User talk:Storkk/Archives/1
|
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 my current talk page. |
I commented on the talk page about the recent reversion of your edit to make the spelling of dentin consistant. I would appreciate your comment on my reasoning, and if you think the reversion was appropriate. - Dozenist talk 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Pictures of 3rd molar
Looks like a great picture to me, and a wondeful addition to both articles. We may tweak the location of the pictures in the article (I am thinking in particular of the wisdom teeth article, but other than that they make for fine edits! Keep it up. - Dozenist talk 00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I made better room for your picture. Hopefully, that will be better. - Dozenist talk 00:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it certainly is not my page, and all articles are a work in progress. I responded to your edits on the talk page. Looks good again. - Dozenist talk 02:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Jewish Encyclopedia
Note: this discussion is in relation to Image:Jews of K'ai-Fung-Foo, China.jpg, more of this discussion is on Image talk:Jews of K'ai-Fung-Foo, China.jpg, as well as on User talk:Briangotts.--Storkk 18:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The Jewish Encyclopedia was published between 1901-1906, so any copyrights on it have already expired and are in the public domain already. Even the home page of www.jewishencyclopedia.com states that all its contents are public domain. ----
Legally, the terms of use on Jewish Encyclopedia which purport to restrict access to the images and text have no validity. The entire work is public domain and cannot be claimed by copyright. This is an issue that has been discussed at great length at Wikipedia. In the U.S., exact photographic copies of public domain 2-D works cannot be copyrighted under any circumstances. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you should leave the tag as it identifies the source of the image. I think it's respectful of the people at JE.com to leave the tag, even if their claim to copyright is invalid. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There are hundreds of JE images on Wikipedia. Good luck with them. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hippias
Salut Storkk, je suis désolé de ne pas écrire en anglais mais mes connaissances de cette langue sont malheureusement limitées. J'ai vu que tu veux traduire l'article sur Hippias mineur. Si je peux t'être d'une aide quelconque tu peux me le dire naturellement car Platon m'interesse beaucoup et je travaille pas mal les articles le concernant sur wiki:fr. Amicalement. Pierre aka Apierrot 14:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot Storkk, I was almost losing faith somebody would attempt the translation :-)--Aldux 15:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Translation of Seille (rivière)
Absolutely beautiful, thanks! -Yupik 18:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
translation request
Note: the following comment was added by User: Leroyencyclopediabrown in response to my deleting his request to translate FR->EN a text that no longer existed. --Storkk 01:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That request was a month ago....but thanks anyway!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyencyclopediabrown (talk • contribs)
- Thanks, but I'm just here trying to resolve my problems.=(--Edtalk c E 01:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
PROD on Category:Darger
Hello, I transferred your PROD on a category to WP:CFD because PROD does not handle categories due to specially handling requirements. 132.205.44.134 05:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, anon. I was unaware of that. --Storkk 10:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Image:Imia06 2.jpg
I took the picture myself and then I put it to antepithesh.net Mitsos 08:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have updated the Image talk:Imia06 2.jpg to reflect this. --Storkk 11:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: CfD closing error?
If you further scroll down the CfD page, other CfD discussions are closed exactly like that. Please write above the line of those words. Many thnaks. --WinHunter (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
AfD nominations
I've just edited the Chak Jhumra article to make sense as a geo stub, dumping those 2 pointless sentences. --Mereda 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It's on Wikipedia, so it's under GFDL. Feel free to use/fork/mangle as you wish. :) æ² ✆ 2006-09-05t17:01z
Comment
Thanks for your input to the debate on Pontian, it is greatly appreciated... I hope that others will do the same.. I am still waiting to see what will come out of this dispute.. Cheers! Baristarim 01:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
My reply is below, this discussion pertains to the debate going on at Talk:Pontian_Greek_Genocide
pontian genocide/massacre/whatever reply
- Hi. First of all, I thank you very much for valuing my input. As I have said, however, that was my one and ONLY contribution to the debate. I truly don't care who "wins", I just want the title that *I* think is the least POV -- and after reading through the debate, I think that the suggestion that I re-iterated suits that description. Lest you take this as an indication of me supporting your point of view, please be advised (and I mean no offense) that I think that you have been the most inflammatory party in the debate. Whether you are right or wrong, I don't know -- and frankly I don't care very much -- but PLEASE keep a cool head when responding to others, and regardless of whether you think there's a Greek conspiracy writing the article (which I might actually agree with), please assume good faith. Personally, I think I agree in part with A.Garnet, who (in my humble opinion) has responded to all attacks very level-headedly, simply asking for independent facts. Whether or not I agree with the article's contents, it MUST be backed by independent facts. I will resolutely refuse to get involved in this debate on the talk page. But please, please, please take my advice to heart. I am really not meaning to criticize your beliefs or anything, and I am sure you hold them very strongly. To Wikipedia, however, this is (I am sorry to say) totally and utterly irrelevant. If it weren't, there's a lot that I would have contributed to a number of articles. I CANNOT, though -- I am inherently biased on 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.. I hope you understand that I was just trying to offer what _should_ be a totally neutral alternative to all the bickering. And again, it wasn't my suggestion in the first place. If it gets accepted, all credit for defusing the debate should go to User:Kilhan. Sincerely, Storkk 02:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yo, I was testing
I was just testing. jeez!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadGyroEater (talk • contribs)
Reply
Hiya Storkk, how's life going? I dont usually involve myself in controversial topics, but I'll add something there. Genocide claims are pretty serious stuff.--Kilhan 11:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Niger vandal
I don't see anything since the test4 I gave at 15:30 GMT. Am I missing something? Thanks, NawlinWiki 15:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
vote for me
im nominated for system operator (sysop) or admin vote for me please! vote here i love wikipedia and would love it if you voted for me so i can continue to contribute and help out even more! Qrc2006 16:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I registered my opinion on the RfA. Sorry to say, but my vote was oppose. --Storkk 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I bothered you, I didn't think you'd take it as spam. Allthough I hope I could change your mind on the voting for me. Have a nice day!Qrc2006 17:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
im not childish, maybe you should read them, i used fag cuz i am one, he said he was a fag i said that im one two in our own talk pages, friendlily, zepheus yeah i brushed him off a bit, but i have learned to better articulate myself sicne Qrc2006 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was just wondering why you replaced my {{db-bio}} on the above mentioned page. You basically are saying the same thing: "Notable? Does not give specific examples of notability, such as prestigious awards". This, however, even disregarding the fact that the article was created by the person herself, is grounds (as far as i understand) for speedy-deletion. --Storkk 01:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ah - I missed the fact that it was an autobiography. I agree, it should be speedied. Done. Thue | talk 17:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Risk vandalism
Thanks for taking the time to revert the vandalism to the Risk page. Dan Slotman 20:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
When you see a prod and agree that the article should be deleted, please add a {{prod2}} rather than changing the prod to a speedy. However, if the article appears to be an autobiography, it is often best to move the problem article to the author's user page and to add the message {{subst:userfied}} on the author's talk page. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Noted. Thanks. --Storkk 04:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Prod -->speedy and vice versa
I actually deleted quite a few of the prods that you had changed to speedies -- good catches! The only ones I reverted were the three soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan. There is some slight chance that they might have had some military notability, and in general I think it's a little harsh to speedy these well-intentioned (though nonencyclopedic) memorial articles. Otherwise, you're doing great -- keep up the good work! NawlinWiki 04:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Potential Objection to my user page
N.B. This discussion relates to a now-deleted comment I left on User talk:Mitsos, suggesting that in the interests of the community, he might want to remove the white nationalist userbox with the Stormfront logo from his user page. --Storkk 13:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the WN userbox can be considered polemical, or that I commit any personal attack. Also, I remind you that there are userboxes such as "This user is an anarchist" or "This user is an marxist". Finaly, you said that "if the community lets you know that they would rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community" be sure that I will. Mitsos 08:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- As I said in my comment, it was just a polite suggestion. You are free to believe and stand for anything you want. --Storkk 10:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
A7
Hi Storkk, A7 is the most controversial CSD, and you'll see interpretations differ from administrator to administrator. If there is anything suggestion of claimed notability in the article, I prefer a prod or an AfD and won't speedy it. While I agree with you that many if not all of the articles you tagged will fail the relevant notability guideline (WP:MUSIC), this is best suited for a non-speedy deletion mechanism. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 11:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
215 records
why is this not db-band and speedied?
- Um... because 1. it's not a band, 2. it sort of asserts notability. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Perceptive Software
NB. This discussion, of which more can be found on User talk:Paularnhold (under numerous headings), is about pages that I (Storkk) deemed to be WP:SPAM. User:Paularnhold was the alleged spammer, and did not feel his actions were spam, or at least felt he was being unfairly treated. I replied on his talk page. --Storkk 23:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why you considered the post under document management as spam. There were a number of other companies listed there and Perceptive Software is, as they are, a document management company. Why do you feel some companies deserve to be listed while others dont? Can you please clarify this?
I would really like your assistance in converting this content so that it's not considered spam. That was not at all my intention.
Please help me understand how I can list company information as Laserfiche and Hyland Software, among many others, already have done. (In fact, I just read the Hyland Software submission and it looks much like the content I provided.) --Paularnhold 19:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I replied extensively on your talk page. --Storkk 02:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Storkk- You assured me I would have until the end of the year to validate the Perceptive Software entry. However, today I tried to pull up the page and the entry no longer exists. Can you please return the entry and I'll provide valid references over the next three months? You've also removed the talk page so I now can't view any of our dialogue. Please explain! Paularnhold 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly did not. Please see a more detailed response on your talk page. --Storkk 13:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Storkk! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 01:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- w00t! That felt like ages (was less than 2 days) :-) --Storkk 01:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply
NB. this message pertains to the article naming debate going on at Talk:Pontian_Greek_Genocide. --Storkk 11:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
Firstly apologies for the late reply, i've been away on a break. I appreciate your involvement as a neutral editor, i think me being Turkish promotes a kind of reflex in Greek users to dispute everything i propose, so it helps to get more people involved. The problem i have with an article based on "thesis" or "allegation" is that it would in itself be a Greek pov. I dont think it would be good for Wikipedia to create articles based on allegations as they could be highly controversial stuff. I have instead tried to come up with a more moderate title from which all points of view can be considered, and one which can be backed by academic sources. When i have time i will get involved in the discussion again, once again thanks for your contribution,. --A.Garnet 09:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Merge tag on FER
NB. more of this discussion is found on User talk:Dijxtra --Storkk 15:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, would you reconsider the tag on Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing since I expanded it a bit (and will expand it more) and I think now the article is to big to be merged... --Dijxtra 13:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, I will expand the article with information such as number of students as soon as I find relevant sources. In it's current form the article probably wouldn't survive AfD because notability isn't established, but I'm working on sourcing out information (as a student of the faculty, I know that it has at least 3500 students and is the best Electrical Engineering/Computer science faculty in the region which makes it notable, but I know I'm no reference ;-) ).
- Regarding the title, I figured we could move the article when the need arises... but if you strongly object, I'll move it. Is Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing (Zagreb) OK? BTW, I always prefer discussing over making unilateral removals of tags. --Dijxtra 14:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, yes, that's why I named the article this way, since we just don't have any abbreviation for University of Zagreb. And the name you suggested is just too long... so, I'll keep it as it is. I added the {{for}} tag, as you requested. Thanks for your suggestions, it's been enjoyable to work with you. --Dijxtra 14:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Diabetes
NB. The following discussion pertains to Diabetes mellitus, where I had added a {{intro length}} tag. Jfdwolff moved it to the talk page of the article, which I fundamentally disagreed with. The rest of the discussion can be found at User talk:Jfdwolff or one of the archives. --Storkk 23:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not disagree that the intro needs shortening. I have actually moved the box where it belongs: on the talkpage - so editors working on the article are aware of its relevance while casual readers who do not edit Wikipedia are not distracted by it. This is consistent with my personal policy of keeping major articles uncluttered.
I have asked the other editors of that article to consider reinstating my 2006-07-07 version of the intro, which covered roughly the same matter in half as many words. JFW | T@lk 23:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Cleanup tags are technically writing tags and in my view are more suitable for the talkpage, but community consensus seems to be that it belongs on article pages. But cleanup usually means there are major problems with a way an article is presented. While I agree with WP:LEAD, failure of its implementation in an article does not make it unsuitable for an encyclopedia, while an article needing cleanup usually is. JFW | T@lk 23:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I have already taken steps to improve the quality of the LEAD. But you misinterpreted my opinion; it's not that I want to hide the box from editors - I think it should not be visible to a casual surfer whose best pal has just learned that he's got diabetes and needs to lose a couple of stone (and possibly take medication). Wikipedia is for the readers, not for its editors. And not all readers are editors. (Yes, I also feel strongly about it!) JFW | T@lk 23:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - it is my opinion that the whole philosophy of WP is that the readers are the editors. Anywhoo.... my part in this debate is closed. --Storkk 01:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: Sorbonne
NB. The following discussion pertains to the fr → en translation page. More can be found here. --Storkk 11:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
About that...I finished translating way back when, but apparently the article that was meant to be translated was not accurate (confused Sorbonne with the University of Paris), and as I am not too clear on the differences myself, it was meant to be edited by User:Uppland, but I don't know if it ever was. So it's a finished translation, but anything relevant still needs to be incorporated into the existing English Sorbonne article.
Sorry! It turned out to be more complicated than I expected. I can put the translation in the Talk page of Sorbonne, perhaps? Tamarkot 02:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
NB. The following discussion pertains to the fr → en translation page. More can be found here. --Storkk 11:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder -- I've handed this over to anyone else who would like to take it on, as I just don't have the time to complete it right now. Actually, it's almost done -- only two articles left to expand/create. Seann 07:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Deletion Review
You commented recently at deletion review "I don't know if I can vote here, not being an admin... but reading the above instructions, I think so." You can certainly opine/vote at Deletion review. Anyone meeting the qualification of "user" can do so. GRBerry 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It actually needs checking by someone with better French, in case I've introduced any falsehoods. *ding* And I know exactly who I should ask to do that! Will move the article soon as it's done. JackyR | Talk 13:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Jolly good. Had just asked Svartalf, so now he'll be impressed by "my" brilliant French! JackyR | Talk 13:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
Great to see you joined the Beer Project! I'd been thinking for a long while that we didn't really have any material whatsoever on beers from France, and other locations. So I'm really glad you joined and look forward to coming across your edits, and hopefully I'll find a place where I can contribute to them, too! Cheers, --Daniel11 14:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page -- Bidgee 12:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Will revert any type of vandalism. I say it was someone who doesn't like me or doesn't like the city I live in going by there edit to the Hampden Bridge. Thanks again. :) -- Bidgee 13:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Vandal
That was 20 minutes ago and he hasn't edited since TB4's warning. Feel free to relist if he makes another edit.. -- Steel 15:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Image
Hi Storkk, that image is currently tagged as fair use. It's a long story, but to summarize, the source has inconsistent licensing information on their website. I wrote to them last week asking for clarification. Fair use is the safest thing in the meantime, and I'll update the tag as soon as I hear back from them. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your message. Your comments were made in good faith, and I wasn't offended. I don't think that Isotope23 (talk • contribs) intended to accuse me of anything either. What bothers me about this AfD, apart from the improprer behavior of other people who want to keep the article, is the comment by == Onorem Dil ==: "Delete - Went to school. Got a degree. Got a job. Has a family. I'd have considered just going with a {{db-bio}}", a rather glib comment which shows an unfortunate lack of understanding. AfD discussion often trivializes the value and importance of corporate executives and of non-celebrity academics, which in turn weakens Wikipedia.
- But I am grateful for your message and for the thoughts behind it. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Your editor review
This discussion pertains to my editor review, linked above. User:Daveydweeb was the first respondent, and offered some very good criticism. My replies can be found both on the review page, linked above, and on User talk:Daveydweeb (or an archive thereof) --Storkk 22:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Heya. I finally found the time to review you as requested, since I've felt quite crappy for the last few days, and have provided some detailed comments and editing statistics at your request page.
I should mention that I've taken quite a harsh tone in my review, but I don't intend to be as critical as I may come across. The suggestions I've made are the kind of thing nobody will ever tell you in the course of normal editing, so I wanted to tell you sooner rather than later. I hope the comments I've made are helpful, and please feel free to ask any questions you like at that page (and tell me about them on my talk page).
Good luck in the future, and happy editing! :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 10:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message on my talk page, I've replied at your Editor Review. I'm glad you took the review the way I intended it: I was a little worried, since the kind of comments I made can often come across as being pretty harsh. Methinks I should write an essay in my userspace and simply link people to it when reviewing them, though, since careless vandal-fighting is very common... oh, well. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for the reminder, I forgot to update it when I archived the remaining messages.--Andeh 16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Aha, you found me via my first CfD nomination?--Andeh 11:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
re: Image:Howard Zinn-historian.png
Hi, if you read the note closely, he gives clear permission to use the low-res photo I uploaded, and with-held permission for high-resolution use of the same photograph. I am a copyright editor and obtain permissions all the time. In this case, it does not matter now because someone has deleted the photo. Skywriter 01:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. Photo still there. Existing documentation notes it is fair use with the following wording, which I have now also adapted to the top of that photo's documentation page.
- The Wikipedia use of Robert Birnbaum's photo is fair use because the picture is low resolution, used noncommercially, and contributes significantly to the content of the Howard Zinn page. Skywriter 02:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the replies. I changed the licensing template to reflect what I understand you said. I changed it from {{GFDL}} to {{Promophoto}}. This is basically what I was referring to, rather than the text explanation. Please let me know if I misunderstood something. Cheers! Storkk 07:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
okay-- thanks. Skywriter 15:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Nenagh Ormond
Not sure that the link should have been changed to Republic of Ireland as Rugby and clubs from both parts of the island play in the same league so Irish in this case does refer to the whole island. If you agree please revert the change. --Gramscis cousin 11:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)