This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Well, the source website does have a copyright notice ("Derechos reservados" - rights reserved). This makes its translation a derivative work, which cannot be published without permission of the copyright holder. (See Wikipedia:Copyrights for details.) - Mike Rosoft 11:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:618px-RiskInPlay.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:618px-RiskInPlay.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rjgodoy 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
vCard & wikiengine
I where reading Tom Limoncelli Time Management for System Administrators where he mentioned about using wikiengine as a registry for contact information. Then I started to wonder in my small round head about contact format.
vCard sounds quite natural way to save this kind of information. Which leads simply to question how hard it could be to make some notation for contact information when there is way to say this is name, this field is phone number of that previously mentioned name being and so on. If there is notation how to express something then it is quite simple to output vCard, hCard or html table etc. Contact information should be reusable from many different wiki page. I mean that if there's article about HP computer and other about HP printers contact to HP should be single HP contact object.
Unfortunately I don't have glue how code extensions to wiki. I also don't know how much there is contact information in wikipedia, most likely only some. If there would be notation for addresses, phone number etc would anyone use it. Impossible to say. There is also other side of coin. It might be that implementation of contact information notation is just what everybody needed but did not realize needing it. There is also possibility that this idea was completely stupid (actually my ideas usually are not so bright than I self think they are).
Sami Kerola 16:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a college either, but colleges are more well known than high schools. And why would I nominate the page that I expanded for deletion? neck hard--DvDknight 16:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar
Hey, thanks for the Barnstar! It's always great when folks take time out to let you know they appreciate what you've done. Right, I'm off to do some more cleaning. --Lendorien 17:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i am a student at all saints who has worked on the wikipedia page. the administratiors have requested that the wikipedia page be deleted, and i hoped that you could help delete the page. thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.217.38 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Hi Rjgodoy. I actually found the image, m:Image:LOM.PNG on the Learning object metadata article here and copied it to meta assuming it had been cleared. (silly me) Looks like it was removed with this edit. I noted that on the picture's page at meta, but left the copy there. I did, however use the IEEE 1484.12.1 – 2002 Standard for Learning Object Metadata to construct m:Learning object metadata there at meta, thus capturing the framework. I'll check and see if the standard is still current and when I get time (and if there is some interest) we'll expand the v:Topic:Learning Objects content development project at Wikiversity (where I'm currently the sole participant *sigh*), perhaps creating our own diagram under the GFDL. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- • Q^#o • 14:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Rjgodoy, I'm thrilled with the UML diagram that you made for Learning object metadata. I just want to let you know that I'm using Image:LOM_base_schema.png on two Wikiversity projects: Topic:Learning Objects and UML. It is quite useful for both and there's a small group of people over there that need instruction in making those types of diagrams and learning UML. You would be quite welcome to come and teach! Thanks for your work on this fine learning object! • Q^#o • 18:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, this is not a language template for German. It's a very common Breton abbreviation for "third". It is used on the Breton wiki since the beginning and when I translated some Meta pages in my language I bring it into Meta without thinking over. No problem until now though. I've changed the template to "de-berr" so you can leave "de" to German. --Fulup 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Remember to use {{Vandal|'name'}} or {{IPVandal|'IP address'}} when reporting vandals for admin intervention, as it makes researching their edit histories and blocking them much easier. Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
0xFFFF
Hi Rjgodoy, thanks for notifying AIV about this user. However, having an alternate account is actually permitted by policy, as long as this account is not used in a manner that is disruptive (eg double-voting on XfDs, using it to back one up in a debate or request for comment, etc). Thanks for keeping an eye out, though. Cheers, – Rianaऋ 08:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Afterwards, somebody with access to OTRS will come along and tag the article or image with {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=http://linktoticket.org }} providing evidence of the received email and clearing the status of the item in question.
OTRS
Yes, you wait for someone with OTRS access to restore the article and add the permission (like I did). Thanks, Yonatantalk 11:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Jadarite
Thank you for the barnstar, I hope whatever I did helped. – Zntrip 21:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Taylor Carlson -> User:Tayloner182
I would like to suggest you to WP:USERFY instead of {{db-bio}}, in the spirit of WP:DONTBITE and WP:AGF. Rjgodoy 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I was unsure from the username whether it was an autobiography for the user or not. I do quite a lot of userfying, fyi, but if you think I was biting, I will userfy this one as well (I see you have already done so), my apologies. – Rianaऋ 12:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I realize you do a lot of work in wikipedia and I did not mean you were biting, but that your speedy may have been considered in that way. Rjgodoy 12:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No, no, I understand. :) – Rianaऋ 12:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
User boxen
Hi and thanks for your welcome message.
Is there such a thing as userboxes (saying this user uses GNOME, this user uses free software, etc.) ? What can I use to customize my web page ? See fr: (on my user page, same login) for an example if I'm not clear.
Hi
You recently clobbered an edit I did on a page about Uponor, claiming that the page was blatant advertising. You makred the page for speedy deletion. I added a hangon tag which seems to have no effect - the page has now gone.
I am new to this community, and I am at a loss to understand why adding a link from the page about Uponor, who are probably one of the world's oldest companies, to their UK site when links already existed to their US site, would tip the balance between the article been a genuinely informative encyplopeadia article and advertising. I felt that the link would give a fuller picture of the company to English speakers.
However, I still do not understand. The article you flagged for deletion had been in existence on this site for a consdierable period of time, and been edited a few times. Presumably, it had cleared editorial review a number of times.
So, I come along, do nothing more than add a reference to Uponor UK, and you decide that the whole article is blatant advertsing where several other editors did not appear to do so.
Please explain so I understand why you decided that they were wrong.
I read back over the article, and it appears to me that it was tagged correctly. The article reads like an advertisement, so I believe it was justifiably deleted. ^demon[omg plz]18:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Notify authors about speedy deletion?
You may use either the template suggested in in the {{db-vandalism}} tag, or one of the UW series warnings, or even a custom msg of your own. Note that there is no requiremetn that a vandal have recieved a "final" warning before an admin blocks or takes other action -- indeed in sufficiently exterme cases block can be applied with no warnign at all, although thsi is very rare. But if ther are multiple warnings and vandalism persists, an admin may well choose to block whether a "final" uw warning has been given or not. DES(talk) 09:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
On your edit to Josh Gattis[1] you said "declining speedy for now - lots of these 2007 NFL Draft stubs popping up right now. speedy may not be the right way to go about this." Hence, What is the right way to go about this? In my opinion,
Notability is not popularity. Popularity does not by itself render a subject notable, nor does lack of popularity render it non-notable.
WP:BIO. A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable. (They were not present in the article I objected.)
Should I nominate each article independently? Whatever it be, I'll do it after my wikibreak, which I need not only for getting calm but also for taking care of other responsabilities. Regards, Rjgodoy 11:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been seeing a lot of those popping up while on new page patrol lately, so I'm not really sure speedy deleting them is the way to handle them - a mass AFD nomination maybe? Or just prod the lot? Anyway, we'll figure it out when you get back, enjoy your break :) – Rianaऋ 13:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
First, prod should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates... If that were the case, we would not be discussing this subject, and 2007 NFL Draft is an event in progress. Hence, in my opinion AfD would be better.
I think there should be only one single Afd for all the articles in question (if some article's is firmly opposed, there should be another AfD solely for that article)... Does this conform Wikipedia's procedures?
(thanks for your wishes, and not, I'm not avoiding my break... I consider I am psychologically capable for editing at this time, and there are 4 hours before my bus leaves, anyway I won't deal with controversial issues by now) — Rjgodoy 09:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I think a mass AfD would be more appropriate. It's a common thing to do, and I agree that PROD would not be appropriate (I was just thinking aloud at that point). If someone is more opposed to one than the others, they can ask the nominator to take it out of the list. Right now may not be a good time to do this - perhaps after the NFL Draft is over? Whenever that is? (doesn't follow American football) – Rianaऋ 09:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm back! :) After reading 2007 NFL Draft I understand it is over. Now elected players should walk their own path towards notability. I also understand their are not immediatly notable on a NFL Draft-only basis (for instance, this applies to Mr. Irrelevant). Do you know how did these stubs evolve last week? I don't want to accelerate anything but... do you consider it is time for AfD? Rjgodoy 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rjgodoy! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodegotalk 20:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I deleted this image because I don't think there is a possible valid fair use claim, not because you used the wrong one. It just isn't necessary to explain the subject of the article, and it should be possible to obtain a free image or ask them to release one under GFDL. Something like Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Tagging_for_review is useful for getting other eyes on it, but in the end it goes in front of an admin anyway who decides to keep or delete it. So in this case, consider the speedy tag its request for review. --Spike Wilbury 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
PCPaint
Hi, I'm just letting you know that you seemed to have tagged PCPaint for speedy deletion inappropriately - you tagged it as spam when it is a discontinued product and is noted as such with a history of the program - it just needs cleanup and destubification, assuming it's notable. I removed the speedy deletion tags and replaced them with {{cleanup}}. I hope that that isn't a problem. Thanks, Nihiltres(t.c.s) 05:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
{{prod}} sounds good, what you're saying makes sense. Thanks for addressing my concerns. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 05:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (cross-posted)
Thanks
Thank you for the welcome. - ParlerToutBas 06:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
BKT
Which is the reason for the proposed delete of page on BKT?
(Aigest 14:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
No, not the style of editing. The "notability." Did you read WP:CORP? The person who tagged the article wasn't sure this bank was notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Are there published articles or something that talk about the bank? That's basically what you need, to prove that this isn't just some bank on some street corner that we can't (or shouldn't) write a decent article about. NickelShoe (Talk) 12:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Excuse my late reply, I hadn't seen your message on my talk page before. I have proposed deletion of BKT on the basis of the notability guideline for organizations and companies (WP:CORP), which I partially transcribe here: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." Rjgodoy 14:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
John Aspinall Foundation
Please accept my most sincere apologies. There is many people who write single sentences as if they were articles. As an advice, please consider starting your next article as a user subpage and move it later to the main (article) namespace. This would avoid your article to be improperly tagged. Rjgodoy 18:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't start the article, I merely found it and improved it with a few minutes research and writing - as you could have done instead of tagging it for speedy deletion. The important thing is that Wikipedia is just a little better for this. Keep up the good work. Nick mallory 00:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I knew you didn't start the article, but I also notify main contributors when the original author seems to be quiet. You are right in your opinion about wikipedia (that called meta:inclusionism). On the other hand i am a deletionist, that means I look for articles which distort Wikipedia's goals. I am human and errare humanum est. Rjgodoy 00:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't you ever write or improve articles yourself then? Nick mallory 00:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I did (some constructive contributions are listed on my user page). There are some contributions on other wikis (such as including an image or correcting a mistake if I can deal with the language). However, I feel the main problem in Wikipedia is not lack of content but excess (and not necessarily in the correct way). Rjgodoy 05:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Transparency Issues
Thanks for the help. Yes your test image works, but no, I can't transfer it or duplicate your fix. Please see WP:VPT#Transparency issues for my detailed reply. Hoof Hearted 12:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah! I think my cache cleared because suddenly it's fine. Thanks for your assistance. Hoof Hearted 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how they're pulling up in your browser, but the following images should be transparent where they are gray (in my browser). I didn't realize the arms were seperate left/right images, so it's actually more than 70 Hoof Hearted 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the section about Aggregation in COM in Object composition. I found that material very interesting although I found it a bit difficult to be understood for those with no enough knowledge of COM. Could you expand it ? An UML diagram, references, external links, etc., would be helpful. Thanks again. Rjgodoy 05:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I will try to do what I can, but I'm kind of busy right now, so don't expect an immediate improvement; especially references need to be looked up, although I sort of know where to look for them. Shinobu 09:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Simple conceptual diagram. There appears to be a slight font problem, though. I though I had specified "sans", and the text also appears slightly smaller. Shinobu 10:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You asked for a reference, and I've provided one, but ironically the whole article appears to be unreferenced. Perhaps you can help? Shinobu 15:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
