User talk:Donarreiskoffer/Archive2

Template:Mammals & Template:Primates

I changed the large dot to a smaller one. This seems to be more visually appealing. I also removed all extinct listings from the primate template; we should include all or none, not some. However, as an experiment I created a version (check the history) that included all of the extinct families. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the last version with the smaller dots is more visually appealing. I also think that the extinct orders clutter the template too much. So, nice work!! --Donar Reiskoffer 12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

List of vegetable oils

Nice catch! Thanks! Waitak 07:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

History of philosophy in Poland

It was very thoughtful of you to add portraits to this article. They enliven it considerably. Thanks! logologist|Talk 07:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, for creating this great article. --Donar Reiskoffer 08:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 09:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Omitting edit summaries is one of my fierced vices. I will try to fill them in, but I can't promise anything. --Donar Reiskoffer 09:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Belfry in Ghent

Hello,

I am from Flanders too but I'll write in English...

[1] the English version of this article explains the Mammelokkerlegend (with a picture) while the Dutch one doesn't. I tried to copy the link to the picture but I guess only articles on this Wikipedia can link to that picture. My English isn't that bad, but not good enough either to provide a decent translation of that paragraph in Dutch. Could you take a look at those problems?

By the way : thank you for providing a nice picture of the Belfry!Evilbu 14:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The article looks fine now. I made a few minor changes on your input last friday. A wikilink is formed by a double square bracket, not by a single hence: [[Belfry]] forms Belfry. Anyhow if you have more questions. Feel free to ask (in English or Dutch).--Donar Reiskoffer 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

legibility

Please note the differences between these two formats:

The symmetries along x→x, x→π/2-x and x→ π-x for the trigonometric functions are:

The symmetries along x →  x, x → π/2 − x and x → π − x for the trigonometric functions are:

In non-TeX mathematical notation, variables (but not digits and not punctuation) should be italicized, thus matching TeX style; spaces should precede and follow things like "+" and "−" and "=" and "→", and "−" should be used instead of "-". Michael Hardy 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips!! The result is much neater since you tweaked the layout. --Donar Reiskoffer 06:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Trig identities

Genedial 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Donarreiskoffer - When you edited the Triginometric identities, I liked the way you simplified the layout, but the errors you introduced into the equations showed lack of attention to detail. Please be careful when editing mathematics!

Thank you for correcting my errors. I shall take more care next time. --Donar Reiskoffer 06:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Gaston Geens

Good catch. I'm not sure what I thought that was, but it didn't occur to me that was his city of birth. Thanks for cleaning it up. Erechtheus 18:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Belgian?

Hallo,

ik heb je bijdragen opgemerkt, misschien ben je geïnteresseerd in WikiProject Belgium? Neem eens een kijkje en aarzel niet om je aan te sluiten, kost niets! :-D

Moest je in België wonen en op de hoogte willen gehouden worden, is het mss nuttig van jezelf toe te voegen aan Category:Wikipedians in Belgium.

Iemand met eveneens geen spatie in zijn nick, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dankjewel voor de uitnodiging, maar ik houd de boot nog even af. --Donar Reiskoffer 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women

I deleted the article for several reasons:

• it was a re-creation of an article already deleted
• it was a copyright violation

The latter point is most important. A list in Wikipedia should not be a wholesale copy of information from another source. This list is identical to that provided by Forbes, so it is inherently a copyright violation, and cannot be accepted (copying a list is the same as copying any other content). You may discuss the issue at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... to determine if there is an appropriate form to include that info. As for the other articles you cited, I'll look into them. Mindmatrix 15:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick inspection of List of billionaires (2006) and Sunday Times Rich List 2005 suggests they are not copyright violations, because a listing by accumulated wealth is not unique or original. Essentially, anything that can be quantitatively measured and ranked will rarely be considered a copyright violation. On the other hand, anything whose ranking depends on subjective or qualitative criteria will be subject to copyright issues. I hope this makes it clearer. Mindmatrix 15:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I now understand the logic, thank you for pointing this out. But it still seems a borderline issue to me. If a magazine publishes a list of wealthy people without a numerical value per person, the list is copyrighted. If it publishes the same list with such a numerical value, being for instance a estimated guess of his wealth, that same list would no longer be copyrighted. --Donar Reiskoffer 15:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. The statement If a magazine publishes a list of wealthy people without a numerical value per person, the list is copyrighted isn't correct. If the list is ordered alphabetically, or by wealth (even though the value isn't stated), or by country, religion etc., then it cannot be copyrighted because such a listing isn't original. I'm not an expert in copyright law, so you may want to pursue a more detailed discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., though I'd be glad to elaborate on what I've said above if you'd like. Mindmatrix 16:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Brusselsmetro.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Brusselsmetro.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 01:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

El Greco

Yes, compared to other FAC, this one exceeds criteria. KP Botany 20:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Patent templates

Wanted to warn you that I was about to propose your Template:CA patent Template:AU patent and Template:JP patent templates for deletion now I've created Template:Cite patent which can do exactly the same thing, but is more flexible. Hope you don't mind! GDallimore 10:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

no problem. In the same run you might also delete Template:EP patent and Template:EU patent. --Donar Reiskoffer 10:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Daumier

There is no point putting on infoboxes if they contain the wrong information. Daumier is about ten times more notable as a printmaker than as anything else. Have you added many infoboxes to artists? Also "Sculpture" is the "field", not "Sculpting". Johnbod 16:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree he is also a printmaker, but that doesn't mean the information I added in the infobox was wrong. --Donar Reiskoffer 20:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? Do you think it is improving the encyclopedia to stick in an infobox but leave out the thing he is most famous for? Arguably the two most famous things, if you include caricaturist. If so I suggest you think again. I would also you if you really think that adding a black and white photo of a copy of a self-portrait of Franz Hals as part of the infobox is really an improvement? It doesn't seem so to me.Johnbod 21:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, to be fair I see the Hals picture was already at the top of the page, So I'll strike that bit through if I can remember how. Johnbod 23:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, an infobox works complementary to an article, and I still think I did no harm to the article. I admit however that it is still best to add a more balanced and complete description. In this light, I also added 'printmaking' to the Goya and Rembrandt infobox. --Donar Reiskoffer 07:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:09 (UTC)

Artists

Artists do drawing, engineers do technical drawing or "draughting" (pronounced and usually spelt "drafting"). If an artist is described as a "draughtsman" (frankly not a very good word nowadays), it should disam link to "drawing", even if the idiot who put it in did not bother, as at Matisse.

Must you really add all these infoboxes? I have seen none that improve the appearance and content of artist's articles. The information they give should mostly be in the first sentence anyway. Btw, we need help at List of Printmakers if you fancy that. Cheers Johnbod 14:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Go board

I have nominated your picture at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Go board. Would you happen to have a higher resolution variant, by any chance?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded the original file at commons:Image:Go Board, Hoge Rielen, Belgium.jpg, feel free to adapt. --Donar Reiskoffer 09:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I like the picture a lot, particulary after editing. If we can edit the high-res version to resemble the low-res one, I think this could be Featured.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

update

would you mind updating the graph you did of the 10 biggest wikipedias uploaded here? It would be great if you could. Thanks in advance, Stwalkerster 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded an update but the image cache seems to prevent the new image to show up. If this doesn't work out I will upload it under a different name in a few days. --Donar Reiskoffer 07:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Belgian elections

Hi, I'm afraid that I've reverted your edit to the aforementioned template. It is one of an identical series covering most of the countries in the world (130+ so far), and is for national level elections only. I've created Template:Belgian local elections for the regional and municipals ones and replaced where appropriate. European Elections have their own template. Well done for creating those articles though! Number 57 20:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Backronym article

Hi .. just a little thing. You added "FORD" on the Backronym article's example listings. (Honest question, not rhetorical rebuke:) Did you not find it clear from the comments in the page that you should probably discuss that on the Talk page before adding that example? I've updated the comments, do they appear more clear now? Finally, would you mind removing it for now, and discussing on the talk page?

--Otheus 10:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That must a misunderstanding: I did not add 'Ford'. I only corrected a technical error in the reference-template see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Backronym&diff=115520372&oldid=115518961 . For my part, feel free to remove 'Ford'. --Donar Reiskoffer 12:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:PetersMap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PetersMap.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed fair use. I must admit however that the image is partially unfree, as no derivatives are allowed. I found however a possible Public Domain replacement: Image:Peters map ross merrigan 01.svg. Feel free to delete the original image. --Donar Reiskoffer 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiLinks without articles

Hello, I am puzzled by your editing to the Optical Society of America article. What is the reasoning behind encoding the journal names as links when there are no articles for them to link to? Thanks for your thoughts on this. Seeitnow 23:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I see red links as start point for writing articles. Three years ago wikipedia was full of red links which came gradually in the blue. The red links give an indication in which areas wikipedia can still expand. Therefor I tend to find that red links have their use. If you disagree however, feel free to revert my changes. --Donar Reiskoffer 18:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS cleanup

Thanks for you wiki-cognizant cleanup of some of the formatting, references, etc. --Skyemoor 12:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Images:Eurocoins

Hi. Thanks for putting the categories in the image pages. I'm kind of new, so I didn't know to do that. I guess I should probably go back and put in categories for all of the other images I've thrown on here!!!

Thanks again!

--Theeuro 08:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Belgian elections

Unfortunately that would mean the local elections template shows up on all the general elections pages. It shouldn't be under general elections as it contains referendum too. If you look in the category, I believe Japan and Sweden are the only two under "general elections" and I was planning to move them too (as they don't just contain general elections). Are you an admin? If so, can you move "Belgian general elections" back to "Belgian elections"? Thanks, Number 57 08:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know whether you are familiar with the Belgian politics. But the regional and the federla elections both have a direct impact on the composition of for instance the Belgian Senate. Moreover very often politician swap between the regional and the federal level. It is entirely justified that the regional elections appear on a template on a federal election page. And no I am not an administrator. --Donar Reiskoffer 08:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The mysterious island

Hi, Donarr.
I've seen the picture you've uploaded (well, you've taken photo) on Commons, the image named "Island" ([2]).
According to your description given on Commons, "on Ferry between Hvar and Korcula in Croatia", this island should be "Pločica". That island is alone in the channel.
It's located in the middle of the channel, between island of Hvar and island of Korčula, slightly closer to Korčula.
There's also a pair of small islands in the channel, but you've mentioned no pair, so I suppose it's Pločica. The islands I've mentioned you, are Lukavci.
But, according to this picture, I'm not so sure [3], [4].
Sincerely, Kubura 09:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Butterfly id

The butterfly you asked to be identified on Talk page of WP Lepidoptera has been identified. See here for more details. Regards, AshLin 21:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dutch alphabet

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dutch alphabet, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch alphabet. Thank you. Salaskan 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Isotopes -> Isotopes of X

Why the introduction of a subcategory for each individual element's isotopes? This makes it harder to browse all isotopes at the same time. It doesn't do much to make it easier to browse isotopes of one element, since there is already an Isotopes of article for each element, as well as an isotopes table in the article for each element. --JWB 02:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right that I stretched it a little too far by making subcategoeries with only one ro two members. Nevrtheless categories like category:Isotopes of uranium or category:Isotopes of plutonium seem valid enough to me. --Donar Reiskoffer 07:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted all categories with less than four members. I hope you can agree with this a good trade-off? --Donar Reiskoffer 07:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort at compromise, but it still seems to me that the subcategories per element have only decreased usability. Maybe it makes the Category:Isotopes page a little shorter, but it is still large, and the original was a list of all isotopes that have articles and easily navigable to find individual isotopes. The shortened page might make it a little easier to find the few isotope-related articles that are not individual isotopes or Isotopes of <element>, (only 14 articles currently, of which 11 have already been put at the beginning of Category:Isotopes by using * in the wikilink) but to facilitate this it would be even better to put all individual isotopes in a single subcategory. How would you feel about having one subcategory for articles on individual isotopes, and one for articles on isotopes of a single element?

I think it would be a good idea to put all the individual isotopes in a separate category. Unfortunately I have not the time at the moment to move them all. Feel free to start, I will join to help from 15 july onwards.--Donar Reiskoffer 06:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

List of isotopes could offer a list of all isotopes with articles, but would have to be separately maintained, and currently is only a list of the Isotopes of <element> articles. Perhaps it could try to list all known isotopes, allowing some to be red links, but this could be bulky. Isotope table could also have links to isotopes, but this would take work and the page is large already.

There is also the possibility of categories that classify individual isotopes in other ways, like Category:Environmental isotopes, Category:Nuclear materials, Category:Actinides. I have not created more of these so far (e.g. fission products) partly because I did not want to exclude isotopes from the main Category:Isotopes list. --JWB 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent addition of a graphic to Specific heat capacity

Donarreiskoffer: I’ve tried to find a proper place for your recent graphic of the total heat capacity of zinc. I can't seem to find one. I know you didn't create the graphic, Ahmadko did. However, the tie-in with specific heat capacity is extremely obscure for most readers (being the slope of the lines in the graph). The graphic doesn't even fit within the article’s Heat capacity section because that topic pertains to a fixed value per degree. Further, the graphic's title isn't correct and since it is actually part of the graphic, can't be easily edited. The title currently says "Heat Content of Zn…" but it is actually the added heat energy when zinc is taken above room temperature. Accordingly, the title should be something more along the lines of “Additional heat energy in zinc beyond that at 25 °C”.

I also suspect that Ahmadko’s "slopes" aren't straight slopes in reality and should actually be mild curves. See this graphic showing water's heat capacity. If you look carefully, you can see the slopes are actually curves. This is because specific heat capacity is not a fixed value between the transition points; specific heat capacity values vary, which is why the temperature at which the measurement is made must be specified {e.g. Water (liquid): C_vH = 74.539 J mol^–1 K^–1 (25 °C)}. It's easy to find tables showing water's specific heat capacity vs. various temperatures. I suspect it would be damn difficult for zinc. Straight slopes is a rather trivial detail when the graphic is placed in an article like Enthalpy of vaporization, where the topic regards the suddent jumps in the line; but it is a serious flaw for an article on specific heat capacity.

I know it would take a lot of time for you to create a custom graphic for Specific heat capacity; graphics really enhance articles. However, the existing graphic is misleading (due to its title) and doesn't really fit what the article talks about. Can you think of something more appropriate to add? All I've done to the graphic so far is adjust its page layout position. The graphic seems well-suited for the three other articles it's placed in but is a poor fit for Specific heat capacity and can't stay too long. Greg L (my talk) 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the graphic a day later. It was simply too far removed from the subject matter of specific heat capacity. Sorry. Please let me know if you are working on another illustration or graph for the article. If not, I’m planning on a photograph that will directly address the issue. It will be similar of one I saw years ago in some book. Since that one is no-doubt copyrighted, I won’t even look for it. I’ll just recreate it. Greg L (my talk) 02:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Side 10Cent.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Side 10Cent.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Side 1Cent.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Side 1Cent.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Side 1Euro.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Side 1Euro.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Side 20Cent.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Side 20Cent.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Side 2Cent.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Side 2Cent.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Side 2Euro.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Side 2Euro.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Side 50Cent.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Side 50Cent.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Side 5Cent.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Side 5Cent.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Femme aux Bras Croisés, Picasso.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Femme aux Bras Croisés, Picasso.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lupo 12:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ref changes

Hi Donar: I noticed that you changed the reflist template on Flight feather to include the modifier "colwidth=30em". I'm just wondering (I still have lots to learn about Wiki-formatting): what does that actually do? I couldn't see a difference in the display. MeegsC | Talk 09:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When your browser is opened in full screen this will indeed give the same result. For smaller windows this is however not the case.

{{reflist|3}} shows references in three columns

{{reflist|colwith=30em}} shows references in columns of minimal 30 times the with of the letter 'm'. This means for a broad window three columns, for a smaller window two columns and for a very small screen only one window.

--Donar Reiskoffer 09:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh! Now I understand. Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

File:Diwalipuja.jpg

May this Diwali bring to you lots of Joy and Happy Moments. People in India celebrate Diwali and spread their wealth of Happiess among everyone in the world. Diwali starts with Dhanatrayodashi or Dhan teras and ends in India in all the states with Deva Diwali. Kindly feel free to use this template and Wish Diwali to Everyone. Kindly customize the template with your own creativity. To Re-use this template paste: {{User:BalanceRestored/diwali-template}}

BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Identifying marks on euro coins

Nice job on the €2 edge inscriptions template! I think that a similar one may need to be created for the commemorative €2 edge inscriptions soon as well. --Theeuro (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events

Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management#Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?

As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.

The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Windows2000.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Windows2000.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Quasiparticle

A tag has been placed on Template:Quasiparticle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of isotope tables

As someone who has maintained Isotope table (complete) and/or Isotope table (divided) in the past, your input is needed. User:Greg L is proposing (and prematurely executing) a merge of the two tables, each about 50k, into one table of over 100k. I am opposing it, and no other editors have commented yet. Please come to Talk:Isotope table (complete) and offer your opinion. Thanks, JWB (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger

Donarreiskoffer: What do you think about option #3, which would keep the best of both worlds and would leave only one article? In case other options get added and the numbering gets changed, here is a historical version to show which option I’m talking about. Greg L (my talk) 20:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Logo_gue-ngl.gif

I have tagged Image:Logo_gue-ngl.gif as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Perez de cuellar.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Perez de cuellar.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Belgium-VAN.gif

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Belgium-VAN.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I made this image on basis of the original image at [5], site of Belgian governement, but may still be not PD --> status unconfirmed, feel free to delete. --Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Swedish and Swedish language articles

Since you created the History of Swedish article, I was wondering if there was some special reason for it. Currently, practically the exact same text is in the Swedish language article and it doesn't make sense to have identical text in two different articles. So I was considering proposing merging the info in the History of Swedish article back into Swedish language or completely removing it from Swedish language and moving it to History of Swedish. Your thoughts? –panda (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would have been nice to make a split off as was done for other language histories. But taking into account the situation asiit s now I think that you are correct in trying to remerge the two articles. --Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any particular preference in which direction the merge is made? I have no preference. –panda (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Swedish language is now a featured article. It would be a pity to see that status removed because the article would become relatively small. I therefore suppose it is better to remerge all content to the main article and make History of Swedish a redirect to Swedish language.--Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Belgium-VAN.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Belgium-VAN.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 06:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Belgium-VBR.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Belgium-VBR.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 06:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Belgium-VLI.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Belgium-VLI.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 06:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Belgium-VOV.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Belgium-VOV.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 06:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Belgium-VWV.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Belgium-VWV.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 06:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews SUL request

Hello, I renamed the other account, so it should no longer be a problem. --Cspurrier (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rome.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rome.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. BlueAzure (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Map-b-prov.gif

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Map-b-prov.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. - AWeenieMan (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC) --- AWeenieMan (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Coffee table book

I was looking at an old version of the page and didn't notice the warning ("You are editing an old revision") at the top before I saved. I was initially brought to the article after seeing Template:Grading scheme on some wikiproject page. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)