Zzyzx11/Archive14 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Wow, you're quick! I was just about to make the switch, and you beat me to it.  :)
Indeed, the 125px width should be okay for this particular image (given its aspect ratio and historical/artistic significance) —David Levy 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you beat me in uploading a cropped version before I did, after I noticed that the full image would not work too well. :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the tables have turned. I frequently check the upcoming TFA/OTD images and find that you've already taken care of the cropping. It often seems as though you and I are the only people who care about this. —David Levy 01:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Capri pants.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. -- Sherool (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Go ahead and delete it, since it is possible to freely take a picture of someone wearing Capri pants. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• P.S. Also Image:Antioch-Bridge.jpg.– Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that too. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize the information needs to be integrated, and much (though not all) of it is redundant. Especially important (I think) are the references in the NEWLY added material that are lacking in the older material. I am sure it could be done better, but my goal was a) preservation of the material and b) moving it out of the main NFL article. I had not yet thought about how it would work in this article. Thank you for reverting it back; while I agree some of it is redundant, we should work harder on incorporating it. Unfortuinately, my priority now is the main NFL article. Once that gets up to standard, I can work on this one (and the others I have so treated). Or someone else can before I get to it. Just as good. please direct any questions or comments to my talk page. --Jayron32 03:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

There has already been much discussion about the labeling of communities as census-designated places and the consensus was that the term is less desirable than "unincorporated community". The term "census-designated place" is used only by the U.S. Census Bureau and has no meaning outside that organization. CDP boundaries do not conform with official community boundaries, which are set by Local Agency Formation Commissions in California and other local agencies in other states. In fact, many CDPs divide official communities into smaller areas for the convenience for the USCB. Please see the article on census-designated places.

Although it is linguistically-correct to use the term "town" for communities the size of Alpine, California, the consensus was not to use the term except for legally incorporated towns. So, Alpine did not conform to the current consensus and you were correct to change it. However, I am changing the article to call Alpine an unincorporated community as that is the current consensus (at least among those of us who passionately argued the point) as to what it should be called. Cheers Rsduhamel 06:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your edit is appropriate since you mention that the area is both an unincorporated community and a CDP. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for merging. I did not want to blow away the prior template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) .

You're welcome. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am beiung stupid, but why has this image been deleted TWICE - the second time by you. I am the copyright owner, and the photographer and I have permission from everyone involved to use this picture, and I clearly stated so on the form? Lazarusx 14:53 19th November

And special thanks for taking care of the Selected Anniversaries. Have a cookie.

Keep up the excellent work, my friend. Happy editing.

PFHLai 14:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if you're invovled in the process of picking the PotD, but since you uploaded it from Commons you might want to check Image talk:Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kilaneh.jpg. ~ trialsanderrors 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [[Image talk:Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kilaneh.jpg

As per WP:POTD, the picture of the day is based on recently promoted featured images. Because the image is primarily stored on Commons, all that I did was save a temporary local copy so it could be protected while on the main page here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! But the credit for those maps belongs with Zondor for developing the amazing label image editor thing. Regards, --Astrokey44 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know.[1] I just wanted to give a barnstar to both of you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why in the hell did you delete this?--Wokid MM 00:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As you probably read on the deletion log, it was deleted because the image did not have specific information on its source, author, or licence information. All you did was paste "goku looks cool" in the "Summary", and select "I don't know" in the "License". Again, please read the instructions on the upload form. Your file will be deleted unless you provide the detailed information on the instructions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Richmond-San-Rafael-Bridge.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 that provides substantially the same information. 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}}, 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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. —Angr 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Richmond-San-Rafael-Bridge.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Richmond-San-Rafael-Bridge.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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. —Angr 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This image should have been deleted months ago... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:A1 Steak Sauce.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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. —Bkell (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and replaced by Image:A1 Steak Sauce.png. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 wrote:

I noticed my name got into this conversation. I will admit that I missed protecting those templates that the penis vandal got, both the December 15 SA and the December 24 POTD. But Gurch has a valid point that it is essentially the whole community's fault. Because it got to a point where only one user, me, was monitoring the main page protections. That in my opinion is unacceptable for an important page like the main page. Not only was there not another Wikipedian to double check myself, but what could have happened if I got too busy or went on a wikibreak -- and all of the templates and images for a particular day was not protected? So hopefully, more eyes and a new bot will prevent it from ever happening again. Regards, Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the entire community (non-administrators too) should take responsibility for this. When I posted at WP:AN and Talk:Main Page, I assumed there was a group of people that took care of this, and they seemed to be in need of a little motivation. I wasn't aware that it had got to the point that there was only one person having to do it. Obviously you cannot be blamed for such circumstances and I apologize if I gave that impression. I notice the bot is only going to notify administrators that pages need protection; this is all very well, but it's all too easy to get back to the situation where there's only one person doing it, if only one person is monitoring the bot's page. In my opinion, the community's outright rejection of the automation of any administrative process, however benign, is idiotic and misguided, and the project is really beginning to suffer because of it. Sadly it doesn't look like this attitude will change any time soon. – Gurch 12:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As for a bot that does some automation of any administrative process, the community is very, very reluctant to allow one. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki is one example that makes people hesitant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that mishap. On the other hand, Curps ran an unauthorised blocking bot on his own account for months, despite a number of serious errors. Note that neither of them sought approval. There's a big difference between getting a general consensus that something is a good idea, and doing something without consultation. If as a result of one incident of the latter, the former is now impossible, then we're in even more of a mess than I thought – Gurch 12:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that you have misinterpreted what is meant by Part 8 of the WP:FUC. The usage in the stats falls under the category of "identify the subject of an article". Note the use of the word "purely" in the FUC. The implication is that fair-use images cannot be used as nonrelevant decor, such as page backgrounds, but can be used as long as they are relevant. You said that you strictly follow rule eight. Since rule eight says "purely", and since this is not purely decorative as the subject matter of the images is relevant to the topic, then the image meets the condition of rule eight.

I should also quote this segment of text from the copyright conditions of the image:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

--Matt72986 12:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the discussion on my talk page. --Matt72986 03:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:MilkMan and User talk:King MilkMan are both fully protected broken redirects that need to be deleted. Would you please do that for me? Thanks a lot, --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

David Levy took care of it. --PFHLai 14:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

...is going on at Talk:List of MLB seasons#Split the YYYY in baseball articles?. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

How come your username is named after a road, because most wikipedians name their username after their name, and it is unusual on wikipedia for someone to pick a username after a road, because a road is no big deal and you seem to think that roads are the most special thing in America, which is a huge problem?--jsalims80 17:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I want to be unusual. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of user talk pages that are broken redirects that need to be deleted. The problem is that I am not an admin so I cannot do that myself because they are fully protected. If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/User_talk:Bobabobabo you will find links to these broken redirects that need to be deleted. Thanks so much, --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Zzyzx11. Since you started the template NFLBracket, I'd like to ask you if you could make a small change. Previously, the template 4RoundBracket-Byes was used and I would like to see if you could add the numbers in gray background to the new template, to give it a better look. Thanks. Rbb l181 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See my comment on Template talk:NFLBracket for the answer. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the fair-use thing. I was playing with learning about templates so that I might be able to contribute some things: 1) Opening up more room in the date/location fields with bottom alignment, so that long venue names don't wrap and cause a team/score box to enlarge in the process, and 2) realigning the WildCard round downward to feed the center line of those games' boxes straight into the winner's position in the next round, (since there is no 'other game' contributing the teams with byes), and getting further away from the look of a generic 16-team, statically-seeded tournament. While I was at it, I was trying for the sort of look that one is likely to see on a newspaper sports page. I thought had read the fair use policy thoroughly enough, but clearly I missed two key points. The Monster 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am Soxrock. I am only on this "interm" account because there are a few people (no actual accounts, but spies) trying to capture me. So if you look at my user page Soxrock you would see that I am only here under this account interm. Crazy Canadian 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's people in real life. It's not certain wikipedians. Crazy Canadian 12:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lorne Calvert.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 that provides substantially the same information. 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}}, 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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. Abu Badali 21:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete it, as per Jimbo's current policy on fair use images of notable living people. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A friend did the "" update and I missed it. He said he changed something while I was distracted and I missed that. Thanks for catching it. Autkm 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please consider adding this event to the January 19th Selected Anniversaries page. See Talk for January 19th for more details. Thanx and best regards...

--Tex 00:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of what is stated on rule #1 of WP:SA#Criteria for listing items on this set of pages: "births and deaths can only be used on centennials, etc". But to be honest, in general, I am not a big fan of listing any centennial of a birth or death since I have to remove another significant entry. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe in another hundred years... --Tex 03:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert? My changes are upwardly compatible to using the tournament seeds, and I manually checked a couple of dozen articles to see the effects (and there were no undesirable renderings). Do you have some specific pages that were broken by my change? You also reverted the change to use "em" spacing instead of fixed pixel widths. This should always be preferable, as that makes the template "scale" according to the browser font size. Andrwsc 06:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at User talk:Andrwsc/4TeamBracket. By using   for the seed parameters, you get the desired effect. This is why I think my version is completely compatible with the previous version, yet greatly improved for situations where seeding is not needed and the spaces look awkward. I do not want to use {{Round4}}. I find this template (and it's "brothers") very awkward to use because they use positional parameters instead of named template parameters. (This may be part of the reason they don't work well with template arguments.) Also, there is far too much unnecessary vertical space with that bracket.

In any case, I feel that you reverted my changes far too quickly, without considering the benefits of this version. As I said, I could not find a single example (yet) of how my version caused any undesirable effects, but I am willing to look at every page that transcludes this template if necessary, and put in the   seeds if that is what is wanted. Of course, I did find lots of pages in which the bracket is improved by removing the unused seed boxes... Andrwsc 07:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever... If you want to take a look at all of the bracket templates, be my guest. I will wait to see it in action when it is used on a {{current-sport}}-tagged article when it is in progress. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I have been looking at that set of templates. I am concerned that variants keep popping up, as I strongly believe that we should be trying to standardize on a smaller set. For example, I count at least 13 templates for 16 teams (4 rounds). It seems to me that with use of parser functions, this could be reduced to maybe 2 or 3 variants, which would be vastly more maintainable and would certainly contribute to more consistency across Wikipedia. Someday I'll put together a proposal for that! Andrwsc 08:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Update - I have looked at every article that transcludes this template and made some edits before changing this template back to having the seeds optional. There were over 250 articles that use the template, but the vast majority specify the seed arguments for all six positions. The results:

• 27 articles on the NIT that needed   added each time. It was interesting to see that most of these articles use {{8TeamBracket}} with   for unknown seeds, but did not do the same thing for the final four.
• 12 articles that needed fixing or completion
• 6 articles that had blanks for a bye, so I switched usage to {{3TeamBracket}} instead
• 7 articles that had completely empty brackets as placeholders, so these were left alone

Of the rest, there were 15 articles that benefitted from my changes, as they did not use seeds. There were only 3 articles that assumed 1/2/3/4 in the first round (so I explicitely added them) and only 2 articles that assumed   in the second round (which I also updated).

Thought you'd like to know. Andrwsc 20:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. My name's Zohar and I'm active on the Hebrew Wiki. One of our writers had wrote the Hevrew version of Zimmermann Telegram article based on a book he had about cryptology. Int hat book the date mentioned for the sending of the telegram was Jan 16th, as showed up in your article, until an anonymous user had changed it to Jan 19th ([2]). From there it seems to hadreached all acrose the different Wikis (though the Spanish Wiki still holds Jan 16th).

Since the IP is probably no longer any good in order to make contact with the user who had changed the sending date, I hope that you will be able to help us. Did you changed the January 16, January 19 and the selected anniversaries for those date based on knowledge or because of the anonymous contribution? Can you refer us to a source that states Jan 19? Thanks in advance, Zohar Drookman - Talk - Hebrew Talk 16:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not revert your edits to Rogers Centre, Safeco Field, RCA Dome, Ford Field. I simply removed the WrestleMania succession boxes per WP:PW from the merge you performed on the other sports related succession boxes in the artilces. Hope that clears it up -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)