User talk:Rambo's Revenge/Archives/4
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rambo's Revenge. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| ← Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 → |
Hillary portrait
Regarding your add of this, the Simmie Knox portrait used to be in the Hillary Rodham Clinton article, but during the last FAC it was determined that it's not in public domain because Knox was not a federal employee and indeed holds a copyright on it. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/archive2 for some of the discussion. An admin deleted the image at the time. Otherwise, yes it would be great to have in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Whilst I was not aware of that discussion I would argue that he was an employee. This quote from the New York Times seems to confirm this: "Mr. Clinton interviewed Mr. Knox in December 2000 and hired him just before leaving office"[1] and so IMO it is covered by the PD tag on the image. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Being hired in this context more likely means just a contract between the USG and Knox. The government buys goods and services from people and companies all the time without their becoming federal employees. For Knox to have become a federal employee would have meant joining the civil service, getting a GS- rank, etc., which seems unlikely. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, thanks for pointing that out. I assume then the Bill Clinton one is also incorrectly marked as public domain. In fact doesn't that mean that the majority of the recent (i.e. less that 70yrs old) official portraits are incorrectly marked as public domain? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, there was this lonnng discussion about just this issue at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. As far as I can tell, the discussion never reached any agreed-upon conclusion. I was definitely irked that the admins deleted the Hillary portrait but not any of the others, but since I was preoccupied with an ongoing FAC at the time I didn't pursue it further. But I think the rationale may have been that if you look at Simmie Knox's own website, which includes the Bill and Hillary portraits, at the bottom it says "© Artist works, scans and web design protected by copyright." So Knox is explicitly claiming that he still owns the copyright on these, which suggests they are not PD. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, thanks for pointing that out. I assume then the Bill Clinton one is also incorrectly marked as public domain. In fact doesn't that mean that the majority of the recent (i.e. less that 70yrs old) official portraits are incorrectly marked as public domain? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Being hired in this context more likely means just a contract between the USG and Knox. The government buys goods and services from people and companies all the time without their becoming federal employees. For Knox to have become a federal employee would have meant joining the civil service, getting a GS- rank, etc., which seems unlikely. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Virgin Killer Album
I unfortunately have to say that there is not enough meaningful discussion of the album cover in the article on the block in order for it to pass NFCC 8 (as the cover, except for the fact that it caused this nonsense, is barely discussed in it), that there is already a link to the image in the article, and having the image on the article could cause it to be blocked too. I want to let the UK users be able to know what is going on, so it is crucial that it not get blocked. So please, I am going to have to ignore WP:NOT#CENSORED here.
Sorry for the inconvenience, ViperSnake151 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is fine. I hadn't really thought of the page being blocked. I agree with ignoring WP:NOT#CENSORED in this case. Thanks for explaining your removing of the image to me. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
VK sandbox
I saw at ITN that you have started a draft article in your sandbox. You might want to consider merging it into IWF block of Wikipedia. Gwinva (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ignore that. Stupid comment: I see you have worked on that. Should look more closely before I make comments! Gwinva (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I appreciate your helpful intention anyway. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Image removed - incomplete rationale
Thanks - I was not sure of that. I have updated it the rationale; would you consider that it is now complete and the image now usable? Thx! Ros0709 (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok; I'll leave it as is. I preferred the explicit message as illustration - but OTOH BT, which I also checked and more people will see, gives the 404 page. Ros0709 (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Disptued fair use
Notice that the disputed fair use template says that "this image will be deleted or removed from some uses seven days after this template was added". It does not imply that its use on Virgin Killer is not okay. Sending it to IFD again is a waste of time because you just know its gonna get speedy kept and me getting blocked for disruption. ViperSnake151 14:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but WP:CSD says that "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted" Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You left a note on the peer review page suggesting that some of this article's images might have to go. You specified one image which is under a FU rationale, but didn't indicate what other queries you had. Could you briefly revisit and clarify? Such is the shortage of image reviewers at the moment that we may be waiting a while for a full image review, but I'd like meanwhile to be sorting out whatever problems I can. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- The world of images is a bit of a minefield to me. However having observed other image reviews I will outline anything that might be problematic. I may me completely wrong about all of these, and this is just my opinion when trying to be as picky as possible. Being inexperienced with images I have replied here and not on the FLC page.
- Image:DrWSBruce1905.jpg - this is the only one I am sure about. It has to go as it fails WP:NFCC #8 Significance.
- Image:AeneasMack.jpg, Image:Shackletonold.jpg, Image:Scottski.jpg, Image:Shackletonhead.jpg - only PD if first published in the US prior to January 1, 1923. The rationale only mentions publication in London. I believe these can be used if the tag is changed to {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}.
- I've added details of the first US publication which was 1920. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Otto Nordenskjöld.jpg, date unknown. So cannot confirm first publication and that it is PD.
- For images marked with "No known restrictions on publication", like {{PD-Bain}} the site states that "These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain"[2], so can these be used?
- Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note. I am transferring this discussion to the FLC discussion page as it is relevant to the continuing review there. Brianboulton (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is fine, I just didn't want to wade straight in there and say get rid of these etc., as I didn't feel I had sufficient image experience to justify doing so. Having consulted with you, I am happy for you to put the above contents on the page, or if you'd rather I posted them, let me know and I will do so. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've done it. Thanks for your input here, anyway Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
FA Premier League 2006–07
The below is a duplication of what I posted on Peejays talk page, to keep the conversation together.
Hi, I notice you undid my edit to FA Premier League 2006–07 with an addendum to the edit summary of "what for?".
I did this as currently the results table uses hyphens instead of ndashs, and this goes against the MoS. Also the XXX columns look messy, and seeing as fixes were needed I decided to implement the new template style at the same time, as it has the advantages of colour, standardised headers etc. Are you still against this change? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Honestly, yes, I am. I was against the introduction of the templates in the first place, and I'm vehemently opposed to their proliferation in articles other than current seasons. Their only advantage is that they do the maths for you. Even the cell colouration is against WP:ACCESS. – PeeJay 23:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Colour does not fail WP:ACCESS as the contrasts are fine (I've checked) and the colour "is not [used as] the only way used to convey important information". If anything the template is more accessible as it is more obvious what is going on with the tables to less experienced editors. It also fixes the fact the results need ndashes. I am not really that bothered if it changes or not (considering the content is unlikely to change), but your reasoning for not changing is way off. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia
This is an encyclopedia. Please find WP:reliable sources to back up your statement. If you are concerned that the censorship is back please raise your concern at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action. Please however do not shout about it (using <big> tags), and add unsourced speculation to an encyclopedic page. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou for getting in touch. It must be said, however, when the initial blocking problem arose, there was no confirmation of the incident, independent or otherwise, for 48 hours. It almost gave the impression that folks were 'asleep on the job'. Whilst that criticism is a little unfair (not least because of the weekend affecting working hours), I cannot see why a legitimate attempt to raise concern about the issue should prevent it from being discussed. If the instruction to Cleanfeed for blocking has been 'slipped in' to the list of web-sites, this should, and must be drawn to administrators, and users attention. Or, whether this is somehow affecting a minority of users. It would also allow for discussion as to why the block was re-instated, whether inadvertently through error, or because the issue had been re-raised.
- This is a very important issue, and it cannot be best served by sidelining legitimate critique, and discussion of the issue. And, for another matter, I bitterly dislike the implication given by my ISP that there is something wrong with this type of web-site. There should not be any question, or need to block this web-site in the first place.(Kreb (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
- And I might just add, the fact that administrators have blocked the filter-IP address would suggest there is a re-occurence of the problem (evidenced here User_talk:194.72.9.25 (Kreb (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
- This is a very important issue, and it cannot be best served by sidelining legitimate critique, and discussion of the issue. And, for another matter, I bitterly dislike the implication given by my ISP that there is something wrong with this type of web-site. There should not be any question, or need to block this web-site in the first place.(Kreb (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
Don't mention it. It just seemed like his creativity needed a little direction :) Miranche (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I've put {{NoCommons}} back to stop anyone moving it to Commons,where it will get deleted. The template only says "may be available on Commons", not that it is. Unless there's a better tag. Ty 12:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the {{NoCommons}} tag is confusing. It confused me, and I guess I will not be the only one. I have replaced it with a custom tag, expressing explicit reasons for not moving it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have updated this template to use the metabanner. All features should work as normal. I was thinking, it might be better to use the WikiProject Television template so that all The O.C. articles have a banner which looks the same. Currently, they could use either template and would look different. Let me know if you would like me to explain more. Martin 14:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Triple Crown jewels
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Khaldoon Al Mubarak - an interesting read, thanks for creating this article, looks like it could make WP:GA with a bit more work. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposed WikiProject
Hey, I've signed up in the "support" column; I'm perfectly willing to chip in and help organise if need be. I'll head on over to the talk pages of a few people I know might be interested and point them towards the proposal. Ironholds (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is awesome, I would definately appreciate your help with this. Currently I am working on getting the current project moved. Whilst it is unopposed, it only has two supporters and i'm not sure this meets consensus, so I will wait a bit before moving it. Gathering extra support for this project would be much appreciated. I was going to draft up a project in my userspace after Christmas, however if you want to do it before then and get the ball rolling, be my guest. Thanks alot, and looking forward to working with you on this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- No problem; give me a poke when you've got a project draft up and I'll head over to make comments/suggestions and so on. I'm currently looking for a way to identify who might be interested, but so far people who edit award-based articles normally do it because it corresponds to their area of the wiki rather than out of a general interest in awards (i.e. a Royal Medal editor contributes there because he is interested in the history of science). I'll try and work something out (poach people from the national awards/medals project, say?) and get a decent number together. Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- The move request was successful! Now we just need sufficient participants. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Great. I am currently working on moving some of the old links. As for participants, it is difficult to gather people as the directory is not watched that often. I have left a note at the Film awards task force, and placed a note here on the Community bulletin board. I have created an early shell for the project, which you can add ideas to if you wish. Have you had any success with poaching participants? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I left a note at the orders, medals and things page; no response there. As mentioned I haven't found anyone interested specifically in awards. I'll work on the shell meself. Ironholds (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Great. I am currently working on moving some of the old links. As for participants, it is difficult to gather people as the directory is not watched that often. I have left a note at the Film awards task force, and placed a note here on the Community bulletin board. I have created an early shell for the project, which you can add ideas to if you wish. Have you had any success with poaching participants? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- The move request was successful! Now we just need sufficient participants. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- No problem; give me a poke when you've got a project draft up and I'll head over to make comments/suggestions and so on. I'm currently looking for a way to identify who might be interested, but so far people who edit award-based articles normally do it because it corresponds to their area of the wiki rather than out of a general interest in awards (i.e. a Royal Medal editor contributes there because he is interested in the history of science). I'll try and work something out (poach people from the national awards/medals project, say?) and get a decent number together. Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just found out we don't need Council approval to form the project. I'll work up the page and leave a community bullettin board message on the topic. Ironholds (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have created the relative categories for the Project e.g. Category:FL-Class awards articles etc. So all the infrastructure is there for WP 1.0 updates etc. I think the Council rule for setting up a WikiProject is that you need 5 participants, but i'm not certain. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- It says on the page "you need 5-10 people; if you don't, set your stuff up in userspace and advertise". Everything is up for the 1.0 bot, then? I've got your talkpage on my watchlist now; no need to keep bumping. Did you see my suggestions on the talk pages? Ironholds (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good news; I can has more participants. We've got 3 of us going through the lists/categories of awards tagging stuff; looks like we'll need to draw up some more specific criteria for the importance scale, though. Ironholds (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I saw, and I notice you went on a tagging spree. Great work! I'll try and make more specific criteria on the talk page when I have some more time, or you can do it if you want. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good news; I can has more participants. We've got 3 of us going through the lists/categories of awards tagging stuff; looks like we'll need to draw up some more specific criteria for the importance scale, though. Ironholds (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- It says on the page "you need 5-10 people; if you don't, set your stuff up in userspace and advertise". Everything is up for the 1.0 bot, then? I've got your talkpage on my watchlist now; no need to keep bumping. Did you see my suggestions on the talk pages? Ironholds (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have created the relative categories for the Project e.g. Category:FL-Class awards articles etc. So all the infrastructure is there for WP 1.0 updates etc. I think the Council rule for setting up a WikiProject is that you need 5 participants, but i'm not certain. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll finish this off while you make some criteria, then me and the other folks can offer suggestions, changes and whatnot. Ironholds (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
WikiCup notice
The 2009 WikiCup will begin on January 1, 2009. The first round will run through March 31, 2009. For more information on this tournament, read the "about" section on the main WikiCup page.
This year, we have a different system in calculating points. At User:Garden/WikiCup/Submissions, you will find information about submitting your article (and other) work to earn points. Each contestant will have their own individual subpage for submitting completed work to us.
This year, User:ST47 will also be running one of his bots to calculate mainspace edits and read your submission subpages to calculate the point values you receive based on our scoring chart.
Questions or comment? Ask at the talk page or go directly to Garden or IMatthew's talk page. Good luck and Happy Holidays! -- ayematthew ✡ and Garden. 14:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
RE : Atomic County
Drop me an email. Seasons Greetings! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Hello Rambo's Revenge
I'm Chrallle, from the danish Wikipedia, and I just want to wish you merry christmas, and tell you that I really like your articles about The OC. I can see that you have put a lot of work in them, and that's very good work. In the next time I will hopefully get time to translate them into danish, cause they are really good. On the danish wikipedia, we can't use fair-use pictures, so I will be please if you could get more copyleft images uploaded. Thansk again, for giving me really good reading in my chrismas time ;)
From Chrallle (Link to my userpage: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruger:Chrallle)
WP Awards
Ironholds told me about it over IRC, in case you're wondering how I heard about it. Thanks for the messages, — neuro(talk) 21:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I just rendered the Nobel prize and removed the holders, since you seem intent on keeping it as the logo. Does this look appropriate to use as project logo? — neuro(talk) 10:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am impressed by your Photoshop (or whatever you use) skills. My graphics editing skills are non-existent, so I appreciate your work on this. I think this should replace the image we currently use. If others agree, I will make the changes. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll duplicate this to the page, then, so that we can see if consensus exists. — neuro(talk) 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and thanks for the compliment. :) — neuro(talk) 12:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ad is up too, if you wish to take a look. — neuro(talk) 13:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and thanks for the compliment. :) — neuro(talk) 12:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll duplicate this to the page, then, so that we can see if consensus exists. — neuro(talk) 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am impressed by your Photoshop (or whatever you use) skills. My graphics editing skills are non-existent, so I appreciate your work on this. I think this should replace the image we currently use. If others agree, I will make the changes. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
RE: mainspace
Indeedy! Move away :). Ironholds (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent. When you have time could you check out Wikipedia:Featured topics and tag all the appropriate ones? I did a shedload last night and have to revise. Ironholds (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can do it later, I also have work to do :< I also have a question about scope for you, but that will do for later as well. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Slap it on the talkpage; if it is something as significant as determining the area of the project it probably needs a bigger consensus than just me. Ironholds (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can do it later, I also have work to do :< I also have a question about scope for you, but that will do for later as well. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Re:Move
Done. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 16:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 | Begins tomorrow! at 0:00 (UTC)
|