Jump to content

User talk:Solipsist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.136.11.225 (talk) at 11:24, 8 November 2006 (→‎[[Banksy]] again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


My appologies, I am new to wikipedia, have been a master plumber for 40 years and found this website that has alot of information about plumbing subjects that are not in the articles here. http://www.plumbersurplus.com/Learning-Center.aspx Not sure how long this website has been around but they do a really good job about describing these different types of plumbing topics. I just thought it might help, how is this considered spam? Thanks!

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]

Tor

You wrote... "But please stop changing the links to tor. You are doing the wrong thing and working against prior concensus. Tor meaning a type of crag or hill is the clear primary meaning as shown by the number of internal links. In this instance, if you think the priority ought to be changed you should take it up at Page Move requests. -- Solipsist 03:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

You speak as if I've done it many times, but I only did it once. If there has been a discussion and a consensus, it should be documented on the talk page, and it was not. My failure to read your mind is not my fault. And I have to say I very much disagree about one discipline calling "dibs" on a word. Archaic words fall into disuse and are reused- that's what synonyms are and what disambiguation pages are for.
 --Nil0lab 06:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.171.12 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV/worldview notices in Cat flap

AFAIK it's considered extremely bad Wikipedia form to remove someone's POV tags just because you don't agree with them. The whole point of the POV tag is to indicate a disagreement over the content of the article; the only proper way to remove the tag is to work out with the poster the appropriate changes to make so as to remove the problem. Alternatively, if the poster has vanished (weeks or more) and there is consensus that the article as it currently stands is NPOV, you can remove it, but *never* right after the tag was added. Benwing 07:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a point, but editors are also supposed to discuss disputes on the talk page, not just put a POV template on a page. That is explained on Template:Pov. Now if User:Joeyramoney's only issue is the choice of article title, then he is going against concensus which has been tested enough times already that we are in danger of crossing Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
It is really quite important that the Wikipedia community should respect international variations. When I first came to Wikipedia, some years ago, I read around the how-tos and guidelines and was much heartened by its attitude towards handling variations in English usage. If Wikipedia's position was that this was first and foremost an encyclopedia to be written in American English, I don't think I would have stayed around, and Wikipedia would be a couple of hundred articles worse off for it.
Nevertheless, the truth of the matter is that in practice Wikipedia is constantly drifting towards American English. Perhaps you are not aware of how frequently editors go round 'correcting' British English spellings having failed to read the guidelines (quite understandable) or choosing to ignore them (less so). I've got about a dozen pages on my watchlist that frequently suffer from spelling changes. It only becomes exceptionally heated when the choice of English affects the article title. Even then, you don't typically find British English readers causing trouble and moving pages against concensus on pages that are at specifically US titles. See for example the history and talk at;
or indeed most of the subjects/words on List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom. I am at a loss to see why I should patiently put up with disruption over spelling changes, not to mention the amount of time it wastes. I'm increasingly of the view that there really isn't a place for non-American editors on Wikipedia. -- Solipsist 08:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second Solipsist on this one. These tags aren't appropriate. — Matt Crypto 09:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons pic viewer

Thanks very much for pointing out the tool that lists all a users pics on Commons. For anyone else who wants it, see here. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 08:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you like that, you might also like the 'Check Usage' tool, that shows which languages and wikiprojects are using a particular image from Commons. There should be a tab for it at the top of each image description page. It gives results like this. -- Solipsist 10:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in using that tool, I noticed that there appears to be a duplicated upload between Image:Concorde.planview.arp.jpg and Image:Concorde 216 (G-BOAF) last flight.jpg. We should probably arrange to replace and remove the latter one as it is smaller. -- Solipsist 10:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To spam or not to spam...

[excuse my bad english] Ok, i trust you. Tell me what images this user has uploaded and I'll try to change them with other ones. But I think that if there are no better images these should be keep. Anyway... what spam is? Everyone who create an illustration and put it on a Wiki is a spammer? Or the criteria is the number of insertion? If a spammer put a good image on it.wiki I would keep it... This was the sense of my old message to you. I'll take care about Heikenwaelder to avoid from exaggerations... ^___^. Ciao. Amon

Deleted image. I've seen in usage statistics that there are several images in several wikis... It's a hard work, but someone must do it... you, for example... ;) Thank you for help and information. Only some advice: explain bettere in the object box why you delete an image... this will avoid annoying user like me from asking for everything from Adam and Eve's times... ^____^ Amon
Point taken. It can be difficult editing across multiple language wikis - I was probably getting too tired. In fact I think I missed off the edit summary entirely on some of the edits, which doesn't look good when you are not signed in either. -- Solipsist 14:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Blanking of Talk:Versace

I didn't mean to imply in my summary that you had blanked it, sorry. I Just reverted it back to the most recent on-topic conversation. It was blanked and replaced with the persace garbage. --Darkfred Talk to me 05:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You did the right thing. Actually I'm a bit surprised to see that I just deleted the vandalism rather than reverting to an earlier version. -- Solipsist 08:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re;Sunsets

Hi Solipsist!
Yeah, I see your point - it is becoming a little too populated with Swifts Creek photos (although for a sunset the location doesn't really have that much influence). However a sea-side one probably would be a good idea - although being totally subjective, I don't really see to much on the commons gallery that jumps out as a superior image except perhaps either Image:Päijänne and päijätsalo.jpg or Image:Sunset on North Beach at Fort De Soto Park.jpg). See if you can pick out any others... --Fir0002 08:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first one is quite nice. Other alternatives might be
but I also rather like Image:Blackbird-sunset-03.jpg and one of the Martian sunsets. -- Solipsist 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah they are all quite nice, but I think they all have slight problems with them. Image:Bali june aft.jpg is a bit low res and very compressed (especially considering it's origin was a Canon 300D), Image:Rivertree 1 md.jpg is very nice, but it is one of the few sunsets that can actually be used on another page so I would kinda prefer using an image which can't be used on another page. Image:Sunset with coconut palm tree, Fiji.jpg has a great idylic paradise look, but the horizon has a severe tilt, and although Image:Blackbird-sunset-03.jpg and Image:Fisherman on Lake Tanganyika.jpg are both quite interesting they are a little low res (gotta be picky for an "easy" subject like a sunset :-). So I'm leaning towards using Image:Päijänne and päijätsalo.jpg, any other thoughts? --Fir0002 11:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solipsist3

Are you aware of the above user? Tyrenius 13:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very new user and I've already mistaken him for you a couple of times. It's easy to get confused in a signature, taking a quick look. I would recommend requesting a change to protect your good name. Tyrenius 14:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National museum categories in UK

I think this needs some scrutiny. These edits are changing, as in this example, Category:British national museums|London, National Gallery to Category:National museums of England|London, National Gallery. As far as I understand it, these are not English museums, nor even museums of England (although they may be in England, but that is neither here nor there). They are British museums, which is why there is the title Tate Britain and not Tate England, for one. I'm not really up with categories, and wonder if you could take a look. Tyrenius 23:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I'll rv if I see them, as it's not accurate in certain cases. Tyrenius 17:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on Fir0002 FPC set

Hi Solipsist!
Hope you can spare the time to put your thoughts on this set. Thanks! --Fir0002 11:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Making Gliding a featured article

Hi Solipsist! As someone with an interest in gliding, I wonder if you could do me a favour. I have been honing the article on gliding, and would like some advice on what would be needed to get it featured. Any advice would be welcome. JMcC 14:52, 29 August 2006(UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have amended the aerobatics at your suggestion. Military gliders are not really related to the sport of gliding, but there is a link in gliders. Any thought on how close the article is the featured standard would be appreciated. JMcC 07:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you left this message on my user page:

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Solipsist 05:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which link you are referring to, but if I added a link I thought it was relevant to the subject in question. I have nothing to sell and no wish to advertise. If i knew which link you were referring to it would help me to see my mistake. Jodywebster 00:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


External links in Quotation article needs to go on another diet. Lots of spamlinks in the new list.

68.231.54.18 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfons Mucha

I thought I should let you know that I reinstated an external link to artrenewal.org which you had deleted as a commercial site. They describe themselves as a "non-profit educational organization". However, I have found this site as such a useful source of additional material on the artists they cover, that I would argue for its inclusion, even if it were a commercial site. Most external links are commercial sites. Tyrenius 20:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had mixed feelings about that one (and think I've sat on the fence in the past). Its pretty good information, but they do tend to try and sell prints (presumably poor quality prints) of most of the images on their site. I then did a linksearch check on the site and found we had quite an excess of links to them, more than a few of which are listed as 404 dead. But at that point I lost the will to sort it out... -- Solipsist 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Although polemical, they do seem to know their onions. I dare say the dead links will get removed in time. I don't think I quite have the will at the moment either. As their images online are usually superb quality (with gigantic enlargements) I think you could treat yourself to one of their prints and be in for a pleasant surprise... Tyrenius 23:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Seeing Eye / Eye of Providence

FYI, the article that used to be titled All seeing eye has been moved to All-seeing eye (disambiguation). All references to "all-seeing eye" in any punctuated form, redirect to eye of providence. You should update your watched pages accordingly. McKay 23:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From One Solipsist To Another

Hi Solipsist, I see my friend Tyrenius has already notified you to my existence, but of course, being a solipsist, you obviously don't believe I exist do you. Just wondering, how do you justify using Wikipedia if you're a solipsist? Its a philosophical conundrum I often struggle with. P.S. You were quite right in thinking that I am not impersonating you. I was unaware of your existence when I made my user name. In fact, I am still disbelieving of your existence. It would be quite ridiculous for a solipsist to impersonate anyone. Solipsist3 04:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes User:Tyrenius had mentioned some concerns over your account. There are policies for blocking accounts where the username is too similar to the name of an existing user - so you might like to consider changing your user name. I've looked over your contributions and some of those from the related IPs. So far I'm not particularly impressed, but I'm also not particularly concerned and hopefully your contributions will continue to improve. -- Solipsist 06:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I replaced the symbol/diagram site with a tutorial site which I felt is very good; it is, however, part of a woman's commerical site. I also replaced crochetme with a more extensive directory of patterns. 68.171.28.152 10:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me being not logged in. Lmblackjack21 10:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about the inreach.com link? It looks pretty poor and seems to be just a directory with half the links nothing to do about crochet. -- Solipsist 12:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chessmen photos

Nowhere on these photos or on your user page have you stated that you are Andrew Dunn, or if you aren't where the photos came from and how you know the copyright was released. As such, the copyright status is unclear and they aren't allowed at commons that way until verification is shown that the copyright holder has released them. Please clarify this issue. pschemp | talk 12:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it clearer if you check the Commons version of those images, where the connection is made more explicit. This has been discussed several times before. Most recently on my Commons talk page - which was largely why I was completing the transfer of older images to Commons. I'm not convinced that it is possible to copyright an image under a pseudonym, and way too many people miss the point that cc-by-sa and GFDL licensed images are still copyrighted. - Solipsist 16:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did check the commons page. My point is that it isn't made crystal clear on the description of the photo that you are Andrew Dunn. Especially since it was uploaded to commons by someone else, and *they* put a tag on it that says they created the image (technically). The link that points to your name is not obvious. I can see this isn't the first time this has happened, so why not just mark it more clearly and then it won't be an issue? pschemp | talk 16:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gliding

I have self-nominated gliding as a featured article candidate. Your support would be welcome. JMcC 11:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, it looks good. I'll leave it a little while, to gather a few more responses first. I doubt it helps to get support from interested parties too early. - Solipsist 20:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is being largely ignored at present. I am worried it will be dismissed because of lack of interest. As soon as you can add your support it would be appreciated. JMcC 13:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I can easily loose track of these deadlines. -- Solipsist 15:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not about the ethics of drumming up support for FAC. However, if your contacts could be persuaded to comment, with luck favourably, this would appreciated. 12:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mona Lisa Question

Hello, you seem to be quite well informed of this painting, as well as many other Wikipedia articles, after seeing your posts on many of others' inputs. I was just curious to know, if it was unusual at all for married women to not wear their bands, or rings. I never gave it much thought, and I'm sure it's been gone over before, but I was just curious, and had to ask.

-James Murphy

Sorry, I can't help you on this one. It is often a mistake to assume that modern customs have a long tradition, but wedding rings have a long history stretching back to the Romans and even noble Egyptians. Assuming that the painting was intended to be a protrait of Lisa Gherardini Giocondo shortly after having her second child, she might indeed have been expected to be wearing a wedding ring and quite possibly other jewelery. There again, the loose hairstyle is also thought to be inappropriate for a woman of her standing - the recent NRC research suggests it was originally painted as a bun. There are still plenty of other mild mysteries surrounding this painting. -- Solipsist 19:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:PrefSymbol-Okinawa.png)

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:PrefSymbol-Okinawa.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.

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. --Durin 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you might want to contact User:Synthetik who originally uploaded it; I only adjusted the colours. In any case, it looks like it has been replaced by an svg version (at least on the Okinawa Prefecture page which is where you would expect it to have been used). The license changes appear to be due to icon licensing problems under Japanese law for the original version on the ja wiki, so either version should be quite safe under fair-use. -- Solipsist 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic spam

Happy to help (tho it was a bit late in the day for me!). I often think when a "different" editor comes along it is taken more seriously. Regards --Nigel (Talk) 12:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS & hindsight is sooooo good. The first warning was way to polite & sorry - missed the 3RR warning, not really worth it given the other warning but I will if you like - cheers --Nigel (Talk) 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is generally best to assume good faith. On their first restoration, it could well have been a returning anon not realising why most of the external links had disappeared, and thinking they were correcting some past vandalism. I was also putting some explanations in the edit summaries, but again, infrequent users may not know to read them. However, I doubt that any newbie anon makes four or five reverts in a row at which point I had to see it more as a spamming problem. Still a little unusual since they were restore a whole batch of links, but I guess they had an interest in one of them. However by then I was also on the edge of a 3RR (or over it), and so I called for a second pair of eyes. Unfortunately I first put the message on Wikipedia talk:spam rather than the project spam page, so it didn't get an immediate response. It is still possible that the anon was acting in good faith and just not getting the message, just a little unlikely. -- Solipsist 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting points. Yes to good faith without question - I did say hindsight was good and yes to outside users not knowing where to find edit summaries but I guess I still come from a slightly authoritarian warning perspective at some point. Is 3RR really an issues with vandal/spam tho? At some stage I know I was told it was not an issue (vandals maybe) & I have certainly gone past 3RR on vandals (as long as you promise not to tell anyone!). Related sideline but said spam project is discussing spam warnings now - you may be interested. I confess I do think the first one should be "really" nice as many people do misunderstand Wiki but after spam2 ... Had enought typing for tonight! and hope this doesn't bug you - all the best --Nigel (Talk) 19:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The morning lacks last night's flippancy. To clarify I was referring to vandalism by IP addresses (tho I would probably include linkspam as a form of vandalism) not edits or links by editors. In general once would be enough in that case - discussion should follow. Sorry it had been one of those days! Regards --Nigel (Talk) 06:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guernica

Go to:

http://fpp.co.uk/History/General/Guernica/DTel250487.html

The work was indeed begun before the bombing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.238.242.121 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 28 September 2006.

Ha ha. David Irving now there's a reliable source - or . You can try and take it up on the Guernica (painting) talk page if you like, but no one else is likely to agree. -- Solipsist 05:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POTD column

The column format is still used in the alternate Main Page layouts, accessible from Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives and it's transcluded on a few user pages as well. It's in very low demand, but it's there, and it only takes me a few seconds to create anyway. howcheng {chat} 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: R/raven

It actually kind of bothers me (from an English-NAZI kind of perspective), and in any other situation i'd probably press to have it changed. But i imagine the issue's been dissected a thousand times by people who know way more about nomenclature than i ever will, so yeah, i'll probably just play ball if i ever have to edit any articles like that in the future. ... Which i probably won't, since i'm not a biologist or whatever.

edit: I wasn't sure whether to reply to your comment on my page or yours, since my talk page hasn't seen a lot of action yet. I dunno. I'm used to comment-tag since i have a MySpace, but correct me if i'm doing it wrong. ~ lav-chan @ 12:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jlf0612 has a question

I am new to Wiki and I am confused about why what I added to "rubber stamp" was removed. I really think that those Stamp clubs have interesting marketing tactics, and it is a popular thing to do here in Utah. If I wouldn't have added links to the stamp sites would it have been considered spam? I guess I don't know how to add valuable data to topics yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.23.65.254 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 October 2006.

Thanks for asking - I'll reply here, since it looks like you may not be signed in as User:Jlf0612
It is important to remember that project as a whole is to write a useful encyclopedia. Your edits to Rubber stamp this morning were well formed, but rather distorted the article. I find it difficult to believe that collecting rubber stamps is that significantly more popular in Utah compared to other US states, and really isn't worth mentioning in the general worldwide view. If I'm wrong and it is many times more popular in Utah than in any other US state, it could be mentioned but would need a citable source to be credible.
Wikipedia also has policies against advertising, external links and promoting of individual companies (except on an article of a sufficiently notable company) - this is generally refered to as Spam. Further your discussion of marketing strategies of the two companies mentioned (modelled on Tupperware parties) has no relevance whatsoever to the subject of rubber stamps. I hope that helps. -- Solipsist 21:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tor

You wrote... "But please stop changing the links to tor. You are doing the wrong thing and working against prior concensus. Tor meaning a type of crag or hill is the clear primary meaning as shown by the number of internal links. In this instance, if you think the priority ought to be changed you should take it up at Page Move requests. -- Solipsist 03:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

You speak as if I've done it many times, but I only did it once. If there has been a discussion and a consensus, it should be documented on the talk page, and it was not. My failure to read your mind is not my fault. And I have to say I very much disagree about one discipline calling "dibs" on a word. Archaic words fall into disuse and are reused- that's what synonyms are and what disambiguation pages are for. --Nil0lab 06:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

204.184.18.230

You have warned this IP. Is vandalising using slangs. See his 1st edit Hinduism. Swadhyayee 16:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, A slang word was added to an article of religious nature.Swadhyayee 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Sincere Note of Thank-you

Dear Solipsist,


I'm not certain whether this be the appropriate page for this -- but I'll not be doing it again, so not to worry -- however, I wanted to thank you for your warm welcome, helpful links, and the offer of your personal aid should I find a problem that the general guide-lines don't cover. I'm afraid I still don't know how to contact you directly; not certain whether you receive an e-mail copy of anything I write, such as on your talk page, etc., or whether you have to log-on to see it. So maybe I do have a question in the end:


Please, let me know how I'd contact you via e-mail, if needed; (I need no personal e-mail address, simply the method by which Wikipedia will further the message to you).


Thank you once again, Christian M. Gregory, (just Chris, please)


PS: I do promise to try to learn and follow the rules laid out by Wikipedia for clarity and uniformity of style, but as it's early days, I can't say I'm au fait just yet. You understand; any mistakes are unintentional, and constructive criticism very welcome. Cheers.

Christian Gregory 07:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Thank you for your support in getting gliding to featured status. When I started on WP last year you were one of the first to give me a hand. This was encouraging. Let me know if I can help. JMcC 08:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've already helped plenty. In fact, given your increasingly prolific level of contributions, you might want to take the Wikipediholic test :) -- Solipsist 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for blocking linkspammers. -THB 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Its uncommon to block someone for spamming, they usually get the message before that is necessary. -- Solipsist 15:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about

Did you know...


for the Main Page?


I've never submitted a DYK, and since you started this article, and I've only added to it, I thought I should ask you. Also, what do you think about the additions to that article? Add anything else that you'd like of course. I am starting a stub for this place Golden Terraces, it seems pretty commercial (so is Selfridges I guess), but still might be notable. Its in my userspace for now. Well, I'll see you around, I've seen a lot of contributions from you in areas that I really like so I wanted to extend some gratitude for that as well. Regards, DVD+ R/W 03:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I noticed you making some changes yesterday and thought they looked quite good. The Allianz Arena by Herzog and de Meuron might also be worth a metion, although few critics appear to have labeled it Blobitecture. The argument might be, that although it is a blob, its shape was not intentionally derived from natural forms. (It also has an internally lit skin effect which is reminicent of the Kunsthaus in Gratz, but not directly relevant to Blobitecture). I'm never quite sure which buildings are supposed to be in one style as opposed to another - individual architects often seem to avoid labeling, so you have to rely on the comments of critcs. Some call 30 St Mary Axe in Blobitecture, but I'm not personally convinced (probably still Hi-tech, but might really be a new category, given its double skin and ecofriendly features). Then again, I'm not entirely comfortable with Gehry's Guggenheim Bilbao being in the Blobitecture fold, but most critics do put it there and its not as if I particularly know what I'm talking about.
I note that ArchInform labels many of these buildings as 'Organic architecture', which seems reasonable but would probably be more encompassing - much of Santiago Calatrava's work is definately organic (often based on tree forms), but I certainly wouldn't call Blobitecture. We would probably need a parent article for that style, but would have a mild problem separating it from the current article at Organic architecture which is unrelated. Given the heavy Frank Lloyd Wright influence, there could be an American/European split on the use of this term. Perhaps New organic architecture is the solution [2], although that book is by an American author who was probably facing the same problem.
The Golden Terraces building looks interesting, but I guess it is only the central garden roof that would be blobitecture. In some respects the mixed use complex looks like it has some parallels with Helmut Jahn's Sony Center (you would need to find some of the aerial diagrams to see it).
Its a while since I looked at WP:DYK's procedures. It used to be for newly created articles, but now seems to include recently expanded stubs, so it might be worth a try. If so, your strap line looks good, though the image Golden Terraces building doesn't work too well in thumbnail - the Selfridges one would probably be clearer. Also, red links aren't allowed on the front page, so it might be better worded to avoid mentioning the Golden Terraces just yet. -- Solipsist 11:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that one of my phrases from the original article has been picked up and quoted by World Wide Words as part of their definition of the term.... which is worrying :) -- Solipsist 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for such a reply. I've added a little more to the article talk, and will try to add more to the article later, with what you've mentioned in mind. I'm working on a couple of translations as well so am actively avoiding any admin type of stuff over the weekend ;-) Do you think Graz Art Museum, Kunsthaus Graz, or Grazer Kunsthaus is the best title for an article about that in English? DVD+ R/W 23:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Image:HansomCab.jpg, a featured picture which you uploaded, to be delisted. Please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hansom Cab delist for the discussion. Regards, CountdownCrispy ( ? 15:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly an issue of size and detail, so if you have a high-res version to upload, there shouldn't be any problem. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That won't be happening. These days, featured pictures is overly fixated with pixel counts and detail instead of actually looking at what a picture illustrates, or its usefulness. -- Solipsist 16:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a matter of raw count, it's a matter of having enough pixels to make out a reasonable level of detail on the subject and produce a quality result. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might think that, but it is not really true. I've argued the counter case several times, but I'm swimming against the tide. Somewhat as I expected, this year I've seen several examples of relatively poor images becoming FPs simply because they are large. -- Solipsist 20:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself, not a broad tide. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With older FPs now being recycled for use on the main page, it is important that these are of a high enough resolution to be appreciated not just by Wikipedians but also by anyone just stopping by and dropping in at Wikipedia. To me, pixel count matters since I like to use FPs as my desktop wallpaper. Resolution is an important part of producing a high quality image that can be used for a variety of uses as Wikipedia may dictate. (Finally, I politely question which FPs were promoted 'simply' because they are large.) Regards, CountdownCrispy ( ? 10:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Perhaps you are unaware that I ran POTD (and to some extent FPC) for the best part of a year and half, and along with Raul654 was largely responsible for getting POTD onto the main page.
In any case, I disagree with you. Pixel count is not what matters most: interesting, intriguing, high quality images that make people want to learn more about an article is what matters. Your desire for new wallpaper is your problem and of little relevance to Wikipedia. After all, such an approach would presumably lead you to vote against all portrait images and most diagrams. However you might find Category:Wikipedia_featured_desktop_backgrounds helpful.
For now I won't answer the question on which FPs were promoted simply for being large - I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Just scan through thumbs06 and thumbs07 and decide for yourself which images look anomalous on basic photographic issues.
For another exercise, take a look at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BarredOwl. This has got to be one of the most outstanding photographs of a bird to ever have been nominated on FPC, yet people were initially going to oppose on the grounds of it being too small (indeed most of User:Mdf's bird pictures are excellent and very useful). Now pull up the original 768px version from Commons, compare it with the 3072px version and try to decide what detail was lacking from the 768px version that would make you want to oppose it. -- Solipsist 13:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that I wasn't aware of your past involvement with POTD, but I don't see how that gives you the right to be quite so rude to me with regards to your comment about my use of FPs as wallpaper; I highlighted this as one example of why it is important to me that FPs are of a reasonably high resolution.
Furthermore, you highlight a case of a picture which is exceptional not due to resolution but rather its compositional quality; in response I refer you to Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster which, at thumbnail size, looks unremarkable but, at full size with oodles of detail, is quite stunning, and so there is a case for pixel count being important in the field of FPs. As a final comment, I found the pictures in the linked galleries to be excellent, though this is obviously my opinion and you are very much entitled to your own.
And on that note I will bid you farewell. It is a shame that we couldn't agree on this, since it means that an excellent photograph will, more than likely, lose its featured status. Thank you nonetheless for your comments throughout this discussion.
Regards, CountdownCrispy ( ? 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd like to ask you to reconsider. While size certainly is not the most important criterion, it's still reasonably important (and it's one of the basic requirements now, which I believe was just codifying standard practice). For example, see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Upper Thracian Lowlands -- at a smaller size, spots on the image just looked like dirt, but in the large size it was obvious they were birds. Also note that the resolution requirement isn't always insisted upon: Image:Warsaw Ghetto Josef Bloesche-edit1.jpg was promoted despite its small size. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Howard, I had started to reply to your comment a couple of days ago, but the old laptop I use to edit from home tends to overheat and get flaky these days. As luck would have it, it crashed in the middle of composing a response. In any case, the message below contains many of the points I was going to make -- Solipsist 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem of having a higher resolution of a good quality, information picture when possible? It is sad to see a photo losing it's FP statue just because the creator doesn't want to upload a higher resolution. And the recent FP nominations that I see both have the quality and the encyclopedic value to become FP. I appreciate your efforts, but your really going to harsh on this and a little rude on some polite users. --Arad 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent plenty of time flogging dead horses myself (at least enough to get the Humane Society concerned, I'm sure). I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to persuade contributors to WP:FPC to look at how useful an image is to the article it is in, rather than just treating FPC an a beauty pagent. But there I was also swimming against the tide - it just takes too much time to consider all the details of an FPC nomination and much easier to vote yeah or nay based on whether you like the look of an image. So I would still find myself trying to close a promotion for an image that wasn't even on an artile.

And for the record, I'm not being intentionally rude here. User:CountdownCrispy might have taken offense, but then I would try to avoid teaching my grandmother how to suck eggs. Even a cursory check of my contributions ought to have shown that I know what I'm doing round here.

There are many reasons why an over heavy emphasis on image sizes is detrimental. As I've mentioned, it can lead to mediocre images being preferred over good images, simply because apparent detail can be seductive.

One of the other significant problems is that Wikipedia's standards are all malleable. In some ways this is a good thing as it can help to raise the bar on quality, but in other ways it is a waste of time. Some examples may help elucidate the problems;

  1. Back in the mists of time (~2004) Wikipedia accepted images with non-commercial licenses, such as cc-by-sa-nc. But then that was changed, and the effort people, myself included, had put in finding and uploading non-commercial only images, was to a large extent wasted.
  2. Some while back, I worked on rewriting the Henry Moore article to bring it up to Featured Article standard. At that time, FA standard required good writing and verifiable references. Nowadays, it prefers the use of {{cite}} tags for individually citable facts throughout the article. That's a good thing, but the cite tags didn't exists when I wrote that article, and whilst I will use them where I can for new articles, I'm not going to waste my time getting the books out of the library and going through the Henry Moore article to retrofit them. Someone else can do that if they feel so inclined. Personally, I'm more likely to put the time into rewriting the Barbara Hepworth article to a similar standard. I've got a dozen photos of her sculptures to upload, but there is not much point until the article is big enough to support them.
  3. On Commons, we find that images uploaded from Flickr turn out to have licenses that can later be changed. There was at least one FP from Flickr that I helped to upload, that was more recently questioned for having an invalid license. And now there is a review process to attempt to verify licenses that might change sometime in the future [3]. In the meantime, I won't be spending any more time looking for images from 3rd party sources.
  4. On a recent IfD someone has confused quantity of pixels for quality, although in this example the opposite is the case.
  5. Back in the mists of time (~2003/04) Wikipedia put size limits on image uploads - 200px wide was considered a _maximum_. Many recent editors are unaware of this. Now even I agree that 200px is to small, if a print version of Wikipedia is to be produced some day. As these limits were lifted in 2004, we saw many of the earliest featured pictures being nominated for delisting for being just 200px wide and I constantly had to remind people to contact the original uploader to see whether a larger version was available.

So yes, people will always like to see larger image sizes being uploaded, whether the image has the resolution to benefit from it or not - sometimes that is a good thing, but sometimes it isn't. There is a current discussion on Commons about raising the bar for images contributed by Wikipedian's to be 2300px, whilst other sources, such as NASA can get away with 1000px. Go figure. Its not as if we don't all know that the current standard for digital cameras is 8Mpix and next year it will be 12Mpix with 20Mpix shortly on its heals. Quite why its suggested that NASA or Flickr should gets away with lower quality I don't know. And of course this tends to ignore the fact that for some photos croping, lack of sharpnes and the need for some digital zoom can significantly reduce the number of good pixels available.

Now it might be possible for me to dig out the original image from my offline storage, reprocess the image of a hansom cab and upload a larger version. But if I did that, you would only be asking me for an even larger version next year. And so I would rather take the stand of not bothering. If that helps to focus attention on whether size for size sake is really that important, then that will probably be of greater benefit for Wikipedia. -- Solipsist 23:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree With what you say. You're right in most cases, but If you can have a larger resolution, It's a better idea to upload the largest you have. Yes the size resolution limit will increase with time but I think pictures less than 1000px are usually too small to show details. I'm not saying you should upload a bigger version each year, I'm just asking you to upload the biggest you have if you can. Thanks again. --Arad 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eye

Hi! I was hoping you might have a citation for your recent addition in Eye regarding the color vision of a certain species of shrimp. Thanks! -AED 22:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I found one. Cheers! -AED 22:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lensfield Road Burial Ground

This article popped up on prod yesterday. It was prodded as a "hoax." I don't remember ever hearing about it when I was in Cambridge. Have you heard anything about it? Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live on Lensfield Road, and this is clearly a Halloween hoax. I've userfied a copy at User:The wub/Lensfield Road Burial Ground (since I found it kind of funny) and deleted the redirect as the prod time was up. the wub "?!" 01:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, my gut reaction was that it was probably a hoax, but if so, it is a particularly well written one (this was another one where my laptop crashed in the middle of investigating). The trouble is, that as I looked into it, many of the 'facts' that I thought must be wrong turned out to be plausible or true.
Like pretty much everyone else in Cambridge, I've never heard of a burial ground on Lensfield Road. There is a Victorian cemetary behind Norfolk Street and the Catholic Church was built later in 1890 so was unlikely to have its own graveyard. But then the article was claiming the burial ground was a forgotten burial ground from the 10th century.
Viking invasions? In Yorkshire or the Norfolk Coast maybe, but I thought Cambridge would have been held by the Iceni or some later Saxon king. Well of course the Iceni were pretty much wiped out by the Romans in the 1st century. And when I looked in to it I found that there were Viking conflicts in the area. Initially I couldn't find anything on King Godrum II, however there was a Danish King Guthrum (also known as Godrum - that sort of phonetic shift is pretty common in medieval history) who was a King controlling East Anglia around that time [4]. And indeed he was succeeded by his son, Guthrum II, or Guthrum the Younger (List of monarchs of East Anglia) [5] who is thought to have lived between 902 and 918 which would fit the 916 date for a battle mentioned in the article.
So it seems that Guthrum II was fighting battles in the area, against (presumably) Edward the Elder of Wessex. And so I guess it is not so unlikely that there was a battle near Cambridge in 916 - a mass grave on the outskirts of town following a battle is plausible to. I've seen maps of Cambridge in the 14th century which (from memory) would have put Lensfield Road near the sourthern boundary.
Given all that, and leaving aside the supernatural nonsense, the main inaccuracy I can see to indicate that the article might be a hoax, is the characterisation of the battle being a result of Viking raids. Whereas in fact, Cambridge would have been part of the Danelaw for more than a century and the battles were the tail end of defending that territory/Kingdom from the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Wessex. I'm also not convinced that flat ground near a river would be considered militarily advantageous, but that's a minor point.
So yes, it still seems likely to be a hoax, I just don't normally expect to find the details mentioned in a madeup article to turn out to be plausibly true. As such I couldn't be sure that some of it wasn't the work of a local historian. You might find that a lot of it has been copied from the sort of photocopied leaflet on local history that you find at the back of a local church - perhaps the Catholic church. -- Solipsist 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banksy

I was in Park Street today and got a decent pic of the Naked Man, as you requested some weeks ago. I've put on two pics, a close up and a longshot to show the surroundings. Thanks for alerting me to the need for this photo - Adrian Pingstone 19:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending this out to wikiart folks everywhere,

so please don't feel picked on. Here's my thing. I've been watching list of sculptors recently and have been weeding out the entries in red on the theory that this is an index of sculptors in wikipedia. However i have been reluctant to remove artists that I know or discover to be real, wikipedia worthy people, so am trying to decide if i should just do a stub - maybe a lot of stubs - of these folks or leave them on the list [I HATE lists with too much red - check out the List of Frank Lloyd Wright works for example.

For example, i checked out one, François-Joseph Duret (1804 - 1865) and discovered that there are at least two sculptors with that name, (1732 - 1816) and (1804 - 1865)- this one is the son - and both probably could comfortably be in wikipedia. I did have a rather bad moment recently when someone DELETED my article on Connor Barrett about an hour [maybe less] after I first posted it, on the theory that he was not wikiworthy [or something] and a lot of these fairly remote (in time and place from me) artists are a lot more obscure than Barrett. So, i would like to know that i have the support of the wikipedia art history community before doing this. Drop me a line, if you wish to sit down and be counted. Life is good, Carptrash 04:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. although i do mostly American art i have contributed to lots on non-American articles including Aleijadinho, Ásmundur Sveinsson, Einar Jonsson, Gunnfrídur Jónsdóttir, Henry Moore, Ivan Meštrović, Ørnulf Bast, Rayner Hoff, and probably some others. I say this because most of the stubs I'm proposing would be Europeans.[reply]

thanks for the feedback. Your comments along with those of a few others, have caused me to rethink may plan for turning all the red sculpture links to blue. I think i'll just go back to my old style of writing articles about folks as they come up in my life and allow the red to ripen in its own good time. Thanks again, Carptrash 15:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banksy again

Please have a look here Cheers, Adrian. Adrian Pingstone 10:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and also more in the same place - Adrian Pingstone 22:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday you removed external links from several pages in the Norfolk section of Wikipedia to my online guided tours (TourNorfolk.co.uk), claiming they were spam. These high quality guided tours show what there is to see and do by using lots of pictures. Its a very unique way of promoting tourism to these places that depend on it for their livelihoods. I have attended local working groups with the aim of creating online tours to their town/villages and I do not charge anybody to be featured in the guides. If you take the Norwich guided tour for example, it extends to 18 pages and informs the best places to visit during your stay - it was featured by the BBC and the EDP (Eastern Daily Press), so why not Wikipedia?

Perhaps if the guides are currently unacceptable as an external link, what do I need to do to make them acceptable?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solipsist&oldid=86471254"