http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Achille_Talon

Wiki is compressing thumbnails in a degrading way that I don't know how to accommodate. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 05:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try editing the photo in photoshop, for example, cutting it down the the size you want and then re-upload. That way, it won't be compressed. —— Ryan ^{(t)•(c)•(review me!)} 06:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That idea was on my list, RyanLupin, and it's certainly workable, but also I have a feeling I'm missing something in the staging, since others manage to get their full resolution as artifact-free as their thumbnail. (I'm using a flat field 55mm Nikon lens, a Nikon D70, and Photoshop). Here's a page where some of the same type of French album covers have a similar problem, but others do not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirou_et_Fantasio Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 07:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think you're doing anyhing wrong - rather it is an artifact of the image subject and heavy jpeg compression in Wikipedia's rescaler. Jpeg is notoriously bad at line drawings, but it can vary alot between different images. I would give the same advice as RyanLupin above, upload a version of the right size manually. henrik•talk 10:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT

Wow, thank you very much. This is exactly the sort of thing that I was hoping for. Hopefully with your helpful comments I can bring it up to par in quality. In any event, thanks a lot! --Liempt (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I was just looking for comments on my cleanup, but you showed me how I could really improve that article further. Thanks for going the extra mile! Lunar Jesters _(talk) 10:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. It's definitely something I will think about. Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have added a "citation needed" tag to a sentence in the lead of Grand Crimean Central Railway. A citation to this fact and an explanation of "hospital train" is included in the second paragraph of the section headed Construction. There is no need for this to be duplicated in the lead — if everything in the lead were to be referenced and explained, there would be no need for an article to follow it. Would you like to remove the tag, or shall I? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's good reason to keep the first paragraph brief and readable, as you say.

It was tagged in that fashion because I questioned the statement, but did not notice the later citation. So the request for citation, as such, is removed. I still question the statement, however. Anything that claims to be the "first", "largest", etc., implies that there is complete knowledge -- which in this case, there cannot be, unless there is a complete listing of the manifest of every train running before 1855.

As a guess, the first hospital trains were probably much earlier -- carrying wounded out of coal mining accidents. (But that's not the same flavor as what happened in the Crimea, we would agree.)

A conservative statement, such as "one of the first" or "the first known" or "the first known dedicated locomotive-drawn" might be more apt.

Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice! Liopleurodon93 (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to expand on the Agfacolor entry, particularly the history of the Sovcolor stock, which was used in the Kinopanorama Soviet films, as well as early Kinopanorama films shot by the undersigned in Australia between 1993 and 1998. The last Sovcolor camera negative films were manufactured by ORWO in what was previously East Germany in 1994. SVEMA in Russia also manufactured the stock, but ceased production in the early 1990s. Please contact me at kinopanorama@msn.com if interested. J Lasher203.103.51.243 (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) I'm not sure which page you're referring to, but I guess it shouldn't matter. You should move X to "X (movie)" and rewrite/expand on that. In general, old revisions are kept in the page history for copyright reasons, but if you plan to do a total rewrite without depending on any existing materials, there wouldn't be any GFDL violations. You're absolutely right that there's no hard-and-fast rule about this. So why move? Essentially to give the creator their proper credit as the topic starter, I think. :) Deletion almost always upsets writers, and deletion of a legitimate stub will leave creators all confused wondering what has happened. Also, there's no need to tag a stub for deletion each time it is to be rewritten; moving pages is much quicker and easier. No offense, I just think it a bit weird that you consider the "delete" option when you can use "move". Editors often don't like waiting for sluggish admins to get to delete what they tag (considering that lots of stuff need urgent deletion around here these days.) In short, deletion isn't required, so you don't need it, and you don't need to increase the workload for admins, either. :) Just move the page and write on! :) Best wishes and take care, --PeaceNT (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The only situation that needs deletion I can think of is when the original stub contains copyright violation materials, then you must write from scratch. The stub you mentioned however has existed for over a year, so it's unlikely that copyright violations can stay unnoticed for so long. Most of other cases don't call for deletion. Best wishes, --PeaceNT (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. First thing first, DON'T feel hesitant about correcting articles. :) It's considerate of you to be wary of the creators and care about how they feel. But no one owns what they write, and I should think that most page starters will feel happy when another user comes by the articles they created and expands upon the content. (I'd personally feel really appreciative of editors who are willing to fix things that I screw up on ;)) Being "hostile about changes to their work" is a bizarre and unquestionably wrong attitude, as such it should simply be ignored.

Editors of Wikipedia are all volunteers who edit topics that they feel interested in. I think we can never know when a specific article will capture an editor's attention. From my observation, sometimes a page that has stayed in poor state for years is dragged to WP:AFD, where people discover that the topic is highly notable; Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron will take note and that page may get significantly expanded in just a few days. So, unless a user actively takes interest in an article, that article may never be improved until it is brought to a highly-watched venue on wikipedia, like the AfD. (This is not an encouragement to bring articles to deletion, though. There are two many deletion debates these days that many articles with potential can be overlooked and deleted.)

I understand your concerns about unpolished writings on Wikipedia, but it's somthing that can't be helped. :) Wikipedia is a work in progess, even WP:IMPERFECT is part of our editing policy. There should be no burden on volunteers to get their work to perfection. Most new users, on first editing, add information from memory; someone else - who understands Wikipedia policies on Verifiablity and Reliable sources - will later come along adding a source. More experienced editors will know how to build articles in their userspace. It should be noted that anonymous users cannot create new pages, and in general adding bits and pieces to an existing page is much easier than writing a new article from scratch. This is a reason why stubs, even those with little information, are helpful on wikipedia.

Another thing, have you ever visited Wikipedia:Did you know? :) DYK credits editors who start articles and editors who expand content alike. If you expand a few-word-stub into a nicely-referenced page, you may bring it up at Template talk:Did you know with an interesting hook and see if your article is selected for DYK. It's not about the credit, but rather that the article you write will be featured on the Main Page, getting thoudsands of readers in a few hours. It's fun, and you'll get recognition on your talk page. :) That is to say, a page creator is not always the one to take most credit. Editors are appreciated for whatever they do, creating pages, expanding content, reverting vandalism, fixing typos. There is no race to start articles, why should we mind? Writing drafts in the sandbox is always a good thing. You don't need to change your editing habit in fear of some "defensive" people creating an article first then forbidding you from correcting information. Point them to WP:OWN, and tell them to find sources to back up their materials; responsible editors will understand. After all, Wikipedia is all about collaboration, isn't it? :)

Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [[1]]

Thank you so much for the pointers! Yes I am very new in these waters. Just thought I would give it a try. Really interested in cruising, boats etc and I do a fair amount of writing so editing copy is something I always need practice with. I will go through and make the corrections you suggested as well as a few more I have seen needed. Please let me know what else I can do to get better at this. Still seems a bit overwhelming to me. Not certain how to do stubs. Words like passaging would seem to be appropriate stubs...or not? --NPA8640 (talk) 4 August 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC) --NPA8640 (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Passaging" is an interesting example, because there's already an article Passaging, but it's a completely different subject. So a shipping article would not want to link to it. Suppose you wanted to create an article about passaging in the shipping sense...first you would decide on an article title. It might be something like "Passaging (shipping)" or "Passaging (nautical)" or "Passaging (naval)". But which? This is where a little familiarity with your subject area in Wiki helps. It's best when an article "fits" with others gracefully. So I looked up "mast" and found a disambiguation page that includes "Mast (naval)" and "Mast (sailing)". So probably the name of the new article would be "Passaging (naval)"...unless you want to write an article specifically about sailing vessels. This doesn't quite get you home free with the article title, though, since it's possible there already is an article — under an unexpected name. This happened to me recently — I created an article that was in part a duplicate of an existing one — so it pays to browse a handful of related articles, and to look in the advanced search (click the search button on the left nav bar, leaving the search box blank).

In terms of good Wiki references for style, content, format...there are so many! I've been collecting them, both in bookmarks, and in a separate (and now quite lengthy) word processing file. But taken all together, they are quite overwhelming, so if there are issues that interest you, let me know which ones. You can, of course, have my bookmarks or my word processing file, but it may be easier just to learn as you go. I've just decided to begin using strikeout. I'm not even sure what the accepted usage is! But I felt it wasn't useful for to leave my sentences on some article's Discussion page, when the issue had been resolved since I left the comment. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosser (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Delicious looking! Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: your message on my talk page. Cheese above make me "greedy" :) --Bhadani (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. 27th March 2008 you had deleted images from the article Nangamangalam, citing that the article lacks references. What is the relationship between references not being there and deleting images? Kindly explain.

Cheers...Vivian.

I should have been clearer in my description for this edit: [2] on Nangamangalam. My edit was simply to add a tag encouraging editors to contribute references. I didn't delete images, in fact, I was intending to compliment the photographer. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Yacht_Transport has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable subject

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. (message from Eli lilly, Aug 23, 2009)

The reasoning you supplied adding the prod tag was "insignificant topic, most likely spam". The original article had several external links, including to quite commercial sites. There's certainly content from commercial sources.

Recently, an anon IP (correctly) removed all the external links as commercial spam. [3]. User NPA8640, who created the article, then removed your prod tag.

So now we've got an article with no commercial links at all, and which mentions no company or person. It's not WP:SPAM, now.

The topic will be of academic interest to most readers. (Presumably yacht owners are aware of transport options.) So it's on that academic basis that it should be assessed. In the best of all worlds this article would be a part of a series about methods of shipping cargo by ship. Unfortunately Wikipedia coverage of shipping is spotty. There are editors who write shipping articles who do not have a broad background in either the history of shipping, or in the commercial aspect of shipping. (The history student who added an entire huge section in cruise ship and then departed Wiki forever after her assignment comes to mind [4].) The Yacht Transport article, largely written by NPA8640, is in the opposite class: It's technical, articulate, and well-informed. The cruise ship article, after much work, is finally getting to that stage. The quality of this article outweighs the somewhat obscure topic. Best Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's something about the article being Yacht Transport that is off. It seems like the name is too specific but what is described in the article is generic. It's really about "Watercraft Transport". Every single part of the Yacht Transport article, except for the section on Semi Submersible Ships, would apply when transporting a mere 20' boat. In addition, the Semi Submersible Ships are used to transport gigantic cargo like aircraft carriers and oil rigs. The transportation methods described in the article are not unique to yachts and instead apply to a vast range of vessel sizes. That's what makes the article feel spammy. What is by far the most common method of yacht transport, which is tractor-trailer, is strangely absent from the article. NPA8640 was the original author and loaded it up with external links. I removed the links (forgot to log in first) but the article still feels wrong because of the specificity issues. Best, Eli lilly (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that same awkwardness in the topic selection. And yes, right that "Watercraft Transport" would be more appropriate. And right that other ways such as overland transport should be accounted for.

I confess I had an ulterior motive! When I worked with NPA8640, I had just suffered some painful editing of poor shipping articles, and was eager to draw someone into Wikipedia who is apparently a subject matter expert --or who writes well about shipping, at least.

As for where to go from here. Dunno. I'd hate to lose the material. The Ship transport article is nicely detailed and equally authoritative, but that Yacht Transport material is far off-topic. Perhaps renaming the article? Or including a couple paras about yacht transport over land? Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and furthering my point about the article's real purpose, NPA8640 just added his spam links back in. Eli lilly (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I just removed the current pricing, to emphasize that Wiki needs to be an encyclopedia WP:NOT an online catalog. Sigh. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, I have no vested interest in this game "Quarterstaff". I have never played it. In fact, I have never heard of it. However, I do know that the number of times I have typed in the name of something I am familiar with on Wikipedia and been misdirected has numbered in the dozens, if not the hundreds (for example, the genus zelotes; I wasn't looking for an apostle, I was looking for information on this). I suspect there are individuals who are looking for the game, but only remember it as "Quarterstaff", without the subtitle. If they type in "Quarterstaff", and then see the notice at the Quarterstaff page, they can get where they want. People that are interested in the weapon, and not the computer game, however, will not be misdirected, however, because if they type in "Quarterstaff", they get brough to the page they're looking for. They are most likely to ignore the notice at the top, as they're not looking for the game. Why in the world do you think they would be so confused and click on the game's link when they're already at the page they're looking for? BTW, I paid absolutely no attention to your name or account when making the revert; I was just thinking of those 130 people who are trying to find the other article every month. It doesn't kill us to help them out, you know? The Jade Knight (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, this is the "Well it might be useful to somebody" argument. That argument can be used to justify any change. The question is whether the link is useful overall and whether it's appropriate.

As a webmaster, there are a dozen questions and requests one frequently gets that aren't based on a full knowledge of the situation. One is "Links are good, otherwise why would they be in HTML?" Maybe abstractly links *can* be good, but links are not *always* good. It takes quite extreme examples for people to recognize the situation with links. A link that is helpful to one person is intrusive and counterproductive to another. That's why WP:CONTEXT reads "Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?". The answer with Quarterstaff:_The_Tomb_of_Setmoth is: almost nobody. You're saying: Well, what about those poor 130 people. They aren't stuck, they could easily and more fruitfully use the Wiki search engine. In the meantime, every single one of the thousands of people who come to the article to read about quarterstaffs are inconvenienced. Finally, again as a webmaster, it's a safe bet that many who got to Quarterstaff:_The_Tomb_of_Setmoth got there by mistake -- because of the misleading link that implies the game has something substantial to do with quarterstaffs (The game doesn't have much to do with quarterstaffs, and at any rate, the article never mentions them). You say "Well, they'll just ignore it. But how can they? They just ignore all disambig links? No, they have to read it, and consider whether it's important or relevant. What's the fuss about a few extra seconds? Well, what's the fuss about a few extra seconds pulling up a search window?

So the answer to your question, it's assisting a few people so they don't have to search, at the expense of misdirecting many of them to an irrelevant article, and inconveniencing thousands of others.

Finally, consider the Wiki search results for "quarterstaff". In the first couple pages there are maybe ten Wiki articles that are more relevant to Quarterstaff than Quarterstaff:_The_Tomb_of_Setmoth. If there was a choice between some of those, and Quarterstaff:_The_Tomb_of_Setmoth, which one would you choose, knowing that you were misguiding every single reader who wanted a different article? Maybe concealing the article they really wanted from them. Let the search engine do its job. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

while it really just aesthetics, i wanted to pint to you that while using {{-}} does cause the lead to be separated by whichever box (TOC, infobox) is larger, it keeps the header of the next section with it's related prose. I don't know your browser or settings, but I am wondering if you are seeing the big gap between the first section header and following text that i am, or if the text fills in neatly between the TOC and infobox. I am using the latest version of IE like a majority of internet users (despite other fine browsers like firefox) and personally feel it would be best to find the compromise that looks best to most people. I won't edit war over this, but would like you to consider my view (literally) as well and that if there's going to a be a big white space somewhere no matter what, at least it shouldn't be between a section header and it's related text. i'll leave it up to you. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I might have been using a recent Firefox or a recent IE. But your point is valid: Wiki should do what works best for the most people, so long as that doesn't make things totally unworkable for some reasonably large number of users.

Technically, I'm not sure what's causing this problem. I've only encountered a few cases where it's enormously awkward. A couple times, I solved the issue by giving the article a good copy edit to reduce its size, then deleting the TOC. (Heh, heh) That obviously won't work with Beaver, it's far too long. My temptation might be to move or modify the infobox or the TOC. The big spaces really do look unprofessional, in my work my bosses would jump on me for leaving them there. At any rate, I have no strong opinion, do what you think best! Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the way the formatting is preferred on wikiepdia really doens't leave us with any way to completely obliterate whitespace. the problem is that guidelines strongly encourage us to put the TOC before the first header to be compatible with cell-phone like browsers (i'm paraphrasing), and even if you got the text to neatly wrap you'd then have ugly problems if there's an image in that first section. "My kingdom for a problem-free wikipedia!" - but i digress. :D happy editing! --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah, and whitespaces aside... {{-}} is used elsewhere in the article to prevent images from bleeding into the following sections and distorting their text and [edit] links. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. When "compatible with cellphone" is brought up...what screen resolution are we talking about? (As a webmaster, for so many years I had to deal with marketing managers who were convinced they were going to lose sales if pages weren't "color safe", "800 x 600", and had low resolution photos. Is this a return to "trying to satisfy everybody, but pleasing nobody"??)

That aside, I'm wondering whether I should be adding {{tl|-}} routinely to articles? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ARB, Have been trying to work on a new article for Leo Baeck Institute. Added a logo to the top of the article but it qwas removed and I don't understand why. Would appreciate some help with adding images through Commons. Many thanks --NPA8640 (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really do not pick the easy ones, do you! Couldn't you raise issues that make me appear wonderfully worldly and intelligent?

In brief? Move the image down in the article. And in regard to your earlier deleted material: rewrite it all. Now to the details...

1) You have gained the attention of editor Star Mississippi. This is an experienced editor, you'll want to pay them heed. The good news is that it appears from their talk page that they are reasonable and helpful. They have reverted two of your edits, and you'll want to deal with them to resolve the issues.

2) Star Mississippi reverted two kinds of edits you made. Their explanation in the first reversion edit summary is "nnpoV copyviom pr", which means: "Non-Neutral Point of view, copyright violation, and public relations material". Of these three, copyright violation is the silver bullet. Wikipedia has zero tolerance for that. (It does not make a difference that you are speaking on behalf of the Institute!)

Happily, there are two possibilities to work through the copyright problem:

a) In your shoes...I'd just paraphrase, trim, and rewrite.

Alternatively,

b) "If you hold the copyright to this text and permit its use under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) [5] and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)"...

...then the copyright violation issue is null.

Note even afterward, there is still the issue of using Wikipedia as a promotional platform. You should be seeking neutral, unarguable facts about the Institute. If you cut-and-paste the official material, Star Mississippi will immediately remove it. (As would other editors.)

3) The reason Star Mississippi gave for reverting your addition of the logo was not copyright. He gave a quite different reason, which was "logo doesn't belong there". They are simply talking about formatting. I.e., Wikipedia articles don't put logos at the top of the article. Move the image down...problem solved.

Ok, I lied.

Understand that you are rather swimming against the Wikipedia current. The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking authoritative, neutral, referenced encyclopedic articles. The Wikimedia Foundation owns the production of the encyclopedia, and controls it completely. Wikipedia is not a free advertising side, not a free promotional site. For many, this comes as a shock.

Star Mississippi is acting in the role of stopping vandalism. So far, you have got from them three brief messages -- one a boilerplate message. But actually, you are barely on their radar. They are responding, probably in the space of 15 seconds, to specific, easily identifiable issues. On examination (which is what I've been doing) there are many other issues.

My specific recommendation on the image? Move it further down in the article. Do not get into the issue of the Creative Commons, unless prompted. This is not a place you want to be. When and if that happens, detailed instructions are provided to resolve the issue. (This is far-and-away a more complicated topic than the ones we've been dealing with, avoid going there.)

With Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alpha Ralpha Boulevard, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I agree with what you said. I'm afraid I abandoned the discussion - I don't mind talking if we are moving forward, but the debate was going round in circles so fast it was making me dizzy :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Collected Poems of Freddy the Pig has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NB

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BlazerKnight (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, I've answered this to everyone's satisfaction on the discussion page? It's an unusual situation -- that this book alone in the series has. There are significant unanswered questions about it; hopefully the stub will attract an editor with more information. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Pygmalion 1938 Laserdisc Cover.jpg. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the photo is again being used in the article. It was removed in good faith by an editor who noticed (as I did not) that a similar image was used later. What that editor didn't notice is that the image it replaced in the infobox is a probable copyright violation. I also removed the poorer quality similar image used later in the article. So, a quality, "copyright ok" is the only one remaining in the article. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alpha Ralpha Boulevard. A belated reply to your post on my talk page regarding the theft of three Milligan books. A moving story. The things people do from need or greed are unfortunate indeed. One consolation is that most of his books are still available, whereas some of his records, including Unspun Socks from a Chicken's Laundry, are as rare as hen's teeth. I guess the reason the folks to whom you refer didn't steal from a church or beat up an old lady would be that:

1. Milligan's books are not commonly available in churches. Not even his version of the Bible, for some unknown reason.
2. Beating up old ladies with pianos is hard work.

I hope this was of some help. Failing that, keep taking the tablets, and call me in the morning. Or if you die in the meantime, call me in the mourning. Wotnow (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alpha, I am touched and of course pleased by your kind posting on my talk page. I am particulary happy to see that, as I had hoped and thought, wikipedians will appreciate good work if it is presented patiently and diplomatically. Thank you again.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

In 2008 you posted on the Ascendancy talk page mentioning an interview with William R. Trotter. Do you have a copy of this interview or know where it might be located? My internet searches don't turn up much. I would love to include this in the article if it would make a good reference. Thanks! --Culix (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have the whole article hardcopy. It's from the February 1997 "Letter of the Month" in "Computer Gaming World". It was sent to "Contributing Editor Martin Cirulis after the later's critical aside in his November column." It starts:

"In the two or so years since the incident happened, I've taken an incredible amount of flack for my review/strategy mistake with ASCENDENCY, but until now I have not replied, either in public or in private..."

I tore it out of my magazine, finding it significant, not just for this game but perhaps for game reviews in a broader sense. For copyright reasons, I can't quote any significant portion of the whole article. But we probably can work with the situation. Also, it might be that Trotter himself is willing to make comment directly in Wiki. It's a thought. Best Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is a great help! I will try to track down a copy of those issues. --Culix (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's pretty simple. Each of those statements are opinions which require a citation. I would think that you are familiar with the necessity of providing citations for uncommonly cited "facts" in Wikipedia. Each of my requests for citations applied to very specific "one-sentence" information that was cited and are clearly not the work of "dozens of authors" but by either 3 separate authors or one single author.
• In fact, I had just read the week before about the Gutenberg Bible being printed on "parchment" not vellum, which directly contradicts that statement. Aside from that, the specific sentence I am referring to for the one citation says that 1/4 of the 180 copies of the Gutenberg Bible were on vellum. That is an extremely specific statement that requires a citation. Another is "all Sifrei Torahs are printed on Klaf." A third request for citation was honored by another editor (thank god for them). To my knowledge (and I am sure I can direct you to Wikipedia rules that specify it), Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository for "editors" to invent "facts". If you cite a fact, you need to support it. Each of the requests for citations (3) are about very specific information that is 1) not readily available 2) certainly not common knowledge.
• As it is not customary in Wikipedia to explain requests for citations of opinions or controversial facts ^{[citation needed]}, I did not post an explanation for what seemed obvious. But I see that you have a habit of removing requests for citations on that specific article and removed other editors requests as well ('human skins were used for vellum'). Why would you remove a citation request for such an obviously controversial statement. As a self-described "professional editor" I would think that your first requirement for esoteric facts would be a request for some research to support them...
• But thanks again for being a bully... We need more folks like you...

Politely, Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with the text may have seemed obvious to you, but until I reviewed your user page, I had no idea whether you were acting according to a plan of good faith or proper execution.

WP:CITE reads

"The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged"

No reasonable person disputes, as examples, that the United States is a country, or that squirrels have tails.

The issue is that you challenged several fairly innocuous statements, without supplying reasons. This leaves other editors to resolve whatever it was you were objecting to. But even a subject matter expert might not know what you objected to: that needed an explanation. The example problem you gave above: "all Sifrei Torahs are printed on Klaf." ... it wasn't clear whether you were challenging the definition of a "proper" "Sifrei Torah", or stating that some large portion are not printed on Klaf, or perhaps that you were querying the existence of digitized copies.

In the course of a year, well over 100,000 people read the Vellum article.[6] In Wikipedia, it's not unusual for a request for citation to persist for months. In that time, then, thousands of readers would be perplexed by tag challenges. If I were to challenge every possibly dubious statement, the article would have dozens of tags, starting with the first phrase, "Vellum (from the Old French Vélin, for "calfskin")" which has a link to an unauthoratative reference. (In fairness, I just this moment cross-checking the OED, I see the external reference apparently took some information from there -- without sourcing it -- while freely interpreting. I.e., the reference may be a combination of misinformation, copyright violation and promotion.)

I could go on. The idea is to make Wiki articles reasonably correct and informative, and to give later editors an easy place from which to proceed. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your commenting on the issue at [[Talk:Sailing_faster_than_the_wind#Prillen.27s_edit_of_23_February_2010].--Gautier lebon (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gautier, sorry, I haven't been online for several days. It appears you have resolved the issue, at this point? If not, please let me know. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, I don't do Wikipedia every day either. The issue in question has indeed be resolved. However, I would appreciate your comments on a related issue, at Talk:Sailing_faster_than_the_wind#New_version_of_thought_experiment.--Gautier lebon (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I finally had the time to answer. This is an interesting situation, it's good you are pressing for clarity. There are "meta-questions" involved. The editors involved seem to be up to a rational discussion. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for your message. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm going to be able to help as I work for the UK publisher and you really need information from Random House Inc. I had a quick look at the Random House USA website but the closest I could get to a formal archive was this and an NYT article (but that CEO is long gone). We do have a proper archive in the UK but it only holds books and correspondence for books published here. Sorry.--Plad2 (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Is there anything you'd like me to do?
In future, I suggest you just revert the edits saying something like - "Reverted unexplained edit - see your talk page". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the editor isn't in tune with Wikipedia as a formal encyclopedic, but leans toward fan magazine and forum material without reliable referencing. He's making a lot of edits rapidly, and many seem to be problematic. (I just checked another ... at random ... and ... again, tag removal without explanation[7]) It's probably time to encourage a dialog with them directed at their overall editing. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to sound jaded, but I think that would be a waste of your time and your goodwill.

Regarding your goodwill, I suggest you employ it where it will be appreciated. (e.g. By talking to me. Or better still, by talking to someone who needs your help, will read what you say and will appreciate your help.)

I'm afraid that, although I'm an "inclusionist", I have no patience for vandals and for the ignorant who refuse to pay attention and/or refuse to learn. (This guy falls into the latter category.)

I'm happy to assist you if you have a specific proposal that's likely to result in something.

But I'm afraid I don't have the patience to be polite to someone who refuses to pay attention. In those circumstances, I just revert with a terse but pointedly relevant edit comment. They then tend to either go away, or engage in dialogue. My experience is that, after initial approaches, continuing to be extremely polite and considerate does not provide any "return on investment".

However, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The above is in regard to this comment of mine on Pdfpdf's page: [8] This was more-or-less supporting in passing Pdfpdf's actions regarding an editor who wasn't explaining substantial changes. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Finn family.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were given a week to deal with the issues before the image was deleted, that's generally more than enough time. The text of the pages was-

== Summary ==
I release this photo, which I took from my copy of the book, unconditionally into the public domain.
It was not available on the Web.
This is the 1950 edition, 1974 reprint of the paperback Penguin Book cover. The artwork is by Tove Jansson.

== Licensing ==
{{Non-free book cover}}

There's no fair use rationale there. It being nominated for deletion now is not a change in guidelines; it's just the lack of efficiency in enforcing our guidelines. If you feel that the image of the cover is necessary (and, at first glance, I strongly, strongly doubt that it is) you're welcome to make a case for it on my talk page and I'll restore it if necessary. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't questioning whether the use of the image was correct, but the Wiki process of evaluating the image. All the data was erased, and no justification was left. And no, I'm not some new Wiki user who doesn't understand practices. In fact, I was invited to join the group reviewing copyright violations. So please explain. What exactly is the issue? You couldn't figure out this was a book cover? You couldn't open the dropdown and add the justification yourself? Why didn't you feel it was necessary to explain yourself? Or to suggest a remedy? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply the way it works. My assertion that "you were given" was in response to your incredulity that the image was deleted- a message was left for you about the issue some time before the actual deletion of the image, and you did not deal with it. If you feel the process should be changed, that's fine, but shouting at me isn't really going to get you anywhere. There seems to be a lot of upset here, and I'm not really seeing what the issue is- the image unambiguously failed the criteria, a message was left for you explaining as much when it was tagged, and when the issue was not resolved after the pre-agreed amount of time, the image was deleted. Everything was done exactly "by the book", as it were, so it really isn't fair for you to be upset with me because of the procedure. Now you weren't "questioning whether the use of the image was correct"- what, precisely, is the issue here? J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking YOU what the issues are:

1) What exactly was your reason for deleting an image of a book cover? What Wiki guideline, specifically, was so completely infracted that you had NO RECOURSE except to delete material?

2) Do you, in your mind, imagine that either the spirit or the letter of the law was broken, here? THEN YOU CITE THAT LAW.

3) Why did the method that you employed require that I quiz you personally why the deletion was made? Why didn't you give a justification? Why didn't you leave a straightforward, documented way to review your action?

4) Your attitude, that I have a "fair" amount of time to respond to an action of yours. Your attitude, that "it's simply the way it works". The way WHAT works? What are you talking about? I've added/deleted/modified scores of images in Wikipedia. THIS, this is the third one in all those years that I can remember that has EVEN BEEN ALTERED. Your attitude again, above, that that you "strongly doubt" the cover is necessary, when I JUST GAVE YOU AN EXAMPLE FROM A FEATURED ARTICLE of the same practice. The Beatles

I suggest that you ask for the opinion of another administrator. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all a little aggressive, but your questions are rather simple, so I will answer them.

1) NFCC#10c is the policy that the image did not meet.

2) I have no concern for the laws as such- I'm not a lawyer, I'm not even American. What matters here are our policies. If by "law" you meant "policy", then yes, and yes. NFCC#10c. The non-free content criteria are deliberately far stricter than the law.

3) I personally left you the template message above, there was the deletion notice on the image itself, and the deleting admin (who was not me) left a note in the deletion log. All explicitly noted the problem, and the former two explained how to deal with the problem.

4) The way the deletion process works. An image is nominated for deletion, it gets a set amount of time in which people can work to resolve the issues if necessary, it is then deleted. This is the way it has worked for years. If you don't like it, that's fine, but shouting at me is going to achieve nothing. (And, it doesn't matter if you feel another image is used in the same way. If you have issue with that, you're welcome to go and take steps to have it removed or deleted. I do note, however, that that particular image appears alongside sourced discussion of the image- looks like a pretty solid use of non-free material to me- it certainly doesn't imply that we can decorate every article we like with book or film or album covers.)

Again, I'm really not seeing what is causing you so much upset here. The use of the image was unambiguously contrary to our policy, and the procedure was followed as normal. Could you please calm down? J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are acting contrary to basic Wiki policies. I have drafted an ANI complaint, but have not filed since I do not have time to deal with the whole process. The complaint is written, and thought through. When I have the time, it will be filed. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you like to challenge other people on Wikipedia too. This shows a lot about what kind of person you are. Puffin ^{Lets talk!} 14:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jerry Uelsmann Cover.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had a bit of a discussion a couple of years ago about this one. We sort of decided that we might write another article specifically about "humour in modern pop music" to supplement it, but this never came off in the end. Now someone wants to hijack the article for academic musical theory as opposed to general interest (at least that is my impression) and s/he and I have a dispute going. I would especially appreciate your opinion. Perhaps you will see in his argument something I am missing - perhaps in trying to write one article on this whole subject in one go I was always being a bit ambitious. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hepzibah by kelly.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Masters of maze.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 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Moon of Gomrath Cover Wiki.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Achille Talon cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]