits.

All the best, --Durin 21:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. FireFox 16:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear Grant, I am sure that you are/ have been a good editor and member of wiki community. Time is dynamic and a day shall dawn when your efforts shall be recognized by the wiki community. And, thanks for the thanks . --Bhadani 14:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

2012 Legacy Map

Thank you for changing the copyright violation. I have just got back from holiday and had forgotten all about that and the other copyright violations I have made (none on pupose though). Time to set about clearing my name, though not tonight. I'm going to bed. Greaterlondoner 19:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

RFA

As you know, your RFA nom was rejected. You may try again after sometime. Regards, User:Nichalp/sg 12:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I noticed you added your name to the list of active mediators, but I can't find a successful mediation nomination for you. Are you aware that mediator is a formal position on Wikipedia and that you must be approved by the Mediation Committee? -- Essjay · Talk 01:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto, however you may be interested in WP:TINMC. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Your RFA Done

Its done here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo2 I voted neutral cause its too soon --JAranda | watz sup 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

RFA closed

Hi! I have prematurely closed your RFA as it is clearly failing. This does not mean that you can't be an admin, hang around for sometime on WP, do some valued work and be civil. This will help the next time you seek adminship. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA nomination

Yes, I would nominate you but probably in a few months. Mid January would possibly be a good timre and I'll review you properly then if you remind me. Keep up the good work! :) --Celestianpower háblame 17:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

nice guy!!!!

Special:Log/newusers Wikipedia:WikiProject Kindness Campaign

Welcoming Committee

A user at 212.85.6.26 (contribs, talk), an IP address known for vandalism, added your user name to the list of Welcoming Committee members. You are welcome to leave your name there if you would like to join. But if you don't want to be a member, you should probably remove it. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 15:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Upon further review, I realized that the message posted directly above this one is also from that IP address, and it seems he has added you to the Kindness Campaign as well as the New User's log. I've just listed the IP address at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --TantalumTelluride 15:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the address can be blocked again already, but I think his rampage for today is over. A couple of users have put messages on the IP's talk page explaining that the address belongs to a computer in a public library. This is a strange case because the user is committing very unusual types of vandalism. You might want to keep an eye on its contributions to make sure it doesn't sign anything else with your user name. --TantalumTelluride 22:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hi, I notice you have been replacing some small unfree (aka "fair use") images with bigger versions. Please don't. The "the bigger the better" rule does not apply to that kind of images (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy and Wikipedia:Image use policy#Fair use considerations for details). "Fair use" is a legal "defence" that "forgive" our use of low resolution versions of copyrighted images without permission if scertain conditions are met. Generaly speaking to be on the safe side it's best to keep images used under "fair use" as small as possible (big enough to show what needs to be shown, but no bigger). There is unfortunately no policy or guideline that define exactly where "low resolution" ends, but IMHO such images very rarely need to be bigger than "thumbnail" sized (~200px give or take), unless there is small text that must be visible for the image to make sense or something like that. Thanks for understanding. --Sherool (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Whops, I seem to have spoken a little soon only one of "your" images seems to be "to big" (IMHO) (Image:BBCthreeblobs.jpg). Several of them are not used though, and will probably be deleted soon ("fair use" images that have not been used in articles for at least 7 days are speedy deletion candidates. --Sherool (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

John/Jon Sopel

Hello there. I'd noticed that you'd recently contributed to the John Sopel article, and just wanted to let know that I'm afraid I've inadvertedly undone your work. My apologies. It's all explained here [2]. Crisso 16:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD of Sopel

Hi - thought you might like to know you forgot the {{subst:afd2}} template in your nomination, which was causing it not to appear properly in the deletion logs. I've fixed it for you. — Haeleth Talk 23:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

image deletion

If you can provide me with a list or something sure.Geni 17:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to say if they are GFDL or similar photos (ie, not fair use) PLEASE consider uploading them to commons instead! :) pfctdayelise 23:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:BBC-1950.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:BBC-1950.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:BBC-two-1967.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:BBC-two-1967.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:BBC-two1980s.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:BBC-two1980s.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Wikiproject

How do I join WikiProject British TV Channels? smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 13:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tv-screenshot

Nice one! chocolateboy 21:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Deleting images

I've killed the orphans but some still appear in a lot of articles.Geni 20:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Uk flag large.png is in Skeleton at the 2002 Winter Olympics and Wrestling at the 1896 Summer Olympics amoungst others.Geni 17:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:PBS stations in the United States that air BBC World News

Actually, I thought I had posted that for deletion; I probably had a browser crash, got distracted, and forgot about it. :) tregoweth 22:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wishes

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 16:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

BBC World peer review

I have changed some of my comments at the peer review to reflect your changes - lots of things still need to be changed such as the lead, better referencing with footnotes, and fair use rationales on the images. Please see the peer review page. — Wackymacs 10:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

BBC World peer review II

Hi Wikiwoohoo. I left some comments on the BBC World's talkpage. Happy editing.Katsam 11:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Image

Go ahead. It was only a temporary picture, anyway. I hope you enjoy South Africa! smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Welcome back! smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye!

All the best over the next 8 months - you'll be missed! -- 9cds(talk) 20:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a good time, see ya when you get back MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 21:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:BBCNews24.png

Thanks for uploading Image:BBCNews24.png. 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. 16:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, there was a mix up in uploading. I've fixed that now. Wikiwoohoo 16:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BBC-sportident.png

Thanks for uploading Image:BBC-sportident.png. The image description 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem fixed by Adamcobb. Wikiwoohoo 16:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:BBCworldpeterdobbie.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem fixed. Wikiwoohoo 16:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Important message

It's been deleted. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hi. When you list an image for speedy deletion could you link to the replacement image rather than to the page the replacement image is on - it just makes it easier. Thanks. Also - why does Image:Af (03).JPG.jpg replace Image:BBCannaford.jpg? They look identical. Thanks. Secretlondon 11:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to upload one over the other - just put the poorer one up for deletion. Secretlondon 11:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Look at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion - thats for non-speedy deletion candidates. Secretlondon 12:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BreakfastTitles.jpg)

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:BreakfastTitles.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that 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 fair use 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. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:BreakfastTitles.jpg

Hi. With the image above, I had listed that as a speedy deletion candidate, since I had uploaded a replacement for it: IMage:BBC Breakfast.png. Therefore the image you have notified me about can be deleted as such. Thanks for letting me know though. :) Wikiwoohoo 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. The problem is that this does not work because to qualify for speedy deletion, the replacement image must be in the same format. However, since the image is orphaned fair use, it will be deleted in five days. Stifle (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Martine Croxall, etc.

Hi John5Russell3Finley ( is there a shorter name I could refer to you by? :) ). The problem I found with the article was that at certain points it began to lean from being a biography towards being a bit of a worshipping article instead. What I've learnt at the BBC is that impartiality is everything, and even in a biographical article about a newsreader, even one you find attractive as you seem to. I have come into contact with Martine Croxall myself many times working (almost) alongside her but I won't be mentioning the article so for the time being there is no need to worry.

With several comments I found you had entered into the article, these would be much better off on the article talk page since they refer to, for example, the lack of decent images available of Martine Croxall which can qualify for fair use on Wikipedia. The problem with fair use images is that they are not meant to be crystal clear in quality, but decent enough to allow for identification of the subject. Based on that criteria, the image I have uploaded for the article is more than adequate, though I will seek to update it as and when newer images become available via my website of choice for such images: TV Newsroom.

I hope you did not take offence as a result of my changes to the article and that we can work together to ensure more people hear about Martine Croxall, the "info babe" herself, as you wish. :)

Wikiwoohoo 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the reply, I just looked and discovered that you are also on the News, I am honored to have received a response from a celebrity. You folks have it kind of rough, fans can be very mean. Well, I guess that if you know the individual there is some chance that you have done to her page what she would want, either way I am disinclined to mess much with anybody elses work even on my own stuff. There's lots of other stuff about the News on the BBC that is a whole lot more vital than MC or her personal life. What did you folks do with Alastair Yates, he is serious professional News Dude. When he does the News it is done, and I can get some sleep because everything is OK. He hasn't been on all week (we in Youngstown Ohio have WYTV which is I guess from Kent State Univ and it is on around 1130 EST or 1200 EST depending on their other programing), him not being on the News is quite a bit more tragic than MC not being there. Russ John5Russell3Finley 00:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)