User talk:Zbxgscqf/Archive1

Standard Model Chart

You really think we should use Image:std_model.png, instead of Image:standardmodel.png, because of the higher resolution? I changed to the lower resolution so the image when viewed in a browser would be a better viewing size... If so, we need to take std_model.png off of the deletion list and put the other smaller one on possibly? (by User:Rmrfstar at 02:35, 10 Mar 2005)

At the image description pages, Wikipedia thumbnails both images to the same size. I think the highest resolution should always be kept—you might need the extra resolution when printing, for example. And the text in the higher resolution version is easier to read. One thing you could do is upload the lower resolution with the same name as the higher resolution one. That way both will be available. dbenbenn | talk 14:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My Welcome template

Why dd you blank my welcome template? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry — it's just that it was the third time someone had done it, and I was getting paranoid... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Images for deletion

I'm a little late on this, but unfortunately have been away from Wikipedia for the past week. Was there a reason that you deleted the entry for the image for deletion that I put up when you did this edit? If it was unintentional, no problem, but if not, you ought to have mentioned why, either there or on my talk page. — Asbestos | Talk 17:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No worries, mistakes happen all the time. I was only suspiscious as it had been a "politically sensitive" image for a while. — Asbestos | Talk 09:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Duality / Dualism

• <<i think you meant dualism and not wave-particle duality>> (link to the edit)

No. I didn't. I meant "duality." Can we talk about it? ---Rednblu | Talk 19:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The duality (physics) page which you linked to spoke only of wave-particle duality and I removed the page. If you want to link to wave-particle duality, do so. I just guessed you meant dualism and I apologize.

• Yes. Wave-particle duality is the most obvious form of "duality"--in which the observation is so dependent on how the observation is made. Would you agree? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article Rmrfstar vs User:Rmrfstar

Hello. I have moved your Article Rmrfstar to the User namespace User:Rmrfstar. It is common to confuse these two namespaces. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography for some clarification. Please let me know if you need further help (I'm not an administrator here, just trying to help out). hydnjo talk 04:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you for your response. However, I have moved your comments to my talk page, User talk:Hydnjo, which is the correct place to have discussions with each other. The general form to discuss something with another User is on their talk page which is User talk:Username. I hope that I'm helping you to understand this distinction but if you would like some additional explanation please contact me on my talk page User talk:Hydnjo. Happy editing, hydnjo talk 05:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

815 Coppelia

An A for effort, but an F for fact-checking. Do not insert diacritics in minor planet names unless you can document them. The official, sometimes accented, names can be found on the IPA and Schmadel web pages, whereas the MPC uses the ASCII transcriptions. There are a few discrepancies between these first two sources, which I intend to document on some talk page shortly. Urhixidur 01:53, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

My mistake, I forgot I was fixing the name of the asteroid instead of the name of the ballet, else I would've checked. Thanks for catching it though! -- Rmrfstar 02:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos!

Your note is greatly appreciated. I see a bad article like that, and nothing's gonna stop me from wading in and improving the heck out of it! Feel free to help, of course. --Dhartung | Talk 05:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of finals at school, so I haven't a whole lot of free time. As soon as they're over though, you can plan on it. -- Rmrfstar 10:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on Talrias' RFA

Hiya - thanks for your supporting vote. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 9 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Manly_Beach

Hi, a little while ago, you commented on my featured picture nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Manly_Beach. Now, that it's out of the 2-day commenting period, would you like to cast you vote? Thanks! Enochlau 02:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Turing Machine Image Deletion 7/30/05

I also was going to gripe the image deletion by 202.56.193.222 (which is not me). I don't find the image particularly compelling but it is typical for this Sci-Fi style of art.

Since I have little (nominal-newbie) experience in the wiki clip art policy or editing, I will defer to your action. Personally, I think it should stay in, although it was only recently added (last 30 days) by yourself. LarryLACa 00:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

sylvia featured article candidate

The image of sylvia's score is from a copyrighted web pageCpl.Luke 15:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. you also need to cast your vote for the articleCpl.Luke 17:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

LilyPond

Well, I can certainly try to translate Image:Sylviascore.gif. But I'm really not an expert at LilyPond so I can't promise that the job will be done well or in a timely manner. You may want to ask User:Wwwwolf or User:JCN; they both seem to know the format pretty well. --Ardonik.talk()^* 09:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC) Here you go http://lilypond.org/~janneke/sylvia : JCN 14:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:FAC

Sorry for taking so long, I've been (and still am) extremely busy... I've left a response on the FAC page. Hopefully, I should have time to log in and check FAC again soon... thanks for your patience. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

PWC Picture was not modified

The picture in the PWC article has been unchanged since you posted it. The horizon was askew when you created the picture and the picture was not modified by me nor by anyone else but you.

Liontamer edits

My aim was to revert the links related to Overclocked remix. Linking from every video game site to a single article seems like linkspamming to me. Surely the Overclocked site is not that important that every video game site on Wikipedia should link to it? Thoughts? If I did revert some links incorrectly - definitely my bad. --PhilipO 04:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I should add that two other uses seem to take the same approach as me Seancdaug and Y0u. Cheers. --PhilipO 04:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Universal Turing Machine

Just to let you know, I tagged this image to be removed for copyright violation. I was not asked for permission to use this image and did not find out about it until a user of the site contacted me. I do not think posting it here qualifies as fair use and it is not what Wikipedia defines as a "poster" (sports events/advertising/etc) so you have mislabelled it. You may want to re-evaluate some other images that you have posted using the same guidelines which you used for mine. Thank you. --User:Jinwicked 8:04, September 6, 2005 (CST)

Classical works infobox

Sorry to take so long to reply. You're right. It looks much better with no colour. I tried to give it a unique colour, but all the other legible ones were taken. Probably best with no colour. TreveX^talk 15:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ado

Hi, articles taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica are not copyvios, since the 1911 EB is now in the public domain. (We have thousands of articles stolen directly from there.) Adam Bishop 21:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Of course, I would be happy to. --Speedway 19:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Vishniac (crater)

Yes, I quite agree - certainly the date should be in there. I do apologise for just deleting it silently - I should really have explained on the talk page at the time.

The reason I removed it was that it looked like there had to be a typo somewhere, but I wasn't sure where: the article said that the crater was observed by the Mars Global Surveyor in 1969, but surely the Mars Global Surveyor was only launched in 1996? So I took the date out as a temporary measure until I had time to look it up and find out.

After a little research, it looks like I got it the wrong way round - 1969 is correct, but it should say Mariner 7, not MGS, for the first observer, right?

— Haeleth Talk 13:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

ANDRÉS NÚÑEZ

Rmrfstar I THINK YOU DON'T HAVE TO REMOVE ANY ARTICLE, UNLESS YOU HAVE A NEW INFORMATION TO EDIT.(ABOUT NESCAFÉ) THE BEST THING WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE UNSUITABLE WORDS, BUT TO KEEP THE ESSENCE OF THE ARTICLE. YOU CANNOT SO BE DICTATOR!

Sports memorabilia

I agree you COMPLETELY ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY ISSUE. -- Danielk212

Thank you

Just wanted to thank you for reverting my revert at Ballet, looks like I reverted the wrong edit :( --Hhielscher 12:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Syntax and Style

yup, i have to go through the wiki style and syntax page. In fact I was looking for the page but I was not able to find it out.

About transformer pic - if you think it is violating rules and regulations you can delete it.

About the frendz.jpg - Really speaking It was just a trial and error method to see image handling of wiki.

If you have some suggestions for me,you are welcome to my talkpage.

Thanks And Regards'

--Shilpa.Choudhari 11:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm

I did. As far as I know of. --Speedway 21:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well what exactly are you looking for? An explanation on each page about who holds the copyright etc?--Speedway 16:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete them. In the future I will make sure I have full copyright descriptions. --Speedway 15:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Respond to what? Go ahead and delete the images you want to - in the future, any more images I upload will have full, comprehensive descriptions of copyrights, origins and whatever else you want me to add. I have no objections to your actions, I understand you are doing the right thing. --Speedway 15:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Maintained

In your delete rationale, you stated: I originally liked the idea of using this template, but I see now that I was only giving in to satisfy my feelings of ownership of a few articles.

The template now includes the following statement:

Note that this does not connote any form of article ownership, and you do not need any approval to make changes to the article.

The current form may not be perfect, but it's a big improvement. Please consider at least switching to neutral, as the template's biggest opponents have. Thanks. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 00:14

I don't think your comments were of any real importance. You state a lot of "shoulds" about how Wikipedia "should" be, but those are your personal preferences. The template does not imply that the article is somehow lacking, just that the reader is somehow lacking. There will always be confused readers. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 02:59

RE: Image liscencing

Regarding your enquiry, I'm not the only one who tags it under this lisence and says that it only can be used in Wikimedia projects. I can change it to GFDL, which is no problem to me. --Terence Ong 02:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it alright if I use {{GFDL}}. --Terence Ong 14:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I give you the honour to change the liscence according to what is right. No problem with me. --Terence Ong 14:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Template:Cosmology

G'day Rmrfstar

I didn't remove "Observable universe", I removed "Observable Universe". The latter redirects to "Universe". As I didn't know "Observable universe" actually existed, and/or assumed it was infact merged with Universe, or the like. I'll readd the entry as the former. -- Vampus.

It's quite well done...I've bookmarked most of the links on it, if not all. Lately, I've been reading a lot of wiki stuff, and exponentially bookmarking to boot, so I figure I'd try to correct any redirections problems that arise as I go. Wiki should log all the unique redirections as post them to be fixed, if they don’t already. --Vampus 10:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: FAC

Sure! Yes, I've been busy, but I'll take a look again when I go through the FACs (hopefully sometime soon.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on the nomination subpage. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Workspace

Hi, when work on articles in your userspace you need to unlink the categories by adding : before "Category" so your workspace doesn't show up in the categories themselves. Thanks! Arniep 15:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Vishniac

Hello Rmfstar, I was working through clearing some backlog of orphaned fair use images when I came across Image:VishniacWisdom.jpg. This seemed like a worthy fair use image to salvage, so I added it back into the article. I now see that you are the main author of the article, the uploader of the image, the person who last removed it from the article and the user who tagged it as orphaned fair use. It seems to me to be a shame to lose such a good photograph, but I'll respect your wishes as the main editor involved. What do you think? --Cactus.man ✍ 12:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Fair enough, I'll take it back out and process it as an orphaned FU image. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Lightning

Duh... I guess you are right for this, but I was tooooo proud of myself when I shot the pic to admit it then...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating you for adminship

Hi. This is Nick Weiner from school; I know you know me. Considering that you have been on Wikipedia for 14 months, have between 3,000 and 3,500 contributions to your credit, and are a real opponent towards Vandalism, I feel that you should be an Administrator. Yes, I know from talking to you that you don't care about having administrative priveleges, but considering your position on Wikipedia, I would really think it would be good to have the authority to block users, as for the fact that you are a real forthright Wikipedian.

Thanx for your time --NicAgent 21:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the admin nomination page I set up for you

Sorry about saying you had 3000-3500 edits; I miscounted the number of pages by viewing 500 edits at a time on Special:Contributions/Rmrfstar. Therefore, I kind of made a mistake of nominating you, considering that most candidates below 3,000 edits don't get nominated... but for now I'll keep the nomination going, and hopefully you'll still get it - so far it looks like you have a considerable chance. Thanx --NicAgent 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Your nomination (which I have supported) raises similar points to ones I have made in RfA talk:specialist admins. You might like to check it out. Best, Tyrenius 05:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comments. See my nom here on similar lines to your own. It's not necessarily that popular opinion doesn't agree with this. We don't know what popular opinion is—we only know the opinion of the people who participate in RfA, which has developed its own customs, which are not necessarily always those more widely applicable. This page is a good starting point: Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion. I would say try to change the policy/guidelines, but the problem is that we are following them in the first place. Maybe there needs to be talk to the fact that they are not being followed and we are seeking a consensus that they should be. Tyrenius 04:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

My vote was based on experience: I don't believe you are ready for this role. Your argumentative responses to nearly every oppose comment does nothing to make me think you will be ready soon, I'm sorry to say. My advice stands: please just concentrate on building the encyclopedia. Jonathunder 17:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to your request for me to justify my vote. I'm pretty sure you won't like my response, but it's the only one I'm prepared to give right now. --Elkman - ^(talk) 18:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rmf. I've responded to your comment on my talk page. Forgive me for the delay; I've been out of town lately and haven't had much chance to be on Wikipedia. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sad you've withdrawn

I can see based on your explanation in school today of how you have cancelled your bid for adminship. I can see that happening, as for the fact that you had about 1,000 contribs less than I thought. I'll give it about six months, check your edit count, and then consider a re-nomination. To be honest, regardless of your thoughts against being an admin, the Wikipedia community might need you to take that role sometime. --NicAgent 20:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Roman Vishniac

is up for Featured Article of the Day. Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Roman_Vishniac. Thought you would like to know. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I proposed August 19th on the nomination page. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, if the article is Featured on 8/19 (and I see no reason why it wouldn't be) you should be prepared for an extensive 24-hour campaign of vandalism. Some people have nothing better to do than vandalize the featured article of the day; I learned this the hard way with Radhanites. Unfortunately, I will be out of the country on Vishniac's birthday and wont' be able to help out with patrol. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the policy for fair use images. I'd say leave it for now, if Raul has a problem with the image we can always sub in one of the portraits. But look at July 2- they used a fair use image of Lindsey Lohan. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yrast

I started an article Yrast and I noticed that your todo list is one of the only pages that links to it. I'm still working on it, but if you could look over it that'd be great. It's probably full of errors. =P —Keenan Pepper 20:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This certainly is a very good start to a difficult article. I've made some minor changes and shall continue to do so, but it does look very good in its current state. We do need to create wikilinks to it, and we do need to make the "background" section a little more clear and relevant but only a little more work needs to be done before I'm satisfied with its completeness, at least for the moment. -- Rmrfstar 13:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I encountered the term in a paper I was reading and had no idea what it meant, so I looked it up and instantly thought "that's gotta have a Wikipedia article". I have practically no experience in nuclear physics, though, so the emphasis is probably weird and I may even have misinterpreted some things I read, so please do continue to edit it. —Keenan Pepper 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Roman Vishniac

Mainly the image description, "Berlin, 1922". If it was first published before 1923 anywhere in the world, it is in the public domain of the U.S.--Fallout boy 03:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Music Samples

Hi, I see you've responded to the straw poll at Wikipedia_talk:Music_samples. Since your vote, there has been some further discussion here, and I've suggested a slight amendment to the proposed guideline. I'd really appreciate your feedback on the subject. Thanks!--Wine Guy Talk 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)