RP88
Largest TNOs
I thought about it, but since that other image has the diameters listed I figured I'd leave it as a more comprehensive comparison for the actual TNO page. I might create another one like it in the future, including Orcus, though. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Who succeeds whom?
I admit that there are two ways to handle redistricting where the number of districts in a state change: stay with the numbers, or stay with the people. An example may help:
2000: District 1 is held by politician A, District 2 by politician B. In 2002, a third seat is added to the state, District 3. Most of old district 1 goes into district 3; most of old district 2 stays in district 2, and district 1 now consists of parts of old district 1 and old district 2. Politician A runs in district 3 and wins. Politician B runs in district 1 and wins. Politician C runs in district 2 and wins. The three win again in 2004.
If we follow by DISTRICT, then politician A (now in district 3) was proceeded by no one, even though he/she had a predecessor in district 1 in 1998 or earlier; politician B (now in district 1) was proceeded by politician A, even though BOTH of them served in Congress together in 2001-2003 (and A may have been elected AFTER B, for all we know, which makes it very odd that he/she is a PREDECESSOR); and politician C was proceeded by politician B.
If we follow by POLITICIAN, then politician A was proceeded by whomever held district 1 before politician A won it; politician B likewise was proceeded by whomever held district 2 before politician A won it; and politician C was proceeded by no one. As may be clear, I prefer this example: politician C didn't have to run against an incumbent; there was really no predecessor.
And the matter could be far worse if seats are renumbered significantly; politician X could go from district N to district O, numerically, even though N (old census) and 0 (new census) overlap 95%, so that politician X clearly hasn't moved at all. And yet his/her predecessor would CHANGE. To me, it makes no sense a minor change in the boundary of a district, together with a new number, means that a predecessor CHANGES. To 95% of the individuals in that Congressional district, nothing whatsoever has changed except an arbitrary number for the district. John Broughton | Talk 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- You certainly have a valid point. However, WP does seem to have adopted the "stay with the numbers" rule, perhaps because its much simpler to apply uniformly (i.e. what would you use as an authoritative source for whether or not a district change is minor or not going back a 100+ years?) As an example take a look at the GIGANTIC table at United States Congressional Delegations from California#United_States_House_of_Representatives. Could you construct a similar table using the "stay with the person" rule that could be reliably sourced? --RP88 17:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Another thought: how would you handle the case of a district that is neatly divided into two or more new districts or the case of two or more districts being merged into a single new one? If one didn't adopt the "follow the number" rule, couldn't these cases result in a politician who has two or more successors or predecessors, respectively? It might make sense, but wouldn't this mean that all of the WP templates for successor/predecessor would have to be modified to accommodate the possibility of multiple entries? --RP88 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- The table at United States Congressional Delegations from California#United_States_House_of_Representatives is impressive, but it doesn't follow that the table supports one approach or another - it's just a listing of facts.
- I wasn't suggesting it supported one or the other approach. I just pointed it out to show that someone was able to build a complete succession table using the "follow the number" rule, and was able to do so with only the official congressional biographies as his source. It would be a lot of work to complete a similar succession table using the "follow the person" rule and because there probably would be a number of judgement calls to make I'm not certain I'd be able to do so without violating the "no original research" rule. Unless, perhaps, someone publishes succession information for congress using the "follow the person" rule? If not, you'd certainly need a much wider range of sources than just the congressional biographies because of all the corner cases.
- As for the template, I thought the point of templates was that they are easy to change just once, and the change then replicates itself whenever an article is opened.
- I'm sure you're correct. I was just pointing out that to switch WP to using "follow the person" would involve more than just editing the pages for current and past members of congress, you'd also have to re-architect the various succession templates (e.g. USRepSuccessionBox, etc.). They currently make the assumption that each has exactly one predecessor and one successor.
- The advantage of following the politician is that the predecessor is locked in - it doesn't matter what happens to the district, a politician has a predecessor, once and for all. As for the successor, if a politician runs for office and loses, then that is obvious. If he/she doesn't run, then it's still obvious unless the retirement coincides with redistricting (one out of five elections only).
- I certainly agree that "follow the person" has advantages. However, just to nitpick, a predecessor isn't necessarily locked in for a particular politician under the "follow the person" rule. For example, a congressman might serve an unbroken sequence of terms of office but change predecessors because he moved and then defeated the previous incumbent for his new district. Similarly, if a politician serves as a congressman, leaves to do something else for one term, and then returns to congress his predecessor would change (perhaps even to be his former successor if he doesn't change districts).
- What's most interesting to me about the California table you pointed out is that if you look at the 21st to the 53rd, you'd think that there had been a massive influx of new politicians in the 2002 election, given the discontinuity in almost every column. And yet, of course, that's not true - there simply was a renumbering that affected most incumbents, who run and won.
- Yes, that is definitely one of the ugly results of the "follow the number" rule.
- So the tradeoff seems to be: occasional hard cases with "follow the politician", possible problems looking back in history; no need to check every politician when redistricting occurs for a possible change to the predecessor (as, for example, California in 2002); versus an easy way to determine who the predecessor was. John Broughton | Talk 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with everything you describe here. I'll just note that if redistricting occurs a lot of stuff has to change in WP no matter which system one adopts (all of the district pages and maps have to be updated, the page for every congressman affected by the redistricting needs to be updated to reflect their new district number, etc.). Thanks for the discussion, I found it interesting. --RP88 01:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Redistricting should not "follow the number". It is not just an "ugly result", it makes no sense, unless the person actually moved to establish residency. To say that "surfin'" Dana Rohrabacher, first elected in 1988, was preceded by Loretta Sanchez, who was first elected to her landlocked district in 1998, is rediculous. Mattfiller 22:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Shouldn't a single approach be picked and then used consistently throughout WP? I noticed that you changed Dana Rohrabacher to show that he had no predecessor when he was the representative for the California's 45th congressional district and now that he is the representative 46th congressional district. If you're going to change one politician, shouldn't you change the dozens, or perhaps even hundreds, that currently are using the "follow the number" approach in their succession boxes? I find it unlikely that two relatively new users of WP like us are the first to run into this quandary. I wonder how we can find out if this has previously been discussed somewhere on WP? --RP88 02:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I am the same user as commons:User:RP88 (so I can vote here).—RP88 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Google custom at Booksource is WorldCat.org custom search engine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnSay (talk • contribs) 19 February 2007.
- It is not. Back on December 23, 2006 Bookser added the custom form. It DOES NOT do anything that a regular google site-specific search doesn't do, other than show an Amazon link and Adsense Ads. The revenue from these go to him, not to Wikipedia, not to WorldCat. —RP88 20:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- JohnSay, I reverted back to the spammy form while we discuss this issue. Please tell me why you think Wikipedia should be using it, otherwise I'll remove it. —RP88 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Worldcat use Google custom search and revenue go to worldcat project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnSay (talk • contribs) 19 February 2007.
- That form sends the revenue to an Amazon partner by the name of "chuvashiaportal". I can't find any evidence that this is the worldcat project. In addition, the user who added it (Bookser) doesn't appear to have any connection to the worldcat project. I'm sure it is spam. JohnSay, how do you know that it is official? —RP88 20:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I've checked. The Amazon partner "chuvashiaportal" is on the Spam blacklist. It's definitely not an official worldcat portal. —RP88 21:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:E17-fetus.gif
I replied at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#February 3. You may also want to read my post to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Concerns regarding images from BrainMaps.org. --Iamunknown 06:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate the pointer. That was very helpful to me in trying to figure out what was going on. —RP88 06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to help, but got frustrated because I felt I was too inexperienced. Thank you for cleaning up my inconsistencies. --Iamunknown 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
OTRS
Regarding Image:Adult worm.jpg - how were you able to determine it had been OTRSed before the OTRS guy came along and tagged it, so that I can avoid nominating future OTRS granted images?Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't do anything special. From what I can tell you nominated it on the 14th, Bastique added the OTRS note on the 17th, and I asked him to check OTRS and fix the inconsistency on the 20th. —RP88 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Interlibrary loan
I hope you get that book via interlibrary loan, and I'll envy you if you do. :) I've never gotten what I want via interlibrary loan, and it's frustrating. :( --Iamunknown 07:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess we'll see. I've mostly been successful. Before making a request, I usually check OCLC to find a library or three that have circulating copies and mention them on the interlibrary loan form. —RP88 07:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
PUI clearing?
That is something that has changed somewhere along the line and I had not noticed it. It is a good idea except for putting the subst:puir tag on the image page. That should go on the image talk page along with the discussion. -Nv8200p talk 14:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
chuvashiaportal
Thank you for identifying chuvashiaportal. This guy has been spamming Wikipedia for months and his links should be removed on sight. If you identify any more URLs please let us know what they are and I will get them blacklisted like his others. Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ha! I was just about to scream for help. I don't know if it is possible, but is it possible to check if User:Bibliofil, User:JoJo35, User:Samrio2, User:Lokitoki, etc. are all the same guy? --RP88 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, keep them coming, I will take a close look. Here is some context. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, I responded on your talk page. Sigh. I never know whether to respond in one place or the other. —RP88 15:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- They are all undoubtedly the same person, and I can say that before I have had time to even check them (see [1]). I will take a closer look later and see who needs blocking. My approach to where to place talk page messages is outlined at the top of my talk page :) -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, I responded on your talk page. Sigh. I never know whether to respond in one place or the other. —RP88 15:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, keep them coming, I will take a close look. Here is some context. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Jamaican Copyright
You seem so much more knowledgeable and resourceful than I, would you consider looking at User_talk:Iamunknown#Jamaica_Crown_Copyright? I intend to post it to WP:PUI, but I don't want to until I've received a response from the user. In the meantime, however, I would feel much better if you could take a look at it. If not, you'll see it when it gets to WP:PUI. Thanks, Iamunknown 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. I'll respond at the ___location you indicate. —RP88 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Image query
Hi RP88 - someone's asked me a question about an image, but it's an area of admin I know very littl;e about. Since I see your name frequently on WP:Possibly unfree images, I was hoping you'd be able to shed some light on the normal procedure. The query I'm referring to is at Image_talk:NoMaorisNoTour.jpg. Hope you can help - thanks, Grutness...wha? 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll respond at the discussion page you reference. —RP88 03:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Grutness...wha? 09:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank You
Thanks a lot for quick response. I'll be sure to cntact you if I have any questions. Again, Thanks. -Happyme22 06:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Bcourt2.jpg
Hi, I deleted this image which was on WP:PUI. I saw you contacted the copyright holder. If you get a favourable response, feel free to msg me and I will undelete the image. Garion96 (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Obviously I wasn't the uploader, so I don't have much personal stake in the image. I was just trying to be helpful. —RP88 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Trying to get free content images is always helpful!! :) Garion96 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Gluskoter Images
If I understand correctly, you want to make it clear that the original photos are still all rights reserved, but that these low-resolution uploads are under a free license. I suggest language like the following "Original photo © Daniel Gluskoter. All rights reserved. I, Daniel Gluskoter, release this low-resolution reproduction under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License." —RP88 06:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I am completely comfortable with the wording of your suggestion and will apply it to all of my past images shortly along with any I add in the future. Dannyg3332 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
As you can see, I have taken your well described advice and applied the wording you suggested to all of my uploaded images. I now ask for your expertise in handling the problem of having a user repeatedly replace my photos with inferior images and then adding the insult of threatening me with three-vert violations for restoring a now clearly properly licensed superior image. The image in question at the moment is of Michael Stipe, although it invariably becomes an issue with other subjects periodically. As I've stated previously, I am a professional photo editor in addition to being a photographer, so I consider myself strongly objective when viewing images. If a page has a quality photo already in place, I'll always leave it as opposed to adding an image regardless of how strongly I feel about it. I wouldn't consider what this user is doing vandalism, but he is clearly attempting to revert to an inferior image. I have wrote him questioning his perspective on multiple occasions both he has not given the courtesy of a response. Thanks in Advance for your assistance. Dannyg3332 22:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is in regards to the page Michael Stipe, right? Unfortunately, on WP sometimes people come to loggerheads over issues. I noticed that malo has added a section to the discussion page for discussing which image to choose. I recommend you add a paragraph or two there explaining why your image should be preferred and then answer everyone's questions or complaints calmly and politely (even if the questions/complaints are silly or stupid). If possible avoid a confrontational tone, even if you are completely in the right, it rarely helps win arguments. I'll respond there if someone contests the validity of your free license. Oh, by the way, you may want to update the descriptions for Image:AGASSI4.jpg and Image:VH1.jpg, they still use your older language. —RP88 02:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
