Slideshow
editTake a look at what User:Aaron Brenneman has done with Image:Pompeii Fresco 002.jpg (just an early prototype awaiting encouragement right now). How useful do you think this might be in showcasing graphics? --- Charles Stewart 19:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
RFA
editHello - thanks very much for your message on my talk page. I definitely respect anyone who checks into any "oppose" votes that they might receive. In this case, I accidently used your name instead of the person I am agreeing with (PS2pcGAMER). I have now fixed my comment on that page. I'm very sorry for the inconvenience and confusion. I wish you the best however this poll turns out. Johntex\talk 01:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I will allow that you *may* be correct about the templates. It is something I have also struggled with. The reasoning I have settled with (for the moment) is: (1) If caught quickly, the IP address is likely to be still in use by the vandal, and a one-off vandal is likely to be surprised by the notice that they have messages so that they will at least go and read the warning (2) Even if the IP address now belongs to someone new, seeing the warning message might prompt them to get an account. The more people we have editing from sign-in accounts (and the fewer anonymous editors we have) the better, in my opinion. I am certainly not saying we shouldn't allow anonymous editing, but if we can give people some nudges towards logging in, so much the better, I think. Therefore, I agree that this reasoning is not fool-proof, but I am sticking with it for now. :-)
- As to the edit summaries, I have become sort of a stickler about that issue. It is such a pain to look at your watchlist and have no idea what an edit was. Also, when patrolling RC (recent changes), a lack of an edit summary is one thing that is used to indicate potentially suspicious changes. The fact that the edit may have been entirely proper does not remove the fact that several people may have spent time to go check it out.
- If by chance your nomination is unsuccessful, and if you would like to try again in the not-so-distant future, I would change my vote if you consistently use edit summaries for the next month, and state that you intend to continue using them in the future. Johntex\talk 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
My goal was cleaning up the category, and finding better homes for as many articles as possible. I had to make judgement calls, and in this case the easy answer was that, instead of a different home, this article didn't really belong in the Fic Char cat at all. By your comments, it's obviously not that simple. In the end, though, I don't have a strong opinion on the Wilder article itself. It's the Fic Char cat that concerns me. To that end, I would ask that if it needs to get returned to a fictional cat, it be placed in Category:Characters in written fiction rather than the basic Fic Char cat. IMHO, the Fic Char cat should have few, if any entries directly in it, all entries should be down in the sub-cats. The few entries that remain after my recent purge of the cat are those for which I cannot figure out a better home down the sub-cats. - TexasAndroid 15:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Homeschooling project
editHello, My name Master Scott Hall (you can call me Scott). I am relatively new contributing to Wikipedia, though I have been a user of it for some time. I am currently soliciting for interest in a Wikiproject that I have proposed on the subject of homeschooling. Before finding Wikipedia, my wife and I were seriously considering, but not quite convinced, to home educate our children.
After discovering the depth, scope, and long-term goals of Wikipedia, as well as the individuals driving it, I am convinced that WP has the potential to revolutionize homeschooling. I am also convinced that home education is the right choice for my family. I have, however, been somewhat discouraged by the oversight of home education in most of the education related projects on WP. There are many potential reasons for this discrepency, but I have resolved to try to do something about it.
Although I personally have very limited experience in building complex Wikiprojects, -templates, -portals, etc., I am confident that the right team can be assembled to tackle these issues. I would like to invite you to join this effort to make Wikipedia the resource for the home education of our children. If you are interested, please visits the temporary project page I have set up. Thank you --Master Scott Hall 21:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Update: The proposed project on Homeschooling was met with a very positive response. As a result, the project has been ugraded to an official WikiProject and can be found at WikiProject Alternative education. We have several experienced Wikipedians on board, as well as some new faces. We still need contributors with backgrounds in education, education theory and philosophy, and specific alternative education methods, such as homeschooling, charter schools, and E-learning from both teacher and student perspectives. There is also a lack of quality resources regarding anti-alternative education issues. If are interested in contributing or just have an interest, please visit the project page, or if you prefer, ask us a question. Thank you again, Master Scott Hall 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I asked for the above userfyication.
Did you have any thoughts on Aaron's #Slideshow technology? --- Charles Stewart 02:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations!
editCongratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 18:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations!
editCongratulations on being promoted. You'll make a fine admin. - Haukur 18:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations; even though I voted against you based on edit summary usage, you still passed, and hopefully will enjoy your new
rolemop. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, and you're very welcome! I'll just delete the page; it's no big deal. --King of All the Franks 20:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Congratulations, and feel free to conteact Me anytime. -- Eddie 20:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to see you made it. Saves you the effort of doing this again next month. NoSeptember talk 20:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations. You'll be a good admin. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hoozah! - Well done! --Irishpunktom\talk 23:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Happy Holidays ... errrr.... I mean Congratulations on the promotion, admin. feydey 07:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, that's excellent news! I'm sorry I didn't vote, I didn't know that you were up for consideration. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
sig
editDsmdgold, you forgot to sign your support at Haukur's RFA (or, actually, I think you signed with five ~s instead of four). If you fix it yourself the bureaucrat will probably prefer that to someone else adding an {{unsigned}}, so I haven't done it. Thanks. Chick Bowen 21:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMattUncropped.jpg
edit
|
This image may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMattUncropped.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion★talk 03:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that this image was still here. It was uploaded as part of FP debate with the intention of deleting it as soon as the debate was finished. Although the manuscript by itself is (IMO) eligible for {{PD-art}}, this image isn't because of the surroundings. A cropped version of the image that only has the central PD portion already exists on WP (and is a FP). Dsmdgold 03:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
This is to invite you to participate in the next game of Wikifun.
Round 12 will begin at 11:00 UTC on Friday January 20. 2006.
-- Ravn 17:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Featured Picture
edit |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Sitta-carolinensis-001.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~
|
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 05:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- No consensus defaults to keep. It does not preclude merging or redirection. Full stop. If people want the article back so badly, they can undo the redirect/merge (if the closing admin happens to be in a merging mood). If people want the article merged and redirected so badly, they can undo the default keep (if the closing admin didn't happen to be in a merging mood).
- I don't really see your point. Address the merits of the closure, and ignore who the closer is. Johnleemk | Talk 13:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
My dear Dsmdgold
editMy dear Dsmdgold, please allow me to send you my (very belated) congratulations for your recent promotion to admin. It was truly a pleasure to support such a fine editr as you - and I swear I had no idea at the time that you were an Oklahoman yourself! Thank you so much for pointing me the List of Registered Historic Places in Oklahoma; there is much to add there yet, and I'll have a go at it as soon as I overcome my RC addiction... Your idea to create an article for Quanah Parker Star House is great also - that one, is a project I'll get started immediately. Please, if I can ever be of help to you, or if you drop by OKC, just let me know. Nice to meet you, Dsm! Kisses, - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 01:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
== Good work ==
Kudos for all the great stuff you added to Wikipedia. I just want to draw your attention to Trebizond Gospel, Kiev Psalter of 1397, and Ostromir Gospel . I started these pitiable stubs several months ago but noone has edited these since then. It's very frustrating. I also started Chludov Psalter today. --Ghirla | talk 15:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I did, indeed, pinch the Oklahoma list for a baseline. ;-) Glad you liked it; I'll see if I can dig up some additional familial descriptions. - Aerobird 01:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Please tell me why the heck it's "irrelevent"[sic]?
edit[1] AnonMoos 13:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, you had your reasons, but it might have been nicer if you had given some indication of this, rather than just throwing in the single uninformative and misapplied word "irrelevent"[sic]... AnonMoos 18:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Codices
editNeither the Codex Vaticanus nor the Codex Amiatinus are illuminated manuscripts.
- "Although not an illuminated manuscript, such as the Book of Kells or the Lindisfarne Gospels, the Codex Amiatinus has several full-page illustrations, the design of which were influenced by the Codex Grandior of Cassiodorus that had been brought to Monkwearmouth and Jarrow by Ceolfrith, himself, in AD 678 but now lost. " [2]
You can look at the Catholic Encyclopedia entry or google the words "Codex Vaticanus" and "Illuminated manuscript" to notice no page calling the former the latter. I'm have re-added the Category:manuscript, but I have not reverted your addition yet to see if I have missed anything. So why do you think these codices are illuminated?--Andrew c
- Fair enough, do you mind having both cats on each entry then?--Andrew c 02:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
DYK
edit
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article La Cava Bible, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Gallery of Mount Rushmore images
editI've already put a notice to transwiki at the top of the gallery, but I got no response. So I did it myself and I nominated for deletion which outcome was to speedy delete it. Anyway, the gallery was not more than a list of different pictures with no explanation or introduction at all. The page at commons which the article links to looks the same. CG 12:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
That was quick then!
editThanks for your speedy work in deleting a mess I had made on Category Scots-Irish American actors. Well spotted - I had asked an admin to delete it just after I'd created it, and he was able to tell me that you'd beaten him to it! :) Cheers. --Mal 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Template substitution
editIt is suggested that you subsitute warning templates on user talk pages, which I see you haven't been doing. Royboycrashfan 
14:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Incerta cedis
editIncerta cedis mean that the placement is unclear. It is not a genus name by itself. It is added as a clarification that the placement of that genus at the spot where it is placed is uncertain so that people know that uncertainty. By the rules of the [www.iczn.org|ICZN], each species HAS to have a binomial name. If you look at the page of the AOU, they give this information:
Genus INCERTAE SEDIS
- Coereba flaveola Bananaquit.
This means that the placement of the genus is uncertain, but that the genus name is still Coereba. It is somewhat confusing as you can read that the name is INCERTAE SEDIS.
But more important, the page on the banaquit was not providing the same information. I have now updated both to reflect the issue better. I hope this clarifies. KimvdLinde 20:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Another argument to make clear that there are different ideas is that the AOU position is not accepted by everybody. Anyway, I think this is better as it is, maybe it needs some style stuff, but that is not my strongest point.KimvdLinde 21:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Now commons
editEven if you have replaced all of the uses, having a version on both Commons and Wikipedia is not a speedy criterion, nor is being an orphan. Send it to Images and media for deletion. Dsmdgold 20:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Please point me to where this policy is written down. Looking at Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons#Note to Admins suggests to me that admins can wade into that category and just do deletions - subject of course to all the necessary checks. (Orphans, yes - they usually do need IfD.) -- RHaworth 02:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Huntington Library images
editHi Dsmdgold, on October 6, 2005 you uploaded a photograph of a 15th century manuscript frontpiece of Epitres D’Ovide, translated by Octavien de Saint-Gelais. Although this book is almost pre-Columbian the photograph is not free of copyright as Huntington Library emphasises on its Copyright page. I wrote therefore to Mrs. Mary L. Robertson, Curator of Manuscripts, San Marino, The Huntington Library, on May 3, 2006, 10:29 a.m. (CEST):
Dear Mrs. Robertson,
I am a co-worker of the free internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia (http://en.wiki.x.io)
and I want to ask you for Huntington Library's friendly permission to use the
following picture according to "GFD licence" (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/GFDL):
Call Number: HM 60
Folio: 1
Description: Frontispiece with a profile portrait of Ovid.
URL: http://dpg.lib.berkeley.edu/webdb/dsheh/heh_brf?Description=&CallNumber=HM+60
This photograph had been uploaded to the Wikipedia image data pool by a regrettable
oversight already on October 6, 2005. Please excuse our overlooking this matter.
We shall delete this picture, of course, if you cannot grant a licence.
Many thanks for your efforts in advance!
Yours sincerely
--Bogart99 09:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, Huntington does assert a copyright indeed. According to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York you're right, of course... inside the USA. But there's a little big problem. European copyright laws are much stricter. Not even the Huntington, but the photographer's heirs would hold the copyright for 70 years after the photographer's death in Germany, for instance. A lot of copyright infringement lawsuits are won by US companies and institutions in Europe, which they would have lost in Wisconsin or Arizona, and European courts quote the corresponding US decisions as some exotic and amusing findings at the utmost. It's like fireworks at daylights - as Oscar Wilde said - if you wikify jpegs that can be used in the US (298,5 million) smoothly but hardly in the rest of the world (6,22 billion). --Bogart99 07:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You closed this debate as "no consensus" when it had run for less than 9 hours after being reopened. Isn't that not a lot of time to develop a consensus? AnonEMouse 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Snakes
editYou've obviously made a lot of useful contributions to Wikipedia, so I'm really disappointed that you seem so bent on vandalizing my work. It would be more polite of you to argue the point here, instead of just taking unilateral action and expecting me to obediently follow suit with the rest. In case you haven't already noticed, most of the Wikipedia snake articles use scientific names already. That's just the way snake people like it. --Jwinius 19:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Oklahoma historic places
editThanks for placing lists of historic places in various Oklahoma counties. I have added at least those from OKC, Tulsa, and Stillwater to the history section of WikiProject Oklahoma. Hopefully we can encourage some contributions with these =) Ash Lux 11:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Also, please use the mediawiki way of generating tables instead of html (see Help:Table). Ash Lux 11:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Galician-Portuguese
editHello, Dsmdgold. I would apreciate your help moving the article Portuguese-Galician to Galician-Portuguese, as this medieval language is widely known. I have bibliography and references for the change in Talk:Portuguese-Galician. Thank you for advance! --Garcilaso 11:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Invitation to new WikiProject
editSorry to disturb, but am wishing to take a moment of your time for something I hope will be of interest. I'd like to invite you to join a new WikiProject I've started, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Should you feel so inclined, please feel free to join. And spread the word to any other interested parties. :) -Ebyabe 20:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Image:VirgiliusRomanusFolio14rVergilPortrait.gif listed for deletion
editAn image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:VirgiliusRomanusFolio14rVergilPortrait.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. Conscious 18:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC) - Conscious 18:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I am sending this out to wikiart folks everywhere,
editso please don't feel picked on. Here's my thing. I've been watching list of sculptors recently and have been weeding out the entries in red on the theory that this is an index of sculptors in wikipedia. However i have been reluctant to remove artists that I know or discover to be real, wikipedia worthy people, so am trying to decide if i should just do a stub - maybe a lot of stubs - of these folks or leave them on the list [I HATE lists with too much red - check out the List of Frank Lloyd Wright works for example.
For example, i checked out one, François-Joseph Duret (1804 - 1865) and discovered that there are at least two sculptors with that name, (1732 - 1816) and (1804 - 1865)- this one is the son - and both probably could comfortably be in wikipedia. I did have a rather bad moment recently when someone DELETED my article on Connor Barrett about an hour [maybe less] after I first posted it, on the theory that he was not wikiworthy [or something] and a lot of these fairly remote (in time and place from me) artists are a lot more obscure than Barrett. So, i would like to know that i have the support of the wikipedia art history community before doing this. Drop me a line, if you wish to sit down and be counted. Life is good, Carptrash 05:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. although i do mostly American art i have contributed to lots on non-American articles including Aleijadinho, Ásmundur Sveinsson, Einar Jonsson, Gunnfrídur Jónsdóttir, Henry Moore, Ivan Meštrović, Ørnulf Bast, Rayner Hoff, and probably some others. I say this because most of the stubs I'm proposing would be Europeans.
ChefMoz on deletion review
editAn editor has asked for a deletion review of ChefMoz. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. orlady 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Persephone (band)
editYou deleted the article Persephone (band) on 7 May this year following an AFD discussion. The page has now been recreated, but still doesn't seem to say anything that meets the bar of notability for Wikipedia. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Zaxem 01:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)