User talk:Poor Yorick/archive1

Useful links: Wikipedia:TeX markup

---

Hello and Welcome! Nice work on creating the star pages - you might be interested in WikiProject Astronomical Objects or Wikipedia:WikiProject Constellations. Cheers! --mav

Well done, thanks. -- looxix 10:30 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

Thank you for fixing the user talk page!

172

---

Hi your article Arecibo Observatory is redundant with Arecibo radio telescope. I think a simple redirect should be better. -- looxix 23:31 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Yeh. I didn't see that there. Thx --PY

No problem, but it's always a good idea to check in List of astronomical topics and/or the search before to create a new article. -- looxix 23:50 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the help on the element nav tables. --mav

---

Please see my modification to the table on Silicon which I modified. I like it better when it is all centered like that. What do you think? dave 02:05 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

---

I noticed that you just went through a bunch of math articles to "wikify" them. Actually, they were already wikified. The reason is that '' and <i> actually do different things in wiki -- the former indicates text that's emphasised for some purpose, while the latter indicates text that's been deliberately placed in an italic font, no other. Almost all web browsers choose to denote emphasised text with an italic font, but they mean different things. In particular, variables in mathematics are written in specific fonts, not with special emphasis. This is especially relevant with ''' vs <b>, since ''' (used for headwords) may be favoured by the search engine. To be sure, most editors ignore this distinction, and I'm not about to demand that you (or anybody else) must make it when you write math articles. But it does mean that you don't really need to spend time switching articles from the pedantically correct <i> markup to the more common '' markup, if you have anything else that you want to do.

On another note, how are the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms of set theory part of computer science? I don't even know how to apply them specifically to computer science; the informatics-based models of proofs and algorithms that I've seen seem to prefer type theory to set theory in the first place, and have no analogue of such matters as the axioms of replacement and regularity. But if they are an essential part of CS somehow, then I'd like to know!

-- Toby 10:23 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Backward Inorder traversal is an orphan. Maybe you can find an article or two to point to it? :) Kingturtle 07:12 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

Are you sure about that 3.86 × 10²⁶ W for the Sun at orders of magnitude (power)? My sources give 3.827 × 10²⁶ W. On the other hand, I don't remember just which of my sources that was offhand, I've got it copied down from whatever I originally got it from. -- John Owens 11:13 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm thinking somewhere around 1 E24 W or so, we might want to switch over to doing the power pages by the thousand, like the other dimensions do past certain points. The main criterion is to have at least one example per page average, and we're going to start running out somewhere between the Sun and the Milky Way, I'd think. Any suggestions what would be a good cutoff point, or objections to doing it this way at all? -- John Owens 12:17 19 May 2003 (UTC)

blackboard bold does not mesh well with a paragraph.

---

Congratulations, you have just been made a sysop! You have volunteered for boring housekeeping activities which normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops basically can't do anything: They cannot delete pages arbitarily (only obvious junk like "jklasdfl,öasdf JOSH IS GAY"), they cannot protect pages in an edit war they are involved in, they cannot ban signed in users. What they can do is delete junk as it appears, ban anonymous vandals, remove pages that have been listed on Votes for deletion for more than a week, protect pages when asked to by other members, and help keep the few protected pages there are, among them the precious Main Page, up to date.

Note that almost everything you can do can be undone, so don't be too worried about making mistakes. You will find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators, please take a look before experimenting with your new powers. Drop me a message if there are any questions or if you want to stop being a sysop (could it be?). Have fun! --Eloquence 19:16 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Well, yes. Be grateful as much as you can. FWIW why I put my name behind your nomination, was because your name was the only one I recognized and had a coherent image of as regards to their contribution to wikipedia. Don't take it as signal that I won't support or instigate yur sysop-status removal, if you decide to wan't to turn it to shit! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 06:39 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Some comments on your archiving of Talk:Main Page/Layout design:

• When archiving, please leave out the threads that are still active, usually but not always the last ones on the page.
• Archiving is non-minor -- please do not mark it as minor, and always put a comment like "archiving" in the discussion field. That way it's easier to find the right edit in the page history.
• It makes sense to use subpages for archiving, because then you get a nice backlink to the main discussion page. This also works for subpages of subpages -- take a look, I moved your archive to Talk:Main Page/Layout design/Archive 1.

--Eloquence 04:23 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

wow. long time no see

Only around for the weekends?

Main Page

Didn't you see this in the Main Page wikitext <!-- Articles listed MUST have a RECENT DAY LINK and context --> ? Please follow the guidelines that are on Wikipedia:Selected Articles on the Main Page. --mav 20:52, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yeah man, The Panama City and Asuncion were listed in the August 15 Anniversary page, so I thought it'd be acceptable. I'll have to update those articles.Poor Yorick 01:10, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sweet! That's one of the main reasons why I think this rule is so important; it encourages people to update the articles. :) --mav 03:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Marcus Barcan

Hello. I see you added Marcus Barcan to that little list of requested articles at the top of Recent changes. And so I was wondering who this was... A Google search for this name turns up "about 30" matches. However, most of them seem to refer to Ruth Barcan Marcus, a philosopher and logician after whom the Barcan formula is apparently named. Is this who you meant? She has a page here, which says that she has also been known as "Ruth C. Barcan" and "Ruth B. Marcus". Not "Marcus Barcan", though... -- Oliver P. 13:21, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

WikiBank

I completed your request for Paternalism a little while ago. --Alex S 19:46, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Check out Coherentism.Banno 22:19, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC) Hope it meets your standards. I've moved ψ1 to my account. Thanks.

Problem users

Thank you! I thought that as I added the "you may not remove yourself from this page" rule, I had better stick to it. :) Angela 09:07, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

Is that UBC picture you put on the UBC article a personal picture of yours? If so, then thank you. If not, please tell me who owns the copyright. dave 06:42, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I unprotected User:Poor Yorick - assuming accidental/old vandal/etc. If deliberate, please re-protect and drop a quick line of explanation on wikipedia:protected page and/or on the page itself. Thanks. Martin 18:07, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Protected pages

Hi, when next you update Wikipedia:Protected page could you please sign with a timestamp? It helps to know how long a page has been protected for. Thanks, silsor 18:34, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

Stubs

I don't think it's policy top precede {{msg:stub}} with a ---- horizantal rule. - Fennec 05:04, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reciprocal System Article

I don't understand how you can protect this page and at the same time not require Simon to discuss his issues on the article's talk page. I invited him to discuss his issues with my changes days ago and as yet have received no response, nothing, nada. The guy originally reverted all my changes and marked his edit MINOR! Then, I reverted it back and asked him to discuss it with me and the next thing I know you locked the article. Doesn't this seem just a little unjust? Please, either encourage Simon to discuss these changes or unlock the article.

-- Dbundy

Data Management Wiki Committee

Thank you for your contribution to one, or more, articles that are now organized under Data management.

Because of your previous intrest, you are recieving an invitation to become a founding member of the Data Management Wiki Committee.

The members, of course, will form and solidify the purpose, rules, officers, etc. but my idea (to kick things off) is to establish a group of us who will take responsiblity to see that the ideas of Data management are promoted and well represented in Wikipedia articles.

If you are willing to join the committee, please go to Category_talk:Data_management and indicate your acceptance of this invitation by placing your three tilde characters in the list.

KeyStroke 01:03, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Update:Category_talk:Data_management - what shall be the mission statement, goals, and measures for our project Wikiproject? KeyStroke 19:33, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Image:Une571.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Une571.jpg. You labeled it as "Must credit author", but provided no indication of who that author is! I'm part of a team of volunteers looking at all untagged images to make sure that they have proper copyright tags. Could you look at that image's description page, provide the author information, if available, and make sure it has the appropriate tag? Thanks! Kbh3rd 01:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LCS Alpha / Beta?

Hello there!

Where you the one who put the bit about LCS Alpha / Beta in the Longest-common subsequence problem-article? You see, the article contains no hint at all on where to find out what the differences are with respect to the algorithm shown.

If you could drop me a web-link or give me some information, I'd be glad to see if I can write an article about it (if time allows me to).

Bye! Shinobu 21:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been toying around with it a bit and found that trees could speed things up. So I looked for trees on the web. I found an algorithm by Ukkonen and a reference to an older algorithm. Are they the algorithms you meant? Shinobu 19:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sports franchises

You made Los Angeles Raiders into a redirect to Oakland Raiders. This is a decision I fully support. I think it is the correct protocol for MLB teams. There is currently a debate raging at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos, and so far the redirect solution is losing. I think it is because some of the users don't fully understand how franchises work in MLB. If you have the time, maybe you could chime in on the conversation there. Kingturtle 04:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possible impostor

I've been doing some impostor hunting lately, seeing as how we've had a rash of them lately and all, and you got the following hits: PoorYorick (talk · contribs). Of course, this may be nothing, but I thought I would let you know. – ClockworkSoul 04:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Al_fi.gif

Image deletion warning

Image:Al_fi.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Une571.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Une571.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Nv8200p 21:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania 2006

In the course of informal discussions at Wikimania in Frankfurt the possibility of having Wikimania 2006 in Vancouver was raised. What makes Canada desirable for such a meeting is the capacity to draw delegates from the United States. For many overseas delegates, however, U.S. visa requirements make that country less attractive. All else being equal, Europeans see Vancouver as a more interesting Canadian city to visit than Toronto, the only other Canadian city to receive significant consideration.

Preliminary bids from various cities need to be made by Sept. 30, 2005. A short list will be drawn from those bids. Is there enough interest and energy to put together such a conference in Vancouver for August 2006? The people in Frankfurt put on a tremendous gathering, with a core organizational group of about a dozen people. Some 400 people attended from 52 different countries.

I expect that a North American Wikimania could be a little smaller, but we would still need a suitable facility. It would be good to know that such a facility is available for a conference; the type of youth hostel facility that was used in Frankfurt does not exist in North America. What would be the cost of hosting such a conference at UBC?

I'm looking for interest and commitment. To that end I am proposing a Vancouver meetup for Saturday, Sept. 24. If someone has a reasonably accesible place for such a meeting please let me know. (I live in Richmond, but something in the city of Vancouver would be more appropriate.)

I am spammiong this to all Vancouver area Wikipedians that I can find. Please reply to my talk page. Eclecticology 21:50:16, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

Thankis for replying. I've heard of the Robson Square UBC satellite campus. The downtown sites are great for meetings of local people. When people are coming from overseas they also need accomodations ... and at a reasonable price since many of them are students. Eclecticology 16:24:49, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Image:NPstuff.PNG has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you have uploaded, Image:NPstuff.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Wikimania 2006

This is a reminder to all that there will be a meeting of Vancouver area Wikipedians on Saturday, Sept. 24, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. for all interested persons. We will meet in McDonald's at 897 Granville St. and Smithe in downtown Vancouver. This site was chosen simply because its central location and easy recognizability would make it easier for people who have never seen each other to find each other. Please feel free to bring additional interested people.

There are two questions to be discussed:

1. Is there any interest for starting a Vancouver (or BC) chapter of Wikipedia?
2. Is there enough interest and ability to make a Vancouver bid for Wikimania 2006?

Eclecticology 06:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Punctuation Project

Hello Poor Yorrick! I keep discovering, while participating in the Punctuation Project, that you have Got There First on articles that I was visiting as part of dump file #34. Is this intentional? I don't see your name on the list of participants in the Punctuation Project, so perhaps you are just a highly skilled missing full stop spotter. But it does seem a bit of an unlikely coincidence that you have visited and fixed so many of the articles in the dump file I put my name against to process.... Yours punctiliously, Brequinda

Visual Basic Classic Wikibook

I see you have contributed to the Visual Basic article on Wikipedia. Any chance you would like to join in editing the wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Visual_Basic_Classic? --Kjwhitefoot 09:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians somewhere undetermined in Canada for instructions.--Rmky87 01:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Schopenhauer

Charles Matthews said that you were the source of the statement that Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy influenced Neo-Kantianism. Can you tell me where you read that, or is it your personal opinion? Thanks. Lestrade 02:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

Image Tagging Image:Cdrom.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Cdrom.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -SCEhardT 07:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Triangle2.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Triangle2.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -SCEhardT 07:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:TreePY.gif

Please provide a source for this image. Thanks! -SCEhardT 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Star of Sophia..

It's only polite to say thank you for your demonstration of appreciation for my contributions. Now, cash would have been better mind you, but that's not what the 'pedia is about of course. (; --Lacatosias 13:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Whitespace removal

I appreciate your attempt to clean up CTMU using the AutoWikiBrowser. However, your edit, which consisted solely of removing spaces between sentences and empty lines after section headings, contravenes the AWB's rules of use, which say to "[a]void making extremely minor edits such as only adding or removing some white space". The whitespace you removed is allowed by the Manual of Style as a matter of personal preference, and in my opinion makes the markup more readable. Tim Smith 14:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fascism

What was this edit of yours about? Jkelly 04:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, hello!, in that case. I had rollback get away from me once, and wound up reverting myself -- it can happen. The Kierkegaard article is looking good. I want to give myself some time to give it a thorough read, but I made a couple of quick edits after I saw it come up at WP:FAC. I'd be pleased to see it on the main page. Jkelly 04:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to say...

Well done for excellent work on the Soren Kierkegaard article. --Knucmo2 10:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Continental philosophy

Hi Yorick,

the passage that you moved down from the intro section needs to be put back in the intro section as it lays important conceptual framework on the relationship between continental philosophy and analytical philosophy. Robin klein 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Kierkegaard (and Nietzsche?)

OJERTEP THU25MAY06: I saw your edit to Kierkegaard with a little "diclaimer" put next to Continental philosophy, may I suggest you do the same for the Nietzsche article, it would do it much good, surely?

Vandalism

I deleted completely today's featured article and you didn't even put a {test-1} template on my talk page??? --Your nickname 02:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

on the Kierkegaard article becoming featured. Good work. Gardar Rurak 02:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Regine olsen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Regine olsen.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Thuresson 06:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Yorick, Thanks for your "attempt to clarify" Kierkegaard's critique of Hegel, in the "Idealism" article. You have brought out additional features of K's critique. I don't know if you realize that you erased the paragraph beginning "In fairness to Hegel...," which indicated how Hegel could respond to some of K's critiques. If this was intentional, I would suggest that "attempting to clarify" is hardly a sufficient justification for removing this material, which I have replaced. Best, Bob Wallace 17:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the compliment on Putnam FAC. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, but I have to say this: your poem is doggerel. Rintrah 13:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Putnam and Rorty

To be honest, not very much. It's a fascinating part of the story that I have not nearly done justice to. I have not read his books on the subject and have been limited to some articles by and about the later Putnam on the Internet. Re his relation to Rorty, I think his position is that he admires and respects Rorty, Dummett and a few others for having noticed the defects of "metaphysical" and "scintific" realism and for having noted that there is an extraodinaily difficult problem of with traditional foundationalist views of the mind-world relation. He disagrees with Rorty's relativism (as he perceives it anyway) and with his rejection of the exitence of an external world tout court. They also agree, I take it, that analytic philosophy is mired in scientism and wrapped up in too much abstration. Putnam does not accept Rorty's (or others) "death of metaphysics" or "death of philosphy" idea. I don't know what Rorty's views on Putnam are. As far as I can tell, both of their interpretations of the American pragmatists are considered somewhat idiosyncratic. Re pragamtism, he dissaproves of the pragmatic theory of truth and many other aspect, but is strongly influenced by James "direct realism" and Dewey's ideas on democracy. He seems to think that the American prags. had a more comprehensive worldview grounded in reality and are a good place to look back to in order to renew philosophy. Re Putnam's Wittgenstiein: I'm still totally caught up in conceptual confusion (-. I did find some intersting links (unfortunately in Italian) where he discusses his views of Wittgenstein, pragmatism and so on. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Apolloforever.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Apolloforever.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Fritz S. (Talk) 17:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:AP11America.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AP11America.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Fritz S. (Talk) 17:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:AP1togoboldly.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AP1togoboldly.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Fritz S. (Talk) 17:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Kierkegaard Either/Or image

This is to let you know that I've orphaned the fair use image Image:EitherOr_Cover.jpg, and replaced it with Image:Kierkegaard_Enten-Eller.jpg, an image in the public domain. For more information, see the book cover replacement project. Thanks. Lupo 14:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot Edits

Hi,I was wandering if you can help me, I think I know what a bot edit is but how do you set one up? --Highfields, Lord Founder of WikiProject U2 Tour Venues 15:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

References Question

Hi, I picked you out of a names list because I need some administrator advice and the topic might be of some marginal interest to you. I'm editing an article on Fellowship of Friends, a new religious movement. It's a fairly controversial topic and has already gotten vandalized. The thing is, I want to write an objective article following Wikipedia guidelines for quoting sources. The problem is: there is a lot of information out there that is known to thousands of members, but closed to the public. I could for the most part reference only internal publications, internal emails, internal website. I'm not sure if that information counts because it's not (easily) verifiable by people outside of the organization. What can I do? How can I present a lot of interesting information without violating Wikipedia citing standards? Do you think you can help me here? Please leave an answer on my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wine-in-ark&action=edit Thanks! Wine-in-ark 05:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Update

Thanks a lot for your help. I would like to ask you one more thing if I may, because I'm not quite sure how to interpret the guidelines on the Attribution page, and you have more experience. There is an internet page (blog format) where many members and former members of the organization I'm writing about are discussing their experiences with the organization, its hierarchical structure, beliefs and teachings (just what I'm writing about). Many of them are not using their real names, as they are revealing personal information about themselves along with aspects of the organization that are unpleasant for the organization's public image. Is it possible to reference an anonymous source, or would it automatically be considered unreliable? Or could they be considered a secondary source who has analyzed and synthesized primary sources? If I can use anonymous sources, should I phrase the information thus acquired in any particular way? Thank you very much. Wine-in-ark 08:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cdrom.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cdrom.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Need help with sockpuppetry

Hi Yorick, I noticed you helped Wine-in-Ark regarding the Fellowship of Friends page. Today REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the page, left me the following message:

Hi, Mario. On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute. This led to the page being unprotected at your request and the edit war kicking off again, as it would when underhand methods are being used.

I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 05:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Archie1.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Archie1.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Borrowing" "A little lament"

Hi, I find your 'little lament' so amusing that I have to post it in my blog at stumbleupon. I hope you do not mind. If you could like me to take it off, I would take it off anytime See link: http://gerogia.stumbleupon.com/ Gerogia 13:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing Non strict 2pl

Pls be advised that I recommend removing the article. However 2pl deserves a rewrite. Pls see my and others' comments there. Regards, Comps 01:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fear_Trembling_Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fear_Trembling_Cover.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fear_Trembling_Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fear_Trembling_Cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Bookadler.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Bookadler.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bookadler.png

I have tagged Image:Bookadler.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary philosophy

I think the prelude that you wrote for the contemporary philosophy entry is great, but it probably needs a source or two. Since you wrote it, do you think you could cover that? Postmodern Beatnik 17:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for following up! Postmodern Beatnik 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Core2duomac.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Core2duomac.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Joeclark.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Joeclark.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)