OldakQuill
Archives:
IfD Vote
Hi OldakQuill, I recall that you voted in favor of keeping the photograph inline at autofellatio. Well, its subsequent linkage has emboldened the anti-photo people to put it up for deletion on WP:IFD. I'd appreciate your views on the subject. Thanks, TIMBO (T A L K) 22:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't need another more explicit photo at all. Simply because my reading the article can be largely sufficient to have an opinion on the topic.
If you absolutely want to have a photo with this article, I suggest to put an external link targetting another image, with a message for minor people.
- First, external links can lead to copyrighted staff.
- Second, since there is no thumbnail for the moment, it would be the same kind of article.
- Third, this image would no longer be a recurrent problem.
- Fourth, redirections will not be possible
Waiting for your answer. You can answer on my French talk page, either in English or in French. Pabix ܀. 21:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- First of all there is no photo in the article - there is one linked by the article. Do not mistake your own wants and needs for others' - if you find reading the article is well enough, that is perfectly alright - don't follow the link. Others may want to and may want to see said photograph. Why must it be external - this seems like a nonsense suggestion which would only serve to detract from Wikipedia itself. If I may refer you to the discussion page, the image is not copyrighted. Redirections won't occur when its infamy declines - removing anything from Wikipedia is detracting from the completeness of the project. Again, we must not bow to prudes and vandals - we and our content are stronger than this. --Oldak Quill 21:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I've not written photo in the article but photo with the article.
- Why must it be external? Would it really detract Wikipedia? Is it copyrighted or not?
- I didn't see in the Discussion Page any proof that it is not copyrighted, but I reckon it's long and I didn't read it carefully. Can you give me a quote?
- Since Internet is a maravellous paradise for all who are searching for pornographic images, I think that a simple external link does no harm to Wikipedia and solves many problems. It's like having a bibliography. An online encyclopedia must absolutely have external links, and that enriches the encyclopedia.
- I agree that vandalism can always be repaired. But it's better if it's avoided. You're a sysop, you must know that.
- Maybe it's in the limelight and vandalism with this image will disappear, but that's no argument for keeping it.
- Late in France, I'm going to sleep, but you may answer me. As soon as I wake up tomorrow I will check your answer.
- Have a good evening,
- Pabix ܀. 22:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- To answer your questions: I stated it should be internal. Wikimedia should attempt to become self-sufficient and frankly, there is no need for this particular image to be external if others aren't. The issue is conceding to prudes and vandals - allowing our content to be influenced by those with points of view. The internet is also a wonderful place to search for images of mountains - this does not mean we shouldn't have an approved, copyright-free, illustrative one. I agree, of course, that external links enhance Wikipedia - but we should not extend this to single images which are encyclopædic, useful and informative. We do not preemptively avoid vandalism but deal with it when it occurs and put in place coping mechanisms. The reason this image is being used to vandalise so much is because it is, in one way or another, appearing on Recent Changes so oft. Well, if the fact it is used for vandalism is used as an arguement for deletion, then the decline as its use for vandalism is an arguement for keeping it.
- We should make these discussions public, open and transparent. They are relevent to many users who share our views, thus we shouldn't continue here in our niche. Please reply in future at WP:IFD. Keep up your good work for Wikipedia, and have a wonderful day in France. --Oldak Quill 12:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I would appreciate it if you took a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). You seem to be an authority on the subject. Also, I feel that, if I am going to quote you, I might as well let you know about it. *grin* - Pioneer-12 12:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wicipedia
Someone seems to be using your username to vandalise the Welsh language wikipedia. I assume it's not really you. Deb 17:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm pleased and lattered that you'd like to see more of my photos of Donatello's David. Just to reiterate, I don't have any pics of the original work - like the one I used in the article, they're all of the Victorian plaster cast at the Victoria and Albert Museum. It's a perfectly accurate reproduction apart from the fact that it's lost its sword and has a matte finish because the paint can't reproduce the original bronze patina. The reason I used the image I did was that I coldn't find any good public ___domain or GFDL images which showed the statue from the back or sides rater than the ubiquitous front view.
Anyway, I've had a rummage through my non-digital photos and found the best shots that I took of the replica and I'll be happy to upload them at high resolution once I've scanned them and removed all the millions of bits of dust.... Lee M 14:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand it is not the original but, as you said it is quite accurate. Please upload it in the highest quality you feasably can - I may use some cropped zoom-ins of David and Goliath's head if the picture permits. --Oldak Quill 16:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't currently have a close-up of Goliath's head - some of the angles were limited by the use of time-exposure without a tripod - but there's nothing to stop me revisiting the V&A soon and attempting a few more shots. In the meantime I've begun uploading the pictures I do have to the commons - see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Donatello . If you need higher resolution, or have any comments about the images, please let me know. Lee M 13:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've removed this article from WP:DYK. Personally, I don't find the fact to be particularly interesting as the rules require (see link). Nevertheless, if you still want to see it featured, please visit the queue at Template talk:Did you know and nominate it (under the April 1st header), so people who did so earlier can have their articles featured as well. The queue is to organize the updates and to make sure everyone gets their 6 hours of fame before their entries become too stale. Happy editing! Mgm|(talk) 11:59, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
German "Kardinäle"
Hi - i spoke them immediately, and here they are ;)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:De-Karl_Kardinal_Lehmann.ogg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:De-Joseph_Kardinal_Ratzinger.ogg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:De-Joachim_Kardinal_Meisner.ogg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:De-Paul_Augustin_Kardinal_Mayer.ogg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:De-Friedrich_Kardinal_Wetter.ogg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:De-Alfons_Maria_Kardinal_Stickler.ogg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:De-Christoph_Kardinal_Schönborn.ogg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:De-Walter_Kardinal_Kasper.ogg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:De-Georg_Maximilian_Kardinal_Sterzinsky.ogg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:De-Leo_Kardinal_Scheffczyk.ogg
greets. --APPER 16:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and promoted Bath to featured article status. Good work on the Business and Education sections. Thanks, Rad Racer | Talk 01:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Template:Featured
Please don't use the rollback feature, a tool to fight vandalism, to revert someones change. I changed Template:Featured along with many other talk templates and you reverted without any explanation – I've undone your revert. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 06:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Aesthetic" differences is hardly an actionable critique, and not really a good approach at resolving the decision. I think the current one is ugly, so why can't we just leave the new approach? The template should be change considering it is now one of the only talk templates that does not use the new style. violet/riga (t) 14:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Of course it is actionable, an ugly template does not reflect well on the project - it being large, right-aligned, purple and square. You may action this criticism by making it pretty. I agree, the colour of the old template was not the best, perhaps beige would be better. --Oldak Quill 15:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hey Oldak, she just keeps at it. Obviously it's going to take some energy to get her to desist until there's a design contest. Maybe you can go to her talk area for this and register your opinion so we can keep this thing off the live site until the contest can be formed. It's at User_talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment. Alert: Template:Featured JDG 09:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Template redesign comments
Hiya, thanks for your comments. I've replied on the talk page, in case you aren't keeping track of developments. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 00:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Venus
Why was the Venus (planet) page moved to Venus? Nobody seem to remember any discussion about this. Please, revert that change and discuss your reasons for this change on the talk page. Awolf002 13:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have little interest in discussing this further. Wikipedia does not require discussion for many things, if you object to the move raise your concerns on the talk page and see if you have any support in moving it back. Of course, the majority of users accessing venus will be seeking the planet - the goddess is directly disambiguated on that page (thus the godess is no further than before, a single click - the planet is less far than before). Any other uses may be found at Venus (disambiguation). --Oldak Quill 17:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Image:Jacques-Louis David - Pope Pius VII.jpg
Hello, OldakQuill. You've recently uploaded File:Jacques-Louis David - Pope Pius VII.jpg, which is the same image as File:Jacques-louis-david--pius-vii-1805.jpg. Which pic shall we keep ? How should one fix this duplication at Wikimedia Commons ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 08:49, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
You deleted the spoiler warning from this article. Why? -- Smjg 11:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Spoiler warnings are puerile and silly when used in articles which involve plots. In articles about mathematical and logical problems they exceed stupidity, completely rediculous. --Oldak Quill 15:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- In your opinion. But how many people share your opinion? As I see it, many people read articles about films, novels or whatever wanting to know some basic information about the work, and not to deprive themselves of the enjoyment/suspense of watching/reading it. That's the basic point of spoiler warnings. In the same way, there are people reading articles about puzzles to see the puzzle and/or some basic information about it, and not to deprive themselves of the challenge of solving it. -- Smjg 15:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You put the POV tag on this, but the talk page is empty. I have been trying to improve the article. Any input? Charles Matthews 13:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
CSB open tasks
To tell you the truth, I was just copying the request from the main open tasks listing, and didn't even think about that. That's one of those naming conventions, though that I've never understood and it could never be adequately explained to me. For example, during their COTW's, people tried to say that Music history and history of music exist as separate articles about serapate things, but semantically shouldn't they be the same? And for art history, I was told that it was the same as history of art and redirected there. But the field, I'm sure, is more often referred to by classes and experts as art history. Just as I think it is more common for people to say "women's history" than "history of women". So why can't the common name win out? And why is "Women's studies" not Studies of women? I just don't understand it. Oh yeah, you had a question... The change is fine if it's the convention of course. As to your question of its scope, since women's history is a common term, it should cover the common scope of the term, which may be largely social, but don't think there aren't economic, religious, constitutional, and even military aspects to the history. --Dmcdevit 18:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pronunciation request
Dmitri Mendeleev now has a pronunciation file. Enjoy. Peter Isotalo 13:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Naming conventions
What do you think of the proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics)? It was inspired by comments you made at Category talk:Political parties by country. Some have suggested that it is not even "new" policy, but simply the codification of what many already consider to be a de facto guideline.
Is this ready to be moved from the thinktank to "official"? - Pioneer-12 16:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jesus
Care to check out the brewing revert war on Jesus concerning BC/AD -- and the stubborn comments by Arcturus and Rangerdude on Talk:Jesus? I think your input would be valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me - I was also keeping a watch. I shall surely contribute. bye.--Bhadani 01:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Donatello's David Redux
I've now taken some more images of the V&A replica which I'll be uploading to the Commons as and when time permits. These include a couple of nice close-ups of David's and Goliath's faces. Also more than a few back views. What can I say? Arse longa vita brevis... Lee M 02:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't realise it had been so long since I uploaded the last batch of photos. Hopefully I'll get the rest of them done by the end of June. It's not scanning that's the problem, it's cloning out all those millions of bits of dust that aren't visible on the original prints. Lee M 02:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
FAC
I would like to thank you for your comments and opinion on the Military history of Puerto Rico article. I will work on your recomendations and resumit it in the future. Thank you Tony the Marine
Commonplace categories
IlyaHaykinson suggests you contact him via gmail, haykinson @, with any questions you might have. - Amgine/talk
Hi there! This discussion has drawn to a close, so I've archived it and put up conclusions. Could you please look at them and indicate on the talk page if you find them acceptable by consensus? Thanks. Radiant_* 12:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Picture
The picture on The Seventies is quite appropriate. It's not a SHOW, it was a MINISERIES, meaning it only lasted two nights, and it was on The Seventies, so I don't see how it's not appropriate. If you have a better picture, I suggest uploading it or putting the old one back. Mike H 22:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- It is highly inappropriate because it is an image of a poster of a US show made in the 2000s about the global decade. Such shows are highly glamourised and romanticised representations made for commercial purposes. Perhaps not a good representation of the decade of hippies, of the reformation of Spain, of the Iranian revolution... --Oldak Quill 22:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I hope you will counter the systemic bias and contribute about the reformation of Spain in the article. Mike H 23:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
7 July 2005 London bombings
Yes, the title might be a little specific, but I suggest leaving it where it is for the moment. When things calm down we can move it again, I fixed once occurance of a quardruple redirect due to all the moves. In any case we should discuss it on the talk page. Thryduulf 7 July 2005 13:16 (UTC)
- I agree, we don't want more redirects. I earlier protected the page from moves, so this will hopefully provent the redirection occuring again. [[2005 London transport explosions]], the original, was good. [[2005 London explosions]] is also an option. I think "explosions" is more neutral and less sensational than "bombing". --Oldak Quill 7 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)
Rider's jerseys progress chart (2005 Tour de France)
Yes, I agree that the chart is very useful, and that on the French wikipedia (here, where I borrowed from) they do have it on their main page. I thought it was too big to go on the main page, but perhaps if you start a discussion at the 2005 Tour de France talk page and others support you, we will move it over. --Commander Keane 09:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Greetings, to a fellow Renaissance man
A page that you joined to help with associate with other members of the Wikipedia community is on VfD. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedian citizens of the world, and the related page Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state. Cognition 09:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Yet Another London Wikimeet
Heya Oldak,
We're organising another London meetup, for Sunday the 11th of September; specifics still to work out, but it will probably be fun as ever, and involve a few drinks and a nice chat in a pub. We'd love to see you there...
James F. (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, I've put myself down as a possible - I'll see what I can do. --Oldak Quill 00:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Metawiki: proposal for trade standard
I'm not sure exactly how the Trade Standard proposal is a "content fork" with Wikipedia. Could you explain a bit more on its talk page at Metawiki? Lucidish 20:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
jbo:sazri
I found your request on meta, but while I was doing it someone removed it and a whole bunch of other stuff from the page. -phma 22:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for fulfilling the request. I am going to ask the guys in #wikimedia-tech to implement meta:LanguageJbo.php at jbo.wikipedia.org, is this OK? --Oldak Quill 06:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Wales is no more an ethnically Celtic country than England
Sociocultural evolution renominated
Since the last voting was a draw, I have renominated the article (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sociocultural evolution). Lead has been signifcantly shortened (which doesn't actually make it better IMHO but this was a popular complaint so I gave up on opposing that). I'd appreciate your input, especially as you voted during the last nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Delphic Hymns
Greetings! Yes, I made a midi file last night which I can upload (after I get home from work... ) It's tempting to give it some kind of percussion accompaniment to bring out the 5/8 meter, and make it sound more complete, but that would be "original research" alas ... Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wonderful. Thanks for all the work on the neglected, yet important, areas of music. You could perhaps add very simple percussion, almost metronomic, if you feel it will bring out the meter. Upload both pieces and point from the raw instrumental to the percussioned piece. Just explain what you have done so that listeners won't be misled. --Oldak Quill 15:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikimeet: London 11 September
You expressed a desire on the Wikipedia:Meetup/London page to attend the 11 September meet, but inidcated that you wouldn't know until nearer the time whether you would be able to or not. This is just a friendly reminder, nearer the time, to see whether you are likely to be attending. Thryduulf 12:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
You might be interested to have a look. Regards --Pgreenfinch 15:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Meetup
Heya,
Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'possible', so you'll be definitely coming then, won't you? ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.
Looking forward to seeing you there.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have currently lost access to the internet (hence the speed of my reply), I still hope to show up though I may disappoint... Hopefully see you Sunday. --Oldak Quill 20:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Lillooet vs. St’át’imcets
finally an answer for you: User talk:ish ishwar#Lillooet vs. St’át’imcets. (sorry for the wait). peace – ishwar (speak) 19:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Here you go:
Please don't forget to tag it! -- grm_wnr Esc 17:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, just done. --Oldak Quill 18:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd love to help! Nrets and I already took cerebellum to FA status; I'm now working on basal ganglia. I'm very busy this semester with teaching and research, but I'll help out where I can. semiconscious (talk · home) 20:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK meeting
Hi OldakQuill, there will probably be a meeting for the purpose of discussing Wikimedia UK this Sunday, which you might like to attend. You could add your name there if so. Cormaggio @ 23:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Limerick. Some images have been added and I hope you can now support this candidate. Seabhcán 14:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words about the article... and for the additions to the talk page!
I was thinking of adding something about a history section, but was waiting for the DYK-induced noise to die down... it also needs a few references, and maybe a bit more on usage... but I also have a list of other sex toy articles that need rewriting. :)
Thankies, Bushytails 20:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC).
- I wish you luck in any future WP:FAC attempts. If you nominate it I'll happily read it thoroughly, try to help and vote. --Oldak Quill 20:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there's any chance of it being a FA, but thanks anyway! :) Bushytails 19:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Palace of Westminster image
A user has requested that I obtain an original version of Image:PalaceOfWestminsterAtNight.jpg, the current version of which I moved to Commons in February. I have had no luck getting it from User:Solipsist, who changed the sky. This is a long shot but in November 2004 this image was on WP:FPC ([1]), you said you'd touch up the sky if you got the original copy - did you ever get it? --Oldak Quill 18:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I didn't get it. — David Remahl 04:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know, an article you've voted for, has became this fortnight's UKCOTW - Classical music of the United Kingdom. Come and help out! Thanks, Francs2000 23:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Ptolemy X
You redirected Ptolemy X to Ptolemy XI of Egypt. It doesn't look like a typo, either - you changed it from X to XI. Why not Ptolemy X of Egypt? Art LaPella 07:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- How odd, I'm not sure what went on there. I've changed it now. --Oldak Quill 13:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK
You have expressed an interest in Wikimedia UK. Just to let you know I've posted a draft Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of the proposed "Wikimedia UK" charitable company on Wikimedia UK/Memorandum of Association and Wikimedia UK/Articles of Association. It is proposed that these will receive initial approval by interested parties at a meeting on 27 November. I will put together a brief agenda for the more formal aspects of that meeting soon. Memo and Arts of Association are a company's constitution, and need to be agreed before the company is formed (though they can be changed at a later date). Please feel free to comment on the relevant talk pages (I'd rather the proposed drafts are left unedited so that it is easy to see what is going on) - particularly if there is something there that you would disagree with at the meeting, details of which can be found on the Wikimedia UK page on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Kind regards, jguk 19:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
About Wikipedia team for Folding@Home
Right now I don't, will see if I can find out. I found out about the team [2] when I saw the link to it removed from the Folding@home page here, and decided to change my affiliation. Thank you - Schissel-nonLop! 17:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Disambiguating abbreviations
You contributed to the TFD discussion for Template:2LCdisambig. I am following this with further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Abbreviations. Susvolans ⇔ 18:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
President of Venezuela
Hello. Yes, thanks for the compliments. There's just one issue: I never was able to finish the color-coding according to party affiliation — I doubt I could do it even now, due to incomplete information. I don't know if this will be an issue — you could always just remove the coloring from the few president's sections that have them. Again, thanks. ← SARAVASK — 05:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Is it not finished now? Or are should some of the independents have different colours? --Oldak Quill 14:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Dietrich v The Queen (feature article status)
- Hi there Quill, re images - I doubt this is possible for two reasons; (1) availability and (2) legality. Further, given the context there is no added informative benefit to the reader of having a picture about a case involving the criminal prosecution of an individual who is not famous or notable, it is the legal judgment here that is notable, being a landmark High Court case.
- references - Perhaps there is some confusion with the references. You are right that the article is jam packed with facts, the majority of which come from the original High Court judgement. This is referenced in the infobox. All of the "facts" in the judgement were excepted as evidence; (i would assume that if a court of law accepts a fact as evidence, that should be enough to verify it?) Referencing each fact to the judgement may prove problematic - the judgment is some 36,000 words! I understand this may be confusing to somebody with a non-law background, trying to assess its quality. I wonder if your opposition would be reversed if the judgment was also referenced in the "References" section of the article? But also take into account my previous comments on this matter. Thanks for taking the time to consider the article. --Never29 16:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Image deletion
Hi Oldak. You deleted Image:PalaceOfWestminsterAtNight.jpg, having pushed it to the Commons. The only problem is that you only uploaded the latest revision to the Commons, and didn't keep the original version, from before User:Solipsist smoothed the sky. Perhaps Solipsist still has the original version of this photo; could you please (try to) fix your mistake? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 00:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have spoken to User:Solipsist who touched up the sky and User:Chmod007 who may, according to the November 2004 WP:FPC nomination, have the original. Solipsist does not, I am still waiting to hear from Chmod. --Oldak Quill 18:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Have taken on board a lot of your feedback from FAC, we now have only to document criticism! (any chance of some assistance on this issue?) Unless you can think of something else? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
science
Hi OldakQuill , I'm all for coediting ,but not erasing information. There was nothing in the whole article pertainig to the philisophical approach of materialism ,which is the limitation of science - regarding "spiritual realms"(i'm quite a secular man myself..:) I've merged philisophy of sceince and 'limitation of',to a few quintessential lines.
Keep Wiki strong..:)
Chavez FAC
Absolutely. It is in your hands now. Like you said, I will not be making any further comments on it. Thanks, and good luck. Saravask 00:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I think you should archive the first nomination, give the article a thorough copyedit, then renominate under your own name. That FAC is far too long and acrimonious for you to sort through, and a new second FAC could start on fresh footing. Regards, Saravask 02:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll respect your request. --Oldak Quill 06:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Prostate cancer staging
To maintain consistency in the cancer staging articles, I suggest you revert the change you made in the article title (from "prostate cancer staging" to "staging of prostate cancer"). (I'm not sure how to change an article's title.) See Cancer staging for more examples of other articles with similar titles. Also, the first sentence needs the link to prostate cancer. Thanks. Rewster 08:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think I found a way to reverse the title change. Regards, Rewster 17:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- For future reference, most pages are easily moved by pressing "move" at the top of the page and supplying destination. In this case the destination was occupied by a redirect. You therefore need to contact an administrator to move to a title occupied by a redirect. The way in which you moved the article raises issue with the GFDL licensing - there is no article history. In this instance I have moved the page for you, it is now at prostate cancer staging. --Oldak Quill 17:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! Rewster 21:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- For future reference, most pages are easily moved by pressing "move" at the top of the page and supplying destination. In this case the destination was occupied by a redirect. You therefore need to contact an administrator to move to a title occupied by a redirect. The way in which you moved the article raises issue with the GFDL licensing - there is no article history. In this instance I have moved the page for you, it is now at prostate cancer staging. --Oldak Quill 17:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Maurice Wilkins
Wikipedia needs a picture to go on the Maurice Wilkins page. Any ideas? --JWSchmidt 21:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've been trawling through images.google.com for a while and have found very little. The one thing that I have found that is a possibility is [3] which, according to Google Translate [4], says "Authorized reproduction solely with educative aims mentioning its origin." Perhaps a possibility? I am not sure whether they mean that they authorise reproduction or that they grant authorisation if... There is also the possibility of writing to KCL to ask for permission to use an image... --Oldak Quill 22:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your Google effort. When I made a similar attempt a few months ago I could not find an image that had a clear license status. I thought that if you were at King's College there might be something like a commemorative plaque on a wall or something that you might have a chance to grab a digital image of. --JWSchmidt 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Term is practically out - if I go up next week, I'll get one for you. The Franklin-Wilkins building is, afterall, one of the buildings in which I am taught. --Oldak Quill 02:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your Google effort. When I made a similar attempt a few months ago I could not find an image that had a clear license status. I thought that if you were at King's College there might be something like a commemorative plaque on a wall or something that you might have a chance to grab a digital image of. --JWSchmidt 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
SVG Diagrams
You know, I do know about SVG, the benefits etc.. Is there really the wide support for it already? I think a vector based format is amazing and should be used but I don't wish people to be required to download utilities just to see a little dinky phage diagram. Does IE support SVG yet? Personally I'm even hesitant in using .png because of some lacking support in IE (gif's cloudy lisencing situation keep me using png). I'm all for it if it would be useful. I'm quite able to generate SVG file for all my diagrams. What do you think? Adenosine | Talk 00:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- I believe both IE and Firefox are able to display SVG. How about supplying both PNG and SVG versions of your diagrams. When, in the future, SVG is more extensively supported (although I think it is now), the PNGs can be removed. --Oldak Quill 02:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
PD image?
Hi, what is your basis for saying Image:Rhincodon typus.jpg is PD? In particular, [5] credits specific individuals for creating these, and [6] seems to make a blanket claim of copyright. (I noticed because it's shadowing a free image of the same name on commons.) Stan 14:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- When the image was uploaded the website did not have the first page to which you link. I discussed it with a couple of other users at the time and it was determined that this was PD. I will tag the image as unsure. --Oldak Quill 23:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery
You have in the past edited William-Adolphe Bouguereau. A related article, the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery has been nominated for deletion for violating WP:NOT (AfD here). A proposal to modify WP:NOT is here. Please join either or both conversations and comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 16:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment about wanking & wankers.
Thanks for your comment about wanking & wankers. - (Aidan Work 05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC))
- No problem. :) --Oldak Quill 12:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
World Citizen userbox, {{User world}}
Hi, I noticed the message saying you're a World Citizen, I would like to invite you to add {{User world}} to your user page if you wish to proclaim it in a more effective way, and this template will also add you automatically to the Wikipedians with World Citizenship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion, I'll add it later. --Oldak Quill 09:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Since you commented on the image talk page, I'd like to let you know I have expanded the description of this graph.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've left a thanks there too. --Oldak Quill 17:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Image:Dendrobates azureus.gif has been listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Dendrobates azureus.gif, 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. |
--Sherool (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I'll be voting for its deletion. --Oldak Quill 19:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
CS clans
I noticed you voted on an old AfD for a CS clan article. Two new articles on the same clan were started, and I didn't want to speedy or AfD them, because I'm not sure what counts as "noteworthy" in regards to CD clans. In any case, they're poorly written articles.
Fred Phelps Shotgunning a Dog Incident
I've found a reference to this incident - http://blank.org/addict/chapter4.html. Will try to footnote it correctly in the article. exolon 23:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
New main page draft
Hello! I noticed your negative comments regarding the proposed redesign, and I'd like to invite you to review a radically revamped revision, and to post your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft#Proposed_version. Thanks! —David Levy 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Talk.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Talk.gif. 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}}
.
Please signify the copyright information 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. Thank you. Stan 16:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am the creator. I had forgot I put it there. I'll delete it myself anyway. --Oldak Quill 18:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You deleted this.[7] The image was claimed "fair use" and was relevantly used in Courtney Love. It had no source, and shortly afterwards, I provided a URL to this page. However, User:OrphanBot had removed it from Courtney Love, plainly because of lack of source. If you agree the image is useful to such article, go ahead restore and replace it. adnghiem501 06:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I found your request about Template:FAOL very useful. This template is very space consuming and is often removed from talk pages. I support the idea of introducing multiple parameters so no matter how many languages we still use one template. I would also like you to check on a variant of this template I created here that indicates the quality of the article. CG 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising
The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Chinese Wikinews
Hi. Since you voted to support, you might be interested in this userbox. Dovi 08:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This page, which you created on November 29 2004, has been tagged as a copyvio in December 2005. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other. Do you still remember where you got the data from? Lupo 16:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have been away but am glad to see that it has been determined that it is not a copyvio. Lists based on publically available information are not copyrightable. Much of the information now, however, has been moved to more specific subpages. Thanks for informing me, Oldak Quill 14:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Scientific peer review
Thanks for the notice; this is such a great idea! I'm busy with real life work right now, but once May rolls around I'll have some more time to contribute to this. Awesome. :) Semiconscious • talk 21:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Adam. I see you do not have e-mail specified in your preferences. Could you please e-mail me using the link in a userbox on my user page? There are some issues re the peer review I would like to take up with you privately. Thanks. --Bduke 09:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Shifting gears again...can you look at my proposal and give me your thoughts? Basically, we invite the principle 6 science WikiProjects (and I stumbled upon six without the idea of half the board, but that works out nicely) to send a few candidates, and give each of those six a slot on the board. We eiher vote amongst their candidates, or they work it out and send someone. The other six slots is for independant board members. On the other hand, we could just as easily invite the six WikiProjects to send delegates and not give them any head start (but they'd probably pass anyway considering there are 10 unclaimed spots). Seeing as you created this, I wondered if your vision had anything to say about this. I say keep it simple and just have a regular vote, but I prepared the other idea as a compomise with those who wanted something more...bureaucratic.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you uploaded the image Moon.jpg, which is marked public ___domain but lacks source information. Did you take this picture and release it into the public ___domain yourself? (I assume you did, but thought I should make sure) Junkyardprince 02:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I transferred it from Wikipedia. I don't believe it has any source info. Delete it. --Oldak Quill 14:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Book stubs
Greetings! I have been stub sorting and keep running across one-sentence entries created by you about Jorge Amado novels. Were you intending to ever expand those? Just wondering. Her Pegship 05:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you knidly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 10:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think many who would take our side against the menace of censorship do not know about this poll. If you have some time to spare, would you mind posting a short message on their talk page (like mine) to let them know of this poll and invite them to voice their opinions? By involving more people, a larger portion of the Wikipedia community can have their say, for or against the policy. Some places you can go for a list of users are Wikipedia_talk:Censorship#Support, Category:Wikipedians_against_censorship and Category:Wikipedians_opposed_to_censorship_of_the_human_body,. Please check that I've not already posted a message with the heading Wikipedia_talk:Censorship in their talk page to avoid double-postings. If you don't have the time, feel free to ignore this request. Thank you.Loom91 09:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging for Image:PavonazzetoMarbleSculpture.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PavonazzetoMarbleSculpture.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Fresco of a Greek Symposium
On 21 June 2004 you posted a fresco of a Greek symposium from the south wall of the Tomb of the Diver that is listed as Public Domain. Can you tell me what the basis of the Public Domain categorization was? Was this released directly from the photographer of the image? Thanks!