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)