User talk:Tempshill

__NOINDEX_

This user may have left Wikipedia. Tempshill has not edited Wikipedia since April 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Discussion from 2003 through end of 2005 moved to User talk:Tempshill/2003 to 2005.

i appreciate the advice...i fixed what you asked me to fix & i hope it's o.k. now. please let me know if things are alright...i enjoy editing pages here and i hope to be adding more things. this site is wonderful!! i use it all the time!! Adomono 21:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see a two year old comment from you about date links at Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context. There is a survey there. You may wish to vote. There is also a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), you may be interested in that too. Regards. bobblewik 15:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about the overlinking guideline vote. Could you point me to the actual verbiage that's being voted on? Thanks - Tempshill 18:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, I can't believe so many of those are blue links. Tempshill 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup it is amazing what can be linked. As I understand it, at Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context you 'support' or 'oppose' all that is at the project page Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. If you are in doubt, feel free to ask on the project page. Please also add your voice to those in the live discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). bobblewik 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be acting like I'm blatently adding copywrited photos just for the heck of it! Do you actually believe I can tell the difference between what's copywrited and what isn't? Besides, I always add the links just in case something goes wrong or unwarranted.User:TMC1982

I don't have a problem if you tell me that wikipedia can't accept copywrited photos. But it offends me that you need to tell me in a forceful (as if you're shouting at me) fashion!User:TMC1982

I've only been on wikipedia since about April of last year. When I started I didn't even have any idea about how photos got placed on their. And why were you on my talk page in the very first place anyway!?User:TMC1982

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you tell me why sports picture don't qualify as fair use? In all or most of the pictures I've uploaded I've included source, page where they are located, who's the photographer, under who they are copyrighted. Hit me back with that info. Take care. Thief12 01:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that this website is helping me alot. I have been using this webite for my SS.

205.206.207.166 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the errors I made. I was trying to post an image for Shawn Springs but it was the first image I've tried to post. I'm only a teenager and never realized all the guidelines and laws involved in this process. I'll just leave it to the people that know what their doing. :) jmfh3733(skinsfanh)

Hi there - when I uploaded it i said that no rights were reserved and that the image could be used in whatever way anyone wishes. It was taken by a chap called Richard Blanch. I think that I will re-upload all the images with copyrights superimposed at the bottom.--RichardHarrold 19:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You contributed to a previous debate about date links. You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 08:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey. Just fyi, i copied your comment at Bobblewik's talk page to the link he mentions above. (i'm trying to keep all relevant info to that discussion in one location). thanks :) --Quiddity 03:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd be able to find the specific image back, but it is from http://www.radiobras.gov.br/, which says "Todas as matérias poderão ser reproduzidas desde que citada a fonte", which as far as I can understand means, free to use provided source is acknowledged. - Andre Engels 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the copyright holder and the license, isn't that enough? I mean, if I put my brother's photograph on Wikipedia, will it also be deleted if he hasn't put it on the web? - Andre Engels 21:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I added the citation you requested to the Columbine massacre article. Please check it out to see if it's exactly what you wanted. Thanks. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 23:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'll look into finding one where the lawsuit is unsuccessful, but i'll also keep the bbc ciation, as they're a credible news source (but also because adding a second ciation will bring the notes section to an even 40) ;). -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 23:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I found one and added it. The article was actually written in the Rocky Mountain News (Denver's main newspaper), but the website it's on is the daily camera. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 23:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is quite clear; it says "please do not mark the edit as minor." But you marked this as minor [1]. Monicasdude 23:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would definitely like to write an article about the VHS data backup systems, but I'd have to do some more research on the topic, since I've only found a small dearth about such on the internet. I'd have to hit up the public library and glean through the old back issues of Radio-Electronics (where I vaguely remember seeing ads about these systems) or PC World/PC Magazine/Byte/etc. (proving once again that libraries still do have their place :) ) But yes, I'd definitely would want to write up an article about this, it's something that would fit nicely in the vast pages of Wikipedia.. :) misternuvistor 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the "permanent" on terHorst's successor was not ignorantly redundant, though I acknowledge it was a bit clumsy. When terHorst resigned, Nessen did not assume duties imediately. terHorst did have an interim successor for a few days, and thus, Nessen was the "permanent" successor. I'm okay with leaving it off if you still feel it best, but I wanted to make sure that the decision was made in light of all relevant information. Unschool

thanks, that's the tag i was looking for. Shamrox 07:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [2]. I believe it to be fair use due to its relative historical importance. I noticed there are many other (higher quality) copyrighted sporting images under the of much less significance. What is your reasoning for dispute? I still have to write the text for the article, so hopfully this can get sorted out (for better or worse)in time. Thanks, Myciconia 07:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Note that Image:Boxing080905 photoshop.jpg is a significantly edited version of a published photograph and is about to be featured on the main page. See the discussion. I can understand it if you feel that medicine-related images and certain other images should not be altered. I'd suggest that this proposal be made into a guideline page, assuming there is concensus. Shawnc 04:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. The WP:NOR clause, however, states "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the no-original-research policy... Wikipedia editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures and upload them" as long as the images do not "distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo". So I think non-controversial enhancements to images are ok? Shawnc 06:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Even noted as having been manipulated, they should not be used to illustrate articles in the main namespace" may be contradicted by the community's practice. Image:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif is another synthesized Featured Picture (the sequence of animation did not naturally occur). I suppose one can argue based on those wordings in WP:NOR that it should not be featured. Digital editing does happen a lot so I'm under the impression that "distortion" may be interpreted to mean something like "photoshopping John Lennon into a picture of Castro" and then use it to state that the two met in real life, to quote someone from the discussion of the boxers image. If there is concensus, maybe WP:NOR can be updated to reflect the current practice of allowing certain images, such as when the majority has allowed an image to be featured? Shawnc 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to make use of a 'Dates' tab in edit mode that will help with unlinking unnecessary date links. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. It also provides a 'Units' tab. If you know what you are doing, you can copy and modify the subfiles as you wish. I just thought you might be interested. Regards. bobblewik 20:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gastric_Bypass,_Roux_en-Y.jpg on Gastric bypass surgery. Thanks for the heads-up. Not being a lawyer (I'm just a doctor), I find the array of licensing options stupefying. The situation about this image is that it is a graphic of the operation I actually do personally, provided to me by Ethicon, with the understanding that I can use it as I wish, with an attribution stating "Courtesy of Ethicon Endosurgery, Inc." The license option I picked looked like it was the closest fit. I'll contact Ethicon for a specific permission to use it on WP, but it may take a few days. Once I get the permission, how/where do I forward a copy? Amd what license category should I edit into the page? Topnife 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This article definitely deserves to stand alone without redirect because he has become a very notable figure. You said that the article should be deleted and shouldn't be expanded because "Nathan Gale was not notable enough for an article except for the murder". True, if Gale didn't kill people then we wouldn't even know his name but isn't that also true for people like Mark David Chapman and serial killers??? Rambone (Talk) 14:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What you're conveniently ignoring is that Gale's case IS unique. He was a mentally disturbed, former Marine who was kicked out of the Marines for a Section 8. He also supposedly killed Darrell because he blamed him for Pantera's break-up. You also can't ignore the fact that it was also a killing spree that claimed several lives besides Dimebag's. Those are pretty unique circumstances, in my book. I think almost all Pantera fans and heavy metal fans, in general, would agree with me. He's become a huge household name for heavy metal fans, plain and simple. You could ask almost any heavy metal fan who Nathan Gale is and they would say "he's that whacko who killed Dimebag". Whether he deserves it or not is besides the point---HE IS DEFINTELY A NOTABLE FIGURE. I guarantee if we put it to a vote, you would be on the losing side. Rambone (Talk) 13:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nathan Gale should have his own article, plain and simple. He isn't being idolized or lauded as an important figure...he's just simply a NOTABLE FIGURE. If you think that his bio should be taken down then, on that same basis, you should lobby for every serial killer's and every obsessed psycho's articles taken down as well. The Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed people, in part, to be remembered and talked about after their deaths...why not take down their bios as well? My point is that your logic for deletion is hollow, at best. --Rambone (Talk) 05:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to get things better organized around there. Toward that end, I've created a task list template for the project. If all the contributors to the project placed it on their user page, we could all keep in touch more easily (with announcements, alerts, etc.). It, and the latest announcements can be found at:

totd task list template

--Go for it! 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small note for you on Talk:QuickDraw GX

Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please don't use the voting comment tag when you make comments on talk pages. The symbol is for voting. In a talk page it clutters the page and draws the eye to your comment, which you might think is cool, but in the long term is very uncool, because it will incite other people to use their own icons. This would suck a lot.

Thanks,

Tempshill 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Oppose Why should I?

Opinion:In my opinion, this is not a Wikipedia policy or a guideline...

User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Comment or at least that I know of...

User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Neutral so I will stay neutral to the matter.

User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Support Ed supports this message. Happy editing, and have a great day!!!----Ed^{talk c E} 20:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [3]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I have stuck the picture in again. Hopefully it will stick now. Added some appreciation of the comic too. Regards SmokeyTheFatCat 22:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you very much for the notice on Suge Knight's photo. Please correct my mistake for me as I am an inexperienced user yet. Thanks again.

It would appear that you prodded this piece of nonsense the other day. The prod was removed by an IP/anon, but I have nominated it for deletion here. Byrgenwulf 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:AntonovA40.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi As I understood the permission they gave, their policy is to allow the use of the images if you cite them as the source... they say that "we have no problem that you use the information from our Web site, as long as you indicate it as the source", they never say that only wikipedia can use the images. Thanks for your message, I hope they don't get deleted because they greatly help to complement the article. Radioheadhst 19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the original email I sent them. I was asking them to clarify their policy, I asked that since they are a panamanian government agency if their images could be used like the US government allows their images to be used. I agree their response not clear enough, but in context it can be clearer. I do have the email if you want i can forward it to you or add it in the description page of each image. Thanks. Radioheadhst 19:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your request for images, but I was wondering if you really wanted real pictures, or could use something like would be in a playbook, with "o" to mark players kindof like Image:Singlewingformation.PNG. I might be able to make a template that one could select the formation and/or highlighted player, similar to the chess setup. [Flickr.com] has lots of pictures, and the ability to search under the Share-alike 2.0 license which is good enough for even WikiCommons. You could look there if you wanted real pictures. Let me know if you like the template idea or pictures and I can look for those. --MECU≈talk 03:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've got a first cut at a template to make up formations. Take a look at User:Mecu/FootballFormationTest. I can change the highlight color or any of the other images used easily if desired. There are plenty of options to choose from at m:Round. If you have any questions about how to use it or and suggestions, please let me know. If you're fine with it as is, let me know and I can move it to Template namespace and everyone can begin to use it. Thanks. --MECU≈talk 16:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed that you commented to AntiVandalBot: Fair use images are not allowed to be used to identify living people.

Can you cite a source for this?

Thanks - Tempshill 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. Right here. Personally I'm not sure if I agree with the policy but the general consensus seems to be that pictures of living people must be free use. If I didn't change it, someone else surely would have. --Phoenix Hacker 05:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when al jazeera played the audio, they used the screenshot i downloaded. should i make that clear in the image page?Anthonymendoza 02:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, yes, a page with that status is lent some type of credence; the banner says to an outsider, "This page was considered seriously by Wikipedia as a great article." When a "bad" article is given that status, it says to an outsider, "Wikipedia is a lunatic asylum." That page, in early January, anyway, was a news-ish article, full of scattered reports and edit wars, and was unquestionably far, far from being a featured article. Incidentally, being notable is required for any Wikipedia article, not just FAs; and the importance of the subject is low on the list of criteria for being considered for FA status. Tempshill 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying we should hide our dirty underwear? :-) Sorry but I can't see that it is as a significant concern. But perhaps the {{facfailed}} template needs to be updated to clarify that we are not assigning the article any importance by this consideration? This could be discussed on the Wikipedia talk:Featured article review page, for example, since I think the issue would apply to more than just this article. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Adam Jones (political scientist) section of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, you posted: "Why hasn't this article been nominated for deletion? It's a vanity page." It was nominated a few days later. Please participate in the Afd discussion—thanks. — Athænara ✉ 03:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

same category

Thanks for uploading Image:Moshpit.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 14:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Strikeoutsred.png, 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Matthew 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also consensus appears to be against you, so I'd definitely stop now if I were you. Quadzilla99 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the missing template and started reformatting your request. Will you please add the missing information (parties and link to prior attempts at dispute resolution). Thanks. Thatcher131 16:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Knac.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Time Magazine cover Jul. 20, 1981.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Knac.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree that, though we differ in our views on the appropriateness of trivia sections, neither one of us views it as something that requires hurried and immediate attention. It is, after all, just an issue of content organisation. As for Schoolhouse Rock, I essentially agree with what Father Goose posted. If each episode is not notable, then I'd suggest deleting the "music & lyrics by" and "performed by" information and replacing it with some of the information available in the Trivia section, along with a one- or two-sentence description of each episode. If that is not plausible in the main article, creating a List of Schoolhouse Rock episodes page may be appropriate. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Knac.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toy languages like brainf*ck, lolcode, etc are judged by the same merits that any other topic here is: WP:NOTE and WP:RELY chief amongst them. Please do not removed sourced content from the wiki without first discussing it on the talk page (in this case that discussion came and went already, so it would be somewhat redundant), and be aware that such languages are hardly "fake." Functional compilers and interpreters exist for both. MrZaius^talk 16:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trivia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pixelface 22:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your edits to Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. I appreciate that you are working to make the article better, but discussion on this particular point is already under way on the article talk page. I urge you to consider letting that discussion play out instead of trying to tag an the article as needing additional citations. Whatever you decide, please be mindful of WP:3RR. Thanks again for your contribution to the discussion. Johntex\^talk 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your note. I disagree with the idea that BQ is being unreasonable. He might be fairly strident about voicing his opinions, but he seems willing to discuss changes to the article, that is the main thing. I suspect we will be able to work out a good compromise. With respect to WP:3RR, please remember that reverts do not have to actually be exact reverts. Thanks again. Johntex\^talk 23:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your implication/slander that I am being in any way unreasonable. As such, this is your third edit attempting to change the article without discussion (1 2 3) and I am requesting that you be blocked temporarily if any further changes along these lines are made. I in no way disagree with changing the text, but the words you have chosen do not convey the appropriate meaning ("allegedly"=implies a claim (a verifiable one at that) and is also considered to be a weasel word; "some" implies there are others that work...I'd like to seem those programs. Can you name them? Their programmers?...just trying to use your standards here). You seem to be the only who believes I am being unreasonable. None of the other 18 editors in the FAC thought I was unreasonable as does this Admin. I respectfully request that you tone down your accusations and WP:AGF. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you want me to lay down and not defend anything I wrote so you get your way? People who have known me FAR longer than you state I am reasonable and am willing to compromise. My problem is not that people want to change it, but that people want to make inaccurate assertions. Please offer a compromise on the talk page. I'll certainly be willing to compromise. As for saying I represent the worst that Wikipedia has to offer and other comments, I take that as a personal attack IAW WP:ATTACK and respectfully request that you cease. I offer the following as evidence:

"The article is written mostly by a single author who...refuses to accept NPOV edits." This is an outright lie. As stated in the next 3 sections, I already have made changes accordingly. An admin was the one who put the references in,

"I believe the author is part of the organization being written about -- it is not surprising that the article is heavily POV." Regardless whether it is true or not is irrelevant. This is in direct opposition to WP:Attack "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."

"...I don't think he's been acting in good faith. I base this statement only on the defense of the unsupportable computer software line...It eliminates the ridiculous grandiose posturing." flies directly in the face of WP:ATTACK "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."

I respectfully request you stop the disparaging remarks/comments and PLEASE come up with something other than "no not that." — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I missquoted anything, I apologize, but the above attacks still fall under WP:ATTACK and should stop from whomever wrote them. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reasonably responded, but no one seems to want to come up with anything. This is not a myth, as you so assert; I have seen it with my own eyes. Again, truth (perceived or otherwise) is not a requirement of Wikipedia. Verifiability is the requirement. I have provided 3 reliable sources (1 an alumni organization, 1 a reputable publisher, 1 a reputable newspaper). What about these is NOT reputable? If it is that they are all affiliated with the school, that is bogus. They are all reputable. Second. Where would you expect to find information about the military? Probably the military or its government. How about the government? the government as well. Just because the facts/figures come from the subject doesn't mean they cannot be used. Hwo would YOU determine the population of the United States? I would check the Census Bureau. How about how many employees at Texas A&M? Wouldn't you go by their numbers? This bias against anything associated with the University is nothing more than a Red Herring. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's say you've seen it with your own eyes. Why is there no reliable third party source that discusses this? The "reliable sources" you quoted don't name the software or how it was used or who used it. They are repeating hearsay. They are not adequate citations. The reason this is important is that it establishes whether the claim is even notable. It is not notable that my act of throwing a bucket of water up in the air cannot be simulated by physics software available for the Commodore 64 computer. Without being specific about your claim, it is meaningless. As for a "bias", it's true that sources like an alumni association are to be taken with a grain of salt. They are more likely than a disinterested source to repeat hearsay without evidence. Third-party disinterested sources would be great. If you could cite a Scientific American article discussing this in detail then it could be of interest. Since you can't, the references to the software should be deleted. Tempshill 16:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(To BQ and Tempshill) I'm not sure either of you have technically violated policy, but you may be getting close. I haven't examined every diff and I don't intend to do so. We need to move forward.

Could you both please take the time to re-read WP:AGF? It may be helpful for even experienced editors to re-read this periodically. They basic premise we start with is that everyone here is out to help the project. I believe that is true of both of you.

If we can operate under that premise, then we need to look at the mechanics of that. How do we best work together to get the job done.

Tempshill, please remember that you don't have to be screaming curse words at someone for it be objectionable. WP:NPA says "Comment on content, not contributors." Please try to focus on the edits, not the person behind them. It may not be helpful to speculate about another editor.

BQ, please take a look at WP:OWN. I know you are open to all edits to improve this article; but other people haven't worked with you as I have, and you want to avoid the appearance of ownership.

I think we are making progress on the Talk page. Let's keep that up. Thanks to you both and best regards, Johntex\^talk 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (Reply from my talk page) I did not say that you made a personal attack; I only reminded you that policy does not stop at merely prohibiting direct attacks. WP:NPA says "comment on content, not contributors". You are straying from that here you say you don't think he is acting in good faith]. On article talk pages, please focus on the content. If you seriously feel the editor is acting in bad faith, those sort of accusations should ideally be made elsewhere, like WP:ANI or mediation. Johntex\^talk 16:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I will be maintaining this article and will update it accordingly. I think wikilinking this won't do much in this case. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will make the section about the planning phase of Apollo 8's C-prime mission clearer. Probably in a day or two. --Abebenjoe 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you take a look at the POV discussion at Talk:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band ThreeE 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made and image for Trimetric projection and removed your image request. Is it what you were looking for? Phasmatisnox 12:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to have this egregious bit of puffery deleted have been stymied at every point latterly by an Admin. Would you please support the request for the AdD reinstatement at her page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fang_Aili#Ernest_Emerson_Deletion Thanks Albatross2147 04:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Emerson has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You added the "permission" tag to three images you uploaded for the Darfur conflict article. As a consequence the images were eventually deleted. There was ambiguity with the liscence they gave but their letter did imply a good enough license. If you read carefuly the permission letter I obtained from Amnesty international it says:

"Dear Robert,

Yes, you can use these images.

Please credit: Amnesty International Please use accurate captions (you can use the ones from the PDF you found) These images can only be used by you in the way you have outlined it in the mail below - the permission on Wikipedia should reflect these conditions. Please send use a link to the page when you uploaded it.

Regards, Claire"

Now what was the way I outlined below?

"Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. Our goal is to create a comprehensive knowledge base that may be freely distributed and available at no charge. Normally we ask permission for material to be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely -- and even potentially use them commercially -- so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, nor prevent others from using or copying them freely. You can read this license in full at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL This license expressly protects creators from being considered responsible for modifications made by others, while ensuring that creators are credited for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights We choose the GFDL because we consider it the best available tool for ensuring our encyclopedia can remain free for all to use, while providing credit to everyone who donates text and images. This may or may not be compatible with your goals in creating the materials available on your website. Please be assured that if permission is not granted, your materials will not be used at Wikipedia -- we have a very strict policy against copyright violations. We also accept licensing of images under other free-content licenses like some Creative Commons licenses - see http://creativecommons.org for this. With your permission, we will credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, and we will provide a link back to your website. Please explicitly state under which license you grant permission. We invite your collaboration in writing and editing articles on this subject and any others that might interest you. Please see the following article for more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction Thank you for your time. "

I asked for the images to be liscenced in a fully commercial and non commercial derivative manor in form of one of the above mentioned licenses as Wikipedia requires. They gave me permssion by saying you have permssion "only be used by you in the way you have outlined it in the mail below". But in that email below I explcitly stated that I was seeking a GFDL or similar liscence. By saying that they agreed to give permssion as 'outlined it in the mail below' they licensed the images as one of those that Wikipedia requires. 'I placed the words 'with permission' because Amnesty International requested that they be credited. That is all. It was not meant to imply that permission was limited to Wikipedia. However they did neglect to specify which license they were creating.

All of this is quite distressing. Most non IP lawyers do not appreciate all this fine print. I have run into this problem before. Someone gives permission and they genuinly mean to give it so that it implies derivative commercial use etc but they don't word it completely enough. And then people nitpick what they did or did not say.

I have again written to Amnesty International and again asked for permission. I went into lengthy detail in the email stating that I needed a very explicit permission. How we solve this problem in the long term is something that needs looking at.

Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I reverted your edits on Skylab 2 & 3 because there's confusion over the mission numbers. Sometimes the mission commanded by Pete Conrad is referred to as Skylab 1 & sometimes Skylab 2, and that continues through on the following two missions. I believe that even NASA got confused over this. Anyway, I reverted the edits so that the correct patches are shown, even if the file names of the pictures are incorrect.

Hope this makes sense. --Whoosher 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you had tagged Image:1448540190 bee92a19cc o d cropped.jpg as having no source information; this image actually resides on Wikimedia Commons, and so such tagging should be done there instead so that all Wikimedia projects can benefit from updates to the centralised image description.

Keep up the good work! :) Garrett^Talk 06:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Dec 2006, you marked Picard horn as confusing.

After I came across it, I researched it, added many links, and elaborated. It's by no means perfect, or even terribly legible to a non-mathematician/cosmologist, but hopefully it's not unusually confusing.

I've thus marked it as "Start" class (rather than "Stub"), and removed "confusing/clean-up". Hope you agree, and enjoy the clearer article!

Nbarth 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you enjoyed fixes! ...and while I understand the math, I certainly don't understand the astronomy. If this becomes a more studied model, I trust the article'll get improved.

Nbarth (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your nice comments and for the nomination, Tempshill! Now I guess we'll have to wait and see if anyone decides to second your nomination... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axda0002 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tempshill. Have dropped Axda0002 a note re an Edit I did of the Sundog image you put up on Picture Peer Review. As I said to Axda I'm willing to nominate at FPC, but am happy for either Axda or you to do so if you would prefer. --jjron (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now nominated on FPC as Sundogs. Feel free to drop by. --jjron (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a response there, please comment. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a "criticism" section that basically restates what the "performances" section just above it says - namely, that's it hard to sing. Maybe there is a way to combine those two paragraphs under a heading about "difficulty of singing, and other criticism" or maybe something less wordy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are basically two "issues" about the anthem. One is over its content and hence its appropriateness as the anthem. The second is its difficulty to sing... and hence its appropriateness as the anthem. Those could be lumped together but they are really totally separate issues, so maybe they should be kept in separate sections somehow. It could also be pointed out, if it hasn't been already, that any song can be difficult to sing if it's in the wrong key, as Garrison Keillor supposedly pointed out. America the Beautiful can be just as hard to sing if you start in the wrong place and (like me) don't have much of a range. It's also worth pointing out that many times people have tried to replace the anthem. It's not going to happen, but it's an interesting topic. The authorities surrendered on this issue long ago, and ATB is now the "national hymn". FYI, my favorite verse in TSSB is the third, where they sing about the enemy's "foul footsteps' pollution". I'd like to hear Whitney Houston sing that sometime. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, I made some changes noting later broadcasts of the episode. Cirt (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PJs_portrait.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:PJs_portrait.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I liked your edit to Jack the Ripper and am sorry to see that you ran into the same editor I have problems with. He has real ownership problems on the article, which is especially bad because he admits to knowing nothing about the case and thinking that anyone who has studied it at all shouldn't be allowed to post there. I encourage you to go back and remove the paragraph you took out, and I will support the action. Maybe eventually the guy will get the hint. DreamGuy (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe he will have the user above blocked for meat-puppetry. AGF, sport. That was mighty uncivil of you. Guess you need another block, huh? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not uncivil, it's an accurate description of your actions. Considering your actions you are certainly the last person to be complaining about other people. You also are quite severely misinterpreting rules on socks if you think more than one person agreeing to work together to make an improvement to an article is an offense, let alone one that would get someone blocked for "meat-puppetry". In fact, if teaming up with people were a bannable offense you and Colin would have been banned long ago. Now, please apologize to this editor for threatening to try to get him banned for no reason. DreamGuy (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I wasn't threatening to get him banned, you silly prat. You attempted to meat-puppet him, not the other way around. Please actually read the rules you quote. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you that the other stuff detracts and adds unwanted POV, I believe that it is a mistake to remove all of that without allowing discussion first. I suggest that in the interim that you add it back, and to suggest some options, such as a sub-page, etc. The consensus might end up being to whack it wholesale, but I think we should allow folks a chance to suggest remedies. Red Harvest (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "but I don't hang around a lot lately" is hardly justification for removing that much content! Wiki guidelines warn about making such large cuts without any consensus. The point is not to "nuke" then "argue about it", but to try to arrive at a consensus. Since the request for expansion tag is on the section, it seems downright counter to eliminate almost the entire section instead. Red Harvest (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bold. It violates basic civility and consensus. Red Harvest (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it "improved" the article or not. I do know that it gutted a section with a "needs expansion" tag. So clearly it is contrary to what some others think and what they consider relevant. It was a section actively under discussion. Although I question the relevance of much of the section I wouldn't just delete it without posing the question first. It's just plain rude and uncivil to do that and shows no respect for other editors. You might not see a problem with your actions, but I do. For one, they are proving counterproductive as you've forced me to take the other side on this, a side I am not inclined to take. Furthermore, it is specious to conclude that just deleting material you disagree with is necessarily an improvement. You didn't add any content or references, you took an axe to something. Red Harvest (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should have read the … but don't be reckless warning in the guideline. That's how it appears, even to someone like myself who would agree about aspects of the relevance. Being reckless undercut your own argument. Red Harvest (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

trying not to be a vanity page, am not the rob cypher indivdual just trying to do a net.biography

Afd has been nominated as an article for deletion. While there was an error on the article page, the current AfD debate can currently be found here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eugeroic_(2nd_nomination). Dgf32 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently made comments about this article on its talk page. ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. JMcC (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the GFDL with {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} and {{Non-free Wikimedia logo}} due to the licensing and copyright concerns. Any image with the Wikipedia logo has to be tagged with {{Non-free Wikimedia logo}} per foundation policy. Hope you don't mind me editing it. Thanks. Woody (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tempshill

Nice to know you're on board.

I'm quite in favour of starting a lobby group, perhaps a page in Wikispace. We could all revisit the past, stalled attempt at Bugzilla, get some tech advice as to the best code to represent a new non-linked autodate function (which was always a diffculty), then develop a strategy to present another, much bigger petition to Bugzilla, or perhaps to ArbCom first. What do you think? Tony (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw your edit. I'd be happy to put the British qualifier in the text, but I don't think it belongs in the lead. Comments? --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Main Page#French Wikipedia image alignment. Thanks, BanyanTree 02:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the way articles about this page have been written, people visiting it are under the mistaken assumption that it's still up for a vote. These comments also tend to discuss Wikipedia policy rather than the article itself. To prevent further unrelated comments, I've put them under a hat. This does not delete the comments in any way, but it does help avoid further responses to an issue that's currently moot. Cool Hand Luke 15:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It was already clear to a frequent Wikipedian that the AFD was closed, but the news articles linking to the page made it sound as if it was still open. I use {{hat}} when talk page commentary has gone awry and I'm hoping to prevent more non-WP:TALK conversations. For example, I usually hat incivility to avoid it turning into trolling. This is a really mild act because the comments are still available on the page, but it's effective to prevent further off-topic discussion. In this case, the vote comments misled some users into believing the vote was still occurring, and some users were making general policy arguments. There's a place for this discussion on Wikipedia, but the place is not Talk:Deletionpedia.

At any rate, someone subsequently made a nice message qualifying the hat. Cool Hand Luke 00:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see some riot of discussion that required clamping down on discussion. Please stop using hats for this purpose. It's not just me complaining about it, as evidenced by that other user that inserted comments after each of your hats, explaining that they were inappropriate. Tempshill (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hats were not inappropriate. It was explained that the comment on them was my view. That was true, and I should have made it clearer that users can (of course) debate any article's deletion in the proper place. My intent was to indicate that the imminent threat of deletion had passed. There was no reason for users to make generalized rants about deletionism, opinions about our policy on "data whoring," and various other AFD-related comments, lectures, and votes, not to mention incivility, more incivility, and straight-up personal attacks. These were all posted withing 4.5 hours after the AFD closed. These comments were feuled by off-site stories that gave the inaccurate impression that the article was still at AFD. Someone needed to clear up that mistake, and so I tried to.

There's a place for article deletion debates; it's AFD, not WP:TALK. There's a place for policy debates; it's at policy pages, not Talk:Deletionpedia. There's never a place for incivility. This stuff needed to stop being posted at Talk:Deletionpedia. I think hats were appropriate and even though the captions were not. They were effective.

I will continue to use hats under these circumstances. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 00:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "self-appointing myself as the Global Wikipedia Police," but I agree that the caption was bad. Cool Hand Luke 04:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [4]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 00:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about your picture. You could think about adding it to the road roller article, although we are spoiled for choice on Commons already (and I dislike gallery sections exceeding 8 pictures, although others may delete them entirely).

The addition was useful, however, since it highlighted a potential misunderstanding that I hadn't spotted -- hence the hatnote. The article does need some more pictures (Commons has about 7 to choose from), as it doesn't show a smooth roller yet, but I know nothing about the subject and there are already more images than the length of text will support.

EdJogg (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted in your !vote at WT:MOSNUM that you seemed to have problems with the links themselves but not with the actual auto formatting. Is this correct? If you do have problems with date auto formatting, can you give a brief (or lengthy, but no need to write an article on it, heh) reason why? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put together this simple animated diagram of a hollow point bullet expanding in the target. I haven't put it into the article yet, because I'm not sure that it's clear enough in this format. The bullet stays centered in the picture, as the "background" moves past. I may need to add detail to the background to indicate that it's moving past, or go with a wide format and have the bullet move. Any comments would be appreciated.

scot (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the wake would spread out, quite a bit more than I've shown for high velocity rounds. Just like a boat's wake, the bullet has to push the "fluid" (that's what the tissue acts like at those velocities) to the side, and it will expand outwards to form what's called a temporary cavity. High velocity and flat nosed bullets produce this effect more, so the cavity production would start out medium, get bigger as the nose gets flatter and more tissue is pushed away, and then start to get smaller as the bullet slows to a stop. This wake gives you the temporary cavity, which (mostly) contracts back down as the elastic tissue rebounds. At the end, only the area actually touched by the bullet remains open, and this is the permanent cavity. The permanent cavity is no larger than the bullet diameter (though some cracks and tearing might remain from the temporary cavity if it exceeded the elastic limits of the tissue) and tends to be smaller than the bullet diameter in pointed and round nosed bullets, and the diameter of the flat in flat point bullets, such as semi-wadcutters and wadcutters. I've seen high speed video of bullet impacts online (all copyrighted, unfortunately), I'll see if I can track some down and show them to you--that will give you some comparison to just the animation accuracy. And since you were uncertain about the "wake", I think that indicates that a wide version showing the cavitation might be worth the effort it will take. scot (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some drawings showing various temporary and permanent cavities produced in ballistic gelatin by differing bullets; while not as informative as an animation, they do serve to show the effects of different bullet types:

Low velocity, round nose, non-expanding: http://firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/45ACP%20230gr%20FMJ.jpg

Low velocity, expanding: http://firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/38%20Spl%20FBI%20load.jpg

Medium velocity, expanding: http://firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/357%20Magnum.jpg

High velocity, expanding: http://firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/223%20Remington%2050gr%20JSP.jpg

Medium velocity, non-expanding bullet that tumbles: http://firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/22LR%2040gr%20RNL.jpg

Unfortunately, that source doesn't have an example of a flat nosed, non expanding bullet; those are generally used with heavy, large caliber hunting bullets to produce large permanent cavities, and where the bullet may need to survive penetrating bone (something the more fragile expanding bullets don't do well). scot (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some really impressive high speed videos done of ballistic gelatin testing, and so I have enough of an idea of what's going on to do a "not to scale" kind of animation, which I think is adequate to illustrate the point. Most of the expansion, as you can see in the permanent cavities, really takes place in the first few inches of travel; I'm probably going to make the expansion slower so it can be seen better. And, just as an aside, the coolest (and most enlightening) video I've see was of a Barnes X bullet, which is a solid copper controlled expansion bullet with 4 "petals" cut into the nose, so it opens up like a 4 petal flower when it expands. The petals result in an X shaped wake in the target, and the video actually showed spiral ripples through the gelatin as the bullet passed through. I think it was one of the videos here: http://www.barnesbullets.com/information/. scot (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How's this look? It shows the expansion on impact (stretched out horizontally for clarity), plus the temporary and permanent cavities. It's a bit jiggly since I was doing each frame independently, but then ballistic gelatin is pretty jiggly, too, so I'm just gonna call that a "feature".

scot (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, that's a great article that you put together. One question regarding the DYK hook: Was SCOTUS basing its decision on the Constitution or was it just the common law of patents?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I suspected I was wrong cuz there was something in the back of my mind that patent law is to a large extent - Constitution based. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Suntag ☼ 20:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I italicized the George Orwell book that was on the front of your user page if you are not too upset about this. Merry Christmas. Chris (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: "Thanks for the pole lamp pic in Sears v. Stiffel! Could you point to the source from whence you got the pic? (I didn't see it on the picture page.) Tempshil" -- Look at image and see design pat. no. -- PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lookbackinanger.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a push to get this article to GA status. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Planchets.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Flans.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Flans.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medicine ball.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Medicine ball.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AAV maintenance.jpg is now available as Commons:File:AAV maintenance.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Lookbackinanger.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your "fact" tag on the Superman II statement that it was filmed at the same time as the original Superman because it is clearly established from the film's well-documented history that Richard Donner filmed his Superman II scenes simultaneously with the original film (which he directed).

This, in fact, led to a notable issue with Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut: Donner originally filmed the ending "turn back time" sequence for Superman II, thus it is included in his version; but part of that sequence was used in the ending of Superman as well. That led to criticism that Donner reused the first film's ending for the second, when in fact it appears to have been the other way around. It's unclear who did that; Donner might have intended to reshoot the later film's ending to avoid that issue, but he was fired before that could happen so we'll never know for certain.

Of course, Richard Lester's footage was filmed years later after Donner's firing. Because of that, I added "originally" before "filmed" to clarify that the statement refers to Donner's footage, not Lester's. --RBBrittain (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason I posted to your talk page was that it IS unusual to remove a "fact" tag without adding a reference, but there was a valid reason: The references ALREADY in the article CLEARLY support the statement, at least with respect to Donner's version. I also added the word "originally" to address your apparent issue with the statement, i.e., that Lester's footage (over half of the final film) was shot later. You restored the "fact" tag WITHOUT removing "originally"; that is plainly incorrect, so I reverted it. Besides, in Wikipedia you do NOT need a reference for information taken from the movie itself (such as the plot). Please do NOT put the "fact" tag back in without showing WHY you are questioning the universally-recognized fact that Donner shot Superman and HIS version of Superman II together! --RBBrittain (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the latest edit. I'm not particularly a fan of the series; my entire problem was that you simply CANNOT demand a reference for EVERY phrase in EVERY article, or else the "References" section would be bigger than the rest of the article combined. Virtually every reliable reference about Superman II, including both IMDb and Allmovie, states that Donner filmed his version simultaneously with the first film; there is NO need to create additional references to IMDb and/or Allmovie when the article's infobox AND "External links" section already link to both of them. I have other problems with what you said, but I'm tired of beating a dead horse; I waited to even read your note because it's not worth a fight to me. --RBBrittain (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the queue for promotion. Check Template:Did you know/Queue. Gatoclass (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On January 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Griffin v. California, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 21:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You moved four of five paragraphs out of the WP:LEAD. I moved three of the four back into the lead. An article of this length is suppose to have a three or four paragraph lead according to WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the table below the line you are looking at for suggested length.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either the article has encyclopedic content or it should be chopped. Regardless of whether the topic is broad or narrow and deep 30K is 30K and if you have that much content you should summarize it appropriately for the reader. Think about what you want a reader who only would read the lead to know and revise the lead accordingly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I happened to see your user page because you made an edit (a good one in fact) to the Apparitions page. Anyway, I thought you may want to see the link for Liar paradox regarding Borat's sentence, for it is a well known construct in logic, popularized by Betrand Russell a while ago... Cheers History2007 (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On February 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pigford v. Glickman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to your WW II edit, are you aware of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which was probably what the TV programme was referring to? Buckshot06(prof) 14:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I think it is the final peace treaty. The signing at Reims and the other one in the East a day later were the ceasation of hostilities, and then the Potsdam Agreement specifically said the final settlement would wait upon final agreement with respect to Germany.

The treaty should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but definitely not in the infobox or whereever it was! Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 11:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work with the copyedit - I'm the one that tagged it for cleanup to begin with. I'd've done it myself, only I haven't the patience to do a proper job.

Keep up the good work! --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One can always hope, no? At least I was able to liberate a free image from the Polish article. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Interesting, the things you can find in the Polish Wiki sometimes...it's wonderfully comprehensive. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Davis v. Beason, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I updated the article and addressed what the novel aspect of the case was. Lawyer2b (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment: I have removed it (and the following discussion) for violation of WP:NPA and WP:BITE. I question whether this line of inquiry is necessary at all, but if you believe so then it should take place on User talk:Captain Disdain, not the RD proper. Please refrain from insulting other users, even if their actions make them particularly easy targets. Thank you. –