User talk:Speck-Made

Hello, Speck-Made, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --StuffOfInterest 12:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:AlbinoGraySquirrel.jpg, by ACupOfCoffee (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:AlbinoGraySquirrel.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:AlbinoGraySquirrel.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:AlbinoGraySquirrel.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted that you made contributions to the U of S article, a new subarticle has been started...University of Saskatchewan Academics which is in progress. Will use its sections for the U of S template, until full college articles are written. Working on a push to get the U of S to A status then to Feature... Invitation if you want to help out... SriMesh | talk 03:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that you've made a bunch of changes (example) to templates such as Template:ShouldBePNG, changing [[GIF]] to [[Graphics Interchange Format|GIF]] etc. It's probably best not to do this, because the user may not immediately realize that "GIF" signifies "Graphics Interchange Format". Rather, just leave it as a link to the GIF page so that users will see "Redirected from GIF" and understand more clearly why they were brought to the Graphics Interchange Format page when they clicked "GIF".

Of course, what you did would be fine if GIF and PNG were disambiguation pages. But they're redirects, not disambiguations pages, and linking to redirects is usually just fine. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to make it a disambiguation page; that's why I did.

Also I think it's more clear like this: This way you can already tell that "GIF" signifies "Graphics Interchange Format" without having to follow the link, even without having internet access: Move your mouse pointer over the link, for example.--Speck-Made 04:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many people do you think actually do that, or even know that that feature is there? And how likely is it that someone is going to be using an online encyclopedia and not be able to click a link to a related page? Both are highly unlikely. It's simpler for everyone to just make use of redirects. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I just know that I'm doin it myself and I think that Wikipedia shouldn't be bound to online usage. I think of direct links as the cleaner solution and see links to redirects as an intermediate solution, that doesn't hurt much, but that should be eliminated in the long term - except for some special cases like links on lemmata that redirect to a main article. Thats also what the rules on the german WP say; for the english version I didn't look yet. And in my eyes there are more advantages to it: With the direct link you don't get double redirects that easily, it is more likely that the linking article uses what is most likely to be the correct title of the linked article, the structure of the database is clearer ... I don't think it's a big improvement, but so far I think it's better that way and I don't see much drawback to it.

However, moving the GIF diambiguation to GIF is another thing - and after having thought again I don't see it as a good idea anymore. I see it as a case for another disambiguation model now because the meaning “Graphics Interchange Format” is just much more common.

Greetz – Speck-Made 16:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've said "I want to move the disambiguation on GIF from GIF (disambiguation) to GIF and therefore I have to eliminate the links on GIF before it gets deleted." Just to reiterate, this is a bad idea. Unacceptable, even. Leave it. If you think there's a case to be made for such a move, be sure to bring it up for discussion on the talk pages of those two and of Graphics Interchange Format first. Dicklyon 04:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the notability guidelines? If so, and if you are telling me that what is in the article right now would be considered an appropriate level of coverage, I do not oppose removing the editorial templates. I'm not of much use when it comes to German. Let me know if you're still not sure and I'll try to see what I can do about looking at the sources by machine translating the text. Erechtheus 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NAME. Usage of the expanded "The GIMP Toolkit" is extremely rare. A move like this should be discussed beforehand - you didn't even leave a summary; it's not appropriate, and I've reverted it. Now someone (i.e. me) has to go and fix a dozen double redirects. Chris Cunningham 11:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the official name from the project homepage.--Speck-Made 11:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on Talk:GTK+. Chris Cunningham 12:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you found it already... :-) --Speck-Made 12:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let discussion happen before you move them all. Of your moves so far, KDE, XMMS, HTML and XHTML are all better-known by their acronyms and not their full names. There was no consensus for you to move all these pages and WP:NAME says to use the most common name, not the official name. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least in these cases I think our rules suggest to not have them under the acronym - if I interpret things right: WP:NAME#Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations: “Avoid the use of [...] acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form. NATO, NASA, laser, radar, and scuba are good examples of acronyms that are commonly thought of as words.” – You cannot think of KDE, XMMS, HTML or XHTML as words, I think.--Speck-Made 02:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The passage you quoted didn't say anything about "thought of as words." Certainly KDE and HTML are widely known and almost exclusively used in that form; I have no idea what KDE stands for, and most people have no idea what HTML stands for, and there's little reason to care. Dicklyon 02:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does say something about "thought of as words" – at the end of the second sentence of the linked paragraph! – or what do you mean?--Speck-Made 03:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed it at the end of the examples sentence. But the criteria stated didn't say anything about being thought of as words. The examples should probably be extended with something like HTML and the "thought of as words" thing removed. Dicklyon 04:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's there by coincidence.--Speck-Made 23:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When adding links to material on an external site, as you did to It's All Over but the Crying, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So - you mean the link to the song lyrics? Do you really think this is a problem?--Speck-Made (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on OpenThesaurus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

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 they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Livna-Maor (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move B. K. S. Iyengar to, the rarely if ever used, Bellur Krishnamachar Sundararaja Iyengar, particularly with no discussion on the talk page? He is referred to by his initials and even most of his pupils wouldn't be sure what they stood for. Please move it back. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm - because it is his name?--Speck-Made (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above - it's not what he's referred to as. Like most people, he is not referred to by his full list of personal names in most situations (although it is appropriate to lead the introduction to the article this way) and in his case, is generally known by his initials. D. H. Lawrence is the name of the article for David Herbert Richards Lawrence because he is referred to as the former and not the latter. The same goes for, off the top of my head, V. S. Naipaul (Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul), I. K. Taimni (I don't even know what the initials stand for), E. E. Cummings or even e. e. cummings (Edward Estlin Cummings), PJ Harvey (Polly Jean Harvey), E. Nesbit (edith Nesbit), J. K. Rowling (Joanne Rowling), G. K. Chesterton (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) etc.

Please change it back to B. K. S. Iyengar, make your case on the talk page if you still think there is one for a change to Bellur Krishnamachar Sundararaja Iyengar, and only move it there if there is a consensus to do so after a reasonable period of time. Moves should not be made without a discussion on the talk page, all the more so if the move is a controversial one. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that somebody reversed your adding the two mods to ABC on the ABC page. I know how to get those in - the page needs a "Criticism" section (I was going to add one) - and one of the criticisms would be that it was last updated by the founder 3 years ago and therefore is somewhat out of date, but that there have been several independently written modifications, and then list the two that you gave. But I have a question - I went to the two URLs that you listed, and, well, first of all, they don't work because you put them in with an extra space in them. But even taking them out, only one of them take me to a page - an index page: http://merapi.dyndns.org/abc/ The reason why I am bothering telling you all this is because I use ABC (I was introduced to bittorrents about 6 months ago using ABC), and now I find that I don't particularly like certain things that it does - mainly the huge amount of memory that it takes up (up to 900MB). So, can you please give me a two GOOD links that will take me to those two mods??? Otherwise, I am going to change to utorrent, and while I am sure that it is a good programme, I don't look forward to the hassle of changing over 83 partial bittorrents from ABC to utorrent. If I can modify my ABC with those two mods to get it to work acceptably for me, then I will stick with ABC - I mean, I am used to the interface (and I am sure there must be some advantage to using additional memory - I figure that if utorrent only uses a small amount of memory, then it must be constantly writing small writes to the hard disk, and thus end up with a very fragmented disk - but that's just a guess). Anyway, thanks in advance if you can answer my questions for me here, and I will put up the mods on the ABC in a way that should be acceptable to everybody. Appreciate it if you could answer this as soon as possible - the memory issue is driving me nuts. Also takes up a lot CPU usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.200.175 (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe - well, I didn't put the deleted information in this article...

But thanks. See here for the way I've tried to deal with it...--Speck-Made (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for your off-topic questions - well, at the first glance I think everything is (was) alright about the URLs... Anyways, it seems like it doesn't help you much. Have you tried Torrent Swapper for example? Or just any other software from the quite numerous free software BitTorrent clients?--Speck-Made (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is TAK (audio codec). 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAK (audio codec) (2nd nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Qt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Qt (toolkit) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 23:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Speck-Made. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]