User talk:Nard the Bard

Note: This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Threads older than 7 days old are automatically archived.

• Note, User:Nardman1 is now User:N.

XDEATHSTARx

I restored the history per your request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Much obliged. -N 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:2004 Poppy Quarter.jpg

I noticed you uploaded this image to commons. I was under the impression that all Canadian coins are subject to Crown copyright, so can the image be called free? nadav (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Images of money are currently in limbo on Commons. Apparently they are refusing to delete them. -N 00:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See, for example, this debate. In fine, it was decided that the images should not be deleted from Commons because no usage license would ever let you produce a 3D sculpture of the coins, as that would be counterfeit money. Statements in favour of deletion mostly suggested that, though the statement is true, the copyright license should not limit derivative works. And, verily, havoc ensued. --Iamunknown 00:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The European side of the coins is released under fairly free terms. I don't know if crown copyright is as permissive...I noticed that commons:Category:Coins of the United Kingdom says not to add recent coins. But I don't get involved in commons stuff, so I don't know. nadav (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep you posted. If we have to we can bring the image over as a fair use image (lowering the resolution, of course). Since the image is under a free license it should avoid the problems of the other picture (potential double copyright, coin and image). -N 00:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Related: This ancient coin image was listed on IFD. I'm not sure if the photo is eligible for copyright, so I moved it to PUI. If you have any opinions or insights on this one, they would be welcome. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved! -N 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:How much is that Hello Kitty guitar in the window.jpg

Excellent work! Thanks! --Butseriouslyfolks 01:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Welcome. There are actually several images of the guitar on Flickr, but (I hope) this one isn't considered derivative since it plainly shows a shop selling several items. Plus there's an ugly car reflection in it. -N 01:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Banhammer

Hello. I guess what I was trying to say was: outside of slashdot and similar websites, where is it used in that context? It just seemed rather grand to be in the intro paragraph. I agree about the citation issue. Thanks for taking the time to write me about it. All the best. --Bobak 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the context where I hear it all the time, internet forums (of which I'd even extend Wikipedia as a large-scale version), was already included. I guess this is what I get for being an old coot when it comes to games. --Bobak 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode template

I feel I need to clear something up with you. While I don't totally disapprove of TTN's tagging, it's way more than I thought he would be doing. My thoughts were that we would apply the tag to a few groups of episodes and be able to tweak the whole system, including the template, as needed. I understand that most of your frustration is with TTN's mass tagging, and I want you to know that wasn't meant to happen like it did.

As far as my speedy closing of the TFD, you must understand that our policy for TFDs try to prevent a template from being targeted independently when there are larger processes at work. While the exact guidelines for the template had not been finalized, the template itself had a consensus. Trying to snipe a developing process before it has a chance to properly represent itself isn't giving the situation a fair chance. It was for this reason that discussion on the template should have gone to the talk pages setting up the episode review process. This would not have changed if someone else made the template.

Matthew has been a very disruptive user in the entire episode article debate (documented on several talk pages, and I can provide links if you wish). His nomination of the template comes minutes after he saw this message left on my talk page (message at 23:38, 24 June, nom at 23:44, 24 June). His nomination was out of spite, and his reasons were flawed "The main purpose of this template is to set a deadline of when a page must be "cleaned up"" (exactly what the template was not meant to be. I set out to make it so an episode article would only have to show the potential, and not require cleanup). "The template is the result of a messy and long discussion at Wikipedia:Television episodes" is clearly misleading, as the discussion there has been very productive for all involved. He even cites NPOV for a cleanup template, and calls it unencyclopedic, despite that the wording comes directly from {{notability}}.

Knowing this, is it really unreasonable to you that I felt it more productive, more fair, to speedy close the discussion? If you still think so, then I respect that, but as I said before, I would have done the same thing if someone else made the template, and I was simply passing by. In any case, I'm sorry to have reacted harshly to you. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I understand you are acting in good faith. I accept the apology although I wasn't offended. If I said anything offensive I am also sorry for it. I understand you are working as part of a larger project with this template. You should not be offended if the community questions the use of a new template on so many articles, however. Work with it, grow with it.
• As far as TTN's actions go, I'm glad he doesn't represent the entire project. And I know you are trying to invite editors to engage you in dialogue on the project page, but some of us have full plates in other matters (I'm kind of learning how to do image copyright for example) and really can't join a new project. -N 00:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Well, actually, i used to be a barman in a bar and i was called the Shooter Boy often so i hope this clears :) --Blah 21:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

re TfD notice for {{Jew list}}

Thanks. If I had my way, this kind of notification would be a mandatory part of all XfDs. Cheers, Tomer^talk 03:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic Afghanistan

Hi, thanks for explaining your use of nowiki for that situation. Basically, that website was blacklisted under strong suspicion of lacking copyright on many of its articles and images. The approach has been to replace the cais-soas citation with a citation of the real source (usually Encyclopedia Iranica). If the document in question is native to cais-soas it shouldn't be used anyway (WP:FRINGE, WP:RS). Anyway, I just went through Wikipedia yesterday and removed all links from the articles and deactivated links elsewhere (aside from archives), replacing with 'citation needed' where necessary.

While the issue was discussed on a number of pages, including the blacklist-related pages (where requests for unlisting were rejected), perhaps the most complete post for more information on the problems with that website is here: [1]

Thanks again and sorry for the confusion. The Behnam 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

EndUN Userbox

Hi, you recently participated in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN discussion. I have reluctantly submitted the closing statement by User:Tony Sidaway for deletion review. Please consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_1#User:DieWeisseRose.2FUserboxes.2FEndUN. Thanks. --DieWeisseRose 02:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

TTN and Ned Scott

How can we deal with those two?