User talk:Spacepotato/Archive 2

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Family guy elephant man.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Family guy elephant man.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for finishing copying the data for List of the largest urban agglomerations in North America - I took the wife out to dinner, and was pleasantly surprised to find it finished off when I returned. Cheers, Wily D 14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Communic-logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Communic-logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello. These seem rather malformed and misguided deletions. The original reasoning was "This practically duplicates Template:Countries of North America": the same can be said of any regional template and to me reflects excessive simplicity, e.g., compare South Africa with Southern Africa. I was unable to comment at the time. Do you think it's worth having a review of these template deletions? Thanks. Corticopia (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that a DRV would result in the deletion being endorsed. Spacepotato (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AnitaGP 01 cvrB.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AnitaGP 01 cvrB.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.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edits to El Tigre

Your edits to El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera seem to have no citation, you describe the series as being full North American, seriously, how could a show whose creators are Mexican be full North American. It is not Mexican, neither North American, it is a Mexican North American show. Period. You should accept it, otherwise it will be taken as Vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.233.103 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gutierrez and Equihua moved to L.A. before conceiving the show, which was produced in the U.S. Spacepotato (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sport in Saint Lucia

You've now got a multiple round-robin redirect wheen going with your various Sport in Saint Lucia redirects. Please fix it so that there is only one page and all of the other pages are redirects. Redirects directing to other redirect pages don't work. Corvus cornix_talk 00:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This problem is now fixed. Actually, I was aware of the problem and started fixing it before receiving this message. Spacepotato (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kay, sorry I jumped the gun. :) Corvus cornix_talk 00:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

Hi Spacepotato,

Since you've helped out with Help:Pronunciation, I wanted to let you know it's up for deletion. kwami (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esteban

Sorry, I misread his article. I'm trying to clean-up the "American guitarist" category by moving names to their appropriate sub category. Do you think he fits into any of the current sub-categories? I've never heard his music - could his "easy listening" style be loosely classified as rock? Marchije (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he fits into any of the current subcategories. Spacepotato (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With thanks

		The Citation Barnstar
		For gallantly providing a verified source for the etymology of 7001 Noether, I present to you this humble award. Thank you for going above and beyond. – Scartol • Tok 03:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North America

Why you did not use any reference in the lead for the numerical figures? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The figures currently there were placed by User:Saaga (on March 7, 2008), not by me. They are a rounded copy of the totals from the table in North America#Countries and territories, which takes its data from the 2008 CIA World Factbook. So, you could add a reference to the 2008 CIA World Factbook if you liked, although I think one is not strictly required. Spacepotato (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German computer scientists

Thanks for your edits. I find it a bit questionable however, that publications are a claim to notability. This would make basically *any* professor notable. Isn't that an exaggeration? Or does it mean it should be handled in an AfD process? Sorry about Markus Kuhn, I missed the previous AfD discussion. KarlFrei (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Notability (academics), criterion 4, a significant body of work establishes notability. Spacepotato (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That criterion says "and well-known", which seems important here. Nevertheless, I understand that having e.g. more than 100 publications most likely means somebody is notable. Some of my suggestions were definitely too hasty. I may get back to some of the others with a more formal proposal. Thanks again. KarlFrei (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think at least some of the articles might well hold up, but they should include a little more, like showing how much they have been cited. Karl, scientists are notable for their published discoveries & the extent of their publication in peer-reviewed journals & subsequent citations shows the acceptance as significant by the experts in the field. DGG (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Harvey

Are there really multiple independent references covering this subject as a subject? I do not see them linked and can not find them, just a couple interviews about products. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ACM Queue interview discusses Harvey's career, history and views on technology in detail. Spacepotato (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your recent edits

Please do not vandalize articles, like you did with Template:Worldcinema, England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are countries just like Wales is, your lucky I stopped you instead of someone from one of those countries who may find what you did offensive. Also, Greenland (some Greenlandics those who are part of the Greenlandic resistance may find that offensive) is a Danish territory in North America, and it is not located in Europe. Also the Ottoman Empire has films too, and is/was/will be a separate entity (some former Ottomans and those who are part of the Ottoman resistance may find that offensive). Also, the whole idea of a red link, is that someone will see it, and they will make a article about it, thank you for your time. I have reverted your vandalism.--xgmx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.36.167 (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks and nonexistent articles don't belong in a navigation template. (The link for Cinema of Scotland is blue, but this is only a redirect to Culture of Scotland, which doesn't discuss film at all.) Wikipedia is not censored in order to avoid offending political groups. Spacepotato (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes

Why are you changing all of the edits that I have done? The SIMBAD has its own section (no need to have it in the header). Read the article "brown dwarf" and it will say its characteristics as a star. And all "How-to-use" sections are easier to use in the way that I have fixed. Please do not revert these edits again. — Nuclear Vacuum 20:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown dwarfs are not stars. They have insufficient mass to sustain hydrogen fusion. To quote the first sentence of the brown dwarf article, "Brown dwarfs are sub-stellar objects..."
The SIMBAD links in the infobox header are a great convenience for the reader.
You are removing useful information from the template documentation, such as the fact that the proper motion for right ascension is given as μ_α cos δ rather than μ_α.

Spacepotato (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they are so important, they should already be in the article. There is no need to be making a new box (witch has already been called ugly in the talk page of the article). Yes, brown dwarfs are no 100% stars, but stellar neither the less. And simply use Template:Starbox reference (witch has a link directly to SIMBAD). Using this long link as the header is both wrong and space consuming. — Nuclear Vacuum 20:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more convenient for the reader to have the SIMBAD link in the header. Your first comment seems to pertain to 55 Cancri, which I did not discuss above. Also, please see my comment at Talk:HD 202206 re brown dwarfs. Spacepotato (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HD 202206

Hello, I wish to draw your attention to the recent history of the page HD 202206: I performed an update [1] which User:NuclearVacuum reverted and characterised as vandalism on the article's talk page. I do not feel this is a fair response and your input would be valuable as you appear to have had a run-in with this user on issues relevant to the article. (Please do not reply on my talk page as I am using a dynamic IP address so probably won't get the response.) 131.111.8.96 (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. Spacepotato (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 131.111.8.96 (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? He's reverted it again! *sigh* 131.111.8.96 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? There is no need to be talking about me behind my back!!! — Nuclear Vacuum 20:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you watching me?

I am getting quite tired of you always vandalizing my work. As I mentioned, I only remove dead links and SIMBAD because there is already a reference for it. You have now reverted or vandalized three of my works, and now I am suspicious. The chances of you watching the pages I edit is very low, so this leads me to the conclusion that you are watching all the edits I do. Please stop altering my edits. — Nuclear Vacuum 15:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of references is harmful to the encyclopedia. So, when references are removed, they must be put back.
The SIMBAD link in {{Starbox reference}} is not a substitute for individual per-line references. For one thing, it does not give the date SIMBAD was accessed.
The fact that a link is dead is not a reason to remove a journal reference. It still exists in print, and may be accessible elsewhere on-line.
There is no page ownership. Anyone is free to edit any page.
~~WP:WATCH discusses a public watchlist system and has no relevance to anything you have mentioned. [This refers to a comment User:NuclearVacuum made re WP:WATCH which he has now removed.]~~

Spacepotato (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well either way, I never said I "owned" the page, I clearly said that you are vandalizing my work to make a point. There is no need for you to be undoing hard work to just put some useless reference that, by the way, is sill in the article. — Nuclear Vacuum 18:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no ownership in Wikipedia, there is also no sweat equity. Spacepotato (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is beginning to start a problem for the both of us. I have nor problems with you putting back references. But if I catch you undoing mine or other's hard work to do so, I may have to bring it up. Please be careful about adding references back. — Nuclear Vacuum 18:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guy, User:NuclearVacuum, is messing with many people's referencing. (Line 119) and seems to be getting away with it as those in charge are turning a blind, I even when he was directly accused of vandalism. I suggest you not waste your time arguing with him and compile the evidence. By the way, I'm talking about him behind his back, hee hee. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photon epoch

Hi. If find the time, maybe give the above article a bit of a facelift? Thanks. Regards, El_C 07:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]