User talk:David Newton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello there David, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style.

Experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela 12:42 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3

Contents 1 Manual of Style 2 RE:RCAF Flag.gif 3 Many many thanks 4 2005 Hurricanes 5 Re:Acts of Parliament 6 Ammunition ship classes? 7 USN jack image(s) 8 List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1707-1799 9 Major General C. M. Barber 10 William Evan Allen 11 GFDL question 12 Crown Copyright question 13 Gun-type plutonium weapon 14 Improved infobox syntax 15 Nimitz class infoboxs 16 Flag of Ontario, et al. 17 Barnstar 18 Lists of USN ships 19 Image:British-Civil-Jack.png has been listed for deletion 20 Image:British-Blue-Ensign.png has been listed for deletion 21 Image:British-Merchant-Navy-Ensign.png has been listed for deletion 22 Hi David, Please help 23 Kkkensign.png 24 Civil Air Ensign 25 Afd q 26 FOTW stuff 27 Ship table vs. infobox 28 Bach image 29 Template Deletions 30 Ship table - Color 31 Infobox ship 32 Thank you 33 RN Ensign 34 Ecuadorian Naval Jack 35 T1 36 Flags.net images 37 Family History 38 Image:HMCS Fennel (K194).jpg 39 Followup on Infobox Ship 40 Statutory Instruments 41 Recent edits 42 My edit on User talk:Danny 43 Another perspective on WP:OFFICE 44 Attack on Pearl Harbor 45 Infobox 46 Statutory Instruments 1996 47 The People's Choice 48 Deleting templates 49 AfD 50 Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians 51 Alternative text for images 52 Danny 53 Welcome to VandalProof! 54 Image uploaded on Commons 55 Belton House Images 56 Flags and copyright 57 E-1 Tracer 58 Statutory Instument Lists 59 Attack Cargo Ships 60 FN Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier

[edit] Manual of Style

I'm pretty new to this whole wikipedia thing, and I've noticed sometimes that people make some of the most random edits, twice in which they decapitalize every word in a heading on the page except for the first one. I figured that because these edits were made specifically for that purpose, there must be a reason for it. I went into the capitalization policy for the site, and it seemed to only apply to the actual names of the pages themselves, until I came across the heading section--obviously seeing your name in the discussion page. You made references to the possibility of changing the policy, and I was curious as to (1) whether or not you found out why this policy exists in the first place and (2) whether or not you have tried to do or plan to do anything about it. If you do decide to change the policy to standard format, by which only interior article adjectives and small prepositions are displayed as lowercase, I would gladly give my vote towards that change, as I personally don't understand the policy as it is. But if that has already been tried or if your opinion has changed due to information you have discovered since that time, my personally curiosity motivates me to ask what this seemingly random policy is all about in the first place. Thank you. --Shackleton 4:56 28-07-05

[edit] RE:RCAF Flag.gif

From my user page, [[1]] from Graham himself, While I don't mind the images being used in Wikipedia, whose aims I wholeheartedly endorse, I would prefer it that my copyright in the images is acknowledged in some form. I regularly give permission for images from my site to be used on other websites and only ask that they include an acknowledgement such as "Flag image courtesy of The World Flag Database www.flags.net". Would it be possible to add this to the "image tags" of all the images of mine that you are using?A notice is such applied. Astrotrain 19:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I, myself, have launched an email to Graham. Though I do see what Astrotrain has receieved on his archive page, I just think that if he wants the images to be credited, I can go ahead and make a template. If he wants them gone, then I will make them gone, since I have the ability to do so. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Many many thanks

Thank you for contributing to the USS Trigger (SS-237) article. My great grandfather, William Zugecich, was aboard that submarine when it disappeared in the pacific. The information you and others have provided are very much appreciated by everyone in my family. This is the most thorough record of the Trigger's voyages that I have yet seen, and is a wonderful dedication to those who died to protect the freedoms of our beloved land. Salva 01:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Hurricanes

I believe that the 17 storms count is based upon named storms; consequently, Tropical Depression 10 is not counted in the total. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 22:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Acts of Parliament

Thanks for the note. I liked the infobox btw. :) Do you have any advice on how to add acts in years which had two sessions i.e. 1914. There were two Finance Acts, I wasn't sure the best way to distinguish between them :) --KURANDO 11:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ammunition ship classes?

I've just been writing stubs for various USN ship classes. I note you made templates for the Suribachi class ammunition ships and Nitro class ammunition ships some months back; can you remember why you did these seperately? I have a book to hand which seems to think they're both the same class, but it's rather vaguely written and it'd be nice to clear this up. Shimgray | talk | 23:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USN jack image(s)

Okaay, I've been working through the articles using Image:Usnjack.png, switching them to Image:USN-Jack.png, |48px. But now I see a notice that the preferred replacement is Image:US Naval Jack.svg.

Is that correct? —wwoods 18:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1707-1799

Should this be renamed to Acts of Parliament of the Parliament of Great Britain or similar? I won't make any changes as I am not sure whether it would break the infobox template! --KURANDO 11:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major General C. M. Barber

Hi, I am looking for some biographical information on Major General C. M. Barber for an article in the German Wikipedia on the Barber-Lyashenko-agreement which realigned the border between the English and the Soviet zone in Schleswig-Holstein. Can you help? Thank you --Concord 15:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Evan Allen

• Err, the Navy is one of Australias Armed Forces. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL question

Thanks for your advice on the GFDL (with respect to the Chicago flag image). I still have some doubts, though, about my rights under the license. Could you take a look at my question and let me know what you think? Thanks. Mindfrieze 15:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crown Copyright question

Hi! The Template:PD-BritishGov states that photographs taken prior to 1955 are in the public domain. Does this include unpublished images? I seem to recall that CC images created prior to '57 are also PD. If so, would that then mean such images at http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/ are in the Public Domain? For example, would this image [2] be considered PD? Sorry about bothering you with this, but I'm interestered in using that particular image in an article. SoLando (Talk) 00:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for giving your time to give such a comprehensive reply, which certainly answered my query. I can't say I'm anxiously awaiting 2039, but it is interesting to know (assuming Wikipedia still exists then ;-)). By the way, I hope you didn't think I was questioning the reliability of your template (or at least the references it was based on) - I personally think you are one of the most reliable contributors, hence why I brought my query to you :-) Take care. SoLando (Talk) 23:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gun-type plutonium weapon

Please see Talk:Fat_Man#Gun_type about an old contribution of you [3].--Patrick 09:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improved infobox syntax

HMS Newton Date launched: 1999 Location Result Strength 100 aircraft

HMS Newton [[Image:IIH.png 300px]] Date Location Result Combatants Displacement: 60,000 tons

Date Location Result 200 meters

David Newton Date Location Result

David, have you been following the developments in infoboxes such as Template:Warbox and Template:Infobox_Film? I don't understand the syntax, but it seems to be very flexible and tolerant of optional line items. E.g.:

Wwoods 01:10, 4 December 2005

[edit] Nimitz class infoboxs

I don't know if you relise this, but all of the Nimitz class carrier infoboxs are not displaying things like displacement and radars and such, the boxes that should contain that info say "Nimitz class carrier I" or something similar to it. TomStar81 02:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Whew, that a load off. I noticed the infobar switch when I tweaked the USS Abraham Lincoln page a little. At first I thought it was something I had done, so I was in a panic. Thanks for the heads up, and Good Luck! TomStar81 10:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, there's a lot of space added around the jack images. It looks kind of odd, since "Career" is at the top of its cell.
—wwoods 19:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What is going on with the flag images is that they are set to be vertically aligned with the middle of the cell (the default setting for HTML tables) and there are two lines of text on the left which means there is the space above and below the flag images. David Newton 19:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Two lines of text? I only see two words. Is there some way to cut it to one line?

I've added some general comments at User talk:David Newton/New Format Ship Tables/IF Operator Table

—wwoods 22:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why it insists on putting the text on two lines. It is very odd indeed since at least so far as I can see from the code it should not do so. David Newton 22:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Ontario, et al.

Hello! Thanks for your note. I created the prior PNG and current SVG for this provincial flag, and others. (I find some of the free Sodipodi renditions are 'off'.) I also release the images I created to the public domain but am also cognizant that the flags/symbols themselves (in prior and current SVGs) may have limited use (depending on the jurisdiction). I apologise if I didn't get the tags right, but this is my intention; please edit them as needed. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 15:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Right on! :)

And despite your prior note to me eons ago, I remain somewhat unclear about the correct use of some tags and such, particularly when dealing with Crown copyrights. I'll overcome this eventually, methinks; in any event, please forgive me and thank you for your attention to this. E Pluribus Anthony 16:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

[edit] Lists of USN ships

What do you think about slightly changing the formatting for List of United States Navy ships, A, et al.? I'm thinking of adding live links from the designations of ships with unique names. I.e. instead of

USS Malo (IX-42) , making it

USS Malo (IX-42) .

When I filled out and split the list last spring, I just took the format as I found it, but it makes sense to me to have the plain links, since every ship name should have either an index page or a redirect. If the designations were also links, we could see the cases where the redirect was needed.
And, we wouldn't have to keep reverting people who are helpfully 'fixing' the links.

—wwoods 10:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable thing to do. We certainly still have a massive amount of work to do with ships of the USN to say the least. That's before even beginning to think about foreign navies that don't have such a nice resource as DANFS available. David Newton 20:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:British-Civil-Jack.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:British-Civil-Jack.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Sherool (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:British-Blue-Ensign.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:British-Blue-Ensign.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Sherool (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:British-Merchant-Navy-Ensign.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:British-Merchant-Navy-Ensign.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Sherool (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi David, Please help

I would like to request your help with serious NPOV and verifiability problems on the Arabic numerals page. I have mentioned it, yet again, here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_17. Please help me recruit as many neutral and well-intending editors to the page to counter the strong and manifest bias. Regards, and thanks. csssclll (14:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Kkkensign.png

Hi David, I've added the information you requested. As for the abbreviation, thanks for noticing that. I thought up that "KKK" to mean "K. u. K. Kriegsmarine" without knowing anything about the other possible usages. Well, such approach apparently wasn't very wise. -- Sandius 12:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Air Ensign

This is just to let you know that I used your Civil Air Ensign in Image:NZCAE.svg.

DiamondVertex (Talk) 05:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Also just in, I used your RAF ensign in this. DiamondVertex (Talk) 05:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afd q

Is the List of LSTs being used by you or a group to "fill-in" missing articles, or for any other purpose? I ask because the list is on Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LSTs. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FOTW stuff

Ole Anderson from FOTW contacted me about Template:User FOTWer and maybe we could use this to talk about FOTW on the Wiki. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ship table vs. infobox

What's the current situation of template:Ship table vis a vis template:Infobox Ship? Which should be used? —wwoods 07:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bach image

Hi

The building was demolished in 1902, so the image was taken before then; does that place it out of copyright? Is fair use possible?

Tony

[edit] Template Deletions

I have nominated {{PD-old-50}} and {{PD-art-life-50}} for deletion at WP:TFD#Template:PD-old-50 because I do not believe they are legally valid. Superm401 | Talk 07:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ship table - Color

I implemented "gray" for NavyColor on Template:Ship table on the Laurent Millaudon article. PAR 04:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello David - well it looks like a tie one for color (me) one against (you). There doesn't seem to be any more input from the project. I feel strongly that the color option should be used for the confederate ships and I will include it in the table unless you have a strong objection. PAR 16:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox ship

Infobox ship should probably be TFD'd as a fork of Ship table; would it be hard to move articles using Infobox ship over to using Ship table? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your help on India public domain images... Thank you for clearing my doubt. --Aravind Parvatikar 06:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RN Ensign

Thanks for the heads-up. My original reason for uploading the new version was for code optimisation. I'll create a new-non-transparent version and I'll alert you as soon as I upload it. I hope that my proportions were correct (arms of St George's cross 120/900ths of the width thick ?)

Greentubing 20:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made a non-transparent flag and have uploaded it to Commons. The size imporved, 12366 bytes to 2110 bytes. Greentubing 20:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Me part 3! I reverted it, noticing your comments on the Flag of the United Kingdom. I too know Bartram runs the website and is employed by the MoD... I was just using the exist Wikipedia image for consistency across the UK-derived flags (except for Australia of course). Greentubing 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and the Union Flag construction sheet. Do you have any particular flags in mind? My only problem is that I like to work to a clear picture, and my copy of Barraclough is all I have. Greentubing 08:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecuadorian Naval Jack

It seems as if I had removed that image in error. What probably occurred is that I did a check usage on Image:Ecuadorian Naval Jack.png, which showed this page. I was doing routine cleanup at Commons, and the image Image:Ecuadorian Naval Jack.png had been slated for deletion due to copyvio.

ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 23:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And here's why I deleted that image on 2/4, because user put {{deletebecause|Accidental upload of copyrighted material}}. User uploaded image on 2/2. This is why I didn't check what I was looking for: I didn't expect a wrong image to be incorrectly listed on a page so soon after it was uploaded. Very sorry! ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then that user probably did a speedy delete after seeing your notice. So ultimately it's your fault that I deleted it in the first place! Heh. Please don't take me seriously. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T1

What's T1 that I saw you mentioning on User Talk:Drini's page ? -- Ch'marr 06:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my user page. Can you give me a wiki link to the discussion? -- Ch'marr 10:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I might have just figured it out. T1 refers to Point one of Templates at Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, right?

[edit] Flags.net images

The images in this category will be deleted soon, so some of our copyright issues will be over. It also helps that we have free PNG graphics from a Russian website called Vector-Images.com. If you need anything else, let me know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 05:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family History

I am proposing a Family History Wiki. I hope you are interested enough to add your name in support at Wikimedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HMCS Fennel (K194).jpg

Image:HMCS Fennel (K194).jpg currently has a tag that says it may be deleted. As a ww2 image, if it were taken by the RN, wouldn't it have fallen under the crown copyright? Wouldn't it now be in the public domain? -- 207.112.73.75 17:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't know the source of the image. The guy at Navyphotos said that he found a lot of photos dumped and rescued a lot of them. The trouble is that without copyright information we can't know if the photograph was Crown copyright or private copyright. If it was taken by a sailor in the course of his official duties then it was Crown copyright and is now public domain. If it was taken by a sailor in his capacity as a private person then it is certainly still in copyright as no photograph from the WWII is over 70 years old and no person who died in WWII died over 70 years ago. In the US no published copyrighted photograph taken during WWII will come out of copyright until the end of 2034 at the earliest. No unpublished copyrighted photograph taken during WWII will come out of copyright until the same time as a private copyright photograph in the UK. David Newton 23:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Followup on Infobox Ship

I've nominated {{Infobox Ship}} for deletion at WP:TFD. I also moved USS Monitor to your template without much issue; hopefully the other pages will be similarly painless. =) As a side note, there's currently a straw poll being conducted at WT:AUM to decide if that proposed policy should be rejected. Feel free to comment on the TFD or AUM as you see fit. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statutory Instruments

Hi,

I noticed you do a lot of work in the Statutory Instruments section and that you have recently been adding content without links. Is there any particular reason for this?

The purpose of my question is that I am planning to add some missing Statutory Instruments, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes by including links when I'm not supposed to. Thanks. Road Wizard 23:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Road Wizard 17:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply back. I have another question. Is there a reason some people add external links to the SIs and some don't? Road Wizard 21:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I think you're taking the wrong tack with this kind of behavior: [4] [5]. If you have an issue with Danny's actions, please email him and ask him to explain them. And please be polite. He could well be acting on Jimbo's authority in an important case--that is the level at which he normally acts. As with any issue, you must remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I presumed David Newton outranked Danny. David Newton is right, by the way. The actions by Danny were terribly wrong. However, the language used by David Newton was wrong. This is all turning in to a whopper of a drama. Bound to appear in Slashdot or some newspaper or something like that. Big old woops. And this, just after Eloquence had successfully harassed a notable critic in to submission so that he refused to ever again comment on Wikipedia. Darn it, now the critics will come en masse. Maybe even Eloquence himself might become a critic. 203.122.195.111 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edit on User talk:Danny

I've taken the liberty of removing a section of Danny's talk page where you and two other editors seemed to be telling Danny how he is to do his job. This seemed inappropriate to me, given Danny's responsibilities, line of command, and the fact that he's in direct communication with Jimbo and (in the case of an action that needs to be taken) the complaining party. I hope you'll realise I'm not denying your right to express disquiet at something that worries you, but in this case the tone adopted seemed to be somewhat dictatorial and overbearing, and after a long day in the office talking on the phone to attorneys and whatnot to keep Wikipedia from being sued into the ground, this is not the kind of treatment that Danny deserves. --Tony Sidaway 20:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted. They aren't vandalism and you shouldn't interfere with someone else's mail. He has likely already read them anyway. Let him delete them if he so chooses. 203.122.195.111 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another perspective on WP:OFFICE

I agree with you that the block on Eloquence was inappropriate, but in the course of dealing with this you appear to have opened up a new problem. If the WP:OFFICE tag is to have any stronger force than any other tag its use must be limited to a designated few such as Danny. If any other person uses it it would be no more important than any other tag, and it should be treated as removable by any other admin. If Danny wants to keep it there it should appear as posted under his own name, otherwise it would be better removed once he has had a reasonable time to act. Eclecticology 23:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Using the template should be the prerogative of Danny under almost any circumstances. The reason I added those pages to the category was that they were clearly under WP:OFFICE protection after what happened to Eloquence yet had been left out of the category for a couple of days. There have been a couple of times in the past when I've protected pages and forgotten to add them to the appropriate list and others have been kind enough to fix my mistake. However when dealing with WP:OFFICE more care must be taken and not adding them to the correct category was symptomatic of the same sort of carelessness which lead to Eloquence unprotecting things in the first place. I will refrain from using that category again until and unless it is under similar unusual circumstances. Given the eruption that this has caused I don't think those circumstances will occur again. David Newton 08:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack on Pearl Harbor

There's a question about some material you added to the Attack on Pearl Harbor at Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor. It concerns the reasons that Nagumo decided against a third strike. Any input you have would be appreciated. Cheers, -Will Beback 19:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statutory Instruments 1996

You undone my split in one of Wikipedia's biggest articles by making a big article again. Please try to take care of the article whatever way can be done. Georgia guy 22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hi. I notice that you have previously voted or commented on the proposal to delete the List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 page. The debate about the delete proposal ended with no consensus. This is just to let you know that I have started a discussion on how to go forward from here. I am currently trying to define what the problems with the page are so that we can try to find a fix for them that stops short of outright deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion, the new debate can be found here. Thank you. Road Wizard 23:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, I am just bumping this up your watch list in case you haven't spotted it yet. The discussion has already started about what to do with the List of Statutory Instruments pages, but as those who voted for deletion are the only ones to respond so far, it is a little one sided. As you are one of the principal editors involved in SIs, I would really appreciate your input in trying to find a solution. Given that the 1996 page barely scraped through last time with votes stipulating that change was necessary, I don't think it will survive another nomination for deletion. I hope to hear from you soon. Thanks. Road Wizard 00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Right on, David! --Adam7davies 22:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The People's Choice

Thanks for trying to sort out the problem on Croydon Council election 2006. I have corrected it now - we need a catalogue of templates to help pick the right one, somehow. Thanks again, Mtiedemann 18:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting templates

If you'll excuse me, I'd like to discuss this and hopefully come to a resolution. I take criticism seriously, have been wrong before, and will be wrong again in the future. Unfortunately, right now is exams time for me (I have a 4-hour exam in 30 min., actually) and I have a lot of other real-life stress besides. I'm leaving this note because I didn't want you to think that I'm ignoring you, but hope you'll give me a few days to get back to your message Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 00:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

(More than 4 hours later,) Scratch that, I'm not getting any more studying done tonight. :-)

First let me say that saying that deleting templates under the CSD is divisive and inflammatory, while a nice turn of phrase, is not actually an argument against my deletions, but against the policy. And if I believed that my deletions were harmful, I wouldn't have done them. The templates are certainly inflammatory, you say that much. However seems even more evident to me that they are divisive. They take explicit opposing political positions. This cannot help but divde the community into camps and "create discord". I don't think it's particularly useful to have those out in the open, either. We're all writing for NPOV here. Perhaps you can say it's not harmful, but I have a hard time believing it's actually good. (Why do I never see talk page messages of "Say, what is your gun control POV?") I'm not really very hot on the "you deleted this template but that means X is divisive too." 1) that's a slippery slope straw man, 2) You don't really suggest I delete far more templates than I did, do you? I would never delete more than a few in several days. I recognise they are not always clear cut, and often result in questions. That's okay with me. I don't want to delete all the divisive templates still out there tomorrow and reignite tensions more than they already are. 3) the simple fact is that I did justify my deletions. The existence of other templates does not change my reasoning. The existence of articles on non-notable subjects does not make me want to through out my notability criterion, either. Dmcdevit·t 07:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

I saw you had recently edited List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom 1996 and thought I should draw your attention to its proposal for deletion. Tyrenius 04:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians

Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. --Salix alba (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative text for images

I want to add an "alt text" parameter for infobox images, but I'm not sure of the syntax. Is

{{{image|[[Image:IIH.png|300px|<!--
-->{{#if: {{{alt text|}}}
        | {{{alt text}}}
        | {{#if: {{{caption|}}}
               | {{{caption}}}
               | {{PAGENAME}}
          }}
   }}]]}}}

going to do it? I want it to use the "alt text" if specified, failing that the "caption", failing that the article name. (In most cases, there is no reason for the image to have a caption.)
—wwoods 18:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But in an infobox like template:Infobox Film, where the "image" parameter is the bare name of the image, without the surrounding [[Image:...|###px]], where would one put the alt text? e.g.

{{Infobox_Film |
 name     = Master and Commander:<br>The Far Side of the World |
 image    = Masterandcommanderposter.jpg|
 caption  = Master and Commander film poster |
 imdb_id  = 0311113 |
 :

—wwoods 09:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny

Could you please point me to where I would find more information about this? Al 15:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, David Newton! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image uploaded on Commons

Hi, I'm Luca Martinelli and I'm a it.wiki user. I'm currently translating some of the en.wiki voices on 11/09/01 in Italian.

Anyway, I've "stolen" an image (this one) from here and uploaded it on Commons (with its proper license, of course), to use it for the italian voice.

Just to give you an advice. I don't know which are your procedures for that. >:-)

See ya. -- Sannita

[edit] Belton House Images

I notice that you've uploaded all of the images that you took of Belton House as GIFs. GIF is not a suitable format for the image types you have uploaded. It is limited to 256 colours and is suited to diagramatic files and simple shapes. Photographs are far better uploaded as JPEGs. David Newton 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the difference, I just upload from the camera to the computer, and then computer to wikipedia - some hidden robot somewhere does all the GIF and JPEG stuff, nothing to do with me! Giano | talk 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flags and copyright

Re Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_20#Template:FOTWpic: in an attempt to clarify and preserve as a reference for future similar cases, I have written Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems. Maybe you'd like to help improve and/or correct it? In particular, you made a comment about the British union flag saying it wasn't clear whether or not it was copyrighted. If you could add something about this, that'd be great. Lupo 08:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-1 Tracer

Hi. I think it was your photo [6] ? - Somebody uploaded it to commons and deleted it in En-wiki, so could you add description? Pibwl ←« 21:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statutory Instument Lists

Hi. I have been considering the possibility of adding information to the SI list pages, such as the current status of the instrument. I have made a rough table in my sandbox as an example. Can you please let me know whether you think this is a good idea, or will it just complicate the existing lists? Thanks. Road Wizard 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack Cargo Ships

I'm just about finished adding about 100 articles to this category under List of United States Navy amphibious assault ships. You seem to have been the major contributor to the list, and I want to thank you for making it up. My job would have been a LOT harder without the pre-existing list. (And, of course, without DANFS, it would have been impossible.) Lou Sander 16:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FN Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier

Please help me with a WIKI article related conflict in the India-Pakistan section of FN CHarles de Gaulle. There is a user (UberCryxic) who keep on reverting unilaterally to sections that involve unverified claims (in my opinion). What are the WIKI rules? If you can help and/or express your opinions on the points made in the discussion page please do. It will help us mediate and arbitrate. I do not know how to call for an arbitration. Thanks.