User talk:Raeky/Archives/2013/March

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

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
  2. London Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
  3. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Alaska Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by British Empire The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:NGC 6357

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:NGC 6357. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

$5 U.S. Banknote

Hi- Any scans of currency that I post are most certainly made by me using the original note. I have scanned all the U.S. Banknotes in the National Numismatic Collection personally as part of an ongoing digitization project. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Then consider commons:COM:OTRS, so that anyone who has similar concerns can have them satisfied that you did indeed create the images. Although copyright isn't a concern, but sourcing is. Just state something similar that you're working on digitizing these notes for the collection and contributing the scans. Then the same OTRS ticket can be applied to all your uploads. Maybe change the wording for source to "Digitized by Godot13 for the U.S. Banknotes in the National Numismatic Collection" as well to make it more explicit. — raekyt 15:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I tried OTRS about a month ago, but just sent them another email from my Smithsonian email account. I hope you will support the image. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
In response to your question-- My involvement with the Smithsonian is on a volunteer consulting basis so technically I’m not sure I would qualify as a Federal employee. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure either. :P — raekyt 03:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    • LOL! You are a good detective... That is actually my non-profit foundation website (see the bottom of the contact page and there should be an acknowledgement that User:Godot13 is "given permission" to use to use any images bearing a digital watermark connected to the foundation). All the images on the site have a digital watermark (whereas the ones I've posted on Wiki are from the pretagged files). For the NCF website the Smithsonian had no issue with me using the images at full size. For something as wide-spread as Wiki sites they asked that the images be downsized. I thought about putting the NCF site as source, but I'm only displaying a fraction of the Smithsonian notes on the site and it would only get more confusing if some of what I posted was from me and some from the website. If you have any doubts, feel free to send an email to the address on the site and I will respond. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The sourcing to the website probably wouldn't be an issue. The image's are public domain afterall, so it's a bit of a shame the full resolutions can't be provided. What is their concern about them being uploaded to Wikipedia at high resolution? If you're providing them on your website, and they're public domain, anyone can do anything with them without even crediting you or the website, even upload them here. — raekyt 06:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you easily able to download the images? That is a bit of a problem... It is supposed to be somewhat protected from that... Godot13 (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Average user, probably no... but even giant museums using flash applications to try to prevent it can't... if it's accessible to the internet, it's downloadable in some way. — raekyt 06:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Their concern (mainly for the unique notes) is to prevent very high resolution reproduction without being kept in the loop. I suppose for the "ordinary" notes ;-) there would not be an issue enlarging the files. Their requirement is a minimum of 6,000 pixels on the longest edge (800dpi). This is something I may do particularly for those that go through FP. Glad to hear the average user can't download. I pretty much knew that anyone with specialized skills probably could. Flash was presented as an option, but then the image quality would not be as sharp. I hope that removing the digital watermark is at least difficult? --Godot13 (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Those flash zoomify things are just annoying to the end user, imho. These images are not that large to justify it's use. Using javascript to prevent right clicking isn't THAT hard to overcome. So by "specialized skill" turning off javascript or viewing the page's source to get direct links, wouldn't be that hard. But again, the majority of people don't know what javascript is or wtf they'd be looking at in the HTML to know what to load, so... Flickr protects its images that your not supposed to be able to download by just disabling right clicking with javascript, and that works for them, but just as easy to defeat if you know about it. — raekyt 06:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Photoshop isn't telling me there is one in it? The Digimark plugin, that is. Otherwise I don't know how to tell, but it wouldn't matter, it's public domain, digitally watermarked or not you wouldn't have a leg to stand on to prevent someone from using it for whatever they wanted. Currency is a government document, no copyright exists for it, and no "Sweat of the brow" doctrine exists in the United States for faithful reproductions of 2D works. — raekyt 06:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Understood. My main concern (responsibility) is to have the Smithsonian attribution follow the images.--Godot13 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
        • The best you can do is just make sure that information is clearly visible where the image is displayed and probably have an "Image Use" page that each of these bill pages has a clear link too that outlines attribution. A responsible person using the images would attribute them as requested, but not everyone's responsible or cares. As for Wikipedia, having high quality scans of these rare bills will GREATLY improve the quality of our pages dealing with them. Far to many of those pages have very small web graphics of the bills. Hopefully you can change all of that. Get some of these images on the front page (after the like 1.5 year wait to get through the huge backlog que, lol). — raekyt 06:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I uploaded the full size version of the $2 Educational Series 1896 Silver. When I scanned these I put "black" construction paper behind the notes. It was too course and I have had to manually darken the background. At full size you can see minor digital imperfections in the very edge of the margin. Do you think this will be an issue for FP nominations?--Godot13 (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone would notice the background change... Definitely FP worthy, but you probably can't get them ALL nominated for just that one page. Unless we had a page per bill... *cough*. :P — raekyt 12:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

speedy delete

Unlike the "GFDL 1.2 only" template, the general GFDL template isn't deprecated or grounds for deletion. And since 1 November 2008, GFDL images don't get re-licensed to CC. The speedy delete argument only applies to the "GFDL 1.2 only" template. Colin°Talk 23:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes but that is the license that these photographers that are arguing against the proposal use. Plus getting the other GFDL's for image depreciated probably would only be a matter of bringing up the 1.2 decision, and making the case that 1.3 has the same effect. — raekyt 23:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trevor Lock

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Trevor Lock. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

Message

Hi Raeky- I responded on my page. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii overprint note

When you have a chance, let me know if this is what you had in mind for prominent image replacement. In a case like this, is there any way to nominate a set of image for WP:FP (as exists in commons?) I don't want to annoy people nominating each one individually. Besides, the greatest EV of the notes is really as a set. What do you think?--Godot13 (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

We do image sets, you just make a normal FP page, the template doesn't do it, so you'll have to hack it up once the page is made and add a gallery for all the proposed images to be nominated in one set. Probably a good way to do say all the fractional currency too, and other series sets. That's an excellent replacement of images, they will make a great FP set. ;-) — raekyt 07:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the Ouya pre-release section.

I know you were disputing the neutrality of this section. I wondered if you thought my rewrite and inclusion of developer-release reception warrants the removal of the npov tag. Here are the changes. -Kai445 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a lot better, much less WP:WEIGHT is given to that one opinion piece, and definitely agree labeling it an op-ed. Still think it's a bit dated, since I'm sure more news articles about it's pending release or something came out in the intervening months. The tag probably isn't necessary now though since it's only one sentence instead of like 10% of the whole article like it was before. ;-) — raekyt 21:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Map projection

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Map projection. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Question re PeriodicVideo template

Hey Raeky:
Back in July 2010 you created {{Template:PeriodicVideo:}}. I've been clicking the template in different articles, but YouTube simply opens to my YouTube "homepage" (devoted to my Google user name). It does not play the actual video from the get-go. An example is http://www.youtube.com/?v=JzqdHkpXuy4 for Boron. If I put JzqdHkpXuy4v in the YouTube searchbox, the video comes up with the url http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzqdHkpXuy4. Right now the template says

[[The Periodic Table of Videos]] video of [http://www.youtube.com/?v={{{2}}} {{{1|Element}}}] at [[YouTube]]<noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>

Should it be revised to say:

[[The Periodic Table of Videos]] video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v={{{2}}} {{{1|Element}}}] at [[YouTube]]<noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>

E.g., we include "watch" ? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

They must of changed the way it worked, back then that link worked. I do know inserting those videos as an WP:EL into element articles likely will get reverted, theres a strong consensus, at least back then, to not link to them. — raekyt 20:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I started reviewing the periodic table and saw the videos as ELs for H, He, Li, B, when I noticed the template link and the problem. So my concern is two-fold: 1. The technical issue of getting the video to play without the preliminaries (or the ads that YouTube adds). And, 2. whether they are an appropriate EL. Given that they are done in collaboration with a university, I'm surprised that people would resist them. So to overcome the resistance, I think we might best avoid the YouTube home page. Technically will adding "watch" fix it? (I'm asking because I thought you could give me an answer before I started messing with the template.) If so, then let's fix it. In the alternative, the periodic videos will play straight from http://www.periodicvideos.com/ . Can that url be put into the template and thereby avoid YouTube? This alternative might be even better! – S. Rich (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Correcting the url will fix it, probably best way to avoid a problem is to get consensus for their inclusion at the wikiproject's page for chemistry. Linking to the video on their website avoids some adds, but they're monetized. — raekyt 20:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I added "watch" to the template and (Ta-Da!) it seems to work. That is, the video plays immediately.
Rather than post your template, I think I'll post the various non-YouTube links for the different elements. There is a WikiProject Elements. They had some discussion regarding the videos, and it seemed positive. (So those discussions can be used to support inclusion.) Once the elements are done, I think I'll move on to the other videos.
While I was able to fix the YouTube link, do you think you can apply your technical expertise and create a template which avoids YouTube? – S. Rich (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Well you can link to their website instead of directly to youtube... — raekyt 21:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

Message

Hi Raeky- I responded to your message on my talk page. -- Godot13 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Migraine

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Migraine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

ER

I'm taking a look at your request for ER. At the moment, rather than doing a "formal" review, I do have a few observations. With User talk:Diblidabliduu you posted a "don't mess with other user's talk page comments" message. Diblidaniduu responded and pointed out valid rationale for (at least some of} the changes. If I were you, I'd respond to D and acknowledge correctness or incorrectness. I know you are a vary gud speler, but some of your various talk page comments need proofreading. Don't take this too seriously, it's just my personal quirk, but I think admins should follow the highest standards in this regard. On your talk page, you've got a lot of month by month archive material. A lot of those old entries are old Signpost articles. My personal quirk is to delete these project news letters. I think if you did, you could present archives in a year by year or quarter by quarter format. These are all small things, of course. The big things are your excellent user page and the overall quality of edits throughout the project. You are doing a great job. And as for dealing with other editors, I certainly applaud your work. (Of course, because you were so supportive during the Hugo discussions!) If you need support or assistance with your request for Adminship, please let me know. And if no one gives you a formal ER, I will do so. Best regards. – S. Rich (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Ya with that user I sorta just gave up and didn't want to fight it. He's probably technically on the borderline of what he shouldn't do. He wasn't changing the meaning but reorganizing, and removing some formatting in signatures and such, which at first glance appeared to be too much over the line which is why I reversed it. As for my grammar short-comings, at times I do get ahead of myself in my typing or make weird mistakes. I know this short-coming of mine and for things that matter more than others I re-read it multiple times and correct myself. But sometimes I'm in a hurry and let things slip. Generally though I think my meaning comes across if I do something weird. ;-) The archive thing, I donno, it's been managed by the bot for ages and the bot makes the pages. Maybe if I get some time I can consolidate the old archives, which I admit many are small pages and mostly bot messages. — raekyt 18:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate London Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's New South Wales Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr (Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare (Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus (Alaska Keilana (submissions) and New South Wales Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John (Indiana Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)