User talk:Tim Pierce/Archive/2007
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Smile
RedRollerskate has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Your CFD nomination
I've moved this to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:User en as it's a user category not an article category. Timrollpickering 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! I didn't see the link to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion or I would have put the CfR there in the first place. Tim Pierce 04:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:COW
WP:COW is Wikipedia:Can of worms. I said that it did not exist and basically wrot that in as a joke (which I say it doesn't exist in my statement). Maybe I should write an essay using that shortcut just so I can say it exists.--Wizardman 03:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I went and made WP:COW an essay just for the heck of it, in case you care :).--Wizardman 16:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
'Who
Okay, I guess I can see your point about it and so I've self reverted, maybe I was a bit to drastic in reverting you so prematurely. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:AllardLowenstein.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AllardLowenstein.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 13:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Photographs of Saints
Statues and other images are acceptable as well, and the photograph request is the only extant one for any such images. I've also seen the same request used on articles relating to several people who died before the advent of modern photography. On that basis, I was led to believe that the request was not literally so much for a literal photograph as an image of the subject. If I am wrong, of course, please feel free to remove the tags. John Carter 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Twp!
Your username makes me laugh! "Twp" is Welsh for "stupid". Sorry… The Jade Knight 05:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
PhotoCatBot
Hi, just wondered if you had seen how PhotoCatBot works with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WPBiography}}. WikiProjectBannerShell can't nest the box thrown up with the needs-photo=yes parameter of WPBiography. See [1] for example. Just looks a bit weird! Regards, SeveroTC 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- You are right about the advantages of needs-photo=yes as it is very powerful. I think your solution of hiding the photoreq box as part of the nesting would be achievable and would work. Regards, SeveroTC 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
...for your work on the Minuteman Bikeway, especially regarding its length, vindicating my efforts to have the correct information shown. Your research and edits should largely eliminate any remaining ambiguity facing the reader. It is unfortunate the distance ever became controversial, all because (apparently) someone couldn't count from zero to ten, or the mileposts were chiselled improperly. Best regards, Hertz1888 17:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ain't it a pain! FWIW, I think the editors urging to stick with published sources were actually correct; Wikipedia articles should stick to claims that can be verified by independent sources, even when we know that the truth is different and can easily be confirmed by measuring it ourselves. It's often frustrating but I think that it is crucial to Wikipedia's character. Anyway, that's why I wanted to find reputable sources that confirmed the length of the trail, to put any doubt behind it. :-) Tim Pierce 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- A blessing most of the time, yes, and a curse sometimes. As Galileo and Giordano Bruno found out, tragically, there are times when all the published "authorities" are wrong. Talk about frustration. Hertz1888 17:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not really add, I changed a new bad cat Category:No_image_available to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs, not sure if it is possible to add {{reqphoto}} to talk page instead. Will see what I can do, but do not have time for 1-2 days. Will try to clean up after that. thanks! --Stefan talk 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty sure i can do it resonably automated with AWB, but I do not have the time now, will do it kate on Sunday. --Stefan talk 00:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Bot error
Your bot insists on changing the status of the Hospital Tycoon talkpage to show that a screenshot is present on the main article, even though the only image present is of the DVD cover (which isn't a screenshot). Although trivial, it is quite annoying as it doesn't make use of the purpose of having the messagebox there on the talkpage, if it is getting removed. Could you try and prevent the bot from doing this? Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, apologies for my error. I noticed where it was moving the "request photo" template, but overlooked it replacing it with the more accurate parameter in the cvgproj template (I mistakenly interpreted it as "screenshot exists=yes", rather than "screenshot needed=yes"). This is obviously something I overlooked and not something that your bot has made a mistake on. Again, my apologies for my error. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
My compliments on the PhotoCatBot that you made, although the bot doesn't seem to be able identify the presents of images that are hotlinked from Wikimedia Commons such as the photo in the article about Vanessa_Rousso , PhotoCatBot left This message on the talk page even though the article has this photo image:Venessa_Russo.jpg which is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 14:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're quite right, but this is actually a deliberate omission -- see User talk:PhotoCatBot for recent discussion. I will add something to the bot's main user page that explains this more clearly. Tim Pierce 16:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies, I see now, I misunderstood its function ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 21:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- No worries -- I agree it seems counterintuitive at first. :-) Tim Pierce 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies, I see now, I misunderstood its function ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 21:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been a part of the discussion at Talk:Jonestown at all, but I did notice your comment made today regarding Lonewolf BC (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) and his obstinate resistance to compromise, especially the following: "You have not objected when I announced my intent to act on what appears to me to be consensus, yet you consistently revert the article when I do act on them." From my experiences with this user over the past couple of months - most notably at Rideau Hall and, to a lesser extent, British monarchy - I have seen exactly what you allude to: little to no comments offered in discussion, but many officious reverts.
If he does proceed to stand in the way of process, I'll be willing to be the second nominee for opening an RfC/U. I've already previously contacted him on his talk page regarding his behaviour (something he did not like at all). --G2bambino 15:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Not clear to me why you created Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fish and why your bot adds it when Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes exists, but does not really matter so before I merge can you say that it is OK to merge ...fish to ...fishes, or is there a good reson to merge the other way?? and probably better to answer at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes. --Stefan talk 01:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have now changed all uses of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fish to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes and asked for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fish to be deleted, please change your bot to use Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes. --Stefan talk 13:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done! Thanks for your help and sorry again about the mistake. Tim Pierce 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Alexander Wendt
You caught me vandalizing the page by Alexander Wendt. I was trying to humorously call attention to an obviously bullshit article. However, I looked closer through the history and did a WHOIS search on the IP that created the article... and you will never guess what I found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexander_Wendt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.212.2 (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- (Answered at Talk:Alexander Wendt -- Tim Pierce 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC))
Bug report PhotoCatBot (talk · contribs)
Hi Twp
according to this diff your bot can not handle more than one photo request templates, I fixed template in the mentioned diff.
Best regards and happy editing Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 11:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're quite right; I hadn't anticipated that the bot might encounter an article with more than one {{reqphoto}} template on the talk page. I will try to put together a fix for that today. Thanks for the bug report! Tim Pierce 13:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the swift response, and for cleaning up the article about the sirius patrol. I did not even know that there excisted a request diagramme template.By the way I hereby give you the Vitruvian Barnstar, also known as the Da Vinci Barnstar for your bot work
Best regards and happy editing Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 21:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the swift response, and for cleaning up the article about the sirius patrol. I did not even know that there excisted a request diagramme template.By the way I hereby give you the Vitruvian Barnstar, also known as the Da Vinci Barnstar for your bot work
PhotoCatBot malfunction
Your bot did this which suggests it does not understand the |of= parameter of {{reqphoto}} or {{reqphotoin}}. —dgiestc 01:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that! You're quite right - I had overlooked that {{reqphotoin}} supports the "of=" parameter. I've stopped the bot and will restart it after fixing this bug. Tim Pierce 14:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
reqphotoin
Thanks for the fantastic work with the reqphoto template and your bot. When I created reqphotoin it was a bit of a rush job, my original plan was to get the regional categories up and running first and then to add parameters for topics (I was thinking along the lines of "politicians", "celbrities", "cricketers", "engineering", "science", "buildings"), with an eye on date (for example we might want to dig up historic photographs from particular times, pre-1900 or from the interwar period...) then to find some way to cram all these as parameters back onto the original reqphoto template. Have a look at my original post on the problem a few days before I created reqphotoin and you'll see that our minds seem to have been thinking in very similar ways!
The reqphotoin template was only meant to be a temporary fix before bashing out the required more sophisticated template code with optional parameters, but I've been waylaid for a while (busy/ill).
I still think it's possible that some sort of "old photographs" request system would be good; for example it may well be possible to obtain a photo for a 1950's film star who is long dead but it's not true that he's "photographable" in the same way as a modern one. Food for thought, though.
And I've just seen something awesome at Wikipedia talk:Requested pictures#Map of requests - just how cool is this map? Or this one? Or this one (a bit more relevant for you)? I think it definitely justifies the creation of these categories!
I think it might be worth adding a link to that in the text of {{Howtoreqphotoin}} (hmm, I ought to make sure I provide some documentation for that at some point) so that it appears in all the regional requested photo categories. It's already been done on a few categories using {{GeoGroupTemplate}} but it might as well be added to {{Howtoreqphotoin}} so that it appears on the lot. I'll have a word to the creator of {{GeoGroupTemplate}} about it...
Anway, thanks a lot - I definitely don't have a problem about reqphotoin being deprecated, its purpose seems to have been served! TheGrappler 17:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
PhotoCatBot
How often does this bot run, or how is it started? There appears to be articles in the top level category that meet the criteria for edit. Traveler100 (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've been taking a bit of an unexpected wikibreak and the bot has not recently been running. I'll get it back online soon. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)