Jump to content

User talk:Remember the dot/Archive/6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


CFL's

Florecent lights contain mercury. The disposal and Release of purified HG into our enviornment harms it more than using incandesent lamps. It's a little known fact. This is why the us does not mandate that u use CFL's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmoonz1 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, less mercury is released overall (see Compact fluorescent lamp#Mercury emissions, and the mercury in CFLs can be disposed of without harming the environment. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

fair use

Hi - I saw your note on Betacommand's talk - by your reading, is this also a valid entry? If not, what other text do I have to add to satisfy? They tagged a few that I uploaded, and I don't understand why. Thanks for any enlightenment you can give me. Tvoz |talk 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably not - it appears to fail WP:NFCC#8 (significance). If there were an article dedicated to the book then it would be OK to show the book's cover in that article. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm - they're giving me NFCC#10c, so I'm trying to satisfy that one. The article is dedicated to the main character in the book and the books are specifically discussed. I'm trying it again with more rationale. Thanks for your help though - this is rather arcane, and seems like way overkill to me, based on my knowledge (which is not minor) of fair use in publishing. (Keeping discussion together here) Tvoz |talk 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone'll probably just come by later to say that it fails WP:NFCC#8. Different countries have different rules, so the criteria are (in theory) designed to make sure non-free images satisfy the rules of many English-speaking countries. But the "use rationale" requirement is pretty ridiculous in many cases.
In this case, I'd just say "don't judge a book by its cover" and let the images be deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to see what happens - there is no rhyme or reason to what they tagged: the article had four images and they tagged two of them, but they all have the same reason for being there. I personally think this deletion mania is doing damage to the encyclopedia, but I'm not leading an uprising, just trying to maintain images that I believe are valid and now "properly" tagged - all 4 of them. Thanks again. Tvoz |talk 00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging project - relevant to you

Hello, I was asked to notify you and other people that tag images, or run image tagging scripts, of this. Please check out WP:TODAY, which grew off of the recent AN conversation. You will be particularly interested in this section: Wikipedia:TODAY#Early 2008 trial run. Please weigh in on the talk page there? And if possible, let me know who else should know about this? Lawrence Cohen 18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Converting PNGs to SVGs for company logos

Is the conversion of a PNG to an SVG compatible with the fair use rationale which says something about low resolution (arguably doesn't exist in the world of SVG)? I guess it's tricky 'cause the law makers didn't envision the SVG. Although when you look at an SVG at wikipedia, it is of a limited size, this (as it says in the text below the image) is arbitrary since it can be enlarged as many times as person likes. --Seans Potato Business 18:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The "low resolution" criteria does not apply to vector images. Basically, if an image can be vectorized then the image is simple enough that raising or lowering its resolution doesn't have an impact on our claim of fair use. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. If I take a GIF image that is in the public domain and vectorize it, can I then release it under CC BY SA and GFDL on account of it being a derivative work? ----Seans Potato Business 14:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The_Story_Girl.jpg

Thank you for informing about The_Story_Girl.jpg. I will try to make things normal but fully understanding Wikipedia's rule and US fair use laws might be too hard for me. Read and understand applicable Media_copyright_questions in 3 days? Uh... I will do my best... To continue contribute to Wikipedia. Tolena (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case, since the book is now in the public domain, the title page of the original edition should be used instead of a non-free modern book cover. Please don't be discouraged. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:PNG crusade bot

Since there are many images now tagged with {{badGIF}} and {{shouldBePNG}}, I think it is time to re-activate the PNG crusade bot. Many of these images are long overdue for conversion. ANDROS1337 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello Remember the dot, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly. You know the difference between a good-faith edit and vandalism, so therefore, I can trust you not to use rollback abusively by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. If you don't want rollback, let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 04:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't know if I'll use it much, but having it could prove useful. Thanks!
As a side note, I wish that I could block persistent vandals as well, but it doesn't look like that right can be granted separate from full adminship... —Remember the dot (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! I think there might have been proposals to give out individual blocking, protecting, and deleting rights in the past, but none of them gained consensus (at least, I think there were proposals, I'm not sure). As for your use of rollback, it doesn't matter how much you use it as long as you use it correctly. :) Good luck. Acalamari 20:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I found where casualty.jpg is from

I found where casualty.jpg is from: http://www.zaobao.com/special/sia/siacrash_photo.html WhisperToMe (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Teddy Bear Effect

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner (I realize you already deleted). You have my belated blessing.  :-) JordanSamuels (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passive_fire_protection&diff=185807501&oldid=184405380

Point taken. I only did that because of the insistence on inline references by another editor. Sometimes it's hard to do these things because on the one hand you want outside references, inline and out of bloody line and then the things you put in are questioned because it's a page tied into a company that wants to make money of the sale of its goods and services, etc. Sometimes it's hard to satisfy all the requirements... --Achim (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Revisit for Christian metal FAC

Hi, you previously opposed Christian metal's FAC status because of its lenght. It has been cut to 71 kbit size for now so could you revisit the candidate page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christian metal and tell whether you still oppose or now support it? --Azure Shrieker (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re

Firefox. I don't know why its not working. Hmmm. Swirlboy39 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hopefully it'll pass. :) Rudget. 17:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope so too. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about this, but your comments in your RfA come at rather an unfortunate time. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archtransit for background. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, if your RfA doesn't pass get back in touch and we can think about other ways to propose that. However, it may well pass, even if you don't modify your recall terms - which I'd strongly recommend. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, just a note to say that I have got in touch with the other user who cited my concerns in their oppose. Not that this will be necessary (your RfA is clearly going to pass) but I thought this would be a polite gesture to show there are no hard feelings. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thank you for re-uploading the Ishida photo of Alan Kotok. Looks good. I could ask the Computer History Museum for permissions on the other image you marked speedy delete. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, it would be a good idea to ask the Computer History Museum for permission. See if they will send an e-mail to [email protected] with a statement such as "On behalf of the Computer History Museum, I authorize redistribution of 'Mouse That Roared Panel 20060515.jpg' under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0." Send them a link to [1] and make sure that they e-mail you back after sending the permission e-mail so that the deletion tag can be removed. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Request sent. Thanks again. I was procrastinating on this one when I found out what was involved. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Tagging for a possible copyvio image

Hello, I've been asked by an editor to review his contribs, and I'm not sure what template to use for an image that may be a copyvio. Also, is it appropriate to consider an image a possible copyvio just because it's of high quality, or do you need to have found it on the web first? For instance, Image:Uniplex PSA.jpg. Thanks. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Oops. rather, which is the correct user notification tag to place on the creator's page. Thaks Dlohcierekim Deleted? 23:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

High-resolution images are less likely to be copyright violations because re-users often re-use the lower quality copies, not needing the high resolution. As far as Image:Uniplex Landrover.jpg and Image:Uniplex PSA.jpg, I would assume good faith that they were taken by the uploader. If you still have doubts, I suggest that you ask the uploader to clarify.
Even if an image is found on another web site without attribution to Wikipedia, it is hard to tell whether or not that web site is violating copyright or whether the person who uploaded the image to Wikipedia is violating copyright.
Use {{pui}} for possibly unfree images. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I figured. Personally, I wouldn't go near the images with a ten foot pole, but I was reviewing an editor who wants to be an admin some day. So, I thought I'd ask someone who knows more than me. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Smile

Thanks for the note. I ran into you about a year ago and I can't for the life of me remember where, but I know I've always had a good impression. I suppose it might not hurt to decide upon specific recall criteria now. I think you're highly unlikely to be recalled, so adopting one of the standards specified won't leave you vulnerable to losing the tools (unless you do something really wacky). Consider that User:Archtransit, mentioned above, made 10 really dubious blocks before it got to such an ugly level. As long as you remain communicative, the community strongly supports people who do work with image deletions. (Oh, and I do agree some sort of limited adminship would be nice. The only thing I ever wanted to do as a non-admin was edit some protected pages such as T:DYK and be able to fix the occasional typo at WP:ERRORS.) --JayHenry (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I wanted to be the first to congratulate you on passing the RfA this time. Good to have you as an administrator and good luck! You'll need it. Enigma (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! There's still 2 more days left in my RfA, though. "It ain't over till it's over." —Remember the dot (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Over 94% now. This is exciting. Enigma (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
lol this bot has taken over your talk page. Too many images! Enigma (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* —Remember the dot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess you've been having trouble with the bot for a long time, especially with an image editor like yourself. Enigma (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
and now it's official. :) Congrats again. Enigma (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I agree that it does more harm than good. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and sadly this was apparent on that bot's first day removing Usenet posts (I am making an exception about talking about another user account on someone else's talk page in this case). PS. Congratulations on your RfA by the way. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the majority of users with an opinion on that bot would agree that it does more harm than good. Enigma (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I made a small correction to "first day" (sorry). If it could operate outside user talk pages it might be helpful, but for now it is nearly impossible to read my watchlist. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Same here. I've had RTD's talk page on my watch list since my first comment, and it gets blanketed occasionally by the bot. Even if the bot were to stay, serious changes would need to be made to how it operates regarding talk pages. Enigma (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your RfA, Remember the dot.
For offering your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award originated by User:Pedia-I. Careful out there and good luck. Ce n'est pas un parapluie.
(Explanation and Disclaimer). -Susanlesch (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


There are several debates going on at the bot's Talk page. [2] Any input would be welcome. I'm personally sick of the bot, its owner, and its sole defender. Enigma (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't help at this time but user talk pages are a poor place for deletion notices for some users. Maybe one can argue against typos. Get a big orange alert and drop a "p" or "q". I believe this bot used to use article talk pages but don't know if it still does. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There's more going on. [3] Enigma (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Free use Temple Pictures

Thanks for finding the free use temple pictures - I know scouring flickr and other sources can be quite time consuming and unfruitful on occasion. So I especially appreciate your efforts!! --Trödel 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) I didn't think that anyone would ever thank me for that. The trick is to track down flickr users' e-mail addresses and ask them to release their photos. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been very unsuccessful with that - but have only tried with one person on flickr - I have tried that from other sources like ldschurchtemples.com - finding the person who sent the picture to that site and asking them for permission to post on wikipedia. Anyway - great job --Trödel 20:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to thank you for the temple pictures. I've tried too, and free versions are surprisingly hard to come by. From what I can tell, you've uploaded far more than anyone else (20 that are currently used in the temple list). Thanks!
Also, congrats on your successful RFA! – jaksmata 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Two Stickney image

Is this page the source of Image:Two Stickney circa 1836 drawing.png?--Pharos (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I actually wasn't the original uploader of this photo. I converted it to PNG format and had the old GIF copy deleted, but it looks like the name of the original uploader was lost in the move to the Commons. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 18:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 18:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Acalamari 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Now, GET TO CLEARING THOSE BACKLOGS! =) нмŵוτнτ 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome, and congratulations. Be sure to ring out the mop before you use it, so you don't get any one wet! Earthbendingmaster 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
And if you do happen to get someone wet, be sure to get rid of all the evidence. :) Congrats, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Enjoy the shiny buttons. Congratulations! Majoreditor (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice one, if you need any help or advice don't hesitate to ask. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Congrats and good luck. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I beat the rush. Congrats on all the congratulations! Enigma (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations per above. I hope you enjoy the drama the trust and support your fellow editors have foisted upon you entrusted with you. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank God! Rudget. 17:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Mucho Congrats Wexcan  Talk  20:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G12

Hi. I just wanted to remind you (or point out, if you're unaware) that when we delete an article for violating copyright, we're supposed to make sure that the user who placed the material has been notified of copyright policy. It's the only speedy that I know of where it is required that the user be notified; I wasn't around for that discussion, but I presume it's to be sure that we do all we can to keep content legal. Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion suggests we may use {{nothanks-sd}}. I'm not that happy with that myself, since it suggests that we don't know that the article has been deleted, which isn't the case when we're the deleting admins. :) I use my own template. Just to be specific, this is in reference to the article 301 STUDIOS. I have left a note pointing to copyright policy for this editor, so this is mostly a matter for future reference. And congratulations on your evidently recent RfA. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll make sure to leave messages like this in the future. —Remember the dot (talk)
No problem. :) I know it is confusing, since it seems to be the only one. (At least in the articles & general criteria, which is where I usually hang out.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Common.css

Hi. Your last edit to common.css has no effect. If you want to increase the box height, you need to increase the textarea's 'rows' property. — Edokter • Talk • 23:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It works in Firefox, Opera, and IE7. It must be just IE6 that doesn't understand this bit of CSS. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, doesn't work in Firefox either...not a lot anyway. But Commons, has the height set to 160px, not 11em. Maybe that is why I see no difference. — Edokter • Talk • 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The increase in height is slight - just a couple of lines taller. Do you think it should be taller still? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Could do with a bit more... I say make it 160px. — Edokter • Talk • 00:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather do it using em's, so that it scales to match the font size. I'll try 12em. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That won't work, as the textarea's font is unrelated to the base font. Please use px. — Edokter • Talk • 00:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
An *please* keep edits to common.css to a bare minimum. Test using the dev toolbar or your monobook.css. — Edokter • Talk • 00:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for making an extra edit. With the exception of increasing the value from 11em to 12em, I did test the changes using Firebug, and I will make sure to test them in the future.
Try going to the upload form, holding down Ctrl, and then moving the scroll wheel on your mouse. This will adjust the font size. On the Commons, the statically-sized Summary box does not grow to accomodate the larger font. But on the English Wikipedia, it will grow accordingly. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please help with disruptive bot

This is extremely frustrating. The owner of the bot is refusing to address concerns about the bot's edits. [4] There was a WP:AN complaint, but the bot was quickly unblocked and is rampaging again. I posted something there, but I'm out of options. I've tried discussing it on the bot's talk page, but that proved futile. Can you help? Enigma (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's not much I can do. You'd have to petition to relax the non-free content policy, which is a daunting task. We could, however, work around the problem by adding more preloaded templates to Wikipedia:Upload, like what is done with the "logo" option. That would at least prevent images uploaded in the future from being needlessly deleted, though all the template jargon would still be confusing to many. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I posted something at [5]. Please feel free to make changes on the proposal or comment as to the specific complaint. I'm not well-equipped to do this. Enigma (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh. :D. Thanks. I knew it wouldn't work properly. Maybe you could suggest a better way to do it? Enigma (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, one more thing. Maybe you want to delete all those bot notifications? I actually thought about doing it because it's unnecessarily lengthening the page. Enigma (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right that it's crazy to ask someone to sign something that could be changed, but I was trying to leave the proposal open. Maybe I should've left out the request for signatures and posted that the proposal was in progress. Enigma (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to find someone willing to post the proposal then, because I don't think I'm the right person. I have several issues with the way the bot currently operates, and I would support any such proposal, but I don't think I'm the right person to clearly detail what the issues are and why the bot should be temporarily blocked. Enigma (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand is also deleting many of the complaints left on the page. I have a problem with how this is being handled. [6] Enigma (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Enigma, I am removing rude/attack comments calling my work a "jihad" is offensive and will be reverted. βcommand 03:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was a good comment. Oh well. Check out this Talk page. [7] Enigma (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
see my last comment on the bot talkpage. βcommand 04:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I picked up on part of this discussion when I was posting a message on Enigma's talk page (related, of course, to this issue). You mentioned that a new guideline (I'd rather it be policy) of "no enforcing WP:NFCC#10c by bot" is being proposed. Where is this being proposed as I would like to add my support to it. As I was mentioning to Enigma, I am under the assumption (vague hope) that Betacommandbot (and its kin) will stop the flood at the end of March when all "non-conforming" images (I use that term rather than the party line because as far as I'm concerned it's a case of non-conformity as opposed to copyright violation) are supposed to be gone. But I would like to see a policy in place to prevent this from happening again the next time someone changes Wikipolicy on images, which I personally expect to see happen before Christmas. 23skidoo (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

23skidoo this policy has been in place since mid 2006. βcommand 04:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Also see [8]. I think you may agree with him on that one. ;) Enigma (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granting

Just so you know, there are two templates available if you want to use them when granting rollback, Template:Rollbackgiven and User:NoSeptember/Rollback. :) Acalamari 03:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! Glad to help! Acalamari 17:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarify why Image:Ronni.jpg and Ronni2.jpg were removed

These two images were deleted per these two entries:

  • 20:31, 13 February 2008 Remember the dot (Talk | contribs) (2,217 bytes) (Removing instance of image Ronni2.jpg that has been speedily deleted per (CSD I3); using TW) (undo)
  • 20:31, 13 February 2008 Remember the dot (Talk | contribs) (2,166 bytes) (Removing instance of image Ronni.jpg that has been speedily deleted per (CSD I3); using TW) (undo)

I have permission to use these photos from the owner, so it makes no sense that they were removed:

Original Message-----

From: Nathaniel Kerksick <[email protected]> Sent: Fri 1/5/2007 2:08 PM To: Bruce England; Sarah Anderson; Diana Alonzo Subject: RE: FW: P.S.2 Re: Wikipedia.org and Letilier-Moffitt case Hi Bruce, Here you go, please keep under CC license and attribute credit to respective families/Institute for Policy Studies. THANK YOU for making this Wikipedia entry. All best, Nat

So it makes no sense to me that they were removed under the Wiki terms of fair use. Please advise so I can repost them! --Bkengland (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Under Construction temples

FYI - I believe I have under construction temples working with the data template - I have created the {{LDS Temple/Curitiba Brazil Temple}} data page. Let me know if you see any problems. --Trödel 04:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU FOR BEING SO FAST! You are very discouraging...--Getoar (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK! I started the article once again with some more information...--Getoar (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of nfo image

Please state why you chose to delete Image:Independence.Day.SE.1996.iNTERNAL.DVDRip.XViD-TWiST.nfo.png. As per its archived debate of the proposed deletion, there was only one user who wanted it deleted, and there were two wanted it kept. A consensus for deletion was not present. --AB (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The image was used only as an example of a file in .nfo format. Simple ASCII art isn't too hard to make, so the image was replaceable and thus failed WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability).

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz talk 04:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Best pic I've seen

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dzubenko&action=history

Re: 01:34, February 17, 2008 Remember the dot (Talk | contribs) (780 bytes) (declining to speedy under WP:CSD#A1)

And as per what grounds, may I ask? This "article" contains no links to sources, has links to 4 dead wikipedia articles and has no value whatsoever. This "article" was created by a serial vandal - with tagged edits and a 24hr ban in his proud history. Look at his other edits, for heaven's sake. Explain yourself. --Bicycle repairman (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A1 is:
No context. Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car and makes people laugh." Context is different than content, treated in A3, below.
The article Dzubenko does provide context. I suggest sending it through WP:PROD if you would like it deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal regarding NFCC 10 c

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot_and_NFCC_10_c Enigma msg! 20:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betacommand Enigma msg! 15:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

edittools

re your test at mediawiki:edittools. Possibly http://test.wikipedia.org would work for your needs? (I was poking around there yesterday :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually created an account on the test wiki today, only to find that even over there, pages in the MediaWiki namespace could only be edited by administrators. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Doh! ah well. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You can request adminship there too, by asking a bureaucrat. Shouldn't be a problem, as you're an admin here. (That link to a test wiki is broken though; I've asked on the talkpage for a fix).
I'm really just thinking about this old thread again though: MediaWiki talk:Edittools#Reducing the overwhelming size - use Commons version? I hide most of the edittools/warnings with monobook.css, but everytime I edit logged-out, I'm slightly horrified by how large it is and how much non-regularly-useful stuff is in it! :( I think its overwhelming size is drastically reducing the number of new editors we get; intimidation by complication. mumblemumblerant ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks for adding me to the list of rollback approved editors! Definitely will make vandal control simpler. nf utvol (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn

I thought I would be the first Remember to become an Admin. Oh well. Remember (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

lol. Will you settle for rollback? You can have it, just be careful not to use it in content disputes. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not the same. I will forever be in the editing shadow of Remember the Dot. :( Remember (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Filling in "Author" on self-created works

That whole interface is extremely confusing, even to me, and I delete more than a thousand images a day. Additionally, I constantly get complaints via email from newbies who can't figure it out and end up having their images deleted - you mind if I take a crack at redesigning it into something with less instruction creep, walls of text, and big scary boxes? east.718 at 04:39, February 20, 2008

The Commons thing is actually the number one complaint I get; when people see a big gray box saying "you're doing it wrong... go register here instead!", they understandably get turned off. The second biggest one is that the {{information}} template is used instead of a normal form - new users have no idea how templates work and just get confused. That's not easily fixable though. :-( east.718 at 04:49, February 20, 2008

BReaks

Hey. I saw and agreed with your userpage mutterings. I was about to quibble over <br/> vs <br />, then saw in one reference that it is considered optional. Following back to the (gah) spec,[9] I see it is indeed, but it's also recommended there[10] and elsewhere[11] to do so (leave a space before the closing slash). So there! muttermutterrant. (so, remember the space! ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah well. The MediaWiki software sanitizes it into <br /> on the way out. I just think it's easier to learn (X)HTML if the slash is in there somewhere to remind you to not to put a closing tag, and it's faster to type <br/> than <br />.
Incidentally, I looked at your contributions and I believe that when you have reverted edits, you have done so appropriately. So, I have added rollback rights to your account. Please note that rollback should be used only for blatant vandalism and does not leave a useful edit summary. I hope you find it useful, but if not, just ask and I will remove it. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Nifty! Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

IE6 Outdated Warning.

Hey, I just wanted to ask why your user page says that my browser is outdated and does not work with Wikipedia correctly. I have never encountered any of these problems that you are talking about. Second of all, IE7 is a lot slower that IE6. Its interface is horrendously designed, and it is as slow as heck. Why are you telling people this? If I need to upgrade, where do I get Firefox or Opera? I have heard of them both, but am not sure where to download them at. My understanding was that IE6 had great support for CSS. I use it for all of my web browsing, and it never distorts images or text. IE7 is basically just IE6 with a crappy new interface right? I would appreciate some more information on this matter. Thanks. Jdlowery (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As a web developer, I can assure you that IE7 is not just IE6 with a crappy new user interface, although I admit its user interface stinks. IE7 fixed tons of CSS bugs and provided proper support for transparent images. The English Wikipedia currently makes IE6 do a lot of time-intensive processing to make sure that transparent images display transparently, which can make your browser go very slowly. Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms is an extreme example of this; your browser may freeze for up to 10 seconds while a piece of JavaScript forces it to display the images transparently.
Anyway, you can download Firefox here and Opera here. Both of these browsers work much better than either IE6 or IE7. If you want to stick with IE, you can download IE7 here. I can help you with any problems you might have switching your browser. Please let me know how it goes for you. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it! Jdlowery (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey man, thanks for the advice. I love Mozilla Firefox, and I have only been using it for a couple of hours. When I opened that link with the CSS template that you sent me, it took about 2 or so minutes to load. I had wondered about that, because the same thing had happened to me on a few other sites as well. I thought it was just a slow connection, but I see now that it is my browser. Firefox is so easy to use, it has a user interface that is similar to IE6 but with Tabs which I love! Its too bad though, I loved IE6, but I guess it is on its way out, since it is now close to 7 years old. Just one question, how come IE7 is so slow? I use it at work on a computer that is only about a year old. The Internet connection is fast, but It takes for ever to pull up the browser as well as load pages. Does this have something to do with the web site, or the browser? Anyway, thanks for the help, I really appreciate it! Jdlowery (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you love Firefox! I like it a lot too. The automatic spell check may well be my favorite feature. Anyway, I honestly don't know exactly why IE7 is slow for you. It might be that your work computer has a high-latency (lag) Internet connection. So, it would be slow to start loading a page, but fast once it gets started. Linux, Windows Vista, and probably Mac OS X smooth out latency problems a bit through fine-tuned network optimization.
Lots of toolbars and add-ons can really drag down a browser as well. Yet another explanation is the Firefox will render HTML tables as it receives them, whereas Internet Explorer waits until is has the whole table.
I recommend upgrading to IE7 on your home computer even though now that you have Firefox, you probably won't need to use IE any more. If you install IE7 on your home computer, you could see whether the speed problem is just an issue with your work computer or whether it's an issue with IE in general.
As far as IE7's less-than-ideal UI, you can make it look a lot like IE6 by installing the "force IE7's menu bar to the Top" registry patch at [12]. While editing the registry isn't usually recommended, this patch was written by one of the IE developers and works quite well. Make sure to install IE7 before trying to install the registry patch. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Super_Mario_Bros._2_For_Super_Players_title_screen.png

I have tagged Image:Super_Mario_Bros._2_For_Super_Players_title_screen.png as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

Hi, I just wanted to inform you that we have taken the Wikipedia delegable proxy experiment live. This is a proposal to let users appoint a trusted individual to represent them in debates that they themselves (whether due to time limitations or whatever reason) are not able to personally participate. This system is ideal for your purposes, since you have limited time to devote to Wikipedia but many trusted colleagues here. I encourage you to nominate a proxy. The proxy designation instructions are at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. For instance, if you wish to nominate me as a proxy, you can just go to User:Remember the dot/Archive/Proxy, create a new page, and then enter: 

{{subst:Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table/Designate|Absidy}}

You may remember me as User:Ron Duvall. We worked together on the some voting reform articles, if I remember correctly. I also came up with this cool advertising banner:

This user supports delegable proxy.
 Show your support for delegable proxy! Add this userbox to your userpage using {{User:Sarsaparilla/Delegable proxy}}

Thanks, Absidy (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Aston mertin lake.jpg

You might as well delete it. There are enough Aston Martin images in the article. And I don't want to start a war in the discussion. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is not right

An image I uploaded some time in the distant past was tagged, but yourself IIRC, as having no source or something or other. Big boilerplate messages all over my user talk page. Then OrphanBot saw the tag and removed it from the article. More big boilerplate all over my userpage. Now that it's orphaned, it can be more speedily deleted, because orphans are less important.

No no no no no!

Someone fix this.

Maury (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? If you can provide source information then I can undelete the images. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if the message is deleted or not, what I don't want is different policies "ganging up" to reduce the amount of time one has to fix the problem, while at the same time spamming my user page. Maury (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

I see that in the month that I was retired, you applied for adminship again and successfully got the tools. Congrats on that, I wish I could've been there to support your nomination. If you need anything, I'm certainly available. Wizardman 03:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :-D —Remember the dot (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

very unimportant question :)

hello :) I just wanted to know how someone would be able to find out which pages link to one's user page, because I know I added my signature to a WikiProject, but I can't, for the life of me, recall which one it is, and I don't want to search for it. The image pages have a little list on the bottom that shows which pages link to that page, and I was just wondering if I could do the same? Thanks Mathwhiz 29 (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The "What links here" link in the toolbox on the left should do the trick. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I'm dumb. :) Thanks a lot! Mathwhiz 29 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Version targeting

Would you mind doing some copyediting? --soum talk 03:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

PUI

Hello! Please check this request. Thanks!--OsamaK 10:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Opera Mini

No U!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.36.243 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Replacement of IE8 image

Why did you replace the image of IE8. The original was perfectly fine. Also, please reupload it with the wikipedia homepage showing. --Titan602 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Internet Explorer 8 screenshot.png has three problems: first, its resolution is very high, so it is hard to see the toolbars and such. Second, it does not use the default search provider, and third, it contains the non-free Wikipedia logo. If you want to use the Wikipedia logo then you must get explicit permission from the Wikimedia Foundation, so including this logo in the screenshot makes it quite a bit more difficult to re-use the screenshot. Better to avoid the problem entirely and show a public domain web site; we're trying to illustrate the browser and not any particular web site anyway. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. Sure thing. However, it is perfectly fine to take a screenshot of the wikipedia site if the screenshot is going to be shown on wikipedia. If you don't agree, just scroll down so you can't see it. ;) --Titan602 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it's still best to make the images as reusable as possible, so that others can copy Wikipedia content without worry. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in but the everything on an WP page is under GFDL (sans the logo), so it is perfectly fine in copying. Anyways, I was wondering if a little customization in the screenshot would be a good idea - show a customized fav bar with a web slice. --soum talk 20:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's the logo that's the problem. It's best to avoid using Wikipedia screenshots that show the logo so that people who copy Wikipedia content don't have to worry about getting permission to use the Wikipedia logo included in the screenshot.
I was referring to Titan's suggestion of scrolling the logo out of viewport. --soum talk 21:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, we could do that. That is actually a very good idea. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The default settings should be used when taking screenshots because they more accurately reflect how the software generally looks. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The same old reply. The one we always use. :-P Anyways, you are right. Slices should probably be shown separately, alongside feature description. --soum talk 21:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WS Collaboration project

G'day, this weeks Wikisource collaboration project is G. W. Bush. We need your help ! :-) John Vandenberg (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid that I have neither the time nor the motivation to participate this time around. Nonetheless, good luck to you! —Remember the dot (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Greek letters

Was this ever resolved [13]? I'm trying to put an RFAR together and didn't see any further discussion on it. MBisanz talk 16:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding a bit sooner. Yes, the issue appears to have been resolved. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

IE8 and watchlist

The problem only occurs in IE8 standards mode. Since I have kept IE to default to IE7 mode, I will have to check specifically. I will get back to you in a moment. --soum talk 13:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep the problem still persists - the text rendering is messed up and CPU spikes up 100%. And no, its not due to a conflict with add-on. I have no idea whats causing the problem (I am not well versed with HTML, actually I am not much an UI guy, I am a more down-to-the-metal programmer working at the os kernel/hypervisor/compiler space), so probably won't be able to help much with the debugging info (unless you want a full memory dump of IE :-P). Anyway one thing I noticed, in IE8 mode the bullets are the generic ones, in IE7 mode it uses a custom blu-ish bullet. --soum talk 13:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with text rendering is due to ClearType - it goes away with CT disabled. But the CPU still maxes out. Its probably IE's fault, not WP's. I am reporting it to Microsoft. How's your mileage on this issue? --soum talk 13:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Uploadtext/screenshot

There is a request for help at the commons. I think you might be able to help. Please see commons:Commons talk:Upload#Uploadtext/screenshot. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Late reply to a Village pump thread

I added some late information about the {{Google custom}} template to: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 19#Namespaces as subdomains. You were active in that thread, so I thought you might like to know. I did not see the question when it was fresh; another user called my attention to it later. --Teratornis (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your "kept as fair use" closures on WP:PUI

Hi, I'm a bit puzzled by closures like this. I asume you are fairly familiar with the various image policies, so why are you closing as PUI listing as "kept as fair use" and then not provide any kind of non-free use rationale for it? If you believe an image could be legitemately used on Wikipedia in accordance with WP:NONFREE I'd say you are also responsible for making sure it has the nessesary rationale(s) in place before declearing it as "kept". Closing it as keep in the PUI process while the image is still basicaly a speedy deletion candidate for failute to comply with the non-free content policy seems inapropriate to me. Better to keep it listed untill all copyright and policy related concerns have been fully adressed (feel free to relist if you think more time is needed). Yes I know it's not your "job" to write rationales for such images, just saying that unless someone actualy do write a rationale you should not close them as keeps either (PUI is a good place as any to resolve those things, no point in having it listed for 14+ days, kept and then tagged for speedy deletion for failure to comply with policy anyway). Please consider this. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comment

See here. His userbox said "This user thinks Betacommandbot is ruining Wikipedia." It got deleted as the result of a close vote at MfD. What's his recourse? Enigma msg! 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for putting it up, but it got deleted/closed almost immediately by Nick. By the way, you can respond here. I have your talk page watchlisted. Enigma msg! 22:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Does it strike you as a bit authoritarian to close the discussion almost immediately and tell me that Wikipedia does not respect freedom of speech? I completely understand prohibiting slander, trolling, ax-grinding, etc. However, a bot is really just the embodiment of certain actions. Saying you oppose a certain bot is no worse than saying that you oppose the set of actions it performs, or the way it performs it. Is this really such a dangerous idea that it is necessary to immediately shut down any discussion that might end in its favor? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
And the creator of the box got blocked for 24 hours for recreating the box, even though the box he posted again wasn't the same box they were referring to. There is some serious abuse going on here. Definitely wrong to immediately shut down deletion review of something, considering there are several very good reasons why it needs a review. When people say Wikipedia needs more admins, I say to myself "Maybe so, but we have too many admins as it is. Look at some of the many wrongful and borderline abusive administrative actions taken daily." Enigma msg! 05:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is wrong.
We really need to create a limited adminship system to break up the blocking, deleting, and protecting powers. I think that with greater diffusion of power, less abuse would happen overall. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
There's more discussion at User talk:Doc glasgow#Blocking Bleveret. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually thought of going to his talk page and commenting on the block, but I decided that it wouldn't really help matters (coming from a non-admin, at least). Thanks for being WP:BOLD and doing it. Enigma msg! 05:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

pfffffftttt!!!

So, would that be Remembering the dots then?. I just spit diet mountain dew all over my keyboard. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

lol :-D that would be a bug in Twinkle, not me going dot-crazy. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

About 08 womensfinalfourlogo.jpg

It has been given a Wikipedia:Logo rationale tag. NoseNuggets (talk) 1:05 AM US EDT Mar 20 2008.

I've been trying to get a new template titled "Infobox: NCAA Women's Basketball Tournament" up there, but I accidentally deleted the image, so forgive me. Can someone help me out on that, because it's the same as the men's tournament, but instead focuses on the women's event. NoseNuggets (talk) 1:12 AM US EDT Mar 20 2008.

Wikisource calls again

Me again :-) We have two candidates for CU on Wikisource, and we need to accumulate 25 votes in favour in order to be approved. While I am one of the candidates, I dont mind whether you vote for or against me; this note is just to ensure that you know that as you are a serious contributor to Wikisource, and we dont have many, your input is desirable at this stage. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to support you, but I don't have a strong opinion on the other candidates. I'm sure you'll do well! —Remember the dot (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


I'm new to Wikipedia, but from what I see you are the most moderate and just administrator I have seen thus far, aside from one other. Administrator Doc seems heavy handed, he was with me, and I honor you for having courage to overturn any and all of his unjust blocks of users. I may appeal to you if Doc gives me any problems. Hope to hear from you. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Ubuntu.png

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Ubuntu.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. wL<speak·check> 23:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit to the Mozilla Firefox article back to my version of the image, as well as responded to your dispute for the replaceable fair use tag on the image on Image talk:Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Ubuntu.png. I'll replace my wider resolution image of the browser with a smaller one later on today when I get access to my Linux machine again. But my version handled a few non-free versions of the image such as the Firefox, Wikipedia and Google logos. --wL<speak·check> 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Pterois antennata

Hello again. Um, I did this redirect of the Pterois antennata based of this image I saw, but then I realized it was wrong. :( Can you delete the page so that people can search for it and come up with the genus Pterois? Thanks in advance mathwhiz29 01:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of Template:Political poster

Hello, I noticed that sometime during this month you deleted this template, however the Special:Upload screen now refers to a nonexistent template as seen could you please restore the template, or fix the Special:Upload screen. Thanks. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 10:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. I was under the impression that this template was deprecated and had fallen into disuse, but apparently it was never removed from the license selector. In any case, it's gone now. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Opera Mobile screenshot

Talking of the Opera Mobile screenshot... Opera Mobile 8.5 beta on Windows Mobile 2003 - do you call this "the current version, not a beta version"?? :) --seifip (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

IE8 development start

It's still a conclusion you reached yourself. You can't just add loosely implied information to Wikipedia. Try finding a third party source that backs up this claim. Finding a third party source would also help prove that the August 2007 date is notable, when it is doubtful that development actually didn't start until then. (The Acid2 rendering at the start of the video is already quite different from IE7 and it wouldn't make sense from them to sit around doing very little between finishing IE7 and then.)

On the other hand, is it impossible that the August screenshot was from some other project that was later merged into IE8? - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The screenshots show work beyond IE7 that eventually made it into IE8. Whether development occurred before then I don't know, but we know from these screenshots that work on improving the rendering engine was going on in August 2007. This is the best date we have to go on for how long Microsoft has been working on this. Whether Microsoft was developing IE8 at the time or developing another project that eventually merged with IE8 doesn't make much difference; the work all went into IE8 in the end. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of NASA template in Talk:Apollo 11

Hi, I see you deleted the NASA template from Talk:Apollo 11. Please note that the outcome of the tfd was redirect to Template:PD-USGov-NASA, not delete. I'm correcting it in this article, but if you're deleting it in others, please go back to your deletions and replace with the correct template. Otherwise valuable information is being lost. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov-NASA}} is for images, not text. I don't think we need to include this attribution template directly onto articles, especially since that text is open to change from people outside NASA. NASA should of course be attributed in the edit summary whenever we copy from them. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The RFD has been Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:NASA. When it closes, check the logs for March 30 and later. Please stand by to undo or modify your previous changes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Mod

Your recent edits at template:Mod have broken it, please revert them (I cannot it is locked for me). 216.67.75.108 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just fixed this problem. -Icewedge (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not try to purge the cache but it was most certainly not working; it was messing up the randomly generated article requests on recentchanges for over an hour. Also, the template was meant to be that complicated; the way parser functions execute the modulus operand on Wikipedia is much different that normal computing systems. Template:Mod trys to fix that. -Icewedge (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It was no difficulty, in fact your edits have alerted me to a potentially sever problem: If that template is trancluded into recentchanges it need to be protected! As I see that you are an admin, can you do that? Thanks. -Icewedge (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
See Template talk:Mod for the differences between the two methods. As for protection; I really do think that it should be established. The page transcludes directly into recentchanges, one of the most vital pages on the site. Even though we have never had any problem with it, vandalism on it could caused a great deal of disruption. -Icewedge (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with other wiki project

Hi, I picked you randomly from a list of administrators, because I wanted to ask someone about a problem with another wiki project. Hope that's fine. This is the project. The problem is that whenever you try to resize an image, it gives an "Error creating thumbnail:" message.[14] The odd thing is that the error only appears for newly uploaded images, the old ones working perfectly.[15] Do you have any idea as to what might cause the problem? diego_pmc (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Have you tried asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD of exponentialtion templates

Agreed. Thanks for the tip, i.e. use {{#expr:x^y}}, though I'm sure I had tried that once without success ... now it makes sense. JIMp talk·cont 16:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

<br> or <br />?

I noticed your edit to Template:Imbox/doc with the edit comment "XHTML compliance". I think an explanation is needed:

Which should we use? <br> or <br />?

Let's examine this step by step:

1: Writing the XHTML code <br/> without a blank is even against the recommendations of the World Wide Web Consortium, instead it should be written as <br /> since then HTML parsers can understand it too. HTML parsers will simply regard <br /> as a "br" with an unknown parameter "/", while they will regard "br/" as an unknown tag name. So we should definitely not teach people to write <br/>, but possibly <br />.

2: The "HTML" codes we use here at Wikipedia are not XHTML markup nor are they HTML markup, instead they are "HTML wikimarkup", since MediaWiki processes them just like wikimarkup.

3: Wikipedia mainly uses wikimarkup. The reasons for that is simple: Most people that edit Wikipedia are people who never have made a web page, so they know nothing about HTML, XHTML or CSS. So for them (and even for us old webmaster geeks) it is easier to use wikimarkup.

4: As far as I have seen the documentation for MediaWiki talks about "HTML in wikitext" and never mentions "XHTML in wikitext". Also up until recently all documentation listed <br> as the code for forced line breaks. But some months ago some XHTML enthusiasts went around and edited a lot of the help pages to show the <br /> or even the <br/>.

So which should we use? <br> or <br />?

Well, let's first ask another question: Which markup should we use for bold text?

  • '''Bold'''
  • <b>Bold</b>
  • <span style="font-weight:bold;">Bold</span>

I think we all know that the wikimarkup '''Bold''' is the recommended one. Mainly because it is simpler to use, especially for the majority of editors that don't know HTML and CSS.

The same goes for <br> vs <br />. The HTML wikimarkup <br> is easier for the majority of editors to use, and it is shorter.

Sure, we have a "teaching opportunity" to teach people to use the <br />, but there is a very high risk that they instead will use the <br/> and that would be a bad thing. And believe it or not, many beginners have problems telling "/" and "\" apart. So they might even try to use the <br\>...

So again, the <br> is easier for the majority of editors to use, and it is shorter.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

<br>, <br/>, </br>, and <br\> are all automatically converted to <br /> on the way out, so there's no danger of bad markup showing up to the outside world. I actually find <br/> more understandable than <br> because it clarifies that there should not be an ending </br> tag. It also helps teach good web design practices, namely XHTML, by example. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
So you seriously mean that Wikipedia editors should start using <span style="font-weight:bold;">Bold</span> since that is what W3C recommends, instead of '''Bold''' ?
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. That's no more consistent than '''Bold''' and much more complicated. The whole point of the / in <br/> is clarity and consistency. Using <span>s instead of wikimarkup is neither more clear nor more consistent. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

Did you implement the .js thing, could you respond at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Twinkle? Thanks. MBisanz talk 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

PNG crusade bot subject to libpng vulnerability?

Per the libpng web page, there is an update to libpng to fix a vulnerability in freeing unknown chunks of zero data length. It notes that certain builds of pngcrush are vulnerable:

http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/libpng.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.164.67.115 (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the note! —Remember the dot (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

Deleting "Template:Scoutlogo" is okay, but you should also delete the talk page, which in this case was also a redir. Talk pages should not be orphaned. Thanks — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete Template talk:Scoutlogo because it's linked to from an archived discussion, User talk:Gadget850/Archive 2007#Scoutlogo rationales. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Move the search box directly beneath the puzzle globe

Just curious but why would it be hard for the eldery? Though I must say that I found the comment along with the featured article rather funny. Thanks for the chuckle. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome for the chuckle ;-) - it seems to me that older people have a harder time looking at a web page, breaking it down, and identifying the part of the page that they actually want to use. By placing the search box in a much more visible location, it should make it easier for the elderly to find it. It's also easier for people who read more slowly and blind people who have to use screen readers. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Stupidity is contagious.jpg

http://www.warninglabelgenerator.com/ outputs only JPEGs. Most of the available design elements appear to be in the public domain. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Common.js breakage

That last edit of yours to MediaWiki:Common.js introduced some syntax errors, including a line that read: 

for(new importScript, importStylesheet, and family

I've reverted it for now, would you mind taking a second look at it? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I must have pressed Ctrl+V by accident just as I was saving the edit. I'm not picking up any script errors now. Are you? —Remember the dot (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be working fine now. Thanks! —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

New message

Hello, Remember the dot. You have new messages at Ashanda's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ashanda (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Earth physical characteristics tables

you said there's no obvious reason; did you see the talk page comment i left? its not a criticism if you didnt. Ironholds (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Theos Bernard

Hi, Remember the dot! Thank you for merging the history in the article I started. Sorry for the error. Carpe diem! Carpe Wikipedia! Pmronchi (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Although I should tell you I'm sorry I did it a bit sloppily. This is the first history merge I've done and it didn't come through quite perfectly. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

geonotice

While you are at it. Can you fix geonotice in MediaWiki:Common.js/watchlist.js to use importScriptURI ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell if it would work right or not if we used importScriptURI because whenever I try to access the script, it just shows a blank page. I've left a note on its author's talk page asking if this could be done. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

F#

I undid your moving of the F Sharp article to F♯. In trying to work around a technical limitation, you introduced factual errors. The language name is not F♯ but F# (i.e., it does not contain the musical ♯ sign but the hash # sign). It is similar to C#, which also is never written as C♯. Plus the ♯ symbol is not on the keyboard, and that would make linking directly to the article by hand a major pain. Renaming a page to use the most common name is fine but renaming to something that is never used, incorrect and harder to use is not. --soum talk 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I thought F♯ was a good way to get around the limitation, since the language is called "F Sharp" and the sharp sign looks very similar. But I'm not going to be heartbroken if others disagree. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Near-native English?

Oh, I just noticed your edit to my userboxes! Thanks for "nominating" me to the "near-native" English userbox! I am very honoured.

But I have to admit, I am cheating since I use a spell checking plug-in in Firefox and occasionally a dictionary. If you heard me speak you would notice my accent, my grammatical errors and my problems to find the words I need. Come to think of it, if you are curious you can watch my p2p talk at the Berlin Congress. There I pronounced "98%" so badly that most of the audience heard "90%" which caused a lot of confusion and weird questions afterwards. I really have to work on my pronunciation.

But again, thanks!

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's not how good you are in meatspace, it's what level you can contribute at ;-)
And don't worry about having to use Firefox spell check – I have to too. I did look at your Berlin Congress talk and your accent is understandable, though if you went to the United States you would of course want to learn a slightly different-sounding one. Anyway, you're welcome for the well-deserved userbox promotion! —Remember the dot (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, so I changed to a hard coded en-4 box with better wording. That is: "able to contribute with a" instead of "speaks at a". Just like the other English user boxes. And yeah, when non-native speakers like me travel we tend to adapt to the local dialect after some days. You should have heard me the last day when I had spent two weeks in a family in England. It was weird to hear oneself speak upper middle class British English. :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help (Transparency)

Thank's for the message and the links you gave me a few days ago :). The problem is solved now.

Greetings, 213.10.202.180 (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC) (Sir Iain)

Image:Search box moved directly beneath the puzzle globe.png

What CSS did you use? I would be interested in using it.  Asenine  14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I used JavaScript; I don't think it's possible to do it with CSS. Please feel free to comment on this change at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move the search box directly beneath the puzzle globe. You can add the following code to your monobook.js to try it out:
addOnloadHook(function() {
    document.getElementById("column-one").insertBefore(document.getElementById("p-search"), document.getElementById("p-cactions"))
})
—Remember the dot (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Opera shortcut change

I have only Opera changelog while they don't say why they changed the shortcuts it's evident that now they are more compatible with Firefox/IE after that change. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I didn't check what that review was talking about. However that brings another point, that's a blog... as far as I know blogs are not considered WP:RS, even more even if we consider that somehow reliable source it doesn't pass the test of encyclopedic information... one person has the opinion that two shortcuts in Opera should be the same as in Firefox or IE, is that encyclopedic info? Does any other reliable source bitch about Ctrl-H or Alt-D? And for crying out loud, this is not a serious issue that's worthy to be mentioned into any encyclopedia. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Paul Minnesota Temple

I do not currently have a working camera (well, not a good camera, anyway - i have my camera phone) So I wouldn't be able to fill your request - I hope you find someone else who can! Etron81 (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Long time, no speak. How's it going? Enigma message 00:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's going all right. I saw your RfA (as you were no doubt hoping I would) and left a comment. A word of advice: let people remove comments to their heart's content in their own userspace. You can bring them up later in a request for comment if necessary, or just keep a collection of links to comments you might want to refer back to later.
Also, don't be too hasty in erasing incidents of disconduct. There's power in letting the record of an injustice stand for the world to see. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I will take your comments to heart. The incident which you refer to was from February and I've since learned my lesson not to get involved with Betacommandbot's talk page. Enigma message 03:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm pretty much done soapboxing now then :-D
I hope your RfA succeeds, I would truly be happy to see you as an administrator. Being able to see things from others' perspectives and use their thoughts to better yourself is a surprisingly uncommon quality. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
A further reply (which I don't mean to have on my page): Truth be told, I was very surprised when I saw Hammersoft's oppose. I have absolutely no recollection of restoring a comment of "deletionist jihadists". Either it was too long ago, or my memory is simply faulty. That was the second major incident brought up. The first (with Deacon and Irpen), I quite clearly remember, and it's the main reason why I didn't want to go for RfA. I resisted for weeks. By the way, feel free to reply here. I like to keep it in one place, and I always keep your talk watchlisted. :) Enigma message 03:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

thank you

i will do as much as i can love to help i noticed a few problems on locked pages how do i change them? lilweezyfbaby

weezyfbabyLilweezyfbaby (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to MediaWiki:Edittools

There is a discussion at WP:VPT#What happened to the fraction "buttons"?. Would you you please join in and explain the accessibility issues? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Remember_the_dot/Archive/6&oldid=1139332137"