User talk:Waldir/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

KK Partizan

Hey. I'm quite alright, thanks. :) I'll definitely come to Alex. Košarkaški Klub Partizan is simply Basketball Club Partizan. I hope that's what you meant. Cheers and Happy New Year :) --Filip (§) 23:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in Titanic (1997 film)

Hey, I just read your comment here. I would have never even thought to check that IP's talk page again if I didn't see him or her editing the Titanic (1997 film) article again. Anyway, do you know who redirected the List of characters in Titanic (1997 film) article to the Titanic (1997 film) article? The List of characters in Titanic (1997 film) article survived two deletion debates, and I feel that it was kind of abrupt and off to just redirect that article, without discussion, given that fact. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored. I'll inform the editor who redirected that article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

jintang island

I can't read Chinese either so I don't know what's written in the article.Wai Hong (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Oh man. I am fond of math... but I dropped topology because I have the geometric visualization skills of boiled cabbage, so I don't think I could give you a decent explanation of that! Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sengbe Pieh

I like your edit of my edit in the Joseph Cinque article. Thank you. How did you come to be interested in that article? This was my first wikipedia contribution. I would like to upload an image of the 5000 leone note, but I guess that is a no-no? Jim B. Jimbaum (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Davos Question

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated Davos Question, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davos Question and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Interesting, do you know any people who would be interested in joining the WikiProject? Because I supposed that we would have to practically lead the project. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand, managing the project would be a big task. No I don't know any people who could contribute off the top of my head, but as you say, we could look for people who edited Goa and Goan information articles, and ask them to join. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that sounds cool, what was the first article you had in mind to improve? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Admittedly I don't know much Fontainhas, but I'll do my best. What others Goa related articles did you want to put on the short list? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps maybe an article about the Portuguese influence in Goa? Such as the presence on Roman Catholicism, and the churches? And the influence of Portuguese cooking and ingredients in Goan cuisine? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair point. Do you want to start next week, as I'm going on holiday tomorrow? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok talk to you in a week! While I'm gone you may as well take the inactive sign off WikiProject Goa and put our names on the user list. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm back now, so Fontainhas.... do you reckon you could give me a translation of it from Portuguese? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice start. There's a tag somewhere that says "work in progress" to stop other editors deleting the article, I'll try to find it. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Better safe than sorry. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Capeverde.jpg

Nuvola apps important blue.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Capeverde.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, 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 03:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC). 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? Kelly hi! 03:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your warning. I find it's an odd coincidence that Commons' user Hautala decided to upload again the original image you uploaded, this time to Commons, with full source info, just in time to avoid permanent loss. (??!!) By the way, I hope you like the music of Cesária Évora. Regards, --AVM (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


I don't see why not. I haven't read the book, but if it states that is the entity, by all means insert it. The caption would just have to state that it is a manifestation or one form of the OAA. Nice work!

Asgardian (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Artiletra.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Artiletra.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sleep (Onset) Latency

Thanks for your comment! It prodded me to take another look, and I've discovered that either Sleep latency or Sleep Onset Latency is redundant. They should be combined. I think I'll just be bold and move the info from the former to the latter. I know that in sleep research, the short form SOL is used - so your title is likely the better one.

If you, like me, are interested in Sleep, you may take a look at my private project page, my Sandbox. --Hordaland (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sleep latency > Sleep Onset Latency, done. Including all the inline links I could find. --Hordaland (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Korean texture for puzzle logo projects

Image:Hangul wi.svg :) --Kjoonlee 23:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

re:Template deletion

It was moved from Template:Cape Verde/Islands to Template:Islands of Cape Verde. The same happened to Template:Cape Verde/Municipalities to Template:Municipalities of Cape Verde. Ten Islands (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello. Right, flag-maps of island nations are quite problematic, feel free to change it back. - Darwinek (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Friendly AI

Essentially the first goal driven General Self Improving AI wins. Because it is powerful enough to prevent any other AI emerging, in particular which might compete with its own goals. Rich Farmbrough, 17:55 8 June 2008 (GMT).

WP:INDIA Tagging for WP:Goa with TinucherianBot

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Goa#WP:INDIA_Tagging_with_TinucherianBot. Your attention and help is requested .You are receiving this note as you are the member of the project -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 12:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Goa bot

Did you get the message too? I'd like to help out but I don't understand what this bot does? Do you reckon you could explain it to me simply? P.S I've been working on Goan cuisine since we last talked. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, your explanation is a lot clear Speedboy Salesman (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


Yes, I had seen it, but just at a glance. Now that you’ve caught my attention, I will try to dig in. What exactly is it? A dictionary? A glossary? Or a cross-reference list of words spelled in the same way? Ten Islands (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Heliotrope images

Waldir: I got your message about the heliotrope images. I used heliotrope2.jpeg in the article (actually, I cropped it and contrast enhanced it to to make heliotrope2-2.jpeg, uploaded that to Commons, and used that). That photo matches the description (77.5 in^2 mirror) of the one used for the 192-mile shot, and is from a collection named after the man who took the 192 mile shot, so I updated that section of the text and mentioned the possibility in the caption. However, I'm vastly more interested in heliographs than heliotropes, so I don't plan to do much more with the Heliotrope article. If anyone is interested, there's lots of information in the links I added that could be used to expand the article. By the way, I was tempted to swap out the first photo for your updated photo of the Gauss instrument, especially since Gauss's heliotrope is mentioned in the article (and the Wiki Gauss article links here). However, the classic Gauss heliotrope engraving is very confusing, and that one that you chose as the lead image is much more comprehensible.Macchess (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Heliotrope / Heliograph pages

Waldir: Yes, bringing the Heliograph page up to "Feature Article" standard is a good goal for me. I'm sifting through tons of material, and expect to be able to greatly improve the content, then polish the editing, then clean up the aesthetics. Thanks for the touchup on the references and the etymology in the Heliotrope article - I had been looking for the Greek for "Helio". I have promptly copied it over to the Heliograph article. And another Wikipedian found a typo on the Heliograph page, which I fixed. Regarding heliotrope2-2.jpg - for those old B&W photos - I find that a good tone mapping algorithm like "Enhance-> Adjust Lighting-> Shadows / Highlights" in Photoshop Elements can be a great help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macchess (talkcontribs) 09:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Heliograph photo

Waldir: I added a great photo to illustrate the Heliograph article - an 1898 image of the US Signal Service type. I put it next to the discussion of the origin of that type. I put black paper behind the magazine page when I scanned it, which helps prevent bleedthrough of the text on the reverse. Check out the full resolution scan! It seems some late 1890s "Photoshop" work was done prior to printing - there is a distinct "engraving" quality to the background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macchess (talkcontribs) 06:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

>Hi Macchess. I just checked the image, it's excellent! I added a template to see if someone so inclined would do a cleanup in the pattern in the background. Look at the links in that template, or see this image (previous version) for an example of what can be done.
I agree that this descreening wsa a vast improvement in your island example, and I see that someone has already applied a "noise reduction" so the most current version of the heliograph image on Wikimedia has the pattern removed, but I prefer the original heliograph image. Much of the "noise" that was removed was not noise, nor the usual annoying Moire half-tone screening of today, but painstaking 19th century art (hand engravure) like we still use on US paper currency or stamps. Look in particular at the bottom of the original image - after the photo was taken, and before printing, an artist replaced the background (grass?) with hand engraving, The "noise reduction" has obliterated the engraving. Since this is a PD image, folks can do as they wish, but I'd prefer to link my earlier version in the Wikipedia article: is there some code for linking to the earlier version of the media? If not, I can simply upload my original again under a new name, such as "AmericanHeliograph1898withEngravedBackground.jpg", with a pointer to the other one for folks who prefer the "photonaturalistic" version vs. the "engravure" version. That sort of feels like the Wikipedia thing to do - it gives Wikimedia users more easy choices -any other suggestions?
> It was also a nice idea to upload new versions of the other images, cropped to better show the detail of the instrument.
Thanks. It seems a bit wasteful to create an entirely separate record - at a minimum there should be clear cross-linking amongst the variants. Also, it seems I didn't manage to get the "Categories" tag in on the first crop, and none of the "link' fields are indicating the Wikipedia use. I would have thought the links would be filled in automatically - is that done by hand?
>As for Image:Heliotrope2-2.jpg, I edited it to remove the scratches, as I said. Tell me what you think. -Waldir talk 12:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent job, thanks! For the dust removal - did you use an automated tool ("dust & scratches"), semi-automated ("healing brush"), manual ("cloning stamp") or a combination?Macchess (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
>I'll ask him whether he can reprocess the image to remove only the halftone pattern from the printing, leaving the engraving alone.
I think that could be done, though it seems like a lot of work. I reuploaded the original, under the name: AmericanHelio1898Engraving.jpg and changed the Wikipedia:Heliograph link to that instead. If one did want to take a second try at the low-pass version, I think the trick is to mask off the part you don't want descreened. To my eye, pretty much the only thing that wasn't turned to engravure were the men and the trees, and the most noticable suggestion of half-tone pattern is on the faces and the trees. I think the tripod legs were changed to engravure, and that the engraver may have tried to add back a few creases on the arm of the rightmost man.
>On the other hand, the image without the engraving actually does look more photo-realistic, as you say, and perhaps we could upload a new one without the engraving. The version you uploaded should keep it, for historic consistency. The one without it should be uploaded with anew name, instead.
Done, new file is Image:AmericanHelio1898Engraving.jpg, and I referenced the prior one for those favoring a photorealistic look.
>Finally, you make a very good point on the cropped versions of images. It would be cool if you could choose a subset of an image to be displayed, kind of a viewbox, instead of uploading a new image, which you have to indicate the source by hand, otherwise is a completely different image to the software.
Yes, some code like [[[Image:Heliograph (1)-2.jpg|Crop(150H,200V,200Wide,150High)]]. However, making the crop a new image gets the job done.
>The categories are, though. Could you please indicate which of the images was the troublesome one so I can verify why it wasnt categorized?
Looking at it, mainly because: the category "Heliographs" was not automatically suggested (perhaps since my text used the term "heliograph" rather than "heliographs", and I didn't hand-input it in aftr the autogenerate. I went back and fixed it. The file was: Image:Heliograph (1)-2.jpg, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macchess (talkcontribs) 03:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

dab suggestions

Hallo, I noticed we were falling over each other around the Aeschbachers! I tend just to add in the odd name which I come across while looking at the search links provided, and which seems so near as to be dangerous - Aebi/Aeby, the problem of umlauts, anything which seems very easily confused! The project is addictive - I keep saying "just another couple of names...". Some of them get complicated and you end up wandering around Wikipedia sorting things out, but it's all good constructive stuff. When I look at the WP search, I tend to include one or two people who have the name as a forename, but not usually those where it's a middle name... but I'm not 100% consistent. If I hit a name which is common as a forename, rather than input the whole lot I've sometimes made a link as at Abed. Good luck with the project: it's fascinating, like doing an infinite jigsaw puzzle. PamD (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help with the Abed link - much neater. PamD (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Aeq., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. CultureDrone (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad that got cleared up right. (And thanks for the fix on the section header above, too!) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I know what you're saying, but I can't see how this article, which already exists in Wiktionary, can benefit Wikipedia. Secondly, doesn't that therefore imply that (taken to the extreme) all and any articles in Wiktionary could be created as soft redirects within Wikipedia ? I'm not going to lose sleep over this, it just seems.....inconsistent when comparing it to the guidelines on other articles with no encyclopedic content. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
But your extreme results in the loss of information, whilst my extreme of having every possible word and phrase in every Wiki results in excessive links, but no loss of information. My own view would be to only have a link to wiki B from wiki A if and only if there was a suitable article in Wiki A in the first place - i.e. not create articles (which is, in effect, what the soft redirect does) with a link to wiki B and no other content. If, in this instance, 'aeq.' had had an entry in Wiktionary with some encyclopedic content, then no problem - my issue is with creating an article with no encyclopedic content, but just a redirect to another wiki. Anyway, we can agree to disagree :-) CultureDrone (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Lol. I didn't mean to sound annoyed about it :-) I understand what you mean and, I'm not going to argue about it (especially with an admin !). I'll check for the {{wi}}'s next time - it's just in this case, it appeared like a no-brainer speedy delete :-)

No hard feelings ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your userboxes say you're an admin on the Portuguese Wiki... If you're not an admin, just take it as a compliment ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hybomitra

Thanks for adding Hybomitra hinei to the Hybomitra page.

However, brackets on authors are for when the animal was originally described under a different genus, Hybomitra hinei was named by Johnson as Tabanus hinei, as it has moved genus Johnson should be bracketed, had is stayed in Tabanus it would not, Dias describel alegrei in the genus Hybomitra, it has not moved genus, hence no brackets on Dias's name.

Keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark-mitchell-aldershot (talkcontribs) 23:54, 3 October 2008

Re: the links to the other authors you added, sorry, I missed those and have now restored them. I congratulate you on finding these links in the first place. (I have added Surcouf to List of entomologists).
On the "Uncommented the subphylum field" - I'm with you there, but not prepared to get all the grief from those that feel their should only be Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family & Genus in taxoboxes. See my talk page. Mollusca used to be my field, and for most families in orders like that, these are fine. But in many very large insect groups (Diptera, Coleoptera etc.) these are not enough, and as an entomologist I need to know all the detail below Order. I know it's complex
I have put the commas back & changed the alphabetical order in caucasi/caucasica, again something you correctly added that I missed.
Mark-mitchell-aldershot (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Section length, Book titles, et al.

Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


It doesn't really take long to look through recent edits, the block log, and then pressing a button. :) In addition, by being an admin on other projects, I guess I don't need to explain when and when not to use rollback and where to practice using it. :) Good luck. Acalamari 23:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Fire Fighters (disambiguation)

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Fire Fighters (disambiguation), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ZOMG BBQ 13:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This thing has been deleted before? Check his contribs? II MusLiM HyBRiD II ZOMG BBQ 13:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ooops. I see Where I Got Lost. You made a Fire Fighter disamb, I made a mistake it for your previous firefighters disam. Lol, My bad. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ZOMG BBQ 14:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty Then. Happy Editing! /\ _ /\ II MusLiM HyBRiD II ZOMG BBQ 14:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

moving nobility

Hi there,

I see that you have been busy moving noble titles such as the Duke of Alba or Osuna. I had to revert all your moves. Please read upon this policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), if you have further questions feel free to contact me. Sincerely Gryffindor 01:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Waldir, thanks for your message. Yes Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester is not the named Prince Richard, 2nd Duke of Gloucester because he is a royal, in this case the article is treated differently. The naming convention I am referring to concerns nobility alone. Please see the format such as John Spencer-Churchill, 11th Duke of Marlborough, Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset, Henry Devereux, 14th Viscount Hereford, even down to a simple William Paulet, 4th Marquess of Winchester or Reginald Welby, 1st Baron Welby. Sincerely Gryffindor 20:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Hm, I understand the problem with the middle names. I would say in that case look at the Spanish Wiki to see if they shortened it somehow. The only obvious case where the name was shortened that I know of the top is this article Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart, 18th Duchess of Alba. Sincerely Gryffindor 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Images for bio

Hi. Some time ago you asked me about this tool. I'm re-programming the code, so, it would be available soon. I hope with tons of images to put, and with new features thanks to AJAX. Cheers! Emijrp (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope it runs better now. Link. Regards. Emijrp (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi Waldir,

I've nominated several categories you've created for deletion and upmerging. I did this because they are overcategorization per wikipedia's policies. If you disagree, feel free to comment on them here. Thanks--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Links to lyricwiki

Hi. :) I just wanted to let you know that I've deleted the link to lyricwiki from the article Loungin per WP:LINKVIO. Unfortunately, the website violates copyrights of lyricists, so we can only link to songs that are released into public domain or verifiably licensed for display. As noted here, they no longer make any effort to secure the rights of copyright holders, but instead shelter under DMCA. Sometimes sites like MTV do host lyrics with permission, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently, MTV looks like our best hope. :) They've been adding more diverse lyrics, and maybe someday they'll be able to compete with the extralegal sites. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)