User talk:Solipsist

Other pages: main - talk - images - contrib - notes

Talk archive: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15

Just a question.

I hate to bug you, but I was wondering if you could tell me if and when a photo I took that was made a featured picture, might appear on the picture of the day. I just want to show my family. The image is Image:CalvaryCemeteryQueens edit.jpg. --Plowboylifestyle 18:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Plowboy, I'm not updating the POTD lists just at the moment. My laptop died recently, which is making it difficult to spend much time on Wikipedia.

The pictures are generally selected in the order that they were promoted, so you should be able to work out when your picture should to be due. Check Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 2006 and the following August archive to see where we are currently up to. -- Solipsist 14:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80.36.126.124 spamlinks

I see you've also been rv some of these many spamlinks. I gave a spam4 warning and when it continued, put on a block of indefinite. Does this sound OK? They can always ask for unblock and explain themselves. Tyrenius 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you answered a few seconds before I even asked!!! Tyrenius 13:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and your specialist subject is 'answering the question before last' :) -- Solipsist 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yes, I think there is more rigour going on now in adminland, probably because admins are running out of patience with miscreants. I tried to shorten the block and ended up blocking myself by mistake! Anyway, they've left a sensible explanation now and I've unblocked them, so you might like to keep an eye out. Tyrenius 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI yesterday's art spammer returned with a user name [1]. I have blocked the name for 7 days, following breach of trust. Tyrenius 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Spam link in Mozart Article

I see that you consider it a spam link, I don't think so although I find this link non encyclopedic. So you did well, removing this link but don't judge it as spam. Maybe who posted that did it in good faith. User:Atenea26 20:00 , 17 July (UTC);

Oh, any links to reverent.org are definately spam. In the past I spent a while reverting links an anon was adding to Jackson Pollock page for a video on reverent.org that basically showed a pidgeon crapping on the pavement. The same anon would also add links to various psuedo-tests on the same site - can you spot the difference between a childs drawing and a work by a modern artist - can you tell whether this piece was written by Mozart or Salieri and the like. Every now and again I go around and remove them, and after a while random anons tend to add them back. All these tests are pretty rubbish, and totaly non-encyclopedic so the only reason anons can be adding them is for the purpose of promoting the site - ie. they are spam. -- Solipsist 12:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image on Asclepius article

Hi Solipsist. I saw those images when they were first added to Asclepius on 6th April 2006 and wondered if they were appropriate. But I left them. There are other articles containing such images. See contributions near 6th April 2006 here for anonymous contributor Special:Contributions/80.123.121.26 User:80.123.121.26. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is a German user who is basically acting in good faith, but sailing on the wrong side of self promotion. I was working through some of their similar edits earlier, then got distracted by a phone call. The slightly harder problem is that the same user has added the images to many other language wikis. I'll have another crack at tracking them down. -- Solipsist 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solipsist. I take your points and agree in principle. Okay, very good. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one that really caught my eye was this addition to the duck article, that really provides no value to the article at all. On the other hand, they also added some useful line drawings, such as this one on head. The in-article credits need removing and, given that they are licensed under cc-by-sa, someone could remove the embedded copyrights in a derivative image but I doubt that anyone will be that bothered. -- Solipsist 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Thanks. Checked all the references you gave out and agree some pictures are useful. I am in total agreement on the images you eviscerated. The jewelry bit (Clef from 11th April 2006, et al.) was a bit over the top. Ditto on the in-article advert/credits as you said. Ultimately, it's been mitigated with your good work. Thanks and Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it might be a Machiavellian trick. Since the posting of those images on Wikipedia, the contemporary artists are ranked high on a Google search: their Wikipedia images come up as results. That's a possible new promotional device. Clever. Oh well. Life goes on. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is far from a new promotional device. I've got a fair few art related articles on my watch list and they constantly have non-notable and wana-be artists self promoting themselves. A year or so ago, I helped to revert the many edits by User:Gabrichidze who would insert pretty poor paintings into various articles, particularly Surrealism. Eventually he got banned I think, but then continued to do the same thing using his girl friend's account.

There is of course Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam that tries to coordinate the removal of self promotional links and other spam. Although it is largely concerned with External-links which is the most common method. -- Solipsist 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, Solipist, this is indeed the case. Thanks and Cheers! --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing the Declaration of POV...

You wouldn't mind if I steal your div box style of "Declaration of POV" thingy? Monkey Brain 23:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I more-or-less 'borrowed' it from someone else years ago, so lets assume its copy-left or PD. Steal away. ... -- Solipsist 00:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, cool Monkey Brain 00:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catchphrase in Sign of the Cross

You state that this catchphrase is acceptable practice for Roman Catholics. I would ask you to show the source for:

1) The Catchphrase itself 2) The fact that this 'catchphrase' is acceptable for Roman Catholics.

In fact, there is no official catchphrase and the section should be deleted. --Ologgio 18:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come off it, that's not hard. You will find the phrase used in the film Austin Powers The Spy Who Shagged Me and here is a citation of that mentions it.

The phrase also features in a scene in Nuns on the Run in which Robbie Coltrane's character teaches the sign of the cross to Eric Idle using the mnemonic (and a citation). You should also note that Coltrane is a lapsed Catholic.

It really isn't that uncommon, and I'm rather surprised to find so many editors hiding behind anonymous accounts and trying to supress it. Here is another citation that suggests it originated in 1965, but I suspect its older. Here is another example of someone using the phrase informally to educate a Jewish friend.

You could of course go down to you local Catholic church and try asking the choristers after the service to see whether they know what the phrase means - let me know if they are all bemused. -- Solipsist 08:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on Fir0002 FPC set

Hi Solipsist!
Hope you can stop by here and leave your much appreciated thoughts. Thanks! --Fir0002 12:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spider pictures

hi solipsist,

you removed a link to some of the most beautiful spider pictures i have ever seen (on Spider) as spam, because the site also sells these (at horrendous prices btw). i appreciate your work, i have a forum myself that is overrun by spam, and know how time consuming this can be. but on this account i have to disagree with you. so i'll put the link back in; in case you're still interested in killing it, please give me a note, so that we can sort it out.

cheers --Sarefo 03:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solipsist3

I thought you might like to know about the above. I think it's done in daft innocence. Tyrenius 03:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Given the nature of their vandalism, I agree it just looks like general noise and not an attempt to impersonate. -- Solipsist 08:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solipsist,

It has come to my attention that you are prepared to offer opinions (often quite hardened, unreasonable opinions) on matters that you know nothing about. An example I shall use is the article on "Bums" by Brittle Bones. Listed for deletion, you suggest it should be deleted or redirected to "Bollocks". I take it you are not familiar with a game which has become an institution within Public School and Universities nation wide? Yes, it may be an article which is struggling for sources but, by no means does it warrant being called "Bollocks". Furthermore, you go on to suggest Brittle Bones's editing history be checked. All brittle bones has done is create a well written article outlining the rules of a game many people play to make it more enjoyable and more defined.

In future, if you disagree with something, I think you should be more thoughtful in your approach toward it. If you think something is "bollocks" perhaps you should do some research first so you do not end up humiliating yourself any further.

--Irvybabes 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. I see you have also been vandalising a few articles as anonymous User:195.97.248.74. -- Solipsist 13:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Feather-white-falling-blue-to-purple-graduated-background-1-AJHD.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Feather-white-falling-blue-to-purple-graduated-background-1-AJHD.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Removals

Hi, I'm a wiki newbie, and wondered why you removed my additions. The addition I've made to the Chabad page, is a book reference containing much content on the subject; and, while the links I've added to other pages - Snow, Judaism... - may seem like spam, they are totally legit and add depth (I think).

Sorry to bother you and look forward to the clarification.