User talk:Solipsist/archive9

Other pages: main - talk - images - contrib - notes

Talk archive: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15

---

FPC

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Albert Harris - Coconut shy B.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congrats, an interesting picture that deserved featured picture, you may even want to see if you can get this as the POTD. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Gabrichidze sock

Once more blocked, and I've posted a message on AN/I requesting the comment of other admins. Thanks for the info. Radiant_>|< 12:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Second BCE Place Galleria photo Uploaded

As promised...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCE_Place_Galleria_Toronto_Nov_2004.jpg

Nagasaki, August 9th

Hello, Solipsist . Would you like to have a look at the 1945 event on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/August 9, please ? Thought you might be interested. Cheers. :-) -- PFHLai 05:42, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Featured Picture

Hey, Solipsist, no need to thank me. Fighting vandals is something we all do here in Wikipedia. :-)

Yes, protection sometimes go AWOL. This has happened at least once before, on a Selected Anniversaries template. I have no clue why. :-( -- PFHLai 05:07, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet

I think the thread you're missing that connects me to Gabriel is that I read the RFA and RFC queues and then went ahead and did more looking at Gabriel's edits. That's why I welcomed DevilBat - I didn't know about the sock issue at that point, and Gabriel welcomed him with [s instead of {s. -- Hipocrite 19:16, 8 August 2005

Featured picture

I've come across numerous people asking what happened to DYK on the main page talk. Could you perhaps a note in a small font the next time you update it for the weekend, in the trend of "weekdays: facts; weekends: featured images" so people know it's only temporary and stop complaining? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:46, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. We've also got mild headaches with some people wanting the picture to be bigger, but the MainPage layout can't handle that for users with small screen/narrow browsers. It really wants a markup that can scale with the width of the browser page. -- Solipsist 22:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

POV

Thanks for dropping the note re. Mackerelskybig. I'm glad you like it. Your note prompted me to drop by your userpage, and I took notice of your POV list. I was quite surprised how much alike we are as Wikipedians. Except for my agnosticism versus your atheism, I could drop this unedited on my own page. Good to see another great mind here! Denni☯ 03:39, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

Pic of the day

I prefer the chamomile photo - a lot better colors etc. I like the terragen one as well as it is soemthing different for me, but I think the chamomile is better. Thanks for asking! --Fir0002 08:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

elaborations

you misunderstnad the point of why i made this acount, if yoiu think its a sock puppet, for example, thjen no, its not, this is my only actiuve account, yes its the same old uiser, but this is an attempt to throw off the old habits and start new, not to avoid antthing, i even told admins, like slimvirgin, that this is what i woulde be doing. if it would be all right, could you remove the allegations that i am trying to avoid something from the RFA page pleae? im in enough crap as it is.Gavin the Chosen 15:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gavin/Gabriel,

I may be drawing the wrong conclusions, but that is the view I have after examining your edit history. I accept from your other comments on User talk:Gavin the Chosen that your primary motive may have been to distance yourself from User:DreamGuy, but your attempt to deceive User:Voice of All(MTG) is far from innocent. I would be very surprised if User:SlimVirgin advised you to create a new user account and behave in this way whilst the RfAr is still open. The use of other sockpuppet accounts and disruptive behaviour makes a mockery of your suggested self-imposed ban or indeed mentoring.

It would have been acceptable to create a new account once the dust had settled, in order to start afresh. But in such cases, users usually maintain full openness with a statement on their previous user account, or indeed a redirect from their old username to the new one. -- Solipsist 16:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Once Hamster Sandwitch brought this zccount to his attention, trying to maintain cover, and thus avoid moe conflict was the only strategem that came to mind. poor choice, as it turns out, but i really got tired of all the conflict. I wuld gladly tell epople who i was, had that been a sure thing for me not having to deal with any more conflict, but that didnt seem possible. Gavin the Chosen 16:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity (and honesty) I should point out that after my suspicions as to the connection between Gabrielsimon, Ketrovin and Gavin (and whatever other various personae) this user will use, I posted my thoughts regarding the matter to [[1]]. After reading some of the responses to this posting, I asked some of the respondants what their opinion of the issue was, and added some personal observations. I never contacted User:Voice of All(MTG) in any regard. Within minutes of my post to the Evidence page, Gabriel/Gavin contacted my talk page [2], writing that he had recieved an e-mail regarding my post. I have never corresponded with Gabriel/Gavin directly, nor do I wish too. I will however be watching the arbitration proceedings with interest, mainly to see to what extent this user will be coddled in what I consider to be a constant obfuscation of rules and proceedures and breaches of etiquette. You see my goal is to make a positve contribution to this project, and not be a problem or a hinderance to my fellow editors. Thank you for your time regarding this matter. See you 'round the wiki! Hamster Sandwich 17:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Solipsist, you asked what I knew about the Gavin the Chosen account. I blocked one of Gabrielsimon's previous sockpuppets indefinitely on August 7 for personal attacks and suspected sockpuppetry. Gabriel e-mailed me saying he could no longer post as Gabrielsimon, because the block had blocked his IP address too. He said he hadn't intended to use the other account as a sockpuppet, but was trying to escape the attentions of an editor he felt was harassing him. I therefore agreed to unblock him on condition that he choose one account and stick to it, that he engage in no personal attacks, no 3RR violations, and no deletion of other people's posts from talk pages; and that even one instance of any of these would see him blocked indefinitely. He agreed, chose the aptly named Gavin the Chosen as his sole account, and continued posting. His purpose was not to evade the arbcom, but simply to avoid one particular editor. I intended to keep an eye on the account and the arbcom situation, but I suspected he'd be spotted within a day or so, as indeed he was. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. This all seems rather illconsidered. I really can't see why you would condone creating another new identity for Gabrielsimon when he has already misused several other sockpuppets and when there is an active RfAr case.

Not only has this led to more disrupton and wasted effort, but Gavin has already deleted other peoples talk comments at least twice [3], [4]. -- Solipsist 23:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

omg mentor mine

You found me out. Okay, I will start an archive forthwith, I swear. And I'm still trying to get a copy of that cereal book - I think I'm going to give in and buy it second-hand from some Amazon dealer. Mea culpa and much bowing and scraping. --Mothperson cocoon 17:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry - there's nothing much wrong with having a long talk page. I only mentioned it, because I've just archived mine and was suprised to see how long yours had become. Clearly the sign of being a busy bee. -- Solipsist 17:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks very much for the barnstar - I'm flattered and glad you like my very amateur photographic efforts! (Sorry to take so long in replying; I've been out of town.) — Dan | Talk 02:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Mahameru

Hey there, the image of mount Mahameru was shot by a friend of mine. There is not really any other source information to provide than his name, which is Jan-Pieter Nap. Thank you. Solitude\^talk 08:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Solitude - nice to see you are still dropping by from time to time. Thanks for the reply and I guess that means the unlinked credit is appropriate.

It is a slightly curious weak area on image licensing that we don't have any boilerplate for 'I uploaded it for a mate and they said it was OK for GFDL' etc. Its come up before, I haven't really known what the answer is. Recently some {{GFDL-self}} templates have appeared, so perhaps we need a {{GFDL-friend}} and the like - mind you, there are already way to many image copyright templates. If I manage to muster up some enthusiasm, I might discuss it on Commons. -- Solipsist 10:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Architect

You didn't tell me you were an architect, too! Bad mentor. --Mothperson cocoon 23:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

?!? Sorry, I don't follow. I have an interest in architecture, but I'm no architect. -- Solipsist 23:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

featured picture on the front page

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that I have put a proposal to have a featured picture on the front page every day on Talk:Main Page I've been informed that your opposed to this idea so I'd be very interested in hearing why you disagree with the idea. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I figured that modifying the main page layout would probably be too much work for no gain and quite a bit of loss since many users would have loading and display issues if it's changed even at all so I offered up a possible second solution which would be instead of having DYK 5 days a week and FP 2 days a week it would alternate between the two every other day which would mean that no major redesign would be needed on the main page. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jt, sorry I didn't notice this comment this morning - I thought the NewMessages notice was about Knowledge Seekers message below. I'll take a look at Talk:Main Page now. -- Solipsist 18:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of fixing the link to the community portal on talk:Main Page since you originally linked to WP:CP which is copyright problems and I assumed that you didn't want copyright problems to be a main page for editors even though it probably needs more editors working on copyright problems :). I also posted a reply on the page to your response. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Doh - I should have checked my links :) -- Solipsist 20:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: FPC (part II)

I've been thinking more about the previous discussion we had regarding this. As you mentioned, some of the inherent differences between articles and pictures are major culprits. Articles are collaborative efforts; they can be edited by multiple people and can be improved incrementally, whereas it is difficult for pictures to be done so. This of course gives rise to two problems. One, any criticism of the picture falls squarely on the uploader, which makes it much more personal. Two, and this is the more irksome, it is usually not possible to fix the image. If an article needs more references or a section is unclear, it can be rewritten. But if an image is off-center or out of focus, or if the foreground is too cluttered, often nothing can be done. In some cases one could retake the photograph, but the scene may be unmodifiable (e.g., cluttered foreground, construction sign, etc.). Third, it looks like the criteria have changed, which was another big issue I had. FPC was becoming more of an art gallery than illustrations for an encyclopedia: I thought the previous guidelines for being striking or titillating and so on had no place here. I would prefer encyclopedia illustrations to err on the side of being simple and elegant, nicely illustrating the subject matter, rather than striking and titillating. That's not to say that they should be boring either of course. I recall a nomination for toilet paper, I think, that I thought was a simple, elegant picture, but it was easily voted down because it was not striking enough. In my view, similar to featured articles, every picture topic should theoretically be able to achieve featured status; that is, ideally, every article and every picture in Wikipedia would possess featured status. Now no matter what you do, there is no way I can see to make the toilet paper jaw dropping. But it was a beautiful illustration. Fourth, the tone of the reviewers there often struck me as needlessly rude/blunt sometimes; I remember them mocking one poor user's nomination as an "April Fools' joke" (it was nominated around the 1st). Fifth, there seems to be, or at least there was before I became disenchanted with the process, too much emphasis on outside photographs we had located, like the beautiful NASA images, and not enough emphasis/incentive for user-created images. Finally, the whole process just seems unwiki-like: usually a single creator, can't modify the image to meet objections or just to improve it, often derived from an outside source. I realize that many of these are not actionable but rather reflect asymmetries between articles and images. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi KS, thanks for the follow-up. It looks like we are on the same wavelength - I've been trying to redress most of these problems with FPC for a while. In fact we changed the '..just plain striking' criterion, specifically to try and get away from the pretty art gallery role. Its tricky because people naturally respond to an attractive picture, but at least there is now FPC on Commons which is the place to build the gallery for galleries sake. Also, if you check over the talk pages at FPC, you might notice that I've asked people to avoid making harshly worded votes several times. I think we are doing better than a year ago, but there is still a way to go. Perhaps we need specific instructions for voters.

I have to agree that the biggest problem is the personal investment in one's own photos. On some diagrams recently, we've had some good collaborative suggestions for improvements (e.g. Map of Goa and Root Canal), but ths is rare. Sometimes, improvements can be made to photos, but another editor makes the modifications, it can be upsetting to the originator. Either way, it is very difficult not to take critisms of your own work personally.

One idea I am toying with, is to rule out self-nominations. This would be a disaster, because apart from the 3rd party NASA pictures, most nominations are self-nominations - so FPC would dry up. It would be nice if more people nominated good pictures they came across whilst reading Wikipedia, but it just doesn't happen. The trick would be to set up a ante-room/gallery page where you can add self-nominations that you personally think are interesting, then someone else can bump them up to FPC (a bit like PeerReview). That way if no one likes the picture at least you don't get negative criticism - it just languishes for a couple of months before being removed. If someone does bump it up to FPC and it attracts negative votes, it should be a little easier to shrug it off, since you didn't actually nominate it.

One part of the collaborative side of FPC, that you may be missing (and it is so small it would be very easy to miss), is the work to improve the articles that pictures are added to. I might be the only one to do it, but there have been a several times I've found a good picture on Commons or another wiki and written/translated an article so that it has a place on the English wiki and so can be nominated on FPC. Similarly I've got a note on my notes page that Image:Windbuchencom.jpg would be a good candidate, but it would need some work on the Winter page before it would fit. More recently, (and nothing to do with me) Winter has been a collaboration and indeed that photo got used and has been nominated as an FPC. I'd like this to happen more, but can't think of a way to encourage it. In fact it is perfectly clear that many voters don't even bother to click through to see how a picture currently illustrates an article, let alone think of improvements. -- Solipsist 09:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

In fact, thanks KS, just writing about that has made me see how a staging area/PeerReview for pictures, could also be used to highlight pictures that need articles writing for them. I've got a list of a dozen good pictures that need work like that, and I only ever get around to half of them - it would be much better if they were put out for others to work on. We've also got several good photographers hanging out on FPC, who are not necessarily good article writers. Now that we insist on a picture illustrating an article, we tend to just get a bit of a stub because it is not really their field (particularly with plants and animals). Placing them on a page where you can say, 'this picture could be an FPC, but can I have some help writing the article' seems like a good idea. I set up Wikipedia:Pictures needing attention a while back, but it has never attracted a critical mass of readers to make it work. I think I can see a plan coming on... -- Solipsist 09:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Today's & Tomorrow's second feature

They seem fine. I tried but couldn't make any edit unless I sign in. I assume non-admins can't do anything besides viewing. Hope this helps.

BTW, how about using Template:C-uploaded ? This way, we don't have to wait for admins at the WCommons to protect images from that end. We can upload and protect images locally in English Wikipedia. -- PFHLai 18:41, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

Cat picture.

I think the one you pointed out on the users talk page was very nice. The grey tabby on the wooden fence. Very representitive of a cat on a fence, looking smug and satisfied. Can't ask for more than that. Seemed clear and focused. Just thought I'd pop my two cents in without getting directly involved in a silly argument. :oP See ya! Hamster Sandwich 23:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean Image:Cat outside.jpg? I like it too - it looks like an effective illustration. As I say, I haven't managed to find the edit/image replacement that seems to have triggered the dispute. But actually I'm not too interested in which picture should be used; that's a discussion for the cat talk page (as it appears it has been). I was more concerned about an argument growing to the point where one or the other of two useful editors could get hurt. -- Solipsist 23:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I bet you think I must have the most hopeless temper with the way I reacted on that cat photo, but I seriously didn't think it was all that bad. Anyway the edit which sparked it was on 13:50, August 11, 2005. Thanks again for your intervention, but I fully intend to stick by my comments and not let myself be pushed around like a little "kid" --Fir0002 10:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

No it just looked like a sterile and futile argument. One or the other of you had started to complain about a spelling/typo mistake in a previous reply - that's often a sign that an argument has run out of intellectual steam ;-) I would have dropped you an email, but you don't have an address registered (quite wise I suspect).

I think your cat photo is fine, but perhaps not exceptional. One of the problems with photography (and many other things), is that it is easy to loose perspective on your own work - I sometimes take a picture that I think is great at the time, but if I put it to one side for a month and come back to it I'm often less enthralled. In truth DreamGuy was doing the right thing but being a little tactless with it. On the other hand, he's been getting a lot of grief from some random editors, so it was most likely just a misunderstanding. The other cat photo isn't perfect either, but the profile view is probably better for a lead image like this.

By the way, I was impressed to hear that you've earnt $400 from your photography - way to go. -- Solipsist 18:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Of course I understand completely. It is a nice picture, even more so in the large format of the link you put up to it. Very nice resolution on that one. Well good luck putting out the fires, I suppose! See ya! Hamster Sandwich 00:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I just thought to write you a note to say how nice it was to see our gray stripey friend on the main page a few days back. Somewhere in South America, a contented cat purrs, and basks upon a sunny fence rail. :-D Hamster Sandwich 22:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Voting on jonquil flowers

Hi Solipsist!

Please vote on my latest indecisions! Hope you like them --Fir0002 10:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Strange upload

Hi Solipsist,

I was wondering if you knew why this keeps coming up when I upload a photo? I just press "save file" but it is a bit annoying as I don't know if I'm doing something wrong. It started happening just yesterday.

The other thing I wanted to ask is if I could put something in my copyright notice to say you can't claim you took this photo and that if you are printing commercially you must acknowledge me as the photographer?

Yes it is exciting that I'm able to sell photos now! I took 4 photos of the local area for the hospital (they are opening a new wing and wanted decoration), I shot a series of photos of my Maths Methods teacher's little boy (they were actually quite challenging as it was hard to get him to relax!), I put a framed a3 image in our local art gallery and it was bought for $70 after only two days! I also covered our recent VCE formal as a photographer. So it's great to have a hobby that pays!

thanks

I've decided to let the cat photo go - although it is pretty cowardly of DreamGuy to remove my discussion from his talk page without answering any of my questions and putting "a long tirade about why your cat photo ... should be left alone" ontop of his talk page. But anyway as I said that is over. But I'd like to give you this wiki thanks for being so nice and understanding - the conflict with DreamGuy really helped me appreciate that. --Fir0002 01:11, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the warning page on image uploading. It looks rather like the standard error page on Commons, but without any specific error message. For example if you reupload an image with the same name, you get a page just like this, except that there is also a line like 'There is already an image with the title xxxx'. Similarly, if you upload a file with a space in the name, you get a warning showing that the filename has been modified to change the space to an underscore. Its rare to see that now that the upload page has a box for the destination filename, since it automatically gets filled out and converted to underscores when you select the source file in the browse box.

I've occaisionally had some confusion when uploading several images, if I use the browser's back button to return to an already filled out comment box. In such situations when I browse to select the next file, I'm not sure the destination filename always gets updated - it seems to sometimes, but possibly not always. Now I tend to delete that destination filename before selecting the next file, so that I can see that that box is filled out right.

By the way, if you do blocks of uploading like this and upload with a fairly comprehensive image description so you don't have to edit each image description page, there is a good chance that you have many of your photos missing from you watchlist. The 'watch' button only gets pressed automatically if you edit the description page directly.

On the copyright notice, in effect I think you already do what you want. Publishing under a GFDL license requires that you be acknoweldged when the image is used, whether commercially or not. And you still retain copyright, so no one else can claim to be the author. However, the majority of people don't realise this and tend to think GFDL just means 'its free'. So if you wanted to add an explicit statement that you should be acknowledged, I would have thought that was fine. If you do, you can expect to have some people complaining about it from time to time. As you may have noticed, I tend to license my photos under cc-by-sa (in part because I think it is easier for people to understand the license requirements), but I also add a line saying 'Photograph © Andrew Dunn' to help people realise that cc-by-sa doesn't just mean 'free'. Nevertheless, I've had several people leave me messages and nominate images for deletion on the basis of that copyright symbol - which just goes to show how little people understand the licensing issues. -- Solipsist 09:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Celebration!

Champagne is often drunk as part of a celebration

Please join me in celebrating my 1000th edit at Wikipedia, the most important online information resource! Hamster Sandwich 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Re Forged Iron

Hi Solipsist, Thanks for drawing my attention to that! I don't actually use watchlists. What do they do? As you can guess beyond my immediate sphere of uploading photos and finding articles for them I haven't really explored the iintricacies of Wikipedia. --Fir0002 12:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Contact

Hi Solipsist,

I've heard that there is a chat room for wiki users. How does that work? And btw I trust you enough to give you my email, so if you send an email to registration@coolgoose.com (that's the email I use whenever I have to submit an email to sign up to something) and I'll send you an email back with my real email address.

I have stated using the watchlist and I think I'm going to like it a lot, but I haven't actually got anything in my watchlist yet as I don't have the auto watch this page preference (I have now). Anyway thanks again for drawing my attention to it. --Fir0002 09:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Picture of the Day - September 4, 2005

I've made some small changes to the caption of Image:Daisy1web.jpg, I hope you can agree with them. JoJan 14:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - looks good. Interesting to know that the petals open up. -- Solipsist 15:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

POTD

Hi Solipsist!
That caption is great. And yes that photo was taken at Swifts Creek, although for many people that wouldn't really mean much!

I was wondering if you could help me out with some clarification with my prize in the Wikimania Media Competition. I sent this to sj, but he hasn't really replied. --Fir0002 02:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

One of the amazing things about Wikipedia is that it is a self organising anarchy. Of course part of the downside of a self organising anarchy is that it can also be a little disorganised in the details. I'll drop a note to Sj and Bdk, and see whether that helps.

On the plus side, Bdk's page on Commons has helped me identify the flower in a photo I uploaded the other day. -- Solipsist 07:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice photo by the way! What camera do you use? --Fir0002 12:09, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nearly all the photos I've uploaded to Wikipedia were taken with a Canon S60. But I'm also slowly working through scanning some of my back catalogue which mostly taken with a Canon AE1 and occaisionally a rather rubbish Mju-zoom (I can't recommend the APS format for anything).

Of course it is not the camera, but how you take the pictures that matters ;-) I remember reading a photography book once, that was complaining about how people ask what camera you use when you show them your photographs — contrasting it with going around to dinner at someone's house and instead of complimenting the cook, asking what cooker they have. Its not entirely true, since in practice the type of camera does make a difference. It was overly difficult to take a good photos with the APS camera since it had few manual overrides and the APS frame is so small the results were usually grainy. The S60 on the other hand is surprisingly effective, although I find it virtually impossible to focus it manually. -- Solipsist 12:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you totally, the skill in photography matters a lot, but the right equipmnet is very important as well. Like you can't do good macro shots without a macro lens, or bird photogrphay without a sizable zoom. But if you can get a good shot without these than you are a very good photographer. Fortunately I have good equipment! See you around - by the way that Dreamguy sure has a kick against that cat photo. I only just realized this, but on the Red_hair article someone put the cat photo on and has been battling Dreamguy who wants it off! see the history I'm keeping out of it this time :-) --Fir0002 12:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, having the right tool for the job certainly helps, but sometimes you can work within the limitations of what you've got - particularly if you pick the right subject. You have to get really close to do a macro shot with the S60, fortunately that fly got bored of running away from me. This squirrel was inquisitive enough for me to take a 'wildlife' shot without a telephoto, and I suspect whoever took this photo of Little Owls didn't need a sizable telephoto either — but then again the owls were stuffed :) -- Solipsist 13:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Solipsist, sorry for taking so long to reply (I've spent the first week of my school holidays in Melbourne) but the caption on the motocross is fine. BTW, that squirrel photo has really nice colors/focus. Good shot! --Fir0002 00:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Meetup

Heya,

Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'probable', so hopefully it's just a small push to get you to 'definite' ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Moth Eggs

I'm so sorry! I completely forgot you wanted insect eggs. Damn. Sorry!
All the captions are great as usually, my only little query is that maybe on the Emperor Gum Moth caption, "The Emperor Gum Moth does not feed after it emerges from the cocoon, relying solely on the energy they stored as caterpillars." could be changed into "The Emperor Gum Moth does not feed after it emerges from the cocoon, relying solely on the energy it stored as caterpillars." You be the judge as English isn't really my strong point. I just thought to use "it" from the "it emerges". Anyway good job.

PS I got your message, and thanks! --Fir0002 09:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. It might be wrong in the article too, but it is probably due to the change in context. I'll fix it as you suggest. -- Solipsist 11:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Or in fact I will go the other way and conform the sentence to the plural since that matches the following sentence. -- Solipsist 11:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Mini Wiki-break

I am on a mini Wiki-Break — back Monday 19th Sep. -- Solipsist 17:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll be around this weekend. I'll keep an eye on the POTD.

I have added the assoicated pages to my watchlist, no need to worry. Have a well deserved break. This link is Broken 19:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Back now -- thanks Broken. -- Solipsist 15:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Picture promotion

following question copied from User talk:Veledan

Thanks for informing me about the picture which is now promoted (here). This is my first picture to actually get past this stage so what happens now? Does this mean it will be in a queue for picture of the day? -- Thorpe ^talk 11:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Thorpe. Good question, and one I've been wondering about myself. I can see how the POTDs are created in advance, but I can't find any discussion of a 'queueing' system. At this point I'm going to call in an expert to answer both of us!

Solipsist, I can see you've created most of the recent POTDs. Could you please give us a bit of guidance on this? I've only been helping out with the backlog on WP:FPC for the last week or so. Should I be creating the three versions as I go along and queueing images for POTD (presumably by going to the archive and picking the next available 'red' date)? I haven't seen other people working on FPC doing this, but I'm quite happy to start and help out.

Many thanks, ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 12:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No worries. The longer answer is on your talk page, put the potted version is that the instuctions are at Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Generating_POTD_entries. -- Solipsist 14:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again and many thanks for your comprehensive answer. Sorry I didn't spot your original guide: I had been on that talk page looking for a plot but I somehow managed to miss it *blush*

If you do want any assistance, please just say because I'll enjoy it but it sounds like you have it all under control for the time being (and I'd have to pester you or another of my over-worked admins to perform the protections in any case) :-) ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 16:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I tend to believe that if something isn't obvious, we haven't got the pointers and instructions clear enough. If you can remember where you first started looking for guidance on how to do POTD, its quite likely that we can improve the clarity of how to find the instructions there. And indeed the instructions could probably be improved too. -- Solipsist 18:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

POTD vandalism

I don't know how the POTD process works, but... the anon IP who vandalizd today's POTD [5] put the same copyrighted picture in the POTD slot for Sept. 29: [6]. FreplySpang (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I deleted the Sept. 29 one myself, since it was going to happen sooner or later. Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts FreplySpang. Curiously we have only occaisionally had vandalism of the POTD pages, so we generally keep these unprotected. But the popularity of POTD is growing, so I guess we can expect vandalism to increase too and there may come a time when we need to protect them more.

The weekend versions of POTD at Wikipedia:Today's second feature used on the MainPage, are of course much more of a vandalism magnet so those sections are semi-permanently protected. -- Solipsist 14:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome - happy to get that creepy picture off my user page! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Re:Wikimania

No I wasn't aware of the discussion, so thanx for pointing it out. --Fir0002 07:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

On a completely different issue, I know this may sound dumb, but I've noticed people refering to wikipedia chat on irc. What is that? I use ICQ but am not familiar with IRC channels. --Fir0002 07:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Pictures & The news

Hey there again, you mentioned getting pics for an IRA news story a while back. I'm not sure who does the news pics but the decomissioning is supposedly done now - so I guess the story will appear. Here's an image pulled from Commons that might help (?) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Machine_gun_M2_1.jpg. Regards SeanMack 15:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sean, yes I noticed the BBC using their photo of the mural of 3 IRA gunmen again today, which made me think of the previous experience of getting a mural picture. I tend not to get too involved with the ITN section of the MainPage, but your proposed illustration is a good one. Suggestions for ITN are made at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. At the moment no one appears to have done anything with the decomissioning story, but it would plausibly be sufficiently world news noteworthy. -- Solipsist 16:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

But now someone has suggested the story, so I've added your picture recommendation to go with it. -- Solipsist 19:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Cheers, I was too tired to figure out the news request page last night - seems it was a waste of time anyway... ah well. Later. SeanMack 16:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hi Solipsist,
I was just wondering if there is an easy way to revert an edit by a user, not just copying the old text into the new version. I'm refering to the edits to Agricultural machinery by 213.212.224.116. Thanks --Fir0002 09:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, there are quite a few ways to handle that sort of thing. At its simplest, click on the history tab to see a list of all the edits made to an article in reverse chronological order. Then click on the date&time of the last good edit to see the page as it used to be (in this case, that would be click on the 22:15, 9 September 2005 edit by User:Tsemii but avoid clicking on the username itself). Now click 'edit this page' and in addition to the normal edit box you should also see a warning at the top that you are editing an out of date version of the page. That's OK, in this case it is what you want. Don't make any changes to the text, just enter an edit summary like 'reverting to last good version by xxxx' or 'rv test', press the 'save page' and you are done.

Another way, is to bring up the page history, then click on the word 'last' to the left of the bad edit. This should bring up a page like this highlighting differences made by the bad edit. You can get a similar page by clicking the 'diff' link from your watchlist. Then clicking on 'Revision as of 22:15, 9 September 2005' at the top of the left panel, will take you to the earlier good version, and you can make a null edit and save as before. The advantage of using this page difference approach is that there are also links to go forward and back to newer and older edits. So if a vandal has made a series of bad edits you can keep stepping back until you reach a good version of the article before editing and saving to revert to that version.

If a user is looking like being a problem, you can drop them a note on their talk page, asking them to stop. There are a number of templates for boilerplate warning messages which escalate from {{test}} to {{test4}}. Typically if a user has recently had one of the earlier test warning, you add the next one in the sequence and sign it. However, if you are reaching test4, its a good idea to get an admin involved because the next step is to block them.

If you have the time, you can also check the user's other contributions to see whether they have been messing up any other pages, and if they have, revert those pages too. However, if they look like being a particularly busy vandal, its usually best to get help from an admin at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, because admins have some extra 'rollback' buttons to make it much easier to undo a large number of changes.

I've reverted the particular edit at Agricultural machinery, but this one just looks like a harmless test, so no further action was needed. Many anon users still find it hard to believe that their changes really are for real and immediately visible to everyone. So we see a lot of random edits like this.

There is a better guide is to be found at Wikipedia:Revert. -- Solipsist 12:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Uploading photos of paintings

Hi Solipsist, I have some photos of paintings and a shot of the pregnant woman. I took at the National Art Gallery while I was on Camp in Canberra, can I upload them or is that a copy vio? -- Fir0002 08:32, 3 October 2005

Well to some extent that depends on the law in Australia — which I don't know, but could be similar to UK law. If the paintings are old (ie. the artist died more than 70 years ago) you are unlikely to fall foul of copyright, however other laws may also apply. For example if the pictures were taken in a private art gallery, they probably have the right to refuse to let you take photographs (there is often a sign at the entrance) or apply other restrictions. Ignoring those restrictions could mean you were effectively trespassing. Some art galleries allow you to purchase a photographer's pass, but there are often additional terms and conditions on those passes that might limit commercial publication.

I added a section about this sort of thing to Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Other_considerations_for_photographers and the externally linked guide from Sirimo for UK photographers is particularly interesting and to a lesser extent so is the US one. If you could find a similar concise summary for photographer's rights under Australian law, that would be a useful link too.

In refering to 'the pregnant woman', do you mean Ron Mueck's hyperrealistic sculpture Pregnant Woman. If so that would be an interesting picture. Copyrights relating to photos of sculptures are often even more complicated. The Ron Mueck sculpture would certainly still be under copyright so a photograph of it would be a derivative work and also copyright. However, in the UK there is an exception to copyright for sculptures photographed from public places. If a similar rule applied in Australia, you would almost certainly be in the clear when photographing a sculpture from the street. You might also be in the clear inside the National Art Gallery if that counted as a public place, however it might actually be a privately owned place that is open to the public, particularly if you have to pay to get in. It really depends on the details of the law in each country.

In some countries, new buildings may be copyrighted. France in particular, seems to have forgotten to make sensible exceptions to copyright law, such that now it is said to be a copy-vio to photograph the Eiffel Tower at night — the new lighting installed ~2000 is considered a creative work. Go figure. -- Solipsist 08:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

St Ives

So several other people thought, and they deleted all of them some time ago. They must have missed St Ives. Adam 00:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unreformed House of Commons

Thanks for removing all those irrelevant "Unreformed House of Commons" footers! Stephen Turner 08:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, irrelevant is probably a bit strong. Adam Carr looks like he has done a good job on the Unreformed House of Commons article, and I would be surprised if it doesn't become a Featured Article soon. However the linking to it from many UK town/city articles is perhaps an example of asymetric relevance, they are factually accurate but not too important to the history of each town. Some of the links, such as the section in Looe and other rotten boroughs, are highly appropriate. -- Solipsist 08:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, I completely agree with you. Maybe I should have been less negative. The Unreformed House of Commons is an important subject, and it's great to see a good article about it. It just didn't seem sufficiently relevant in the context of each town. Stephen Turner 09:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Brookie here - thanks for the Barnstar - isn't it nice when people notice your work (and don't complain)! :) ...en passant! 16:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured Diagram Discussion

I left this message on the Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates page where we've been discussing Diagrams/charts as FP's. In repsonse to your comment that those are no longer our standards for judging pictures, why are those criteria listed then on the Wikipedia:Featured pictures right in the first sentence as what a FP is?

I'm not trying to start a problem, I just truely believe a seperate index of charts would do them better justice. Right now we're comparing them to some very good examples of photographs and drawings and to say the charts/diagrams are even in the same league as these other images doesn't make sense to me. There is some other support for this, as evident by other comments in the discussion. Some people don't like any change at all, but in this case, I think it would be more fair for some of our charts/diagrams as some of them are very good.--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

In truth it looks like there is no real disagreement. The basic problem is that diagrams are often given short shrift on WP:FPC and the question is how to treat them more fairly. I suspect that splitting them off into a separate forum will push diagrams in to a backwater. It is not trivial building the community of people watching a page in order to support a vibrant sharing of opinions and voting. There could well be a case for judging diagrams by different criterion, but they should probably be kept within the same grouping that watches WP:FPC.

There might be a better chance of sustaining a separate diagrams community on Commons. -- Solipsist 20:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole reason I even brought this up is because every time I vote no for a diagram/chart, I end up getting a small lecture about how it's important to see the value in what the chart is representing, and so on...I fully am able to appreciate what the image is representing and whether its a cool chart, that still doesn't change my mind about it being anywhere along the caliber of actual photographs or artwork. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 21:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

Did I miss something? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably not — not everything on Wikipedia is serious. -- Solipsist 08:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Bentham copyvio

Hi I was just going through WP:CP#September_29 and I noticed that Jeremy Bentham has been listed as a copyvio of the biography at the UCL site http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/info/jb.htm . It looks like the text was added by User talk:Susurrus in April 2003 who I've asked to email them for permission, if there isn't any obviously it will need to be redrafted. I've also informed User_talk:Zanimum and User_talk:Stochata who seem interested in the article. Cheers Arniep 00:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Petronas Towers

Hi, Solipsist. Thank you for letting me know, and for originally nominating my picture. It's very rewarding to see a picture I took being designated as picture of the day. It makes me quite happy, actually. Thanks a lot --AngelRiesgo 09:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Away too long

I've just been howling about Im-Bru. omg. Lesson learned. Staying away = major ignorance. But it's fluorescent, damn it. Why is it that 99% of the English-speaking world cannot spell that word? Never mind. I'm still howling about Im-Bru. your person servant, Mothperson cocoon 17:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Mojave Desert

Hi, I've noticed some of the external links I've added have been removed as "spam links." Actually, the site I'm linking to provides extensive photos of the Mojave. It's a good site and the effort of nearly 10 years work. -- User:66.146.62.23 23:38, 24 October 2005

That would be right. If you check the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam you will see that we discourage people addding any links to their own web site (if it is really useful another editor will probably add the link at some time). We also particularly discourage linking to the same same from several different pages and we especially discourage linking to commercial or advertising supporting sites. All of which would apply to digital-desert.com and the links added to pages like Ghost town.

Sorry if it seems harsh, its not really a comment on the quality or utility of the linked site. Remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide links to other places, but rather provide the information here. Instead you might consider contributing a some of your photographs under a free license to Wikimedia Commons, you could then put a link back to digital-desert.com as a relevant source link. -- Solipsist 07:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

Royal Crescent

Thanks for your kind comment on my aerial view of the Crescent, much appreciated. I took it from a hot air balloon, about 5 seconds after take-off from Royal Victoria Park, on the northern edge of Bath. My wife and I had been attempting to do a balloon ride for 3 years, with a balloon company called Go-Ballooning but 12 times the weather was off-limits when the booked day arrived. At last, on a dull September evening we made it with attempt 13! We flew for 1 hour and landed with one hell of a bump 15 miles away at Grittleton, the other side of the M4. In the basket there were 16 of us plus the pilot, I don't think baskets come any bigger than that! The only problem was that I didn't have a hat and the heat from the burners is astonishing so a hat is essential. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 13:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

POTD

Hi Solipsist, Sorry for being tardy to reply to your other message, but I'm pretty busy ATM. The bit on the straight dope "The real challenge with bees wasn't figuring out the aerodynamics but the mechanics: specifically, how bees can move their wings so fast--roughly 200 beats per second, which is 10 or 20 times the firing rate of the nervous system. The trick apparently is that the bee's wing muscles (thorax muscles, actually) don't expand and contract so much as vibrate, like a rubber band. A nerve impulse comes along and twangs the muscle, much as you might pluck a guitar string, and it vibrates the wing up and down a few times until the next impulse comes along" is pretty interesting and it might be worth incorporating into the description.
Anyway, thanks for all your work --Fir0002 09:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC) PS, have you heard any more to do with the Wikimania comp?

Pic of the Day

Hi, Solipsist, I notice that you're doing the Picture of the Day, so I'll direct this here.

From Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day:

The page states that

Featured images are currently selected in the order they were promoted.

How come that the October 31st picture is not in the correct order (after the bee picture, it should be Image:Red panda.jpg, see here)? Thelb4 14:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

He is right. After the Hurricane katrina pic should be the koula bear shot, then the sakura trees and the martian sunset and then the battleship picture. What about these shots? Why isn't this in order? TomStar81 00:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt - I missed this original question and will reply at Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day -- Solipsist 07:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Rulers.org

Well, they are exhaustive listing and sometimes nothing is written, like for Aruba. Granted, Armenia and Andorra are counter-example.

Still, I think this is a good link, especially as it is very dense. On the other hand, I agree external links are not that great, but I can"t afford the luxury of entering all the data in Wikipedia.

Maybe a template with this kind of generic link (all rulers, all regions, all naming, all whatever) could be a good idea, don't know.

Reply to David Latapie 19:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the main link here and here. There is no Wikiproject for that and I won't create one but there is a Wikiproject category for politics, law and government. I still don't know what to do for individual entries. It is quite seducing to enter such a link for every countries, but on the other hand, this is not structured (this is actually one of Wikipedia's biggest flaw — lack of structure, but I digress). I also wrote a message on Wikipedia_talk:Featured list candidates, as suggested. Reply to David Latapie 20:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Pic of the Day

Thats fine. Originally, I had selected November 11 because it is Veterans Day in the United States, not because of anything related to Pennsylvania. I'm glad to here that you will keep the original text. Thanks for the heads up. TomStar81 23:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Perspective

Thanks for the link, in fact I'm interested with all kinds of picture to illustrate the french photography wikibook. w:fr:Utilisateur:Jean-Jacques MILAN

Lewes

You were at lewes on Saturday were you? Or did someone else take the picture? Jooler 23:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes. Very loud, but good fun. Plenty more pictures to come, but not many places to put them, so most will probably just end up in a cat on Commons. Were you there too? -- Solipsist 00:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I live in Lewes. I haven't had a chance to go through the photos yet. Jooler 13:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh so you will have seen it all before. I've been uploading photos to the Commons at Commons:Category:Lewes_Bonfire_Night. Are you a member of one of the Bonfire Societies? -- Solipsist 20:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No. I've lived in Lewes for about 11 years and usually go to the Cliffe display and each year I think maybe I should join, but then a sense of guilt overcomes me, because I was brought up a catholic, and I don't think my dad would forgive me if I joined in with something in which they burn the pope. Each society has a pub as their headquarters. I live in the Southover part of the town; the Southover society reformed this year and their HQ is my local, so I've been tempted to join them, but at the end of the day I think it's probably more fun to watch than spend all evening marching. I might have to join one day though if the urge really takes me. Jooler 02:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)