User talk:Deltasquared/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Re:Signatures

Hi there Deltasquared, nice to have you around on Wikipedia! :) For my signature, I've just got a little bit of code to change the colour of different words. To make the one I have now, I used the code: [[User:Seaserpent85|<font style="color:#488AC7">Sea</font><font style="color:#2B547E">serpent</font><sup>85</sup>]], and placed that in the code box under "my preferences". If you search for hex colours, you should find the appropriate codes for whatever colours you want. Let me know if you need a hand, Seaserpent⁸⁵ 03:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! thanks very much, I think I'm getting the hang of this now :-) δ²_(Talk) 15:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Supercar term

The reason I reverted the addition of the term "supercar" is because it has been deemed too subjective and should be left out of an encyclopedia. Please discuss on WP:CAR before adding it back in, thanks. Relevant previous discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 11#Supercar eradication
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Return of the Supercar category
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 11#Category:Supercars
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 22#Category:Supercar

swaq 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for links. Regardless of these, I refer simply to this and this. The first shows that the CCR is still classed as a supercar (and why not?? I personally don't understand the discussion, surely supercar is as important a category as "luxury", "family", "sports" and such like?), and the second relates to the category of supercars being protected for 2 weeks until the discussion has concluded. Therefore until the decision to delete the article definition, I think that the CCX should retain its category, hence why I reverted your edit. Surely in your own mind (forgetting the subjective discussion) the CCX embodies everything about a supercar?? the high cost, the exotic non-mass produced materials, the exclusivity, the performance, the aesthetics, the badge...? δ²_{(Talk to me!)} 16:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the CCR/CCX is a supercar in my mind. However the problem is with the fringe cars. Do you classify an F430 as a supercar? A Corvette Z06? Ford Mustang Cobra? You have to draw the line somewhere and no one agrees on where that line should be drawn. A consensus has already been reached that the supercar categories and classification should be removed as being too subjective, impossible to define, and changing over time. Thanks for the response. swaq 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes interesting with those cars you posed. The Ferrari F430 Scuderia = YES, the F430 = NO. the Corvette Z06 = NO. The Mustang Cobra = brilliant, but alas no. There are reasons for that. And i understand about drawing the line. In my mind, supercars have to have all the features desired, surely its simple enough to define those attributes? So, all we have to do is draw the line! and that can only be done by comparing the cars on a scale, with definable attributes, much like the ones already answered. you cant just delete a category because you dont know where to draw the line. so how about leaving the supercar description? δ²_{(Talk to me!)} 21:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The supercar article will stay, as it is a common term. It is just too subjective to be used in encyclopedic classifications. One of the problems with defining the attributes that make up a supercar ourselves is that it would then represent a Wikipedia view of the subject, and not necessarily be a good universal representation. Wikipedia has a policy relating to this, see: Wikipedia:No original research. So if we want a definition for what concrete attributes make up a supercar then we need to find multiple reliable sources to show it is verifiable. If you think you have a solution for this then you can bring it up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles. By the way, I personally would not call the F430 Scuderia a supercar. swaq 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond, and explaining that POV. The issue of contention seems a lot clearer now. And fair enough about the F430 Scuderia, like the supercar issue it contentious. What a a wonderful word, eh? contentious lol δ²_{(Talk to me!)} 22:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

I'll adopt you, if you want. Look at my user page for more info on me. Reply on my talk page.-- Barkjon  00:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, not sure what to do next, but I'll contact you soon δ²_{(Talk to me!)} 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Koenigsegg do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. swaq 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, firstly, the link I provided was not being used for advertising nor promotion, nor was it trying to alter rankings! It was simply a link to a fan-produced page that contained relevant up to date information about Koenigsegg. Much like any other links to unofficial fan pages on wiki articles, how is this any different? I wasn't breaking any rules, simply supporting the articles. btw, have you used a template to talk to me here, as you have written in a very formal way to me...?? I am a human being and would appreciate if you talk to me like one! δ²_{(Talk to me!)} 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just a generic warning. I used the template which assumes good faith though, as I'm sure you weren't intending it as spam or promoting the sites. However, it still violates WP:EL, see "Links normally to be avoided", #10 in particular. If there are other links to fan pages or social networking sites in articles then those probably need to be removed as well. swaq 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 New Member

Hi. Welcome to the WPF1. It has a range of aims and has a Newsletter for anyone part of WPF1. The aims are to do-up any F1 related articles and update all the tables to now. Thank you. Chubbennaitor 16:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Picture Uploads

Images of living people are quite simple. They must be licensed in one of two ways: either public domain or by an appropriate creative commons attribution. The reason for that is since the subject is living, there is a reasonable expectation that an editor could take a picture of the person and release it under an acceptable license to appear here. Unfortunately, most publicity photos, posters, magazine spreads, of famous people are copyrighted, and usually cannot appear because of the copyright issues and fair-use. Copyrighted images can be released to be used here by having the copyright holder contact OTRS and releasing the image for use. Hope that answers your question, because I'm not well-versed on these such things.-MBK₀₀₄ 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome.

I could tell after I had placed the template. You're a member from WPF1 and I had already left you a message. Chubbennaitor 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Catbox

Hi, Delta! I got your question...basically the box I added is a link to free photos on the Wikimedia Commons. There are a couple of different ways of organizing images on the Commons - either by galleries or by categories. So there are two different boxes for use here on Wikipedia to linking to them. Using the {{Commons}} template like this:

...links to the gallery page. But using the {{Commonscat}} template:

...links to the category. Personally I think that when there are only a few pictures, like with Lucy Pinder, it's best to link directly to the category. But when there are many images in the category, like with George W. Bush, it's best to put a sample in a gallery page there and link to that.

I'd be happy to help you with any photo uploads - the important thing is that, since Ms. Pinder is a living person, the image not be copyrighted and/or be under a free license. This is due to item #1 of our non-free content policy. This can be a complex area for users to understand, let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! Kelly ^hi! 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked IP range/editing Wiki

CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address (or network) has been used abusively. This address (or network) has been blocked temporarily or permanently to prevent further abuse. In extreme cases, an entire network may be blocked to prevent an abusive user from continually changing their IP address in order to evade blocks or abusing multiple accounts. If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please follow these instructions. Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Deltasquared (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

91.108.245.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Vandalism: - nothing but massive sockfarming and vandalism / huge timewaster / really have to go hard rangeblock as there are a lot of sleeper socks here

• Blocking administrator: Alison (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: I'm not actually declining this request, just removing it so that other admins don't have to review the same block, when things seem well in hand. Whatever decision Alison reaches should be acceptable. Mangojuice^talk 14:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Deltasquared. I got your email. I'm the checkuser responsible for the current rangeblock that you're caught in. I'm really sorry about all this, but the range you are currently using has a very active vandal which is causing a lot of problems right now. There was very little I could do but apply a hard rangeblock, and try to make it as narrow as possible.

Unfortunately, I'm not about to immediately unblock nor reduce this to a softblock as I need to consult with both the checkuser community and the Arbitration Committee on this one. I'm really sorry about the inconvenience here, but there's little I can do. I'll get back to you as quick as I possibly can either way, and let you know what's happening. Sorry about all this - Alison ^❤ 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alison, i'm not too clued up on these things. I tried looking up some of the terms you used - but dont have a clue what a sockpuppet is, other than sooty?? I'm using my account from home. So is it my home network that is blocked? is it my router? I only was editing this morning and came home to find I could no longer do so. Does this mean I can't edit anything with my account until June? what can I do to help? can you see my history/contributions?? can you unblock just my account? many thanks. δ²_(Talk) 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to clear things up. It appears that someone, editing from a series of IP addresses very close to yours, has been stirring up a LOT of trouble. Their specific problem is that they are creating massive numbers of new accounts, known in Wikispeak as sockpuppet accounts, whose sole purpose is to disrupt and vandalise Wikipedia. For a soft-block, an IP address or a range of IP addresses (see CIDR for how address indexing works) is blocked to anonymous users only, but registered accounts are still allowed to edit. In a hard-block, ALL editing from an IP address or range, whether by registered accounts or anonymously is blocked. Unfortunately, given the huge number of accounts this person has created, using a wide range of closely-related IP addresses, it appears that the only way to stop him was to hardblock his whole range of IPs while all of his various sockpuppet accounts is ferreted out. Unfortunately, with rangeblocks, there is always the probability of collateral damage to innocent bystanders. Alison is a highly respected and well trusted user here at Wikipedia, and is in close contact with the arbitration committee (Wikipedia's court of last resort) in an attempt to sort out how to best unblock you without opening the encyclopedia up to the abuse that it was experiencing recently. My guess is that she and the ArbCom will work out a solution, but it may take them a short while (certainly before June!) to best free up this problem. Good luck, and I hope this clarified things for you.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayron, many thanks for your response. That has made things a lot clearer for me. So this means I can edit, just not at home, which is a bit annoying. Ok, I guess all I can do is sit tight and wait until the issue is sorted then. Its terrible the few bad apples ruining the barrel...Ha I feel so stupid, asking all these questions as a newbie! δ²_(Talk) 00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Deltasquared. Jayron kinda explained the situation rather well - you're caught in a hard block of quite a few thousand IP addresses associated with your ISP in your region. It's a case of one or two vandals spoiling things for everyone. I've gone ahead and contacted ArbCom and the other checkusers and will let you know how things go. Once again, you have done absolutely nothing wrong here. It's just that you got affected by the block. I'm really sorry about all this. If you have been editing from places other than your home ISP, you should have no problems at all. Thank you for being so patient - Alison ^❤ 04:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have been assigned the IPblock-exempt flag due to a block on your underlying IP. You should now be totally free to edit regardless of any blocks- rangeblocks or otherwise- that may be affecting IPs that you are editing from. For more info, see WP:IPEXEMPT. Happy editing. --Deskana (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is excellent news indeed. Deltasquared, this means that you should be free to edit and we are able to keep the block in place so it's good news for everyone but the vandal :) As it happens, you're only the second person ever to have been granted this privilege, as it is only brand-new. The first person ever was a minute earlier! Once again, I'm sorry for all this trouble but I can say now in confidence that this will now never occur again as you basically have the same IP block exemption that administrators have. If you ever have any questions or need any assistance with anything at all, just let me know and I'll be glad to help - Alison ^❤ 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you for this news. This is a good result for a frustrating situation. Just hope that I can continue my little fight against vandalism and improving articles too :-) δ²_(Talk) 07:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2