User talk:Dumarest

Archives

Hello, Dumarest, 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 22:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Archive page formed. The start of the original user page copied back to this folllowup, as well as the image wrap item. The French Wiki and the Source were at the end of the original and have been put back. --Dumarest (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping around images

This is just a copy and paste from the help desk, where it is now almost gone. Self explanatory, but I am puzzled.

Refer to Sex and the City current page. In the 'Overview of Characters' section the image is to the right of the first character paragraph, but below it is a large white space forcing the entire second character paragraph to the left. I have, to my satisfaction, confirmed that this is because the image enters into the vertical space of that paragraph, and also I think I am satisfied that a paragraph like the second, with a '*' at the beginning, will not wrap around an image. Confirm, explain, or whatever - the extra white block I would prefer to get rid of. --Dumarest 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is something that just happens. When looking at the syntax I don't see any different between other images on other pages. ~~ Vagish T CVPS 16:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Make sure you are watching at fullscreen resolution and not in a small window. When you are watching a page in a smaller window, the layout can easily get smashed up. _ Mgm|(talk) 22:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that initial character. A paragraph with that will not wrap. Compare a later image on that page, Region 1 Edition of Complete Set, near the bottom. It goes into the next paragraph, which wraps. Now go to the first image and pull in the sides of the window - when it is narrow enough, so the text takes more lines, at some point the text of the first paragraph extends beyond the bottom of the image, and boom! the extra white space below the image disappears. It is that marker of the paragraphs at this point in the article. --Dumarest 11:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. On my monitor the Carrie, Charlotte and Miranda paragraphs all are wrapping on the left of the image. Is it possible that it is your browser? Are you experiencing the same behaviour with other images? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be! I use FireFox, but IE does wrap! --Dumarest 11:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we are narrowing it down. Perhaps there is a setting in FireFox that you can adjust? I just switched from IE to FF and it still works for me, so hopefully there is a setting that will help. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French Wikipedia

What do I need to do [or request done] to copy an article from the French Wikipedia to this English Wiki?? --Dumarest 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read French? If you do, you can simply translate it yourself. I would suggest setting up a user-sandbox to work before you transfer it over. (See my sandbox at User:Revolving Bugbear/sandbox -- I'm currently translating parts of Austrofascism from the German Wikipedia.) Be sure to include the references if you do this.

If you don't read French, and you would like to request that someone else translate it, you can post your request at Wikipedia:Translation. There are specific instructions there, but I would be happy to assist further.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a valid source [book]

I am the principal person re the Lincoln Academy page. I wish to expand it, but the material is in a 'book' prepared by the Academy and available there [and maybe [probably] in local libraries]. Can that be a valid source to add material to that page? Or, similar, could school yearbooks be valid sources?? --Dumarest (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely, as it's best to include third-party sources before using primary sources such as a publication from the school. Once several third-party sources have been included per WP:RS, then you could possibly provide that book as a source. I would not consider a yearbook to be a reliable source in any event, as they are generally created by students and by nature have a biased point of view in favor of the school. I hope this helps some. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twelfth amendment

[Text of the amendment] This is the paragraph name of a piece for the talk page on the 12th amendment. Now, I need an editor or such, with stature. This is an issue of actual ACTUAL text, and I am not an expert. The source I used seems authoritative, and the ACTUAL text ought not to be edited and changed. What should I do? Can that section of this page be locked, and not available to edit? Should I edit over and over again to the CORRECT text, if in fact the source I use is the actual text?? Help for the way to go is needed.--Dumarest (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the ip's changes. You do not need to manually retype text. First, you can revert an article to a prior version. Please see Help:Reverting. In situations where some time has passed and there are all types of intermediate changes that shouldn't be reverted, you can simply go to the article's history and use thr radio buttons to find the text addition you want to add back. Copy the text and then make the changes manually. In this case, I reverted to the version just before the ip's changes to the amendment text, and then manually added back one useful change that was lost.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the text in text form on my computer, downloaded from the given site. My initial change, just copied and pasted. Easy to do, and I guess you agree that the text I put in is the real thing! --Dumarest (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was:-) The ip who made the changes left no edit summary indicating his or her reason for making changes and I don't know if you are aware but we get thousands of vandalistic edits a day, many of them from ips (note though that they also make a large number of good edits as well). He or she may also have been...ahem...attempting to improve on the Constitution!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twelfth amendment again

{{helpme}} Why, in that page, does the {edit} choice for the section with the TEXT heading appear, not on the heading of the part, but at the second paragraph? --Dumarest (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the next responder, since I don't know how to fix it, if there is a fix: I think this has something to do with the way certain browsers configure the page for display when the edit tab is next to images on the side; the problem is apparent in both Firefox and Safari, but the page displays fine in Internet Explorer.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem I've seen on numerous pages, and as Fuhghettaboutit says, it seems to be linked with right-aligned images. I'm not sure how to predict when it will happen, though. There doesn't seem to be a fix for it for now other than to move the images. - Revolving Bugbear 16:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism reverts

Hi,

You recently reverted some vandalism to John Brown Russwurm, which is great. A further point though, you reverted the most recent vandalism done here, but the IP address had been busy, and actually vandalized twice, here is the earlier vandalism, immediately before the one you reverted. As a general note, it's a good idea to check how far back any vandalism goes, so you can revert to the last good version. WLU (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought of that - I have seen such before. Acted too rapidly. --Dumarest (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I only think to do so myself because I was reminded by other users. It's all part of the circle of life. Incidentally, I'm planning on going through the Russwurm page to embed most of the references as in-line citations. Just an FYI. WLU (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BlindLemon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BlindLemon.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to removing that image - on the Blind Lemon Jefferson article it has already been replaced, and I have put ththat valid image on the only article that used this image. --Dumarest (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BlindLemon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BlindLemon.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already said - dead, gone, fini, delete it, no complaint, gone gone GONE! --Dumarest (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing an image in Commons

I know I have done this, and it can be done, but I cannot now find the details. --Dumarest (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you trying to do? Change the image? Change the description or name? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can click on the link at the bottom "edit this file with an outside application," which should work fine. Or you can just download the image, crop or modify as seems best, and re-upload it. Or, if it's the "Winter in the Brig" image you're referring to, I'd be happy to crop or adjust it myself, just let me know. Clevelander96 (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to do that, but this image - the "Winter in the Brig" - has no edit link on the bottom. Maybe because it is in Commons? Other images have such an edit choice, and I have edited images before. --Dumarest (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:800px-Life in the brig.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:800px-Life in the brig.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it out - what I intended was not what happened, and that image should be deleted.--Dumarest (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this caused a bother! I'm not sure what you'd wanted to do -- I guess just to crop the image? In any case, I've added the information to the cropped version so that it shouldn't be in danger of being deleted. In the meantime, I can just upload the cropped version, too, to the Commons, and tag it an an alternate version, so you won't have to worry about this one. Clevelander96 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Inauguration

{{helpme}} Fine, take a look at Image:LincolnI2ndInnauguration.jpg

I have entered all the information, but editing the page does not get it to where it should be, and the 'fix this' stuff is still there. How should I have done this??? --Dumarest (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On which page exactly ? can you point me to it.Mion (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LincolnI2ndInnauguration.jpg --Dumarest (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The date, is the upload date, nothing to do, for the media part "if possible" you don't have to fill it in. for the other question, where should it go ? Mion (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most important, you gave it the right license, and you mentioned the source, where you got it, if questions come up, people will contact you. Cheers. Mion (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

next time, considder uploading to commons, so other projects also benefit from the image and try to put the right category at the bottom so people can find the image better if they need it. Cheers. Mion (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried going to Commons, but it asked me [repeatedly] to log in - and I am logged into Wikipedia - but is the log in to Commons a separate thing? No way could I upload to Commons. I wanted to. --Dumarest (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

commons is a different project, you have to create a new account there and then login on the new account Mion (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bambi - confusion

If one goes to the Wikipedia Project Disney, you will find what may still be the last entry, from me. That seems the place to go to bring up the problem with the Bambi article, but I am not fully familiar with the plot and such - except that I am pretty sure there is no 'Ronno' in it. That, and the Bambi II piece, need serious editorial examination, in my opinion. --Dumarest (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... It does look like that project has little activity. I would suggest you pick an editor or two on the talk page that look active and place a request for their help on their talk page. Unfortunately, I know little about the subject. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lighthope seems to have done a bit of work on the Bambi II page and might be able to help. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a character named "Ronno" in Disney's Bambi. I don't know the film especially well myself, but there is a pretty thorough plot summary/synopsis you can get at the IMdB's site here. Clevelander96 (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronno was indeed in Bambi II. He was Bambi's rival for Faline's affection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lighthope (talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

İmambayıldı

Hi, Dumarest. As you could see, I moved the article İmam bayıldı to İmambayıldı a short while ago. In fact, the latter is the real spelling in Turkish. You can verify here. But I still cannot be sure of what we should do for the English spelling. What do you think? --Chapultepec (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way to move a page. If you can convince me, I can do it also. Let's discuss it here first. --Chapultepec (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you would like to, we can continue to discuss in the article's talk page, whatever you like. --Chapultepec (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the references I noted in my editing had the space. Two were English publications, one was in English but dealing with Arabic. I also have seen a site in Turkish [YouTube, sorry I did not save it] where the space is there. It is an open question, but if it is with the space, then a number of redirects have to be fixed and I am not au courant on that. What do you think? --Dumarest (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you acted incorrectly filling up the article İmam bayıldı, if we decide to move back the article to İmam bayıldı, I think we will be in need of an administrator. Anyway, no problem. As for the spelling, the real Turkish spelling is İmambayıldı. Do not ever trust what you read in YouTube. The source that I supplied is the official dictionary of Turkish Language Association. As for the English spelling, if we will really use that one, then we should use the term Imam bayildi rather than İmam bayıldı. Or else, if we will use the Turkish spelling, then the article should be named İmambayıldı. Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, please do not panic :) I'm not a stubborn one. I just wanna find out the best we can do to choose the appropriate spelling. --Chapultepec (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone to my cookbook collection, obviously in English. The two that I can find with Turkish recipes that include this dish have the space, but that is a minimal consideration. I am not convinced either way. And what is meant by 'filling up the article'? And I do not trust YouTube, but when the posting is in Turkish, it means more to me. Now, your text [[ term Imam bayildi rather than İmam bayıldı ]] - the two terms in the [[]] are the same, so what was meant? Let us not be in an edit war, I love imam bayildi, had it many times in Turkey, an administrator?? See to it ourselves. This is English Wiki, so maybe the blank is the way, but I have no real firm feeling.--Dumarest (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am still waiting for your answer :), what should we do about it? --Chapultepec (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am on dialup, and it is slow slow slow Sorry. --Dumarest (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]