User talk:Baa/Archival Quality/September 2008

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from the current talk page for the period September 2008.

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the current talk page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the current talk page page and then add your comments there or preferably link to the section in question within the archives.

↑ Index

Pre-May 2008 manual archives 1 – 2 – 3

2008: J – F – M – A – M – J – J – A – S – O – N – D
2009: J – F – M – A – M – J – J – A – S – O – N – D
2010: J – F – M – A – M – J – J – A – S – O – N – D

Rollbacker

Your automated account is now a rollbacker. User the power wisely. -Djsasso (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. treelo _radda 15:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Boomerang logo.jpg

Hey, just thought I'd let you know: Image:Boomerang logo.jpg wasn't speediable under I1 because the other image wasn't an identical image and they weren't in the same format. Not at all a big deal or anything, but I like it when people point stuff out to me so I can improve, so I try to do the same for others. Peace, delldot ∇. 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, figured it'd be not exactly the same but it is redundant to the other image it basically duplicates which I1 was closest to. Any advice on what to do about this image? I reckon that it doesn't need to be here as it's merely a variant of a non-free logo which is more commonly in use and a better depiction. There's also Image:CN logo.jpg which again is a duplicate of another non-free logo (Image:CN logo.svg) which I think is also a concern. treelo _radda 23:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, makes sense. Yeah, if you knew something had to be done about it I suppose that was as good a way as any to bring it up. I actually tagged it already as missing source and FU rationale. I talked to the uploader about getting the source for it, but if it's really the same then it'll be unneeded and can be deleted as unused FU. I thought one was the international logo and one was the US one or something.

About the CN ones, the unused one could be tagged as an unused FU image so it can be deleted in a week. I don't know of anything that lets you speedy different format images, though you'd think that would be the common sense thing to do in some cases. My question is, might it be better to use the jpg than the svg because the logo fair use thing calls for low resolution images? I've never seen anything to that effect though. That would require moving it on a bunch of pages and adding the rationale there, but might be the way to go if we want to be sure. Peace, delldot ∇. 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen it said that a low res image is better for logos but I've also read that for simple logos SVG should be the preferred format. I have checked the guidelines and nothing is specific on this issue but the SVG version is established on many articles and has been for some time and I cannot see any reason to change that. Currently both images are orphans and will tag them as such, they don't need to be introduced to any article where the same logo but in a different layout or format already exists. Thanks for the help though, I was going to wait for the images to be tagged by a bot as orphaned but will tag them myself and notify the uploader personally. treelo _radda 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo boy, there's extensive discussion at WT:LOGO and the talk of the shouldbesvg template about svg logos. One thing is clear: no one knows what the hell is going on with that. :P But yeah, it looks like there's at least no consensus to prohibit svg logos. About the orphan image, I actually orphaned the thing because it didn't have the FU rationale. (Chicken or egg? :P ). Anyway, either way it'll be a bit before it's deleted so they'll have time to provide the source if they want. Thanks for handling all this. Peace, delldot ∇. 01:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I read that and other threads on Template talk:ShouldBeSVG and I'm just going to use my own judgement and the assumed consensus of others regarding its format as acceptance. Even if they provide sourcing, they still have no reason to be here though I reckon Image:CN logo.jpg is close enough to Image:CN logo.svg to actually be a legitimate dup. I'll wait the week and see how things go. treelo _radda 09:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good strategy. ;) I thought about it more and it seems to me it's kind of a non-issue anyway. On the one hand it doesn't seem like there'd ever be a reason to make a logo svg--you're only allowed to display it on certain pages at certain sizes--but on the other I can't really see any reason not to. Obviously the too much detail thing was referring to photos and art, where commercial opportunities would be encroached on. Anyway, unwatching, keep up the good work. Peace, delldot ∇. 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy unaired episodes

Not an A3. Did you mean G3 (vandalism)? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... Damn, yes! treelo _radda 09:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thanks for reverting Vandalism on Purebred. :] II MusLiM HyBRiD II 12:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle sandbox

Hi, you put a warning on my talkpage for my edits in the huggle sandbox?! Please revert that warning as the huggle sandbox is for testing and i do not want an undeserved vandalism warning on my talkpage, thank you. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed like you asked, didn't figure I actually warned you but there you go. Just as an "atta boy", you should be on the whitelist now. treelo _radda 13:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My apologies if i made it sound a bit negative, i was just surprised :) Thanks for the revert and the addition to the whitelist! Happy vandal hunting! Erebus Morgaine (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arght

/facepalm. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he did vanish before for a few weeks before coming back so I'm not certain where the closing admin got the idea he retired. So if he comes back again under PM24, then what? treelo _radda 14:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what he'll do. Or at least, that's been the behavior in the past. If so, I guess I'll just ping the closing admin, and ask him what to do. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if he's done it in the past under RTV which he has apparently tried again then it'd be best to tell them. It's unlikely he'll defend himself if it'd be easier to disappear and return to avoid scrutiny. treelo _radda 14:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Botticelli

Do you know how to suggest specific IP users get blocked from editing pages? 209.250.162.86 has persistently vandalised the Botticelli article over the last few hours - using arguably anti-semitic and homophobic language. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've only vandalised that article three times and seeing as my revert was the last edit, there's nothing further to do. If they do pop back up and they're as noticeable as they were eariler, someone will warn and report the user. treelo _radda 15:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

Now, I think that Uh Oh Dynamo is notable. It won a notable award which is automatic notability. Schuym1 (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the award in itself does give notability but it's still not enough in itself seeing as I doubt it'd be able to fulfil much of the WP:GNG. Even if it's accepted that's enough on it's own there's little to write on it beyond stating it won an award and an episode synopsis. Sure, WP:NNC might say there's no limit but there is a real limit in content as in what you can source. It's not a particularly standout episode and you'll still have to make sure it meets guidelines just like any new article. To me, it'll be a poor article which I could never see a reason for it to actually exist on its own, notability or no. And another thing, don't be such a baby and whine about how I made you do something and should have ignored me, that sort of dickishness doesn't pass with me when you decided on your own to CSD it and then change your mind afterwards. treelo _radda 10:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hagaren characters

Should the main characters from Hagaren each have their own Wikipedia page (Edward Elric, Alphonse Elric, Roy Mustang, Winry Rockbell, Scar)? I'm not familiar with the anime guidelines... Thanks, VasileGaburici (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at these articles, probably not due to their not being very well cited and a lot of the content being in-universe. I don't deal with the animé guidelines either but on a general level they don't seem any bit notable in the real world. treelo _radda 13:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Gogo Dodo e-mailed me regarding our little friend Mascot Guy and I'd like to thank you for the recognition. I left a message on that same section on GD's talk page. It's been hard to stay away and I've been testing the waters here and there, but I have no desire to return here only to be accused of being uncivil or intolerant. I believe in this project and it saddens me to see the vast number of vandalism-only accounts blocked each day in comparison to useful new accounts. The Sisyphean task of trying to stem the tide without losing sanity or being threatened with arbitration by other editors is why I gave back the "Lucky 6.9" admin tools and dropped out of sight for a couple of years. When I signed on under the "PMDrive1061" username, I swore not to be tempted to ask for the admin tools and I kept that promise. I accepted the rollback privilege, however. Made vandal patrolling easier. The popularity and visibility of Wikipedia has made it a sort of cybernetic canvas for whatever graffiti those with nothing better to do can think up. I actually have an idea for a new article, but it's been a long time between ideas and I'll likely leave it to someone else to add. Anyway, I wanted to offer my personal and heartfelt thanks. Folks like you and Gogo Dodo make this site great. --70.104.7.231 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I feel others like you should be able to deal with vandals without ill feelings felt towards them or being chased off the project for just calling a spade a spade. I just revert and report vandals, I don't do anything much bigger than that as I'd end up being blocked for incivility within months. I'd like to see your article idea, figure it'll be interesting! Shame you have to currently contribute "anonymously" but if the attitude is negative towards you even after dropping the mop, starting over and becoming one of us proles then I can't see why you'd bother either. treelo _radda 16:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just nuts. I got yelled at when some whacked-out troll (since blocked) screamed that I was stalking him and I later got yelled at again by many of the same people for questioning an obvious troll over his username which, according to Jimbo himself, was out of bounds. His edits were clearly suspect as well and both were likely returning vandals given their knowledge of some of Wikipedia's workings. Those were the final straws. As for my articles, I've written about a variety of subjects. I've done articles on classic cars, railroading, Southern California history, model aviation, you name it. I'm fortunate enough to have a few celebrity friends and acquaintances who didn't have articles before I'd written them. My latest idea is in regards to a famous exhibition drag racer of the 1960s and 1970s who lives in my area and who I had the opportunity to meet on a few occasions. Fascinating individual more than worthy of an article. I'm almost tempted to log on long enough to drop a stub and skedaddle out of here, but I really need to think about that. I'm glad that Gogo Dodo figured me out. I was trying to lay low, but my style must have given me away. Hope to see you 'round. Feel free to ask GD for my e-mail address if you have any questions or comments. Best, --70.104.7.231 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's tough going, it's unfortunate you had to bow out twice. Personally, I don't think you'll be able to stay away for too long as clearly you have a lot to add to this place, if you didn't go on vandal patrol I'd reckon you'd be low-profile enough to pass without anyone (besides GD) twigging to your past identities. Most recently with this IP it's not as if you've been low profile at all! Anyway, I'll ask GD for your address if I need to ask anything he can't answer and heck, might just do so just to talk shop yknow. I feel I'll be seeing you around, no doubt about that. treelo _radda 16:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennomaha

I'm confused on why you believe giving blushers responses to people who are telling them they are blushing is vandalism of your site. Jennomaha1970 (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you kept adding it in even though I did say how it was unsourced info and is little more than you making up phrases if you can't prove they're used. treelo _radda 12:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be Careful

You reverted my rollback here. --EoL talk 12:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, sorry about that. treelo _radda 12:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry?

How was that unconstructive? I simply gave evidence. I thought the rules said you were supposed to? Get back to me. Zacitty (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong sort of evidence though, YouTube videos can't exactly be used as a source, might want to find a different one which isn't video. Because I'm uncertain if the other editors on the article are OK with it, I'll leave it in if you put the links back in and get their opinion on it. treelo _radda 13:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]