User talk:Xyzzy n

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Xyzzy n, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RJFJR 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myomer

Hi, thanks for copyediting--the article does look saner now. Nevertheless, I think that in its current form it is mostly a sink. The only real article that links there is the one on BattleTech technology, where I think the information in myomer belongs anyway, so I have asked for a merge. I'm not an expert on (and not even a fan of) that particular bit of fiction, but if you are, then I'd like to suggest that you consider looking at the possibility of doing that. --xyzzy_n 00:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I know my way around it, so I suppose I could. Do you suggest doing much else than just dumping the myomer article's content into a new subsection of BattleTech technology? --Kizor 00:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate to delete content, but I'll get on this in the morning and see what overlaps then. --Kizor 01:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] illuminatus

the The Illuminatus! Trilogy article is now up for "featured article" status. please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Illuminatus! Trilogy to vote Support or Oppose with your comments. cheers. Zzzzz 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roundhouse kick

While I agree the pic is not the best, it is the closest I could find. I know very little about the show, but I think he should be noted in some way as he has become synonymous with the move. KI 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he invented it... but I dont want to take the time to go find citations as I dont really care that much about this... rest assured, I wont re-add the picture until someone cites. KI 02:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ten German Bombers

Well,

I haven't been able to find any other sources for this either. I could imagine, that the author of the article in the Jungle World misinterpreted what Clarke said about respecting German laws. So I'll go ahead and remove the statement.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U2 Crisis article

Hey, I accidentally split that sentence off from the paragraph while correcting the grammatical error in it. Is it ok to re-fix the error?

Also, I have no idea what the problem would be wrt Unicode. Browser is ELinks 0.10.6. Is there a test page I can use for that to see if there is a problem? I'd hate to think I've blown stuff away in all the pages I have edited... Runderwo 08:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the investigation. I also found that this issue has been discussed before: http://www.mail-archive.com/elinks-dev@linuxfromscratch.org/msg00065.html So I'll refrain from editing with ELinks. A pity, since it's long been my favorite browser. And there is no need to apologize, on the contrary you have probably saved others a lot of work by bringing this to my attention. Do you know where I could bring up a discussion about banning non-compliant browsers from editing articles containing UTF-8 characters? Runderwo 09:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese polygamy

No, I'm backing out of this before I violate 3RR. That guy is pissing me off with his nuisance edits, but I don't think they're clear-cut vandalism, so I'm goign to wait for him to get it out of his system. Really annoying though, because I've tried to clean up that article a bit and this guy is potentially goign to fuck it up to buggery. :( mge kelly 15:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks !

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for fighting (constant) vandalism on the TS page. I've been busy lately, and every time I've gotten over there to have a check on the daily vandalism, I find you've already taken care of it. Thanks ! Sandy 15:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JBlogger - Thanks

Thank you very much for your advice and points. I'm working with the direct help of people who know Dr. Gerstenfeld and I plan to change some of the wording soon. I was simply trying to get some of the stuff down. I had the permission of Dr. Gerstenfeld to use the material, so while there is still the issue of making it moreinteresting, there is not a technical issue of copyright. Nonetheless, thank you again! JBlogger 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, does it take some time for a new article to be "accepted" by Wikipedia because while I continue to work on this, I have realized that when I have tried to search the article, it never comes up.JBlogger 07:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emblems of the Red Cross

I'm concerned with phrases such as "The ICRC denies that the Red Cross is a Christian emblem.", they look to me like they say "THEY say this but WE know better", specifically as the Red Cross is refered to as being "associated" with Christianity a paragraph or two above. If we could make the article sound less like this I'd be happy. Also, the Swiss flag's origins are no longer known, we only have three competing legends now. The Christians use a Latin cross, not a equal-cross, this type of cross far predates Christianity, as it is one of the most basic shapes that can be portrayed. It is only in recent times that any type of cross has become affiliated with Christianity. +Hexagon1 (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the cordial message, I appreciate it. Normally I would use a more civil approach to get across my points, but right now certain users are ignoring rules and damaging Wikipedia to a point that I cannot tolerate. Kelly Martin, Will Beback, and Jacoplane should know better. I hope I have not offended you by my use of such language, but I feel it is necessary. KI 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War film image

Thanks for coming up with a better image for the war film stubs. As the creator of the original image (Warfilms.jpg), please feel free to nominate it for deletion. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek Quotation

Hello Xyzzy, thanks for answering me personally. Yes, I think there is a good reason to have it there. When I checked the article last time I was looking exactly for the literal phrase and a word-by-word translation from Greek to English (I needed it for a homework on the subject), meaning the many bible citations included before your edit were very helpful. I didn't restore ALL the citations, most were superfluous, only what I thought was useful for personal research into the historic origins of the phrase. I would include the Greek translations for ALL the mentionings of 666, but I don't even own a bible myself, much less a Greek one.

I suppose others might need the original Greek wording too for some reason, so why not include the extra six lines? It's not that much text after all, and I'm sure most readers would appreciate not having to look up other sources. --TheOtherStephan 20:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Xyzzy. I certainly understand your position, but I would by no means call quoting the original source of a very prominent phrase "indisciminately collecting information". While it is quite optically messed up as it stands there now (I can see why you would rather remove it), I think the literal Greek and maybe Latin wordings are very relevant to the interpretation and meaning of the verse. Maybe we could compromise and create a new bottom section called "Quotes and Translations"? Alternatively there could be a direct reference to either the Bible Translations article, or a direct link to a somewhat permanent site, giving you bible verses in their historically important translations. What do you think? --TheOtherStephan 22:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Personally, I think it does help. Wikipedia does not cater to some kind of imaginary Average Joe, english-speaking readers from all over the world (me, I'm german) read the english Wikipedia for a variety of reasons, especially the scientific articles often contain very in-depth information and formulas. It's certainly not for everyone, but as long as it is relevant it should be there for those who need them.

I couldn't find any useful links today (the ones in Bible translations are not too useful), but I'm going to look again tomorrow. If I do not find anything I'd still request an additional section "Original Greek and Latin", or something like that, for the above reasons. --TheOtherStephan 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark of the beast

"Hi! Regarding your edit to Number of the Beast, could you please explain why you removed {{fact}} tags without providing citations for the tagged items? —xyzzyn 19:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)"

Well, it seems like fairly common knowledge, but if you like I'll go digging off for some sources. I remember a bible doctine's book that says this, I'll see if I can find it.

"I’d appreciate some sources. That’s why I put the tags there in the first place. (Also, please read WP:COMKNOW on ‘common knowledge’.) —xyzzyn 22:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC) "

Whoops! It looks like I also included "Weasel Words" in my edit... I'll clean it up right away (if someone else hasn't) and look for some sources... (It's allright to cite books as sources, right? You don't have to use web pages? Never mind, i'll read Wikipedia:Citing_sources). My apologies on making such broad assumptions

You're way too fast in removing the 616 reference. I don't have my bible handy at work to check the names of the manuscripts which have 616. Consider the possibility that all the people who have added the 616 info in the article know more about the subject than you do. I believe this information is such a fundamental fact that citations are unnecessary. Check out [1] or, for that mater 616 (number) - Jeffr 12:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EGS

EGS Hi! You noted in an edit summary that a couple of things were ‘lost’. I’d like to point out that they were actually ‘deliberately removed’ and I’d like to claim responsibility for that. My reasons were:

bunnies

Irrelevant to the webcomic and not notable outside very few non-story strips and the forum. Unless the theme is somehow significantly expanded in the books (which I still have to buy…), this does not belong in the article at all.

The Matrix

Possibly interesting comparison, but absolutely unhelpful for anyone not familiar with the film (I say this from experience). The article should not rely on the reader’s knowledge of such things and whatever point the comparison makes should just be made explicitely.

Iirc you don’t like deleting stuff, but is there a reason why I shouldn’t remove these items again? —xyzzy_n 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. "Bunnies" is not expanded in the books (I gather), but I find it a factoid worth noting. That said, I have to admit that it's too prominent. Perhaps a trivia note or the like, or does the article have too many sections already?

Fair enough on the Matrix issue. That needs to go. Honestly, I replaced the previous one with it mainly to get away from the previous one. Stating that the comic uses suspension of disbelief to look believeable could be said of virtually every piece of non-feasible fiction, anywhere, ever. --Kizor 19:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know how to edit very well but I do know the "Mark" of the beast is money. The word isn't translated correctly and you even gave me an online reference that you didn't read to prove it. You owe me an apology for removing my information. Here's what you wrote:

Number of the Beast Hi! I have reverted your (repeated) addition of the remark about the translation of χάραγμα. Not only was it formulated in a manner inconsistent with WP:NPOV, but I also could not find any support for the claim in that lexicon. The website you provided was unhelpful (well, blatantly wrong and non-notable, actually). Please read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:EL for more information. —xyzzyn 09:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about the misunderstanding

Hey, I am sorry about this whole situation. I was just trying to alert an Administrator to my concern that User:216.244.12.76 may be vandalizing the television episode articles on The Twilight Zone; he is systematically removing the category called "Themes." I had been working to expand those articles; I have even crated the new Wiki Category: The Twilight Zone actors (it would go along with other similar Wiki Categories: Star Trek actors and The Outer Limits actors). Anyway, thank you for your input on this matter. :) User:ProfessorPaul 00:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I suck

Ack! Sorry! I ran into a couple of anon bloodhounds, but that doesn't excuse dropping the discussion like a stone. I naturally default; the side that wasn't a jerk wins.

That said, I changed 'It contains' in the intro to 'Said lives contain'. The latter - IMAO - fits rather well the whole strangeness-in-normalcy, normalcy-in-strangeness thing that EGS has going. The former is much more disjointed. --Kizor 08:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose "these" would fit. Thank you for the offer, but I'm overloaded with projects at the moment (okay, moreso than usual) and my presence would have to be intermittent at best. --Kizor 21:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for restoring the valid edit in Polygamy. I think I had the window open too long and someone edited in the meantime. ... discospinster _talk 20:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for TS edits

Thanks for working through the automated peer review: I'll try to catch the rest after the 4th of July holiday. Thanks again! Sandy 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, xy, thanks again for all the help on the TS article. If you're interested, I'll share my large To Do list with you: I'm working my way through the article, trying to fill in gaps and copyedit as I go. If you want to join in, I'll share the list :-) For example, I need to expand both pathophysiology and the links to OCD/ADHD in the Causes and origins of Tourette syndrome. Plus add the CDC image, which is still Greek to me. There's more :-) Sandy 17:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, yes that would be completely cool if you could upload that picture: I can't decipher the Wiki instructions. I have learned how to manipulate pictures, change the sizes, and add captions once they're on Wiki, so I would be able to do that -- have to figure out where to put the picture and what caption to use. I do appreciate the help you've been ! Sandy 18:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought of a caption: putting it at the right of the paragraph that begins with "Tics are described as ... " in the "Symptoms and signs" section, with the caption Tourette syndrome is a common condition which appears in childhood and diminishes for most by adulthood.

If that doesn't work well, I know how to work on the caption later . Thanks again ... it is very kind of you to do that for me ! Sandy 18:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow - that was fast !! Thanks so much ... I'll play around with the size, location, caption, etcetera now. A great addition! Sandy 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, again, my house got hit by lightening, sustained a lot of damage, and I am now on a very slow dialup, maybe for a few days. Will respond in bits and pieces on my talk page ... Thanks so much for the help. Sandy 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry -- I work on it in bits and spurts myself, and haven't paid much attention to it lately. Sandy 01:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On the image, I truly don't know what to do. It's one of those areas that just won't compute in my feeble brain. The Fair Use issue is too vague. Do you want to put together something original? If you know how, that would be cool. I'd look for pictures showing a lot of motion, like ticcing, along with some "deep in contemplation" poses, and a mixture of ages and races, but mostly male, since TS is 4:1 male:female, and mostly children, since adults tend to outgrow tics. It makes me crazy. If you are able to do something, I'd really be grateful. Sandy 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is so kind of you to take this job on: OK, I'm a neophyte. Is the idea that you are going to create a new collage from the selection your sent me, and that I should choose from those ? (And please don't feel you need to apologize for elapsed time: there is no hurry whatsoever on this.) Sandy 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get it now :-) I'll go through Flicker and pick images that would work for a collage. I'll pick an excess of them, and pick some that depict the facts that TS affects all races, mostly children, highest tic severity ages 8 - 12, and more males than females. I'll get back to you ... thanks again ! Sandy 17:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is going to be hard! I can't find a mother and son, an African-American youth, or many hispanic children ... am I on the right track with any of these?

Starting list of candidate images for collage: ethnic young girl contemplating child - young boy happy boy children in motion silly boys smiling boy boys teen girl dancer young thinking boy vertical young pensive boy vertical hand in motion, tic-like young boy blinking and licking boy winking hispanic man child at play man vertical mother grandson

And how do we know they can all be used? Sandy 19:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sacrifice is going on tonight

[edit] From IRC

Alright, finally got around to having a look at the stuff you mentioned. I'll try to keep an eye on it, if anything develops feel free to let me know. Luna Santin 23:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libya referencing

Please consider striking your objection to lack of referencing in the Libya article.

I have spent the last three days thoroughly increasing the number and quality of references. I have also updated the bibliographic style to be comprehensive and organised.

There are now over 60 references in the page and almost every paragraph and fact is referenced at least once if not more.

--User:Jaw101ie 16:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Libyseal.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Libyseal.png. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PNG to SVG

I saw your work on converting the Libyan ethnolinguistic map from PNG to SVG format, which was excellent. Can you do the same to Image:National League for Democracy flag.png and Image:MyanmarAdministrativeDivisions.png? Thanks. Sorry for bothering you. Hintha 00:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for tracing the map in SVG. I believe the National League for Democracy flag is under the licence {{Insignia}}. Some flags have GFDL and public domain licences, though. --Hintha 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the map could have been found anywhere, would it be wiser if I removed the statement, as it could have come from the U.S. government, or other sources. --Hintha 04:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libya

Hi,

I've noticed that you've changed the world Libya in Amazigh from an image to text. I think the image was much better. Otherwise the majority of people will just see 6 squares, like I see now. It's better if everyone can read it. See Algeria.

--Jaw101ie 17:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

SVG sounds much better. The only reason I'm concerned is because Tamazight are not well known. An image which everyone can see will have the positive effect of leading the reader into the topic. 6 squares however just look like an error! Do you think you'd be able to convert?

Thanks --Jaw101ie 18:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're a gem,

thanks a lot

[edit] Libya

- - - Nice. There are some others left, though. The oil reserve data reference doesn’t look so great. I suggest using this table from OPEC’s Annual Statistical Bulletin. (Not a government, but reasonably reliable, or at least notable, in matters like this one.) The Factbook references could be collapsed to a single one, because the Factbook page is reasonably short and the URLs are the same in both cases. This should probably be that (and cited more appropriately). Also, which material, exactly, from the Background Notes is used in the article at the moment? (There’s a template at the end that says there is some.)

Regarding your comments made above on the Libya candidature page:

I've fixed the OPEC and the change "this" to "that" reference concerns. As for the CIA world factbook, I don't agree they should be one reference. The reason is, all the references in the article refer to different sections on the Factbook Libya page. This makes it easier when you want to check a reference because you know exactly where to look on the factbook page.

As for the background notes, that tag was added a while ago and I can't point to exact sentences in the article that come from the notes. The information has pretty much assimilated into the article. Thanks for raising the concerns. If you want, (think they have been addressed), consider striking them, for the sole purpose of making the page easier to sort through, and more objective.

Thanks again

--Jaw101ie 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Utah

Nonsense, the user made a deliberate moronic change to the article and that's what I called it and what I meant. If you check his talk page you will find that he has a history of vandalism and had in fact just been blocked for 24 hours for similar stupidity. Bob Palin 04:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing obsolete JPEGs for deletion

Hello, Xyzzy_n. I notice you've listed several JPEGs for deletion, after having replaced them with SVG versions. Your SVGs are much better; thank you for uploading them. However, I disagree that the JPEGs should be deleted, because they are an important part of the history of the SVG images. If the JPEGs were deleted, we would lose the evidence that we have about the original creator of the image. This is the reason the {{obsolete}} tag is recommended for JPEGs that have been replaced with SVGs: the JPEGs may be obsolete, but it is important to keep them around so that we have a complete record of the history of the image we're using. Please let me know if you have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but in the specific cases, I’m still not convinced keeping the original images is necessary, for the following reasons:

The information (i. e. non-noise) in the specific images is discrete, which means that, assuming I got all the relevant details, primarily the names and shapes, right, the images are almost equivalent with respect to their content.
The licence matters are mostly trivial. All the images I nominated on July 29 were created by the uploaders and released under free licences or in the public domain. Afaict, mentioning the uploader’s name and choosing the correct licence has been the maximum necessary information. This could, of course, be expanded to include all information from the description pages of the JPEG images (of which there is not much), but the actual images do not seem relevant for the matter.
There is no general way to track changes from a raster image to a vector image in the style of a revision history of that I know, and I’ve been making an effort to make reasonably precise traces, so there should be very few important changes.
I hope there is no scenario under which it would be useful to include the JPEG versions anywhere. Any corrections, enhancements etc. should, presumably, be added to the SVG versions. Thus, the JPEG files themselves would never be used.

I’m not sure what other ‘evidence’ would be needed about the creator of the image; can you explain further? —xyzzy_n 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the same reason we have a history for every article on Wikipedia: so that if someone questions our claim that the article was written by Wikipedians and released under the GFDL, we can show them the evidence. If the JPEG is deleted, and someone questions the SVG version, the only evidence we have is an unverifiable claim from the uploader of the SVG that it was created from a GFDLed JPEG, but we can't produce said JPEG.

Presumably there will be a better format than SVG eventually, and there will be a drive to replace SVGs on Wikipedia with images in the new format. We shouldn't delete the SVGs, for the same reason. This cycle will probably continue many times; if the versions in old formats are deleted each time, then in 50 years we will have images that are claimed GFDL, but the only evidence we can produce goes back a few months.

Now, I agree that keeping a JPEG version and an SVG version is clumsy at the moment. Mostly this is due to the fact that there's no way to directly replace an image in one format with an image in another format. Hopefully this problem will be fixed soon (see bugzilla:709 and bugzilla:4421 for related bug reports). Until we have a solution, though, the best thing to do is to keep both versions around. They can later be merged into a single image page, that shows the history of the image, beginning with a JPEG, being replaced with an SVG, and so on. —Bkell (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If somebody can make a case that an image is not actually under the GFDL, wouldn’t the problem usually extend to the JPEG version (the information for which is exactly as verifiable as for the SVG version, i. e. not at all, in most cases) as well? Besides, I remember reading something about image undeletion being now possible. Doesn’t that leave a means of getting back to the original image in such an event? The same would go for merging the image histories once that becomes possible. —xyzzy_n 18:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's consider Image:BikeLeanForces2.svg. You say in the image description page that it is a trace of a previous image, Image:BikeLeanForces2.JPG, and you claim that the image is licensed under the GFDL. If the JPEG is deleted, there is no hard evidence that the original JPEG was licensed under the GFDL; sure, you make that claim, but frankly lots of editors make lots of preposterous image copyright claims all the time. If the JPEG is not deleted, then we can go back to the original JPEG and see that AndrewDressel claims he created it himself and licensed it under the GFDL.

Now, is AndrewDressel's self-creation claim verifiable? We don't really have any evidence other than his own claim that he created it, but we don't have any evidence to the contrary (for example, we don't have evidence that it was scanned from a book). But in the case of a self-created image, we don't expect to have any more evidence, so that's okay. For your SVG, though, you admit that you are not the original image creator, so you do not have the right to unilaterally license the image under the GFDL (in order for you to license it under the GFDL, the original image must be GFDLed, or in the public domain). So you need to provide some evidence that the original image was acceptably licensed. If the JPEG is deleted, we lose that evidence.

If images can be undeleted, and retain all their history and past versions, then I'm less strongly opposed to the deletion of the JPEG, because it can always be undone. But I'm still opposed to it, because it means that this evidence is not visible to the public. I don't see any harm in keeping the JPEG around; server space is not an issue, and the JPEGs should have {{obsolete}} tags on them to advise potential users to use the SVG version instead. If there's no reason to delete the JPEGs, but there is a reason to keep them, then I say we keep them.

See also Template talk:BadJPEG#Deletion recommendation. —Bkell (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So it is basically a matter of {{*-self}} tags being more trustworthy than the rest? I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for the explanation. By the way, you might want to edit {{ShouldBeSVG}} accordingly. —xyzzy_n 00:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying that {{*-self}} tags are "more trustworthy" than the rest isn't quite true. There are many cases where images are incorrectly tagged with {{PD-self}}, for example; when I run across an image that looks like a professional photograph that is tagged with {{PD-self}}, I question the claim, because this tag is frequently misused; but unless I can find some evidence that the claim is false (for example, finding the image on another Web site, or seeing a watermark in the image with credits), I will let the tag stand. It is often helpful to look at the uploader's history; if other uploaded images are clearly incorrectly tagged, there's a greater chance that this one is too.

But the reason I let the tag stand is this: If the claim is true, if the user really did create the image from scratch and upload it, then there really is no evidence of this fact available. We have to trust the uploader's claim. On the other hand, if an image is a modification of a previously existing image, then there should be evidence of this modification (namely, the previously existing image). If an uploader says, "I created this image by modifying a freely licensed image," we can reasonably expect to be able to verify this claim by examining the freely licensed image he speaks of. Does this make sense? It's not that the {{*-self}} tags are inherently more trustworthy than other tags.

In the case of Image:BikeLeanForces2.JPG, I have absolutely no problem believing that AndrewDressel created the image himself. Now, if it were, say, an oil painting that appeared to be done by a professional painter, I would question a claim of self-creation, because unfortunately there are many more people who upload copyrighted images to Wikipedia and tag them as their own creation than there are Wikipedians who are professional painters. Likewise, if it were a photograph of a sculpture tagged as a self-creation, then I would be more likely to question the claim, because there are many more Wikipedia users who would take a photograph of a sculpture and believe they held the copyright to the photograph than there are Wikipedians who are sculptors. So it's a subjective judgment. I don't think any evidence is needed to support the claim of self-creation for Image:BikeLeanForces2.JPG. For the painting or the sculpture, I would want an explicit statement by the uploader that he was the painter or the sculptor. Of course, there's a possibility that such a claim might be a lie, but I think that's generally unlikely because I think most uploaders aren't malicious copyright infringers. The existence of such a claim would very much increase my confidence that the uploader of the image was indeed the original creator, rather than just someone who found an image and used an incorrect tag.

By the way, thank you for pointing out that {{ShouldBeSVG}} needs to be changed. I had changed the wording on {{badJPEG}}, but I failed to change this one. —Bkell (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MATLAB SVG script

I can't get this script to create an image that I can view. My browser doesn't need a plug-in to render SVG, does it? AndrewDressel 15:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends. Most browsers do not have built-in support for SVG, the notable exceptions being Firefox, version 1.5 or newer, Opera, beginning with version 8, and, to some extent, recent versions of Amaya. If you are using Internet Exploder and can’t get Firefox, you can try Adobe’s SVG plugin. However, the best way to check whether an image will display well on Wikipedia is to use the same tool which is used here: librsvg, which includes a viewer for SVG files, rsvg-view, which shows almost exactly what an image will look like after upload. Recent Linux distributions should offer packages for librsvg and similar options are probably available for other popular Unix clones (e. g. MacOS X and the *BSDs), but I am unaware of a Windows port of the viewer (although the a port of the library itself is available). The second best way, imho, is to use Firefox. —xyzzy_n 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

- Finally got it to work with Adobe’s SVG plugin. I think librsvg is a site that only a developer would love. So now the problem is that I don't appear to be able to scale the image. I created it to be the same size as the JPG image, on my machine at home. Now, here at the cafe, it is too small. Is that correct? Images in SVG format do not scale? That's not too handy. AndrewDressel 13:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, neither Word nor Paint are good tools for image creation or editing.

- They work fine for me. Since Wikipedia serves up raster images anyway, I don't really see the benefit of uploading vector images, especially if it means I then cannot scale them as necessary. AndrewDressel 13:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

Thanks for your note. WP:BLOCK lays out when we may and may not block, and doesn't list exceptions for 3RR, so that's why I linked to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Saying Hello

152.163.101.8 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I’d reply on your talk page, but the IP belongs to an AOL proxy, so… —xyzzy_n 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

for "plumbectomy". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musclam

I find you alTer me writteen work. I angryy undless yoiu alter work in gooed faith.

وبارك الله بكم انتم الا علي هدف تدمير مقالتي --Uzerbaaji 04:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The arabic scrpt is to mean "God bless if you edited my article for useless purposes, but if not, I hate you" I can be wonder if any other Uzbeik wikipadan other place? --Uzerbaaji 04:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ???

Bitte schaue in DEine E-Mails! Danke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.152.230.21 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-11T09:04:15 (UTC)

Habe ich getan. Falls das, was ich dort finden sollte, nicht als Spam getarnt ist, ist es nicht angekommen. —xyzzy_n 15:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] destroying content in CMS listing

Please read the discussion section in the CMS Comparison documents before you destory any more content and remove any more relevent CMS links. Your removal of major vendors from the list is not helping the community nor improving the content of the article. There is a new discussion on the page about notability rules. If you have new content to add please make the contribution, but a simple deletion of valid vendors is not welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shan mcarthur@spamcop.net (talk • contribs) 2006-08-13T03:00:46 (UTC)

I'm sure that xyzzy has read the discussion page, since his edits were perfectly in line with the goal that is agreed upon by the majority of that article's editors: "This is a comparison of NOTABLE CMSs, as judged by the existence of articles on Wikipedia. Please don't add external links or wikilinks to nonexistent articles--write an article instead to demonstrate notability. Redlinks, external links, and links to articles that aren't on the CMS in question will periodically be pruned. Please fill in the background info too, please, to make this article useful. Thanks." xyzzy's edits followed that policy to the letter and were completely appropriate. He absolutely was not "destroying content" whatsoever. I personally wish more editors had his enthusiasm for keeping Wikipedia top quality. --Satori Son 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] state reverts

FYI the revert you did yo Utah was wrong, the IP updated it to match the source. -Ravedave 16:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem it was just an FYI. I have been seeing the same problems - esp from AOL accounts. There is a source embedded in the utah article, thats what I looked at. Actually, now that I think about it someone should find the best source for that info and update all of the state articles, but thats bound to be an assload of work. -Ravedave 17:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ha!

Thanks for taking better care of my user page than I have myself. The tide of vandalism is surprising, given that I'm after all not a high-profile contributor, but I can't help laughing at it. Largely because of my vigilant fellow-contributors, who've kept it from becoming a real problem. --Kizor 16:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahoy!

I just thought I'd say hello, since I spotted you (well, saw you in the EGS history page). So:

Hello

AlmostReadytoFly 22:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question!

Is User_talk:Xyzzyplugh related to you? [2]

69.165.170.115 11:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer!

No. —xyzzy_n 16:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay! I was just wondering because your names are so similar. 69.165.170.115 08:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need Help

What can be done regarding Racism on Wikipedia?

I need you to see the following:

Edits made to Jew by User:63.238.223.66

[3] [4] [5]

Edits made to Jew and Jewish Identity by User:68.189.255.6

[6] [7] [8]

Edits made to Jew by User:159.134.245.207

[9]

Edits made to Jew, Lebanon, and Palestine by User:Sucene

[10] [11] [12]

Edits made to Nigger, Hebrews, and Kike by User:70.22.51.13

[13] [14] [15]

Edits made to Kike, Heeb Magazine, Jeremy Piven, [[Tulane University, and Mel Gibson by User:68.14.99.143

[16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

This one offended me most!

Edits made to Black People by User:138.88.55.121

[21]

Edits made to Black People by User:70.222.42.249

[22] [23] [24]

Edits made to Black People by User:64.211.1.190

[25] [26]

216.32.86.210 10:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The David Duke article needs you help

What on earth is going on with that article, is this an encyclopedia or a political spin forum? This racist nonsense is getting to be a bit much! 216.32.86.210 11:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. I am going to post this message on a few other respected editors talk pages as well.

[edit] TS Review

To Dwaipayanc, Xyzzy n, Wouterstomp, Wikipedical, TimVickers, Arcadian, NCurse, TedE, Jkelly: to all who have helped me develop the article Tourette syndrome, I was hoping you'd have a new look. Jkelly has checked the images, I've asked Tony to do a thorough copyedit to polish the prose when he has time, and I've completed the referencing and expanded the Screening section. I think I've done all I'm capable of, and would appreciate any new input you may have. Sandy 23:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what do u make of this

Ryodox [27] 66.246.72.108 13:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for unknown reason

Hiya, this is Xinyu, remember, the kid who disobeyed rules for the longest time? Anyways...I have been blocked for some anonymous reason from talking on the talk pages of all the articles in Wikipedia. Please help me out, THanks. --Lord X 19:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../x/y/z/User_talk%7EXyzzy_n_2d1b.html"

User talk:Xyzzy n

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Myomer

[edit] illuminatus

[edit] Roundhouse kick

[edit] Ten German Bombers

[edit] U2 Crisis article

[edit] Chinese polygamy

[edit] Thanks !

[edit] JBlogger - Thanks

[edit] Emblems of the Red Cross

[edit] Thanks

[edit] War film image

[edit] Greek Quotation

[edit] Mark of the beast

[edit] EGS

[edit] Sorry about the misunderstanding

[edit] I suck

[edit] Thanks

[edit] Thanks for TS edits

[edit] Sacrifice is going on tonight

[edit] From IRC

[edit] Libya referencing

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Libyseal.png

[edit] PNG to SVG

[edit] Libya

[edit] Libya

[edit] Utah

[edit] Listing obsolete JPEGs for deletion

[edit] MATLAB SVG script

[edit] Policy

[edit] Just Saying Hello

[edit] Thank you...

[edit] Musclam

[edit] ???

[edit] destroying content in CMS listing

[edit] state reverts

[edit] Ha!

[edit] Ahoy!

[edit] Question!

[edit] Answer!

[edit] Need Help

[edit] The David Duke article needs you help

[edit] TS Review

[edit] what do u make of this

[edit] Blocked for unknown reason

Views

Navigation

Search