User talk:GDallimore/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A question

Can you create a recording on Pier Gerlofs Donia, the article about a legendary brute, freedom fighter and rebel? Your help is needed here ! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 15:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks very interesting, but it also looks like the article could do with some work. The problem with spoken recordings is that they are fixed, while the article is forever mutable. If you're not sure how to improve it, I could take a look and see if there's anything I can do with it myself. Otherwise, drop me a line if there's future success with a GA nomination! Ta. GDallimore (Talk) 17:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think, your help here is needed, my fellow wikipedian! Have fun improving it! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 11:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

BDORT2

Actually the form of words I used is as suggested in the current working version of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal findings. According to proponents, it is a diagnostic technique. According to scientific evidence, such as it is, it is complete bollocks. So calling it a patented diagnostic technique without noting that it is only proponents who assert or accept that it is a diagnostic technique would appear to be a problem. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole introduction needs rewriting and I was right to remove the preface you added. It IS patented, this is not merely a claim from the proponents. Also, it's proponents actively dispute the characterisation that has been applied to it. I'm not doing anything more on the article, though, until someone is willing to comment on what I see as the blatant OR synthesis of the cited references. GDallimore (Talk) 13:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Unreferenced

Saw your post at Template talk:Unreferenced I am going to watch and see what response (if any) comes from other editors before I respond. You might also take a look at Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced articles where discussion about removal of unreferenced material has been occurring recently. Jeepday (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping a watch too, although I think you've now given me the chance to express better why I think a change would be good so now I'll just leave it up to other people to decide which way they want to go. I think both sides of the argument have merit and it was only due to a couple of comments by others that I found myself slightly on one side of the fence rather than the other. Having less material in the template also serves to reduce arguments about how that material should then be phrased! :) As for the ongoing discussions about what to do about unreferenced material, I think they prove my point that it is impossible for the template to accurately describe the policy, so it is unwise to try. Less is more as my last director kept telling me. GDallimore (Talk) 13:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Currently I am still on the side of leaving the sentence in there (rationale already addressed). But what ever way that turns out I think you might have suggested to much of change to the rest of the template. I think you could probably get away with just arguing to remove the sentence and not change the rest of the template at all, maybe point out in your argument all the good links and references that are in the current template. As there has been no other comments yet it might not be on anyones watch list currently. Jeepday (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! FT2 (Talk | email) 10:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thrud

Glad to refresh your memory of that great comic character! Thanks for the kind words, too. I will get an FA under my belt, I will, I will :) GDallimore (Talk) 10:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Good look taking the article through the FAC process. — RJH (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonderbra

Re: Trademark - the first use was in the US for several years before it was officially trademarked. The brand was really developed in Canada, but that does not negate the origins. Mattnad 14:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

When you say "trademarked" you normally mean that it has been actively registered as a trademark. Clearly that did not happen in the US until the 50s, so saying it was first trademarked in the US may be misleading or inaccurate, or there may be inaccauracies in the bit saying that the Canadian "trademark" was licensed in the 30s. It appears that the term "Wonderbra" was used as a trademark for several years without actually being "trademarked" if that makes sense. This use of the term Wonderbra as associated with the particular product (and therefore being used as a trademark) may have happened first in the US, although that may need a reference. I don't know enough of the history, but it may be that some clarification all round is necessary. GDallimore (Talk) 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thrud miniatures.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Thrud miniatures.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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. Pak21 10:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales and speedy deletion

Adding {{speedy-image-c}} to image captions is exactly what is suggested by {{no rationale}}. Please assume good faith when editors are just following the suggested guidelines rather than making sarcastic comments in edit summaries. Thanks. --Pak21 16:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that it was you who changed it to fair use and added the no rationale template in the first place, it seemed perverse to then go round tagging the images for speedy deletion, too. Perhaps it would have been better (as in being a constructive move) to AGF on the part of the uploader of the image, ie that a good faith error had been made on their part to tag it as free having obtained permission from the photographer to upload the photo, and tried to sort out that error rather than taking the destructive route of tagging it for deletion. As it happened, I saw the tags, and thank you for bringing it to my attention, but I'm left thinking that this could have been handled better. GDallimore (Talk) 16:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The point you are missing is that {{no rationale}} is already a speedy deletion tag, admittedly a delayed one. {{speedy-image-c}} is just a device to allow editors with the page(s) where the image is used on their watchlist to be aware of this fact, in case the uploading editor does nothing about it. It means nothing in itself. As to assuming good faith, if I thought these images weren't uploaded in good faith, I'd be taking them to WP:PUI, not putting a "no rationale" tag on them. Cheers --Pak21 16:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The point you're missing is that a simple message pointing out my error on my talk page would have had the same result with less work for both of us. GDallimore (Talk) 16:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That assumes that you're an editor who will deal with this issue. Most editors don't have every image on every page they're interested in watchlisted, so wouldn't notice the speedy tag being put on the image, at which point it would vanish in 7 days. As it so happens, you are an editor who will deal with this, but I had absolutely no way of knowing that beforehand, so I took the prudent course of informing other editors. --Pak21 16:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

magpie

I saw your magpie edits. Is there anything to suggest that the Chinese folklore refers to a particular species? Despite the confusing name "European Magpie" Pica pica breeds across Asia to eastern China, and I would have thought was the most likely candidate. Jimfbleak 14:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, there's nothing to say what magpie it was referring to. In the absence of verification one way or the other, I thought it best to move it to the main magpie article so at least there wasn't the contradiction of saying that it was European folklore. And maybe it will receive a wider audience where it is now by people who might be able to find a source or put it against the correct magpie. GDallimore (Talk) 16:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian patent lawyers

Hello, GDallimore --

I see that you're a patent attorney. I've recently created the category Wikipedian patent lawyers. I'm inviting you to add this category to your user page. You can do this by adding [[Category:Wikipedian patent lawyers|GDallimore]] to your user page.

You may also be interested in the categories "Wikipedian lawyers" and "Wikipedian intellectual property lawyers" as well.

Terry Carroll 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Chimera

I agree with merging the article but the pictures would be orphans so make sure to delete them or do something. I am in support of keeping articles like these ones on wikipedia. But because of wikipedia's rule that it is not a game guide I decide to move them to a gaming wiki and leave a link on a talk page or the external links --Cs california 11:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Let's see if anything more happens in the AfD and I'll then look about merging the articles to see if people complain before redirecting chimera to resistance and doing any image tidying. Plan? GDallimore (Talk) 11:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't play Resistance so I don't know much about the images but Merging was a good idea to keep the article archived in case it is important. The best thing to do is probably get someone who know something about Resistance to try integrating it into the page. I guess we should let an admin decide what to do for the Afd--Cs california 11:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

EBA

Thanks a lot for dropping a message on my talk page. You're right. I won't engage in such kind of edits anymore. Cheers. --Edcolins 07:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for heated editing

Hi there. Whatever got us to passionate editing, I can see you're a good Wikipedian who has contributed a lot. I don't have any ax to grind or personal stake over the Patent troll article. Let's see if we can make it a better article. I'll try to take a look in the next day or so and see if I can start cleaning it up. I can tell there has been some argument in the past over the article, and I don't mean to stir that back up, so I'll probably simply edit it for tone and organization, without changing what everyone says. When I do that I'll see if I can clean up the introduction to say it's a term subject to varying definitions, so there is some difference of opinion as to what the term actually means, as well as whether the companies accused of being trolls are actually doing anything wrong or not. Thanks and take care. Wikidemo 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is that I can't handle arguments on Wikipedia, especially on IP topics when it's my day job to be arguing abuot such things. I enjoy exploring and writing about such things, but the arguments just turn me off. These days I tend to work on quieter articles and, on busy articles, say what I think should be said and then leave it to others to argue over. GDallimore (Talk) 12:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AotD error

No problem — the error was well spotted! —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 15:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading [[:Image:]]. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Progress Theatre logo.gif

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Progress Theatre logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. TheIslander 19:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Progress Theatre logo.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Progress Theatre logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. TheIslander 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Progress Theatre logo.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Progress Theatre logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. TheIslander 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bumblebee

Yeah, sure you can use it, no problem (Flattery works wonders!!!). I suppose just attribute it (in as small a font as possible and in a discrete place-so as not to ruin your poster) something like "Photo:Wikipedia user:Trounce" or some thing along those lines. Sorry for not replying sooner. Thanks for asking permission to use the photo.--Trounce 11:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't part of the permission, but I'd love to see a photo of the finished poster when its done, if possible. A small photo will do! --Trounce 11:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I just realized you never said you wanted it for a poster! Its probably best just to put the credit in with the rest of the productions credits.--Trounce 13:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

1985 in theatre

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article 1985 in theatre, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}.

The stated justification was: Is adequately replaced by Category:1985 plays, does not at the moment offer any additional value compared to that category. Fayenatic (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

remove 'hysterically'

Fernandez may well be, but if we want to keep him from attacking everyone, we should likewise not throw our own loaded words into the conversation. --Thespian 08:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You may if you wish, but I will not - the definition "unhealthy emotion or excitement" seems to fit. GDallimore (Talk) 08:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

European Patent Organisation

Thanks for your support! --Edcolins 21:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bessen/Hunt technique

Just in case Bessen/Hunt technique is not on your watchlist, you may wish to have a look at the suggestions on the talk page. I have addressed item 1, but not the other ones. ---- Edcolins (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Recordings in progress removed

I have removed your in progress status tags from The Four Stages of Cruelty. If you wish to continue work on this project. Please re-submit. Thank you. Reason turns rancid (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Amateur Theatre

I have weighed in on the amateur theatre merge. I hope it doesn't sound like a rant. Well, obviously it does. Apologies. I definitely think it should be merged with community theatre (which is a pretty awful article and should probably be clarrified, completey rewritten or dropped altogether). I tried to replace criticism with "relationship to professional theatre" and cited an academic journal.(Moviefreak26 (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

I very much disagree with your negative view of amateur theatre in comparison to professional - there is execrable amateur theatre, yes, but some is as good as if not of higher quality that professional even if it can never offer the same spectacle. However, the point that community theatre and amateur theatre are not the same is something I can very much agree with. Thought this merge debate had died some time ago... GDallimore (Talk) 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Question Regarding Recording Guidelines

I have begun to make a spoken word recording of the Enigma machine article. There are references to diagrams in the text and I'm unsure as to the standard procedure for dealing with this. Should I read the text as normal or skip over the diagram-dependent text or should I describe the diagram in addition to the text? Thanks! Virtualetters (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found I haven't had the time to stick with that particular project, but I'll help where I can. Basically, you need to think about it from the perspective of the three likely users of spoken work recordings. (i) Non-english speakers who want to read and listen to an article at the same time. (ii) Blind or partially sighted people. (iii) People who want to listen while not at their computer, eg on an iPod. For group (i) and the less blighted members of group (ii), they will be able to see the diagrams. I therefore think that skipping the diagram text entirely could end up as confusing. There's also the question, particuarly with a technical article like the Enigma machine, whether missing out text concerning diagrams will omit important information. Basically, you have to say something if a picture is referred to in the text of the article, I think. Question is, what do you say?
There are no hard and fast rules for this, largely because it depends on the context. Sometimes pictures don't add any material content so you don't need to say anything more than what the article says. Sometimes you can read the article text and then say something like "an accompanying drawings shows..." and then read out the text beneath the digram. Sometimes you really do have to describe the digram, although this should be a last resort and only if the article would make no sense otherwise. To be honest, if the article makes no sense without describing the drawing, then I think the article needs work! Perhaps look to improve the article first before starting your recording. If you do have to describe the drawing, maybe seek consensus from experts on the subject on the talk page as to what words to use, remembering NPOV and OR.
Hope that helps. Good luck! GDallimore (Talk) 10:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Virtualetters (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)