User talk:Mcld

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

Orphaned fair use image (Image:SuperCollider icon cube bw.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:SuperCollider icon cube bw.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 14:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Shyam, please see comments here: Image talk:SuperCollider icon cube bw.png --mcld 16:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure whether the image available on commons is free. It could be deleted from commons as well. Becuase there is missing essential source and license information. I would say to use the image which was uploaded by you. Please provide fair-use rationale to the image as well and why to you think it could not be replaced by a free image. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 16:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The "fair-use rationale" is already listed on both of the images' pages - the use is to illustrate an icon of a piece of software. In addition: The icon is specifically designed for, and distributed as part of, a GPL-licensed piece of software, so perhaps (although I am less sure of this) the icon comes under the GPL license itself and is therefore free. Any guidance? --mcld 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Ladyfest 2007 stall.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ladyfest 2007 stall.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou robot --mcld (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Abuse Reports[edit]

Please don't submit IPs at WP:ABUSE unless the address has a long history of abuse, with five or more blocks in recent history. Investigations are very time consuming, so we need to narrow the field a bit. Thanks! Nburden (T) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token c4e9dc4636d6dce9e1316671a1bda246[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

NowCommons: File:Pinfold.png[edit]

File:Pinfold.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Pinfold.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Pinfold.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Pinfold plaque.png is now available as Commons:File:Pinfold plaque.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hypersonic effect[edit]

Greetings. As the original author of the wiki entry on the hypersonic effect (and rather nicely done too, if I may say so), you might be interested to join the discussion at hypersonic effect. Cheers (KrodMandooon (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

Removal of PROD from Just another Gibbs sampler[edit]

Hello Mcld, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Just another Gibbs sampler has been removed. It was removed by with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Celine Dion "Voice" edit by user[edit]

Yeah, it's getting quite frustrating. That said, I honestly don't buy it that they aren't checking their talk page, or are blissfully unaware that what they are doing is damaging the article. As we know, Wikipedia posts a bold message on the top of which is unmistakable to miss. Personally, I think the user is ignoring everyone. I just don't see any other way. If they don't stop, I might have to contact admins to see what can be done. It's not up to me or anyone else to make sure they check their talk page, though. BalticPat22Patrick 20:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This guy does not care to engage us so was thinking of asking for a block,,,hes reverted 4 times today. Moxy (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


RE: your edit, what is unclear?JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the article. I tried to understand it but still find it confusing. Some more writing to set the definition in context would be good. It feels like the word "edit" might be being used as a technical term here, having a meaning that might need to be spelled out for the general reader.
(Please sign your comments btw.) Thanks for checking --mcld (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok will see what I can do. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Message at Talk:Medically Unlikely Edit, JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability: Biomusicology[edit]

Hey Mcld, thanks for the input on the article. I have done some quick edits and shortly argued for notability at the talk page. Best, Morton Shumwaytalk 18:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC).


Hi there,

You're the one who tagged Co-creation as confusing. I see how it's confusingly written myself, but do you have any suggestions to improve it? You didn't leave anything on the talk page, and although it's been over a year now, I want to know your reason for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 9305b84d6a1dd10c1a563f3051d557e1[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.


No worries. I was just afraid it was a case of self promovation; that you referenced an article, that you had written yourself. Carstensen (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I did a quick search through Google Scholar and found a lot of papers writing this as "tf-idf" or "tf × idf", but no "tf*idf". Was this based on a more thorough literature review than I did in half a minute or a simple (ab)use of the asterisk as multiplication sign? Cheers, —Ruud 15:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi - ah, good point, maybe "tf × idf" is the better choice. I don't have a lot of experience with it but I have seen it around, and rarely with the dash, that's all. --mcld (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I saw "tf × idf" was mostly used as a formula and "tf-idf" as the name, but I'll look more thoroughly first. —Ruud 16:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I won't be offended if you revert me ;) --mcld (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Bellman–Ford algorithm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Network flow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:SuperCollider screenshot2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SuperCollider screenshot2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Tristimulus (audio)[edit]

Hello, I'm working through the backlog at CAT:NN. This article has been tagged for notability for 5 years. I was wondering if you, the creator, could look it over and help? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, tbh I don't know if I'd call it notable. It's used sometimes. You think we should delete it? --mcld (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Tristimulus timbre model for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tristimulus timbre model is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristimulus timbre model until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Hugo Chávez has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. You did more then remove remove weasel-word "reportedly" with this edit; you also marked it as minor. LGA talkedits 22:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but what do you think I should have done? I ticked the box marked "this is a minor edit" because I believed it was. Did you want me to type into the edit summary "This is a minor edit"? As phrased above, your feedback doesn't seem to make sense to me. Are you simply saying I shouldn't have ticked the "this is a minor edit" box? Or are you genuinely suggesting that ticking the minor-edit box is something that needs to be mentioned in the edit summary? Please expand on what you mean. --mcld (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Firstly your edit summary should have reflected the insertion you made as this was the major part of the edit. Secondly have a read of Help:Minor edit, you will see that you should not use the Minor edit flag when you are "Adding or removing content in an article". LGA talkedits 19:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
WOAH I did not insert that sentence at the end of the paragraph. There must have been someone else editing at the same time! On the other matter, fine, I'll not use the "minor edit" box, although what I INTENDED to do was simply to remove literally just one adverb, so it definitely felt minor to me!--mcld (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)