User talk:Remember the dot/Archive/5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Removal of Foundation copyrighted images

Hi, could you explain this edit? I'm not aware of any consensus that prohibits the use of Foundation copyrighted images in userspace. Any discussions I have seen suggests that they should not be treated the same as other unfree images. I'm not aware there has either been a change in local consensus or any directive from the Foundation prohibiting their use... WjBscribe 04:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In the name of free content, we remove and delete all sorts of images that pose no legal threat to us. The foundation's logos are kept on the Commons for convenience, not because they are free to use. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This matter has arisen before. The community has determined that the use of such images in userspace is acceptable and the Foundation has voiced no complaint about their use. Unless that changes, I don't think your edits are supported by consensus and would recommend you avoid editing other people's userspace without their permission. WjBscribe 04:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Wikipedia-banner0002.png

Thanks for the note on my talk page, but that's not my image -- I just reverted some vandalism on it years ago. :) The listed uploader is User:SimonMayer who may be inactive, and the upload is marked as a public domain update of User:Nohat's Wikipedia logo. --brion 20:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(what he said, and also): Are you using a script or suchlike to send these messages? If so you might set it to ignore people who only reverted the image. —Charles P._(Mirv) 08:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Diagram of the constitution of the United States as proposed by Thomas Paine

There are issues exporting as SVG with Dia. Hopefully, the problem will be resolved in the version of Dia packaged in Ubuntu 7.10. -- Mathieugp 22:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

this is the fastest reply I've seen in Wikipedia by the way!
I am not at home right now, so I cannot check. However, if I remember correctly, there were font problems and other small glitches. I am on vacation in France right now, but in 3 weeks I'll be back and the new Ubuntu will be out. I am crossing my fingers. : -) -- Mathieugp 22:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Foundation images .. other image nonsense

The use of images containing foundation logos, while they are indeed copyrighted, is permissible in userspace, even while other non-free images are not. It would indeed be quite absurd to suppose that a website's use of its own logo could violate its copyright on that logo. Each of the many, many times this issue has been raised, the consensus of the board and of Wikipedia has been that use of WMF-copyrighted logos in userspace is appropriate. Additionally, screenshots of a tool for Wikimedia, be the tool released under a free license or not, for the purpose of illustrating the software in question on its appropriate project page or discussion page are permissible on those pages by simple common sense. While the screenshots were mis-tagged, I should think it a far better use of your time to retag them or contact me to ask for an explanation of copyright than to go spam me with three redundant templates and mark the images for deletion. Tagging is a job for a bot, not a person. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If Wikimedia logos, which violate no copyright, are permitted, then why would Mozilla logos (like the Firefox logo), which also violate no copyright, be prohibited? This makes no sense.
Aside from the Wikipedia logo issue, which I am not pressing, screenshots of non-free software are typically non-free. I looked at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof#License and found that VandalProof is not under a free license, and therefore screenshots of it would also be non-free. However, since you have clarified that you have released copyright over the user interface elements present in the two screenshots, there is no longer a problem. So, thank you for clarifying! —Remember the dot (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

JPEG crusader bot?

I was curious - have you ever considered a JPEG crusader bot to convert photographic GIFs that should be JPEG format? Or are you strictly a PNG fan? :) Videmus Omnia Talk 19:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not, because that would lose a bunch of image quality on top of the massive quality loss by saving photographs in GIF in the first place. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome message

Why on earth would you welcome an editor that has been here for considerably longer than you? It is one of the shortfalls of using templates blindly. Your edit to Joseph Smith did nothingto improve the article so I don't see why you would issue a warning for "deleting information". You might want to review the purpose of using warning templates and use better judgement in when to apply them. You did no harm, but it is just an annoying approach to editing. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

@icon sushi


I've added a {{prod}} template to @icon sushi, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. I've done this as it's been previously deleted based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/@icon sushi. I can't find any news articles or other assertion of notability - if you disagree please remove the prod template, drop in some references or drop me a line - Peripitus (Talk) 10:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

PNG crusade bot

Dot, would you mind unleasing the bot? The conversion categories are getting a little backlogged...also, had a quick question - are black & white photos usually better off in PNG than JPG format? Thanks... Videmus Omnia Talk 08:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. But unfortunately, the bot is encountering errors trying to convert specific images, and I don't know why. As far as black & white photos, JPEG is probably best, but as always, use a high quality setting. I typically set the GIMP to the 95% quality setting. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wikipedia book.jpg

Mmm, It seems to me that the {{Non-free Wikimedia logo}} tag is a license. The original author apparently put a GFDL tag for his part of the work that was removed. To be honest I don't know... -- lucasbfr talk 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Cite newspaper

Template:Cite newspaper has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Conrad T. Pino 08:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PNG Crusade

Is it really a good idea to convert, e.g. JPEG directly to PNG? If someone uploads a logo in JPEG form, it may have visible artifacts. In that case, someone should convert the source image (probably a bitmap or vector image) directly to PNG. If you convert the JPEG, the artifacts would still be in the PNG. This isn't usually an issue for GIF, but in some cases creating a GIF loses colors, since GIFs can only represent 256 colors. So if you have a BMP image with more than 256 colors, BMP->PNG is better than BMP->GIF->PNG. I don't think file size really outweighs these concerns at the present. Superm401 - Talk 15:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Like you said, the PNG crusade bot can't remove artifacts. But, where a JPEG->PNG conversion would decrease the file size despite keeping the artifacts, it will do it. This helps avoid introducing new artifacts if a new version of the image is uploaded, and makes it easier to clean the image of artifacts later and upload in PNG because all the file history has already been copied. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: admin

Alright, if you wish to run now then I'll nominate you. Lemme just look through your contribs and the like. I should have the nom up in a day or two for you to finish. Wizardman 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


I have tagged Image:Juno_icon.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. Rettetast 21:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of World Community Grid

The article World Community Grid you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg, see Talk:World Community Grid for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 04:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here you go

Wizardman 15:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA oddity?

Hey, what happened here? SQL(Query Me!) 10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I accidentally pressed Ctrl+V a couple times...oops. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hah! Crazy, thanks! :) SQL(Query Me!) 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Updating the historical template

Hi, seeing that you are the user that most recently made edits to the historical template On my sub-page (User:Cocoaguy/historical alt) i created a version using the ambox template, maby we could update the main one too. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 22:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that ambox is only for templates in the article namespace. There is not currently consensus to use it in any other namespace, so using it for {{historical}} is out for now. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on RFA

Copied from your RFA.

I have never supported that argument. Using a non-free image when a better free image could be created is not acceptable. It diminishes portability for no good reason. And I've seen many articles copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and that's fine. We should use them until we have something better. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you misspoke there. Articles copied from Britannica would be copyright violations. You may want to rephrase and/or strike some of that. I think others should give you time to do so before responding, since it seems like just a slip of the tongue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA was unsuccessful

I have closed your RFA. I am afraid there was no consensus to promote you. Please address the concerns that were raised, and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Aw... Better luck next time. EdokterTalk 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop by and give my sincere good wishes and, if necessary, apologies for anything that might have been overly caustic. I do understand your position, and I don't think I disagree with you about the nature of the project. I do think we disagree about the importance of images overall, and about the importance of the quality of an image (as opposed to the information it contains) in particular. You worried that my opposition was set in stone, but I actually have no particular opposition to you; on the contrary, you're obviously an excellent editor. But the continuous, strident defense of relatively trivial images (I don't mean by you, I mean in general) has hardened some of us, and I do hope you understand why that would be the case. Chick Bowen 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know. When you decide to go up again (and be patient, 'cause the regulars--I'm not one--hate it when people go up again to soon), let me know and maybe we can have this thing out by e-mail or some such. Chick Bowen 00:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry your RfA was not successful. I'm sure it will succeed next time. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment about your RFA

First, let me express my deepest regrets that your RFA did not pass this time around. The reason I opposed was about your answer to question #8. Also, as Daniel pointed out, the lack of knowledge between a block and a ban. I hope that why I opposed does not affect your opioion of myself, and Wikipedia as a whole! Not everyone gets lucky on there first RFA attempt. I see people on there 3rd, or 4th passing and becoming admins. Take all opposeing and supporting votes comments into what you do, and try again soon!


PatPolitics rule! 02:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Would I support you. I think I would. It was a close RFA, and if you follow the concerns, you will pass. PatPolitics rule! 03:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


You asked me for comments on the NFCC stuff. Yes we are here to make an encyclopedia, but note in the logo, its the free encyclopedia. This means that we should be using non-free content at the absolute minimum needed. You were not very clear to me (or to others) what you considered a significant use. Often times we are very able to write an article with only free images. If you have any questions feel free to ask me in a response on my page, or to ask me on IRC (if you use it). Best of luck. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, you uploaded this image: Image:Earth_2025_country_status_screenshot.png, which has its rational disputed. I don't know if the rational is good or not, I'd tend to not using it, *but* note the image size, at 1920 × 1005 pixels I think its overly large for anything we would use in an article. It should be resized to something less then about 400 x 300 (approx), as thumbnails in articles rarely get any larger then that. All in all, I"d suggest you give NFCC a look over and compare your uploads to it, Non-free content generally should not be larger then the minimum needed to display in an article. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I should also note that firefox is free software, as long as you covered up the logo (which is owned by Mozilla), and the google logo you would be fine in displaying an image of firefox. Microsoft internet explorer is a different matter ;). —— Eagle101Need help? 04:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling up your talk page, I see you have uploaded Image:Mac_listbox_screenshot.png, which has been tagged as replaceable fair use. It is in this case, we can get a free image of a listbox, open any Linux application that uses them take a screen shot of it. I won't point out any more images unless you ask, but I hope you understand better why I chose to oppose. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response left at User talk:Eagle 101#My RfARemember the dot (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The google logo is also not free, so blanking it out, with the Firefox logo would be required to have a truely free image of Firefox to display. As far as the images, I'll let the normal deletion process occur. I hope you do understand where I am coming from though. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, you also said you did not upload the images that I mentioned above... you did upload Image:Mac_listbox_screenshot.png, which will be deleted as a replaceable fair use image. As long as you can demonstrate in your next RFA that you know what is and is not replaceable, (perhaps check over the rest of your upload history), I'll be fine. I did not oppose so much for your ideology, but for the fact that there is evidence that you don't quite grasp the image policy. —— Eagle101Need help? 14:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, what I was attempting to get you to do is to review your own upload history, and update/delete the images you did before you had a better understanding. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to reply to RfA reply

No promises, but I suspect that you will be more clearly admin material and your readiness will be more apparent to the "RfA cabal." By then you should have an even better grasp of things and should be able to show it. Best of wishes. If I can help you in some way, let me know. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


I notice you asked a few opposers for ideas on what could be done differently, so perhaps this info is of interest. I considered voting in your RfA but did not. I'd just mention a couple of reasons why I didn't support:

  1. Edit summaries: I might have supported if you had indicated you would consistently use edit summaries
  2. Image policy: This was totally baffling. I couldn't sort out what happens when an admin has differences with image policy but still has to carry out admin tasks according to the rules. Maybe you could have pointed out some other admin who has the same views, but can do his duties anyway.

Since you didn't ask for this feedback, it's fine if you want to delete my comment after you read it. EdJohnston 16:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've enabled prompted edit summaries in my preferences, and I would of course provide edit summaries for every administrative action that I take.
I see now that it was a mistake to allow the RfA to degrade into a debate of my personal views of the purpose behind the non-free content policy. It seems that I was not clear enough that as an administrator, I would have to obey the community's wishes, no matter now much I disagree with them. It would be wrong of me to force my personal opinion on others. In cases where my personal opinion differs from the community's opinion, I will not take any administrative action, but rather leave that to others. This is why I refuse to get involved in most deletion "discussions" revolving around WP:NFCC#10c. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider your view on edit summaries to be adequate for administrators. Anti-vandalism tools look for edit summaries, and I think that administrators ought to show the way for others. EdJohnston 18:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I have not once been reverted by an anti-vandalism tool, and like I said, I enabled prompted edit summaries and will be using them more often. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring Rules and modifying policy

Ah I see you answered on 21 october. I have been unexpectedly busy these last few weeks, and should have entered debate with you then. I feel kind of guilty, my apologies ^^;; You did the right thing by replying to my oppose by the way. Jolly good show there. :-)

The reason for my oppose is because you didn't quite grasp the basics of how wikipedia rules work.

Starting out

I think a beginning admin doesn't have to know everything, but the one thing they *should* know is that it's ok to Ignore All Rules. Just do what you think is right, and ask other admins to check you from time to time. As a guide to what is "the right thing", be sure to refer to m:Foundation issues.

In the past the "ask other admins" requirement was less of a problem, since the admin-to-user ratio was somewhat sane, and odds were that another admin would check you anyway. These days, do call attention to anything you're not sure about, and after that things still work like a regular wiki -with consensus and all, basically- At any rate, none of the admin actions can permanently harm the encyclopedia anymore these days, so don't sweat it.

So how are rules actually made?

Past that point there's also a question of "how the rules are made". Well, despite anything others may have told you, The Ignore All Rules policy (irony!) automatically makes everything else a guideline. You *may* follow our guidelines or not, at your discretion, as long as you improve the encyclopedia. If you find that you are acting at odds with some guideline, and other people agree with you that you're actually doing the right thing (ie, there's a consensus), go ahead and edit the guideline to conform with reality. Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive.

The opposite approach, of following a guideline to destruction until people get fed up with you and change it, is against the recommendations of the guideline that says you should not disrupt wikipedia to make a point (about the rules).

Act first, compare with guidelines, if guidelines are wrong, fix them.

Of course, after many iterations, the guidelines start to look very polished and sane, but naturally that doesn't mean we should abandon the procedure that made them! What happens if the situation changes somehow? We want to continue to be able to respond in a flexible way.

And that's why things are the way they are, at least, as far as I'm aware. :-)

--Kim Bruning 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

PNG Crusadebot processing JPGs

Should PNG Crusade Bot be processing BadJPGs? These images need to be remade or heavily cleaned up, not just converted to another format.Doodle77 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The PNG crusade bot only converts images that would benefit from a simple PNG conversion, so very few JPEGs are actually converted. Perhaps I should make the bot add the {{artifacts}} tag to converted JPEGs for good measure. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it should add the {{artifacts}} tag. Doodle77 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Blood Water Mission Know Love Act.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Blood Water Mission Know Love Act.png. 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.BetacommandBot 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA


I'm not sure why you're confused; perhaps you should read my comment more carefully, as you seem to have misquoted it. I expect a certain minimum level of contributions to the Wikipedia namespace. In your case, numerous commenters suggested that you are inexperienced in image issues, among other things. Going forward, I think you'd learn quite a lot by visiting more XfDs, and familiarizing yourself with the various fora that address copyright issues. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi, i've read the Opera article a couple of times and i can see some jargon. The features section simply doesn't describe what makes Opera different/special and most of what's there is jargon and should be sent to the features page with material coming back the other way. The future releases contains jargon, it shouldn't be moved or deleted and needs to be rewritten. I can and will rewrite that section for FF because i'm familiar with all the concepts, but i cant do that with Opera because i dont use it. I also noticed that there is large mention of Opera's use in portable devices and others. The Wii or cell phones for example. This section could be described as simply unimportant and possibly jargon, because anybody who has tried to surf the net using those devices will know what a mostly pointless time it is. Even PDA's are generally unsatisfying and are good for email and not much else. I've started watching this page so if you want to open a discussion on the talk page about jargon then i'd be generally agreeably, altho i wont be editing the article myself because i dont know enough about the subject. Operating 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect i should have written my first thought, that i dont see much jargon to worry about, i thought you'd seen some and wanted a discussion in place to add the template and edit what was necessary without reverts and undo's. I can't offer any other suggestions because i dont use the program. Operating 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, don't have any idea what you're talking about. I use Firefox and (occasionally) Opera, and while I have IE on my computer, it's IE7, not IE6. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. And it was good advice, even if misdirected. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the save on that Judas Priest image. I guess I mislabelled it. Go figure. Howa0082 01:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Vista slow file system operations.png

Yeah.. even I felt the same... We actually don't need a snapshot to illustrate the slow file system operations. The reason I uploaded that file was the original file was a jpg version... full of compression artifacts, to an extent that the text was not readable... so I replaced jpg version of the image to png version... I think, You can "speedy delete" that file...

Mugunth 07:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


You're welcome. Better luck on your second attempt. SGGH speak! 08:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: My (Remember the Dot)'s RfA

That's fine, don't worry about it. It's a shame you didn't succeed, but I'm sure that, if you take note on all the pointers left down by people participating in your RfA, you're next attempt should be more successful. Best wishes, Lradrama 14:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pass? I don't doubt it. Rudget 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome for the support. :) With any luck, your next RfA should pass. Acalamari 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kifaya-2005-06-09.jpg used to be listed on the Arabic Wikipedia, now they have on wikipedia commons. Thanx --The Brain 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

PNG Crusade Bot

Just to let you know, I have tagged many images with either {{badGIF}}, {{badJPEG}}, or {{shouldBePNG}}. However, your PNG crusade bot has been fairly inactive for the past month. Could you please re-activate it to convert the images that I have tagged? ANDROS1337 04:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry Meshel

Thanks for alerting me to questions about the image for the Harry Meshel article. Unfortunately, I don't think I can add anything to the rationale already included on the image page. The subject in question was affiliated with a state governmental body rather than a federal one. So, the fact that the image is an official portrait doesn't qualify it as free. The only thing I can argue for is its possible historical value, because it depicts the subject at the height of his political career. Thanks, again, for your message! - twelsht (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Tweak cite web

How will the proposed change affect existing pages? If it means that a mass change of all the article the template is used on, I would certainly oppose it, but I'm not fully up to speed on why you suggested it in the first place. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dates formatted as 2007-11-17 would be automatically wikilinked as 2007-11-17 if they are not linked already. Dates in other formats (which I believe are discouraged under the template's usage guidelines), such as November 17, 2007, are not affected. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "if they are not linked already" was the crucial part. If it doesn't meddle with existing properly linked dates, then I have no objections. - Mgm|(talk) 19:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you've been able to get dates linked in a couple of {{cite whatever}} templates! Keep up the good work! RossPatterson (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

NW Helsinki 0048 image

Hello, I've added a defense of the above-mentioned image to the image's Talk page. Please reconsider the speedy deletion. Thanks. Nerwen (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Childers big.jpg

Hi, you have marked this image as {{withpermission}}. Do you have some record of the permission? What permission has been granted. If not, its a good case for fair-use ; just remove the tag. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


What's the use in adding this template to an image?! I suppose the word should always bothers me. I can edit a bitmap but I can't edit a SVG, so converting an image I made means I can't improve it later, which is freakin' annoying, so unless you want to change an image now, forget the stupid template markers. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to prefer vector images to raster images (see Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload). Most of us use the free program Inkscape to edit SVGs.
I hope that helps! —Remember the dot (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time or motivation to learn inkscape. Does it do anything better than hand-tracing an image? If a source image is rendered as a bitmap, it seems a waste of time and effort to hand-re-trace it. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Inkscape is a full-featured SVG editor. Again, please read Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload to see why vector images are useful, and do not remove the {{ShouldBeSVG}} tags from any more images. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I WILL remove the tag if I think it's WRONG, and I still don't understand - it's senseless to me to convert a rendered source image to a hand-regenerate SVG. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If you continue to remove the tags inappropriately then you will be blocked for violating Wikipedia policy. If you had read Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload then you would understand that vector images scale better than raster images and are easier to modify. This is why they are preferred.
Perhaps you don't understand that we will not use a vector image over a raster image simply because it is a vector image. Rather, the vector image must be just as good or better than the raster image before we will switch to it. Does that make sense? —Remember the dot (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
My position is really sympathy for not wasting someone else's time. If I make an image, then I have the greatest incentive to make it SVG. If I can't make an SVG one, then someone else must do almost as much work as me to RECREATE my original image as SVG. And if my original image was not the best layout or whatever then someone else is copying my dumpy work, which is a waste of their time. And if later I want to make a better image, then someone ELSE must again remaking MY work to do so. It is a senseless waste of time if the original image isn't from SVG in the first place. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Often it's worth the effort to vectorize images due to the benefits mentioned above. If an image has a bad layout then the person who's doing the vectorizing would hopefully correct the problem. But you're right: it's best if users just upload images in SVG format to begin with to save us the trouble. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Abc wnt jennings2 050405 t.jpg

If you look at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline it states that "A separate rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article." and this image does not comply. Using the guideline then any of the images could be used in the infobox provied a rationale was given. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


One man's vauge is another's way of thinking. I'd thought better of you. Disappointing. At LEAST do the right thing with such redirects so I don't have to pickup your dirty laundry. // FrankB 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fer Pete's sake, lighten up. I didn't accuse you of a capital crime, just failure to apply {{R to other template}}! Sheeesh! Well, maybe I hit you with a wet noodle for your summary. Saying someone's name sucks is borderline PA, if you think on it a while. This is ALL so-oooo-oo NBD, but it does create a bunch of stuff out there where someone will go look... and find themselves "disconnected". Maybe you don't look at templates from inside preview using {{lts}}, but I do that ALL THE TIME—99 out of 100 at least, and I don't go to the source page, but to the source code... i.e. as 'edit mode' so I can see how it works. With an unecessary name change, I end up looking at the internals of a redirect page... a time waster for me and a distraction. But not the end of the world. Shrug, 'lts' works for me, but I've been coding this or that since the mid-seventies, so seeing under the hood is like a baby and a pacifier! <BSEG>. OTOH, if I hadn't liked YOUR name, then I might have created a redirect to one I liked better... not moved it sans discussion—that I've done at least ten or twelve times—see all the aliases of {{R from alternative capitalization}}, errr capitalisation, errr... other Capitalisation... ad nauseum, but it proves the point, and I'm only counting that as one.  Why? Cause I could never remember the EXACT name because that the way some one else associates the world, not me. Same deal with {{R from unicode name}}... whatever that redirects too makes sense to someone witha linguistic education, but what it means in software, is WYSIWYG allows font representations ASCII doesn't. I can relate to that, and haven't a clue on the other.
   (Hell, sometimes I can't recall the name of something I wrote... here's a perfect example, inasmuch as I was patching your redirect page, when my brain started farting, so I aliased my own template from two years back, as someone else will probably misremember same as I did just then.) So "Capitalization" (whatever the original is called) kept taking my time to follow three or four links until I could find the correct name spelling, that I still couldn't relate too, a week later... when I was likely already preoccupied by whatever important edit (which is ALWAYS) that led me to discover whatever redirect page I now also need to tag.  That's all this is about—a bit of respect for other peoples' way of thinking and not making self-righteous pronouncements that "my mother's army shoes are bigger than yours" (WHO CARES? ALL Opinions are like assholes and stink in equal measure, ditto the names we use). What good comes of saying your name sucks to me? (It does, but I'm not asserting that... I see some sense to it, even if you don't to mine. More appropo, I'll NEVER remember it, which pretty much means I'll never use it. Sorry. As CBD agrees, there was nothing wrong with my name, in the first place.) If you took the bit about "socks" critcally, sorry. I was using what I use for a sense of humor. Poor things about dead anyways. Besides, I didn't pick up your dirty underwear... the usage is still written in the name of the original template. [I've even been known to document a redirect alias on the usage page so people can follow along and hum the same tune when I alias something... which if there be a crime here, is perhaps the note your dirty underwear represent!] Cheers! Life is full of bigger problems. Be well, and nice to talk again... it's been a while. // FrankB 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a test.

It's just I added an infobox but found it redundant so changed my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justmeherenow (talkcontribs) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...OK (yeah, that was stray code from who-knows-where that had got stuck on text I'd cut-and-pasted...). Justmeherenow (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your RFA

Hello. This is in response to your message of Oct. 27. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Apparently I did not notice the message at first (I must have jumped to the next one down and then left the page), and then I went on 'wikibreak' for a few weeks.

I hope this is not seen as a lazy answer, but I did sincerely concur with what Meegs said on the RFA, and I also concur with his response to your later message on his talk page.

Regarding your response to Q7 on the RFA, which I also expressed concerned about, you seemed to suggest that the primary reason for limiting non-free content is portability and ease of re-use. To me this suggested a lack of understanding or belief in free content as a core part of our mission, one with which we do not compromise. Perhaps this is essentially a semantic misunderstanding, or a difference in personal values; to me, freedom is important firstly for its intrinsic moral value, and secondarily for its practical benefits (eg. portability). (See this article by our own Benjamin Mako Hill for a good argument against compromising the "ethical" position of freedom, in this case vis-a-vis Creative Commons)

The fact that taking such a position would seem to put me in the ranks of the "hard-core free content activists" with which you disagree (and to be clear, I'm nothing of the sort) suggests to me that one of the foundation issues is not of primary importance to you. (Kim Bruning opposed the RFA on similar grounds.)

Again, sorry for the late reply, and I wish I had had more time to elaborate on the RFA before it closed. Happy editing, heqs ·:. 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your message, I feel that we are sort of splitting hairs here, or just plain misunderstanding eachother. I'm sure you know that non-free content is not a core part of our mission. You seem to think that the "balancing act" between free and non-free involves two things of similar importance; that we can "compromise" on the free part. We can't and we don't. We can fiddle with the allowed levels of non-free content because it is of secondary importance, using it judiciously where it suits the project, whereas compatibly licensed free content is always welcome and will always be here. We are not going to legislate a reduction in the use of free content, or revoke the GFDL. That's what I mean by "we do not compromise" with free content. heqs ·:. 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Perhaps I was being to philosophical in trying to understand your earlier answers. heqs ·:. 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

FFA icon

The star with the red X has been used for former featured articles for ages. Former featured lists uses the same style (though the X is different) on those articles which have not been converted to the {{ArticleHistory}} framework. The icon you've chosen is the former FAC icon; changing this should really be discussed. Gimmetrow 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

9/11 page

Its prose is 60KB, not even close to the 100KB max. IMHO it is fine. — BQZip01 — talk 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We really should be shooting for the article, including all references, to be in the 30-50 KB range. The article is currently over 100 KB, making it very unwieldy when I try to edit it. Many of us have slower connections; even many low-end "broadband" connections are insufficient. I know that I could work around the problem by just editing specific sections, but then I wouldn't be able to preview the references very easily (and less technical users wouldn't know how to preview the references during a section edit at all). —Remember the dot (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Responding here is fine (no need to duplicate on my talk page) and I am responding from my work where I can't log in...wierd. These appear to be your personal preferences and not Wikipedia policy.
Specifically, WP:SIZE states:
"In the past...technical considerations prompted a strong recommendation that articles be limited to a maximum of precisely 32 KB in size, since editing any article longer than that would cause severe problems.[1] With the advent of the section editing feature and the availability of upgrades for the affected browsers, this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles now exist which are over 32 KB of total text size.
"Though article size is no longer a binding rule, there remain stylistic reasons why the main body of an article should not be unreasonably long, including readability issues. It is instead treated as a guideline, and considered on a case by case basis, depending on the nature of the article.
"For stylistic purposes, only the main body prose[2] (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose."
If you want to get this Wikipedia guideline changed (note it is also not a policy, but a guideline), then by all means, more power to you and I wish you the best of luck. — BQZip01 — talk 21:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The guideline clearly states that readability is not the only factor that determines how long is too long. Read further and you will find When using slow connections, e.g., a desktop computer with an analog modem dial-up or the wireless connection of some mobile devices, long articles can take too much time to load. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have an ultra-high-speed connection. The 32 KB rule is no longer an absolute limit, but that does not mean that technical issues still come into play. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Swucampus-pic1.gif and 2

Those files were given to me a long time ago for publicity purposes. I didn't make them, so I can't make them GFDL, but they were intended for this kind of purpose but I am not currently in contact with the person who handed them to me. What license do you suggest? Thanks. Nesnad (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to track down the person who provided these to me. But if I can't these aren't easily replaceable. This is a closed campus in South Korea. Not the easiest to acquire photos of, unlike what it seems to imply on the photos should we delete asap page. I would appreciate a waiting on the sudden delete action. And in the meantime, I'll try to get in contact with the person who provided these and see if they (or newer ones, its been years now) could be released as public domain. Nesnad (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pan Am Cockpit 4 image

I intend for the copy on commons to be deleted but for the copy on EN to stay. IMO I don't see how any significant use of that particular image can be lost with a fair use license. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it needs a more specific tag and a use rationale. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kyushu J7W Shinden.jpg

If I recall correctly, the place I obtained the image from did not give attribution to the copyright holder. I certainly doubt I could find it now; it's been too long. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Not my business I know, but didn't all items belonging to imperial Japan loose copyright after world war two? So isn't the allegation of needing a copyright over active tagging?? Seems that way to me. Nesnad (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that that is definitive. As far as US law is concerned, items seized by American forces and brought back to the US are probably PD here, but they probably are not in any other country (I'm going by the similar circumstances of German official photos; PD in the US, not PD in Germany or many other nations). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And I don't think that would hold for images that were not captured, nor photos that were the property of private individuals and not the state. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Can I just delete all of these pages blindly, or is there any manual intervention required to determine if it needs deletion? Please reply on my talk page. east.718 at 00:12, December 15, 2007

Just delete them all. A complete list is at User:ST47/--DUP. These are the pages that previously had WP: prefixes, but are no longer needed due to the merge with the Wikipedia namespace (see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#WP: vs WIkipedia:). —Remember the dot (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. They'll all be gone in two minutes. east.718 at 00:19, December 15, 2007

Village Pump proposal re: dates

FYI, I've offered a counter to your proposal at the Village Pump. We already have the technology to fix the inconsitency problem for all readers without any article changes, we just need to take advantage of it by setting a default date format. Bugzilla:12318 has been opened requesting this be done. RossPatterson (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

autoformatting of full dates

Thanks for your input at MOSNUM. I wonder whether the developer is finally responding to the activity at MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Begin forwarded message:

From: Date: 18 December 2007 1:27:27 PM To: Subject: [Bug 4582] Use date format preference on unlinked dates

Brion Vibber <> changed:

          What    |Removed                     |Added

            Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
        Resolution|WONTFIX                     |

--- Comment #73 from Brion Vibber <> 2007-12-18 02:27:25 UTC --- Let's keep it open for now and see what happens...

Image:Kutuzov Belarus-Slovenia 2005.jpg


thanks for the notice. I asked site owner to relicense the image to wikipedia under suitable license. Give me few more days, please. --Monk (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

firefox svg

source provided

"will only work in browsers that support XHTML (not HTML) and SVG integration."

firefox does not support SVG natively in html - only in xhtml.

thanks LNRyan (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer on signing! And thanks for the welcome! LNRyan (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re re RFA

Please excuse my late reply once again. The answer to your last question is yes; please feel free to notify me if you have another RFA. Cheers, heqs ·:. 11:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Cite press release/doc2

re: 'Template:Cite press release/doc2' has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dot... Good catch ferreting that one out... that was an old proposal that didn't fly with the community. I also db-authored a few more, and apologies for not tidying up sooner when the discussion died out on that idea. // FrankB 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on FA status for Opera

Nicely perservered, that looked like a long FA Candidacy! I hope to see more articles of that caliber in the future- Congratulations! --Kiyarrllston 01:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm happy about it too, especially since there are relatively few computing-related featured articles. I'm also thinking about how to get Opera Mini up to featured article quality. Do you have any suggestions? —Remember the dot (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You asked for some feedback on Opera Mini
"It is offered free of charge, but requires that the mobile device be capable of running Java ME applications." not quite a "but" kind of relationship
They run Linux and "are massively parallel and massively redundant."[23] - at the very least linking to redundant and parallel - is massively a technical term as well?
"Opera Mini supports bi-directional text, meaning that it can display text in languages such as Arabic and Hebrew." - [as well as the left to right predominant in western civilization]?
History should start with Opera Mini's birth not with the relations it had with other browsers. - That's more context or background
I hope this helps - feel free to ask again. :D
--Kiyarrllston 23:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong approach to the image patrol

This effectively says that I attached the false license to the image. You should have checked my experience and contributions history before implying that. Also, you failed to notify me of submitting my image for deletion. Anyway, I responded to your deletion proposal at the article talk. In the future, please talk before shooting. And, a friendly advise, this aggressive attitude would unlikely help you in getting the content conscious editors to cooperate with your actions even if they are legitimate. I've seen it all but new editors might be taken aback by such approach. --Irpen 09:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Same criticism about your tagging of Image:Maabarah children.jpg for deletion. You did this as a modification of its legend in the article Jewish refugees. Nothing in the talk page of the article, nothing in the page or talk of the image. Not exactly due process; I reverted it. In the future, please talk before shooting. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked up what RFA means. Yeah, you'd make a fine Admin, you seem to fit the profile. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Further work

Well your proposal went live on the Uploader which is a good thing. I'm still concerned that too many BCB images will get deleted for not having the article= tag in them. Is there some way to make Article= an optional variable in the Image Summary Template? Then the uploader could have it as a visible option, and experienced users would just know that they don't need it for free images. Mbisanz (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this really isn't a good option. The problem here is mainly that BetacommandBot tags images for deletion rather than fixing them. The bot really ought to be rewritten to automatically add the Article parameter if it has been omitted. —Remember the dot (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey bust

Hi Dot,

Thank you for notifying me of the listing of Image:Winfrey.JPG at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Have I put the wrong licensing tag on the photo? If this is not the problem, what can I do to rectify the situation?

Neelix (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dot,
Thank you for your quick response. Would this apply to Image:Walt Disney.JPG and Image:Danny Thomas.JPG as well?
Neelix (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Notification of image deletion

I happened across three images you tagged for deletion and posted notices to an uploader here. There has been some discussion about image deletion notification on the non-free content page and while Betacommandbot does notify the talk page of the article where an image is currently being used, you don't appear to do this. The advantage being that editors who have such a page on their watchlist may be able to fix the fair-use rationale and so avoid deletion, especially in cases where the original uploading editor is no longer active. This seems to be the case with Jtdirl and for many older uploaded images where the fair-use rationale is an issue. I have often noticed that an image was no longer available on an article page only AFTER it was already gone and only when someone marked the image on the article page as now deleted either by commenting it out or deleting the reference to it. Perhaps you would consider leaving an article talk page notification in future as this might facilitate the rescuing of many images that may otherwise go unnoticed. Obviously not knowing what an image was makes it difficult for any interested editor to decide if it might have been worth while saving by writing or fixing the fair-use rationale or been better to attempt to find a suitable replacement. I reply where I first post). Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually now I dig a little deeper it appears that you tag the image for deletion right on the article page. If you do that every time, it is another great way to get some attention especially when the uploading editor is not active. If it is an occasional thing I would suggest doing it every time in future. Cheers and thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I use Twinkle, which should do that every time, yes. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Template testing

My apologies. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 05:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Image Proposals

I'm working on two new image system proposals over here User:Mbisanz/ImageSystemProposal and figured you might be interested in them either commenting or if you know coding. Mbisanz (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What would be better still would be to present the user with links such as "logo", "screenshot", etc. and automatically fill out the use rationale template appropriately. That wouldn't require any new JavaScript or CSS. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

IE8 Acid2 - Pass/Fail?

Hi Rtd, my edit in the section for IE8 has nothing to do with the controversy surrounding whether or not IE8 will display sites in standards mode by default, which is what Acid2 requires. The simple fact is, even in standards mode, the IE8 example videos show that IE8's development UI still displays a scroll bar which means it fails the test regardless.

So to clarify, IE8 currently fails Acid2 in both situations. Thus it is wrong for the article to state that "an internal debug build of IE8 passes the Acid2 test in IE8 standards mode" since it clearly does not. See the screencap at [1]. Hope you understand and revert to my previous version. GreyWyvern (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I took another look at and saw:
Note, however, that their video evidence shows a scrollbar, which means it actually fails the test. However, that seems to be a development environment UI, not the normal IE UI. As a result it may show a fail while the main IE 8 UI will pass. It is not possible to say without seeing a real IE 8 UI.
So, it's really just speculation at this point. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Then if it is all just speculation, why does it say explicitly that IE8 passes? It should really say that the developers claim it passes, because there are reliable sources (the video) which cast doubt on the assertion that it passes. Is there a third party, non-MS source which says IE8 passes? GreyWyvern (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)