User talk:David Fuchs
While this makes messages more fragmented, it also saves time. Please note many other users prefer to centralize discussions.
Non Free SVGs (part 2)
View previous discussions
Hello David, I see you've archived. I'm not done discussing. To clear things up, no, I still do not agree with you and still think that the SVG should be used. I acquiesced to you because of your stubbornness and incivility towards me, which I regret now. We do not have an agreement. What sets the Bungie article apart from all of the other articles that have non-free vector images in them? I am still waiting for an answer. Connormah (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- While I disagree w/ David on the SVG issue (meaning I feel that it is incorrect to treat SVGs as high resolution), the answer to your question is other stuff exists. It makes just as much sense to ask why Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a featured article but Zardoz is only start class. Protonk (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Other stuff exists doesn't apply here. This isn't a situation in which someone is arguing that X is comparable to Y, Y exists, so X should exist too. The point is that X is Y, and the community has decided to use Y. (The image is a non-free SVG, and the community has decided to use non-free SVGs.)
- Connormah and I have asked David to explain how X isn't Y (how some sort of special circumstance renders the community's decision inapplicable to the article/logo in question), and he has ignored our requests. Thus far, his only rationale for removing the SVG
seveneight times is that he personally disagrees with the community's decision and believes that his major role in authoring the Bungie article entitles him to control its content. He has expressed this in an uncivil manner, stating that Connormah is "not a significant contributor to this article" and repeatedly telling him to "go away." —David Levy 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Re Ffd
So this is more of an issue with the other million articles with SVG logos, right? Reverting the changes in the article because you think you reserve ownership of the article is a terrible venue. I think consensus is clear that the SVG should be used, so if you have a problem with SVG fair-use images, please discuss this somewhere else where the community can determine whether it should be a guideline. It seems clear to me that you violate WP:POINT and this can be a serious issue especially since you are an admin in which we expect better from. ZooFari 04:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
What's the status of the image here? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK thanks, I've asked someone else for a second opinion. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thankyou very much for your comments at the FAC for the Battle of Grand Port. The article has now passed, and your interest and comments during the process were much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Non-free SVGs
It's obvious that no one is happy with the current situation. I agree with you that a major community discussion is called for, and I support your efforts to initiate one.
As I've noted, while I regard the use of non-free SVGs as the status quo, I'm neutral as to whether it should continue. I believe that there are strong arguments on both sides of the debate, and I'd like very much for all of them to be fleshed out and addressed on a larger scale.
I hope that we can work together (along with other editors of varying viewpoints) to organize such a debate and agree to abide by whatever consensus emerges. One thing of which I'm certain is that an unambiguous policy (whether in allowance or disallowance of non-free SVGs) would be vastly preferable to endless bickering. I hope that you agree. —David Levy 22:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
You placed full protection on this article in Nov 08. Please could you reduce this to semi-protection, say, as I wish to write upon this notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Belated response to call for sources
Hi. I remember that you asked, weeks ago, for Turok: Dinosaur Hunter references on the WPVG talk page. Despite the fact that you already got Turok to FA, I thought I'd mention that I found a few notable reviews recently, while digging through Wayback to improve the newly-created Online print archive. If you're interested in including them, they can be found here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Featured Topic image?
Hey, I noticed you created free images for the Seasons of Bleach and Seasons of Naruto featured topics, and wondered if you'd be interested/willing to do one for the Tokyo Mew Mew candidacy? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Halo 3: ODST and the FT
As this game is now released, you have until December 22 to get the article to GA, or someone can nominate the Halo media FT for removal. I'm sure that won't be a problem though ;) rst20xx (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009
- From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
- News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Thank you.
Thanks for your participation in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Desperate Housewives (season 1)/archive1. The resulted was Promoted. (SUDUSER)85 03:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
VG Barnstar
|
The VG Barnstar | |
| For promoting Turok: Dinosaur Hunter to FA. Thunderbrand (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) |
Hello, I was perusing Wikipedia as I normally do and saw that Turok: Dino Hunter was promoted to FA! I dunno if you remember me, but I worked on getting it to GA status and tidying up the Turok articles awhile back. I stopped editing in April 2007, but I usually wander around when I'm bored. I wanted to give you this barnstar for the hard work you put into the article and making it a great source of information. Thunderbrand (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)