User talk:Tripodics

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

Contents

Theatre Three[edit]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The only edit I did to the article was to remove the stub tags. It's long enough that it's not considered a stub any more. If you have any more questions or suggestions for the article, I would suggest doing so at the article's talk page. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 14:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WUSB FM[edit]

Thanks for trying to create a redirect. First off, in order to make a redirect work, it needs to be the first line of the article. Since you placed a comment on the first line, it didn't work correctly. Second, the title of the article it is to be redirected to must be placed inside the [[ ]]. As for your comment on a change of title of an article, I'd bring that up on the talk page of the article you are trying to change the name of. The talk pages is what discussions are for. If a name change is necessary, click the Move button on the top of the article to be changed. Let me know if you need any more help. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 00:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)





    •  ???BETTER WAY TO HIDE A MSG (& RE-EXPAND IT) ???
      • Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome
      • Image copyright problem with Image:CusterdomeInstall.jpg
      • Duplicate images uploaded: CusterdomeExample.jpg
      • Duplicate images uploaded: Image:Custerdarksky.jpg
      • Intercollegiate Broadcasting System: includes text from: http://www.frontiernet.net/~ibs/aboutibs.html.
      • Duplicate Image:Wall56.gif


Orphaned non-free media (Image:IBS-SRN-W320-H126.jpg)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:IBS-SRN-W320-H126.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. BetacommandBot 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Vista-Ym.png Welcome

Hi Tripodics! welcome to Wikipedia!

Be bold in editing pages and don't let others scare you off! To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp.

Here are some links that you might find useful:

Isimple system icons app edit.png   Wikipedia:How to edit a page
Crystal Clear action info.png   Tutorial
Nuvola apps edu science.png   Sandbox, the place where you can experiment
Nuvola apps filetypes.png   Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
Crystal Clear app linneighborhood.png   Wikipedia:Five pillars
Nuvola apps kdict.png   Wikipedia:Manual of Style

You can contribute in many ways

Vista-klipper.png   write an article
Battle for Wesnoth server.png   fight vandalism
Vista-Login Manager.png   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome
Crystal Clear app gimp.png   Improve illustrations and upload new images
Vista-advancedsettings.png   perform maintenance tasks
Vista-messenger.png   Become member of a project that interests you

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log. If you need help, you can drop a note on my talk page or use Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. You can also type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia! utcursch | talk 11:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:CusterdomeInstall.jpg[edit]

If this image is licensed under GFDL, please add a link to the GFDL notice present somewhere on the source website (custerobservatory.org). If no notice is present on the website, please forward a permission to <permissions-en (at) wikimedia [dot] org>. utcursch | talk 11:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hide old stuff:[edit]

{{helpme| There is some old stuff that I wanted to comment-out but not delete.
There must be a better way than this! }}

Hello. he usual method of handling content you don't want on your talk page anymore is to archive it. You can find instructions on how to do that here:Help:Archiving a talk page. I hope this helps! henriktalk 05:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:IBS-0IBSLgr.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:IBS-0IBSLgr.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 08:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:IBS-0LenM115-158.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:IBS-0LenM115-158.gif. 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 08:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:IBS-0Norm-w115-h191.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:IBS-0Norm-w115-h191.gif. 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 08:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:IBS-Wall56.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:IBS-Wall56.gif. 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 08:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Help Templates[edit]

Just so you know, I have removed 4 {{helpme}} templates that you added to image pages. Helpme templates are for use on user talk pages only. If you have any questions, feel free to leave them on my talk page. Thank you. - Rjd0060 16:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your comment left on my talk page[edit]

What it means is, messages left on my talk page will be replied to on your page. Like this. As far as you Image questions, I do not deal a whole lot with Image pages. Have you read WP:IMAGE and WP:IUP? The information contained in those pages are considered guidelines. If those pages do not answer your questions, try posting your question on the Wikipedia Help Desk. Sorry, I am probably not much help but I've given you some good references here that should help solve your problems. - Rjd0060 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Images[edit]

I'm sorry you are having trouble uploading your images. I know the policies are very confusing. Here is a page dealing with some of the issues about copyright tags on non-free content. You are not alone in being confused. I haven't kept up on the changes of policies, but I have seen many other users having the same problems as you. It's very difficult finding one's way around all the policies. I'm just starting on them myself. Good luck! Jeeny 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


Image source problem with Image:MinervaReef1.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:MinervaReef1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

3
2
0

=============================

OK, I will add the URL from which this particular image came (which is one of the references already given on the page), and I'll also post somewhere [I'm not sure where] the email correspondence from the image owner, giving full permission to use it. (I probably won't get around to this for a few days. Next, I will reconsider whether or not continuing to make honest, valuable contributions is really worth the hassle -- especially regarding images for which the owners have gladly provided full permission, but Wiki robots and/or vandals persist in removing!)

=============================
References were added, along with note (and quote) re owner's permission to use. (Should I add the email source, including headers?) {{helpme}}

I don't know how to get the silly orange box removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MinervaReef1.jpg . I'm afraid that someone will accuse me of "vandalism" if I remove this erroneous and misleading (and anonymous) insertion. All I can do is add my protest. (I did so previously, without effect, so this time I jazzed it up a bit.)

P.S. If my frustration with Wikipedia is becoming evident, then your antennae are working well. After having made about a dozen contributions which were rather well-researched (and well-written, if I may say so, myself!), I'm lurching toward the final conclusion that it is not worth bothering and that sincere efforts are wasted, here.

I recommend you re-upload the image, using some sources. I don't know how to remove it, but, don't leave Wikipedia! We need you! Goodshoepd35110s 05:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I also recommend re-uploading the image. So that we don't go through all of this again, please follow these steps VERY CAREFULLY.
  1. Upload the image, using the license tag {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. DO NOT add a non-commercial "nc" code to the template.
  2. Provide as the source, the URL of the image and the name of the owner. Do not provide her email address.
  3. Have the owner of the image send an email to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org . This confirms to the Wikimedia Foundation that we do indeed have the right to use this image under a CC license. Unfortunately, they can't take it just on your word alone; it's got to come from the owner for legal reasons. The email MUST contain the following:
    1. The URL of the image
    2. A link to the image page on Wikipedia
    3. Her statement that she has licensed the image under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 license. THE LICENSE MUST NOT BE NON-COMMERCIAL. Non-commercial images are NOT accepted.
  4. Leave a note on the image's talk page that an email as been sent to OTRS to confirm the licensing. Do not include personal information.
  5. Sit back, relax, and be glad it's all over.
I'm really sorry this is so frustrating, but since Wikipedia is a free-content site, we've got to be extremely careful about copyright law. We have to have exacting information about the sources and licenses of all our images, and we can't use non-commercial images because Wikipedia's content is used on so many other sites, including commercial ones. We really do appreciate all you're trying to do, but the powers that be must have their way, or Wikipedia will not be allowed to function. Please let me know on my talk page how this turns out, or if you have any questions at all. We're here to help. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. You may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did to Intercollegiate Broadcasting System, makes it harder to read. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Martial BACQUET 21:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DeepImpact1.jpg[edit]

(NOT MY IMAGE. See Custer-DeepImpact1.jpg on "Custer Observatory" page.)

BetacommandBot 13:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Minervaflag.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Minervaflag.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Minervaflag.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Minervaflag.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:CusterSkyChart.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 12:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Custer-DeepImpact1.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:Custer-DeepImpact1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Custer-DeepImpact1.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Danski14(talk) 17:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Custer-DeepImpact1.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:Custer-DeepImpact1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Custer-DeepImpact1.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Danski14(talk) 17:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hexadecimal notation[edit]

Responded on my talk page. — Omegatron (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bruce A. Martin[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Bruce A. Martin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TNX-Man 13:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Bruce Martin hexadecimal notation proposal.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bruce Martin hexadecimal notation proposal.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bruce_Martin_hexadecimal_notation_proposal.png

Bruce Martin hexadecimal notation proposal.png

Image copyright problem with Image:Jingozian.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jingozian.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul[edit]

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Mike siegel.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mike siegel.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

United States presidential election in California, 2008[edit]

I just wanted to take this time to explain my edits to United States presidential election in California, 2008. I’ll start with the less contentious one first. In California, Alan Keyes appeared on the ballot as a candidate for the American Independent Party, not the America's Independent Party. The later is a state party in Colorado; the other is a state party in California. As for the colors: the color used everywhere in election result tables for the Libertarian Party is #FFCC00. The color for American Independent Party is #FFD700 (gold). They’re basically the same, but for the sake of consistency, I wouldn’t change them. – Zntrip 08:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues and inconsistencies in your explanation, above. I'll address them one by one.

1. You are correct that Keyes appeared in California under the party name "American Independent Party" (according to the Secretary of State's report). However, this California party is NOT the same as the national party of the same name.

2. Since they are not the same parties (regardless of name), they should not be indicated by the same color.

3. One solution would be to create a color for the state party. (In other, similar situations, the state party is given a separate color.)

3. Since the California "American Independent Party" is affiliated with a national party whose name is "America's Independent Party", another reasonable solution would be be to create a new color for this national party and use it for the California affiliate (as well as state affililiates with other names).

4. Regardless of the above, it is inconsistent and misleading to give this California party the same color as other parties that are unrelated to it (except in name).

5. I cannot understand why somebody gave the national "American Independent Party" the color "gold", in the first place. Was that an arbitrary decision? If so, why can't some other editor simply change that page and select another color? (Am I fre to do so??) Furthermore, the use of a color name ("gold") is inconsistent with the hex notations used for most other colors.

6. You said, "As for the colors: the color used everywhere in election result tables for the Libertarian Party is #FFCC00". This assertion is incorrect; other colors are, in fact, used elsewhere.

7. You say (of the two colors), "They’re basically the same, but for the sake of consistency, I wouldn’t change them". How is that an example of consistency? It is inconsistent to use indistinguishable colors for distinct parties! (When the parties are very different, as is the case here, it might be suggested that the choice of indistinguishable colors causes the reader to believe the parties are somehow related. Doing so deliberately would definitely violate NPOV.)

8. Finally, colors should be distinct for different parties, and they should be carefully chosen to avoid confusion and misrepresentation.

9. Regardless of which colors are chosen, the mapping should be specified in one place, and used consistently. (It would be helpful if there was one place to go to learn about the policies, as well as the mappings.)


I am still confused about Wikipedia. Who decides these things? Who reviews the objections to such decisions? Who has final authority? I am still confused about the "decision hierarchy" within Wikipedia.

(I also wonder at what point do good-faith attempts to make things more clear, correct, and consistent cross the line and become vewed as "vandalism".)

BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you want to make things clearer, and I am willing to work with you. As far as I am concerned there are two issues here: the name of the party that Keyes was affiliated with and the color for that party.
  • The American Independent Party and America's Independent Party are two completely different parties and there is no national equivalent. Both are state parties and America's Independent Party is not a national party.
  • In election result tables the Libertarian Party’s color is always #FFCC00 (Template:Libertarian Party (United States)/meta/color). Note that this is different from the shading color (Template:Party shading/Libertarian) which is lighter because text appears on it.
  • It doesn’t matter what the American Independence Party’s color is as long as it is consistent in all articles, including those that do not use Template:American Independent Party/meta/color, but rather the raw hex number. I am however, now convinced that the color should be changed.
To answer your more broad questions, you can look here Wikipedia:List of policies, but I have to admit that sometimes things can get confusing. Some things are done based on consensuses formed on talk pages or elsewhere and the best way to find out is to ask. Otherwise be bold and edit. There was nothing wrong with your edits to United States presidential election in California, 2008, someone (me) just wanted to discuss them. This happens occasionally but you can usually work things out with other editors. – Zntrip 23:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


Thank you very much for your reply.
I do appreciate your encouragement, but my frustration remains. And I am thoroughly confused as to how this whole thing works, where the lines of authority are, and how these fiefdoms are determined. (Please don't tell me there are no such lines! I have run into such boundaries more than a few times, in certain areas of Wikipedia.)
In particular, I am curious as to who has the authority to dictate such things as colors and shading for political parties. I really don't think random editors (such as myself) have the authority to change Democrat to "#FFCCCC" or Republican to "green". So, what are the rules for determining these mappings? (Is there some sort of consensus process? Are appeals possible? How does a novice find out what has been decided and what is open for argument?)
More importantly, how can a layman contributor (such as myself) determine what these standards actually are? (Frankly, I don't wish to waste my time in making edits that will be reverted the "authorities".)
Regarding the specific issues, I must note that your assertions are still incorrect. You said, "In election result tables the Libertarian Party’s color is always #FFCC00". That is demonstrably not the case. (See Colorado, for instance.)
I'm glad to learn that there may be some reconsideration of the selection of "gold" as a party color, but I still insist that the California ballot line should not be given the same color as the national party of the same name.
Your kind words notwithstanding, my opinion now is that the stated advice to "be bold" is overstated, and I no longer believe it applies to those dabblers (like myself) who mainly wish to improve the content or correct errors, but who are not part of the Wiki-establishment.

BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Some editors watch certain articles and have a certain way of doing things. Sometimes they’ll coordinate with other editors to form consensuses or organize WikiProject to standardize groups of articles. WikiProject Tropical cyclones is in my opinion the best example of this.

As for the political party colors, they are (I have to confess) not completely random. For foreign countries it is easier to give colors to political parties because most have an official color or something like that. For political parties in the United States the party colors used on Wikipedia are, when possible, the party colors (see the infobox for political parties: Libertarian is yellow and gold; Republican is red; Democratic is blue; Green is green). Otherwise they are random. I have no idea why the Constitution Party is pink or whatever. Basically, there are no rules but there is an existing consensus and changing one article is frowned upon because you would be breaking the consistency. Of course if you do think there should be changes you should have a good reason and be prepared to articulate it.

For a new editor like yourself my advice is if you wish to challenge something just leave a message on an applicable talk page. One editor has more authority than any other and the person with the more logical argument will win. If this still doesn’t work contact other editors to help you out.

I did take a look at United States presidential election in Colorado, 2008 and I see that #FFCC00 is used. Also, I don’t know what you mean, “I still insist that the California ballot line should not be given the same color as the national party of the same name.” If you mean the color for the American Independent Party be changed to that of America's Independent Party, I say go for it (but please change it here as well).

In conclusion I have to admit that stuff around here can be confusing and that some editors may feel protective of certain articles, but the more you edit, the more you learn. Also, the best way to change things that other editors disagree with is to communicate with them. Lastly, feel free to ask other editors for help. – Zntrip 20:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


Thanks again for your reply. (Thanks also for your patience, in dealing with my frustrations!)

You said, "One editor has more authority than any other and the person with the more logical argument will win." Was that a typo? (Did you mean "No one editor ..." ?)

You also said "... the party colors used on Wikipedia are ...Libertarian is yellow and gold; ..." If so, then why does the same color "gold" also appear for for another party on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:American_Independent_Party/meta/color/ ? Is that not a violation of the "consistency" you seek?

Would you please clarify your parenthetical mention of "the infobox for political parties" - I'd very much like to find some central reference to the colors that should be used.

Perhaps the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_political_party_colour_templates is intended as a central reference point for (U.S.) party colors. However, it is only a list of links to other pages, and does not contain a list or table (or infobox). (I might be tempted to volunteer to add such a box, but I really don't want to invest all that effort, only to find that some other editor chooses to revert the changes!)

Unfortunately, many of the colors seem to have been inserted directly into other pages, without any reference to these templates. I'm also tempted to volunteer for making these consistent with some central list; however, I also fear wasted effort and reversion, should I attempt to do so. I do understand your suggestion about consensus via discussions, etc. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any discussion page for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:United_States_political_party_election_colour_templates&action=edit


Regarding the specific confusion between AIP, A'sIP, and CA-AIP ...

You asked what I meant when I said that the California AIP ballot line "should not be given the same color as the national party of the same name.” What I meant was that the colors should be different for the national AIP and the CA-AIP -- since the latter split from the former and ran a different candidate. It is not uncommon for unrelated (or opposing) parties to have the same name in different states; in such cases, the colors should differ (even when ballot names are identical).

You also said, "If you mean the color for the American Independent Party be changed to that of America's Independent Party, I say go for it (but please change it here as well)." Well, I did change that color to be something other than "gold" (to avoid confusion with LP), but my changes were revered.

However, what I really meant was that perhaps the CA-AIP should use the same color as the new "America's Independent Party" -- however there is no such template. No, I don't think the existing AIP ("American Independent Party") template should be changed to match the colors of the "America's Independent Party" which split from it (and which has no template, anyhow).

I think the best solution would be to create a new "A'sIP" template for [[Template:America's Independent Party/meta/color] and to then use that color for the CA-AIP (despite the fact that it was listed on the California ballot with the same name as the national "AIP"). If I knew how to create such a new "A'sIP" template -- [[Template:America's Independent Party/meta/color] -- I would be willing to do so, and then to modify the CA page to use it. (However, I'd still worry about all of that being reverted! ;^)

Thanks again for you reply and explanations.


bam


P.S. Despite my persistence with the California AIP color issue, I wanted to mention that I am personally neutral as regards Alan Keyes and the fragmentation of the national AIP party. (I do confess some annoyance at the confusion sown by the deliberate similarity of party names!)

I do, however, have a strong personal/political interest in the general issue of third-parties, as well as a resentment for the cavalier manner in which they are treated by much of the "media". If I have any "axe to grind" here, it is to assure that Wikipedia treats all parties fairly and equally, without the usual bias toward the so-called "two-party system" -- rather than the usual media practice of entirely ignoring minor parties, despite theit having met met all legal requirements for listing on the ballot. I strongly feel that Wikipedia's proclaimed policy of NPOV requires inclusion of results for all ballot-qualified parties.

The use of similar colors, for different third parties, is one way in which the minor parties are not being treated neutrally by Wikipedia. Consider what would happen if some other party were to be denoted by a (randomly-chosen) shade of red or blue that appeared similar to thae ones used for the Dem. or Rep. parties. I don't think such chromatic confusion would be so quickly dismissed.

BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This thing is taking longer than I expected, but whatever. When I mean infoboxes I mean that large box at the top right of an article. So if you go here and take a look at the infobox with the logo in it and go to the bottom, you will see Color(s) Yellow or gold. You did in fact edit Template:American Independent Party/meta/color, but I reverted it because you made a mistake while editing and I didn’t know what you where doing. I’ll fix it, though. As for national / state parties having different colors, I think that there is no reason that they cannot have the same color. Since neither will appear on the same ballot, the colors will not interfere. For example, AIP and A’sIP can have the same color because they exist in different states and will never appear on the same ballot.
There are two things I should warn you about: parties have different colors for shading and for result tables. The shading colors can be found here, while the result colors don’t exist in a central location (most of them are in Category:United States political party colour templates). The shading colors are lighter because text goes on top of them, but the other set of colors can be darker. You can try sifting through them and you can make a new template similar to Template:United States political party shading to coordinate the colors. I hope this helps. – Zntrip 21:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's taking so much of your time. I do appreciate your help and thoughtful comments.

I see you point re state parties being on different pages, yet I still think it's a bit misleading to use the national party color for an unrelated state party (or a breakaway faction).

Anyhow, thanks for making the change to the AIP color. I didn't realize you had reverted my first attempt because of an error, rather than to block any color change. (I think my error was with the comment tag, but I'm still not sure what it was.)

I made a modest further change, adding a color "sample". (Hope I didn't mess that one up!)

Thanks also for removing the redirect from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Independent_Party (to the Constitution Party).

Best regards, BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Countycartredblue1024.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Countycartredblue1024.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:2008 countycartpurple1024.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:2008 countycartpurple1024.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:2008 countycartpurple1024.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:2008 countycartpurple1024.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


Image source and copyright licensing problem with Image:GrayRocks.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

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

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the image under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Mike siegel.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Mike siegel.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? (ESkog)(Talk) 23:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:GrayRocks2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:GrayRocks2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm...[edit]

When you reverted my edit for the US Presidential election, 2012, did you even check the reference?

http://www.electiondataservices.com/images/File/NR_Appor08wTables.pdf

Look at page 5. That tells you the winners and the losers. California is set to stay at 53 electoral votes, not lose one.

BrianY (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm... I see your point, now. page 5 does say 53 (+2).
Yes, I did check the reference. The map at the end clerly showed CA as losing an elector. Looking closer, now, I see that that CA and FL display numbers for an "alternative trend analysis". Since the same reference contains two differing predictions for CA and FL, we should probably fix the lists to show the alternatives (1 or 2 for FL; CA with no change or -1) and also fix the text to say "seven or eight" for the overall changes. Tripodics (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at 2012 presidential election article[edit]

I invite you to participate in the discussion about the "front runner" section here. Timmeh! 01:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Election of senators[edit]

Andrew Johnson and other pre-17th-Amendment senators were elected. They were just elected by state legislatures rather than the electorate. -Rrius (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think most readers would understand the term "elected" to mean elected by the electorate. The term "election" is generally understood to be a vote of the people.
Selection by a state legislature is not the same thing. Nor is appointment to a cabinet position or choice of a committee chair, regardless of the fact that there is a vote on it within the Congress. In both cases, it would be misleading to use the term "election" to describe the vote by legislators.
I would not object to adding a clarifying term, such as "general election", but I think it is misleading to describe Johnson's selection by the state legislature. Tripodics (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a big difference between cabinet officials and indirectly elected senators. Cabinet officials are appointed by the president and consented to by the Senate. Senators were elected by state legislatures just as presidents are elected by the Electoral College. The only Senate appointments were and are appointments by governors. In any event, I took issue with your edit summary, not the the thrust of your edit (with the exception of what I noted below). It is needlessly avoiding the word "elected" due to your misunderstanding of the word, but it is not actually wrong, so it's not worth the bother. -Rrius (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have already modified the article, to restore the word "elected" in reference to Johnson. I have made a further modification that simply refers to both ex-Presidents' serving in Congress, while reserving the word "elected" for Adams only. I hope you will not misconstrue this as "edit warring" - I think my change satisfies your concerns as well as mine. Tripodics (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I only reverted the change from "elective" to "federal" because it wasn't true. Taft served as Chief Justice after being President, and I wasn't prepared to investigate whether others had served in non-elective federal office. -Rrius (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
On further reading, I was wrong since it said "other", but that was my intent anyway. -Rrius (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
And I was wrong about "federal" because I didn't consider Taft (or Cleveland's re-election) when I chose "federal" to replace "elective". I hope you're OK with my rewording to avoid raising the issue of whether or not Johnson was "elected" (prior to the 17th amendment), and also with my reorganization of the section (to be somewhat more chronological, etc.) If not, feel free to make further revisions (which I shan't regard as "edit warring") as you see fit. Tripodics (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

About the ANSI article[edit]

Tripodics, I am writing you because you seem to have done a goodly amount of editing of ANSI. Can you help me with these two questions:

  • How many total permanent staff does ANSI have in Washington, New York and other countries? (This seems to be a well-hidden secret and it is not even discussed in their annual reports).
  • When did ANSI stop naming standards "ANSI xxxx" and start naming them American National Standards (ANS) ?

Any help or references you can give me would be greatly appreciated. mbeychok (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Mbeychok, I'm Sorry I cannot help you much with recent info about ANSI; I've had little or no involvement in standards activity since the mid-1990s (and none at all, this millenium). During the time I was active (starting in 1975), I visited the NYC offices once or twice, met a few ANSI employees, and spoke with others via telephone. However, much of the governance of ANSI was done by oversight boards and committees (such as X3, which oversaw most of the TCs that I was on), composed of people who were employed elsewhere. ANSI itself obviously had several employees, but I couldn't begin to guess the actual number. (I'm curious enough to dig around a bit, and perhaps to renew some of my old contacts; if I do get any further info, I will certainly pass it on to you -- but, no promises!)
Regarding your second question, I'm not sure I understand it fully. "ANSI" is the abbreviation for the name of the organization: "American National Standards Institute". Each standard is an "American National Standard" and its title begins with those three words, but does not include the word "Institute" -- since that is part of the name of the organization that produced/approved/published it. However, the document containing the standard may be identified as "ANSI" followed by some alphanumeric designation. Nevertheless, a standard is not an "institute" so its title begins only with "American National Standard" - e.g. "American National Standard programming Language FORTRAN"is the name of a standard; the document, published by ANSI, is designated "ANSI X3.9-1978".
(I deliberately chose this one, because it is one of those in which I am listed as co-author -- along with 69 others!) In short, "ANSI" is the standards organization and also the publisher (from which they derive much of their revenue), but the standard is better described as an "ANS" (e.g. American National Standard FORTRAN").
As you are probably aware, the name of the organization was was re-standardized a few times. For most of its early existence, it was ASA for "American Standards Association", then briefly (1966-1969) it was USASI for "United States Standards Institute". Checking my shelves, I finally found a copy of the original FORTRAN standard, which was the very first standard for a programming language. Its title is, simply, "American Standard FORTRAN" and its designation is given as "ASA X3.9-1966". The paragraph of text on page 2 begins, "An American Standard implies a consensus ...", continues later with a sentence that begins with "American Standards are subject to ...", and concludes with the words, "... in conformity with particular American Standards." On page 3, the Foreword begins, "This American Standard presents the form and the interpretation of ..." and ends with a suggestion that suggestions should be sent to "the American Standards Association, Incorporated, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016." On the back cover, is a list of documents (X3.1-1962 thru X3.12-1966) identified as "American Standards on Computers and Information Processing" followed by this statement:
For a free and complete list of the available American Standards or information in the ASA write: ..."
This is followed by the full name of the association (followed by the word "incorporated") and the address (same as above). So, you see, the word "Association" is not used in connection with the standard itself (altho it may be part of the designation for the document containg the text that defines the standard).
I found some other oldies on my shelves, with the following designations and titles:
  • ANSI/MIL-STD-1815A-1983 "American National Standard reference manual for the Ada programming language"
  • ANSI/IEEE770X3.97-1983 "American National Standard Pascal Computer Programming Language"
  • ANSI X3.113-1987 "American National Standard for Information Systems - Programming Language - full BASIC".
  • ANSI X3.159-1989 "American National Standard for Information Systems - Programming Language - C".
Sorry I couldn't find any USASI documents, but I believe they followed the same conventions: the institute (or association) is not a "standard" but the document designation may include an abbreviation for the publisher). Also, I don't think there is any problem (nor ambiguity) in referring to, say, either "the ANSI standard for ..." or "the American National standard for ...". (For ISO, however, it's quite different - especially since the words naming the organization are actually in a different order than the letters in the abbreviation! ;-)
Tripodics (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Further info regarding ANSI:

Regarding your first question, I found this page:
http://www.ansi.org/about_ansi/staff_directory/staff_directory.aspx?menuid=1
It lists a staff of about 95 people, in NY and DC locations, combined.
Tripodics (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your help. I appreciate it. I finally contacted ANSI directly and was told they had 20 staff in Washington and 79 in New York for a total of 99. mbeychok (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)



November 2012: Censorship on Presidential election page. (Mention of Benghazi incident was blocked by other editors, until after the election!)[edit]

Your recent editing history at United States presidential election, 2012 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Have you ever heard of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTARELIABLESOURCE? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


The included reference (Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις )

appears to be BOGUS, as there is no such page.

This so-called "editor" has not only reverted my factual addition to a Wikipedia page, and caused a "warning" to appear on my talk page, but also initiated an "edit war", yet the email reference to his own talk page is a broken link.

My earlier complaints had been about politically-biased suppression of any mention of valid issues in the Presidential campaign of 2012, and tendency of some "editors" seems to suppress any mention of sensitive issues -- until after the election was over. (Now, even after the election, the censorship continues -- in clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policies.)

To clarify the above reference to a broken link, here is the text of the email I receive, purporting to have been initiated by "Dr. K".

':{|

|-
|
The Wikipedia page "User talk:Tripodics" has been changed on
2012-11-11 by Dr.K., with the edit summary: Warning: Violating the
three-revert rule on United States presidential election, 2012.
(TWTW)
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tripodics&diff=next&oldid=343220431
to view this change.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tripodics&diff=0&oldid=343220431
for all changes since your last visit. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tripodics for the current
revision.
To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr.K.
Note that additional changes to the page "User talk:Tripodics" will not
result in any further notifications, until you have logged in and
visited the page.
Your friendly Wikipedia notification system
|}

'

Tripodics (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Processing[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tripodics. You have new messages at Jschnur's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NYU-Poly[edit]

Hi Tripodics, Poly logo seal has been deleted from Commons. I would appreciate if you could upload a new one. Thank you and regards.--Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a few images, and have uploaded two of them. Tripodics (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC) File:Poly-blue logo.jpeg File:Polytechnic-gold-logo.jpg

Thanks --Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the campus size of NYU-Poly's Westchester campus?--Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Poly-blue logo.jpeg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Poly-blue logo.jpeg. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

NYU-Poly article and List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people[edit]

User Marco Guzman, Jr is vandalising both articles.--MUMMYMAN (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Best Regards,--MUMMYMAN (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I ADDED A LOT OF NEW UPDATED INFORMATIONS--MUMMYMAN (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

MUMMYMAN, his sockpuppets, and I go way back (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000/Archive). Best no to pay much attention to these messages, but thanks for the heads up. Regards. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  06:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Judgejimgray onthebench.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Judgejimgray onthebench.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


WikiProject C/C++[edit]

Greetings, I've noticed your interest in articles relating to C/C++ and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject C/C++, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to C and C++. If you're interested, please consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. --—Sowlos

Source list of possible use for editing SAT[edit]

Hi, Tripodics,

I have a weekly "journal club" meeting with behavior geneticists during the school year, so I get where you are coming from in your recent edits on SAT, but to win over other editors you will have to review WP:RS to find sources that are absolutely above reproach. Fortunately, I can help with that, as I have a [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations | source list] related to various human mental ability tests, including the SAT, which you can use to edit that or any other article. (And if you know of other sources to add to the source list, feel free to suggest those on the talk pages for the source list and its subpages.) The point is probably correct, although there may also be an issue of emphasis to consider, but I am just one of dozens of editors who now react really strongly to new additions of article content that aren't extremely well sourced. Improving Wikipedia sourcing is going to be one of the best ways to improve Wikipedia over the long haul. More effort today finding the best sources builds a better encyclopedia for tomorrow. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Please don't post on my user page, it's not my talk page.

The standards for verifiability on Wikipedia are quite clearly defined at WP:V. Basically, all facts should be cited to a reliable, independent, third-party published source, generally a written one. Self-knowledge, word of mouth, rumor, etc. are not verifible. Yworo (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

1. The reference you supplied says: What counts as a reliable source[edit] Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) the creator of the work (for example, the writer) the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.

2. Since I am the creator of the work (i.e. the writer of the statement that has been quoted), it would therefore seem that my edit is "verifiable". Furthermore, there is ample independent, third-party verification for its inclusion in the proceedings of the meeting; only the authorship has remained unspecified, and I have decided to "go public" and admit to my authorship of the document in question.

3. If, therefore, your reversion was incorrect, I would appreciate your reversing it. Otherwise, i again ask you to advise me as to what further "verification" might be needed (beyond the above), to allow the facts (regarding authorship) to be disclosed in Wikipedia. (I shall bow to your superior knowledge regarding Wikipedia standards, and not revert what i now consider to be an incorrect reversion, but I do ask you to specify what would constitute a sufficient "verification" -- beyond what is stated in the reference you gave -- or, failing that, to at least tell me what is lacking in the verification information that I have already supplied.)

4. Again, my apologies for having communicated with you in an inappropriate manner. I would greatly appreciate your advice as to how an editor should respond, after receiving an email such as this one, which appeared in my email input folder.

  • Your edit on Fortran has been reverted by Yworo.

Tripodics (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to decide to "go public" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia sources from published material. Feel free to "go public" on your own web site, wait for it to be covered in third-party published reliable sources, and then you can cite those sources. You aren't really getting it: everything in an encyclopedia must be based on available, previously published sources. There are no published sources which give the name of the author. No you do not get to promote yourself on Wikipedia! Yworo (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jimmy McMillan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael McDermott. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Suffolk-community-college-western-campus.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Suffolk-community-college-western-campus.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Tripodics. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Tripodics. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)