User talk:MECU/Archive/Archive-Dec2006
Thanks[edit]
Cheers for creating the template for players who have scored 100+ goals in the FA Premier League.Big Al 1984 10:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
OT Linescore[edit]
Does it work for multiple OT games? Or should all OT's be combined into one box? CJC47 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Your input is requested[edit]
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Blanking[edit]
No, I did that on purpose. I was trying to figure out why Werdnabot wasnt working, and the page wouldnt create so I put archive then erased it so it would be clear. Thanks for giving me the heads up though. Wish there were more people like that
Bearingbreaker92 19:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Patrick Willis[edit]
If I'm reading the policy correctly, "notable, including college sports in the United States" - I didn't think that High School athletes would necessarily reach this standard. SkierRMH 02:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the update - the way it read initially, it said that he was a high school player; clearer now.SkierRMH 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article so as to establish notability. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 09:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:Kirk-Ferentz.jpg[edit]
Hey Mecu. There is a lively debate about use of promo photos on wikipedia. My name is Jeff and I Do not support the interpretation of WP:FU as implemented by user's like User:Chowbok. They believe that Wikipedia should be free of all promotional photos that are "replaceable with an equivalent" (i.e. an amateur photo from flickr). Their rationale is being debated in many places, and take it a step further believing that all promo photos should be deleted and let someone else deal with finding and uploading a free alternative.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use specifically this thread
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok
- Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok
- User:Chowbok/Robth's_RFU_Explanation
- Image_Talk:Jennifer Granholm.jpg
And many other places I've no doubt missed.
I and many others who support use of fair use promotional photos have not been successful in changing the actions of Chowbok and rampant deletion and changing of many hundred's of useful images from Wikipedia articles continues. One good example is the Jennifer Granholm article which had a great promo photo replaced by a terrible photo. I seek to raise the profile of this issue through challenging promotional photos on high profile article's like this one. I'm sorry, really I am, but fair use policy as implemented by Chowbok has left me with few viable options.
I invite you to join the battle for Promotional Photo usage on Wikipedia and the protection of Fair Use concepts. --Jeff 07:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:Chan Gailey.jpg;[edit]
another one. --Jeff 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:Jim Grobe.JPG[edit]
this one too. Sorry. --Jeff 07:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:Glen Mason-Minnesota.jpg[edit]
:( --Jeff 07:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Joe Tiller-Purdue.jpg[edit]
yep that one too. --Jeff 07:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:Bret Bielema-Wisconson.jpg[edit]
Go Big 10! --Jeff 07:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:Mark Mangino.jpg[edit]
asf--Jeff 07:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:Ron Prince.jpg[edit]
Man I'm really sorry you did so much work finding great promo shots. Too bad those idiots want to delete them all. --Jeff 08:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:Dennis Franchione-Texas A&M.jpg[edit]
yep. this one too. --Jeff 08:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deletion tagging[edit]
Hi Mecu. Please do not tag add {{db-unksource}} to images that are already tagged with {{no source}} and similar templates. There is a bit of a backlog right now, but administrators will eventually delete these images by visiting daily subcategories of Category:Images with unknown source. Thanks. ×Meegs 17:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- If there is a backlog it means we have a shortage of rescources. Flooding speedy will not get more rescources. Instead it will result in stuff that should be speedied at onece hanging around.Geni 18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Template tip[edit]
Hey, great work on all the templates. I don't know if you just aren't aware or choose to do it a different way, but I noticed you use a lot of HTML table tags (<td><tr>) in your infoboxes. I know that inside conditionals you can't use | so using the table tags is one way around it. Another way is to use {{!}}. For example, it would look like this: {{#if:{{{variable|}}}| {{!}} cell 1 {{!}}{{!}} cell 2}}. Like I said, you may already know this but I just thought I'd let you know in case you didn't.--NMajdan•talk 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Its no big deal, just thought I'd let you know. Yeah, I modified one of yours and it did take me awhile. Its a little different when I didn't write the code myself but I finally got it. I was actually under the impression that using the table tags was frowned upon by I did a little searching myself and some sources say its ok and others say it is not. Just user preference.--NMajdan•talk 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 11th.[edit]
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 50 | 11 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Editing my User Page[edit]
I don't mind that there was an edit, but I DO mind that you did not ask me about it, or even leave me a message after the fact notifying me as such (aside from the Edit Summary, which does not qualify as any sort of "notice"). Please do not consider this as an attack on you, I am merely saying that I would appreciate it if you would leave a discussion/talk topic about a problem you see on someone's user/talk page rather than just taking action. I know that we are encouraged to be bold as Wikipedians, but I think that User and User talk pages require an extra bit of protocol. --Godfoster 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was not trying to suggest that your editing of my userspace was an attack, or vandalism. I am also fully aware why you made the edit. However, my original point still stands: I would have appreciated if you would have at least left me a note on my talk page about it - even a note after-the-fact. I just didn't like that I only noticed that a change had been made when I was browsing through the history of that page. I want to emphasize again that I have no ill feelings about the edit itself, or the reasoning behind it, and that I am not attacking you. All I am saying is that I'd like some communication if an edit is made, even for the sake of complying with Wikipedia policy. --Godfoster 07:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Red link categories[edit]
Categories are a navigation tool. They are really only useful when they exist. Red linked categories do not exist. You cannot use them to navigate around if they do not exist. So since they cannot be used for their intended purpose, they really have no other purpose, and are just clutter.
I go around cleaning up red category links every now and then, and was on one of my crusades when I saw the NCAA year links. Quite a few of them, all red.
I'm already working on slowly doing one major build-out of categories where someone added them to a template and did not build out any of the resulting categories. I've done well over a hundred so far, and have something like 200 or so more to make eventually. When I saw another set of red linked categories coming off of a template, I said to myself that there was no way I was going to go do a second setof these things, when I'm still so far behind on the first set. (First set is "XXXX Introductions", and I still have to do much of the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s.)
IMHO, if someone wants those categories on those articles, they should be willing to take the time to finish the job and build out all the categories in question. - TexasAndroid 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Deleted Brandeis University Images[edit]
As I informed you last week: I've already received explicit permission from the university (the copyright holder) for the use of these images. I forwarded this to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" and have been waiting for a confirmation ticket number.
Please restore these images. Alight 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deletery[edit]
Just wanted to bring your attention to this page. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hey Mecu, sorry to steal your thunder, but I went ahead and changed this for you since I was on. z4ns4tsu\talk 04:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
RE: TFD Amfootball LinescoreOT Templates[edit]
No problem. z4ns4tsu\talk 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Route nationale[edit]
Although rather officous in manner I'm sorry you found the representation of km meters/road markers found on the side of roads in France so offensive. It might have been more helpful if you had just removed the image rather than the text. I am attempting to standardise the articles across all the roads. I will seek an alternative design for the marker which I hope is more to your taste. Vivbaker 16:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
off topic reply[edit]
I'm a high school official, but I'd love to do the NFL someday. First things first -- that's at least 10 years away. Hopefully, I'll be able to get some college assignments in the next few years.
Fewer is for things you can count, less is for things you can't. If I had fewer apples, I'd have less food. We need two words because English is like that. I suspect we'll lose fewer before too long though -- so we'll have fewer words, or is that less words? Mishatx 23:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Garik15dec image[edit]
I realise this isn't a free file host. I thought, however, that it was OK to upload pictures for userpages, as several other users seem to have done as much. If this isn't allowed, then of course the picture should go. Is there any other way of having pictures on userpages? Or is this generally not encouraged? garik 23:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I'll upload it to Wikicommons - I assume you'll just delete the one here? garik 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
"not a free file hosting"[edit]
Hello, I have noticed you tagged many images for speedy deletion with the explanation "Unencyclopedic and Wikipedia is not a free file host. The image appears to have no encyclopedic value and is not used on Wikipedia (excluding vandalism)." Well, this is not a criterion for speedy deletion - such images should be listed on WP:IfD instead (and right now are generating a false backlog on CAT:CSD). Миша13 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I came here to say the same thing. WP:CSD lists the only reasons we speedy delete something. Failing this criteria we usually do a community discussion to determine if it should be delete at WP:IfD. No worries, you are clearly trying to help, keep up the good work. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, good work with tagging the {{db-redundant}} and copyvio images. It's just the "unencyclopedic" thing, which is usually discussed on XfD pages. Миша13 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
IfD notification[edit]
In a number of the IfD nominations you added today to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 December 17 the uploader was not notified of the nomiation. It is the thrid step in the nomination process to advise the uploader. By notifiying the uploader you diminish the risk that the deletion will cause ill-will and perhaps end up going to deletion review. On 3 of the 14 nominations this notification was missed, that is more then 20%. Your attention to this would be greatly appreacited.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 03:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- already done, I have added the note on the three images, as well as on the uploader's talk pages.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 03:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
For the love of God, with an image this simple, isn't it obvious that I created the image? --Howard the Duck 04:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
G12[edit]
When you tag images for G12 violations, you have to include where the image is coming from. You can't just tag something that looks like a copyright violation. In some of the cases you tagged images that users claimed are their own work. To call those copyright violations without a source to back it up is breaking the tenants of assume good faith. Please, instead, tag it with {{PUIdisputed}} or take it to WP:IFD, thanks. Metros232 14:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)