Jump to content

User talk:Wahkeenah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PDH (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 1 February 2006 (→Photo copyright). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hi Wahkeenah, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

  • RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.
  • Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.
  • Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.
  • Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.
  • Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 11:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)



Stamps

Please give an example of when it would be OK to use an image of a postage stamp. The wiki policy statement makes no sense. Wahkeenah 06:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create the template. You might want to post your question at Template talk:USPSstamp. But the license maintains that one can use a USPS stamp in an article or a section that discusses the stamp itself, but not in an article or section that is about the subject, using the stamp as a picture of the subject. In other words, the Postage stamp article could use it, and perhaps a section of Little Orphan Annie titled "Postage stamp" (that speciflcally talked about the release of the LOA stamp) could use it, but it couldn't be used as an illustration of Annie herself. I suspect this is because the US Postal Service itself only has a license from the creators (or illustrators) of Little Orphan Annie to use the image for postage and philately. That's the problem with restrictive licenses. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why anyone would want to discuss "the stamp itself" without discussing the picture on it. Without the picture, the only thing worth talking about is the denomination and/or the stamp's value to collectors. That certainly sounds like a rule invented by a committee. If I were you, since I didn't invent the template, I would let those who did invent the template be the ones to take the illustrations out, and otherwise leave them alone. Wahkeenah 15:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that a stamp discussion in the article makes sense. The point is that the license says it can't be used to illustrate the subject, only its use on a stamp. Don't shoot the messenger. If you want to argue the point, take it up with the people who created the license tag, or with the US Postal Service, who probably crafted the copyright license on which the tag is based. Proper image licensing is taking very seriously on Wikipedia these days. And I shouldn't have to point out to an experienced Wikipedian that the entire wiki philosophy encourages people to take action when they see action that needs to be taken. I happened to come across Little Orphan Annie during other work and discovered this license violation, so I removed the image and commented on why I did so, so that interested editors could address the problem. (This is in contrast to so many other editors who seem to feel their actions are so self-evident and self-justifying that they neither bother to add an edit summary nor post an explanation or justify their actions on talk pages.) Someone did come up with a resolution (although they failed to explain it), and although I am dubious about the action, it seemed to be at least nominally within the license, so I commented and got out of the discussion. But if you still wish to discuss image licenses with me, I would suggest you first read the current policy articles, starting with Wikipedia:Image use policy.
By the way, I hope you don't mind my inserting this comment in the natural flow of the section, but before your earlier posting. That latter item seems to be meant for the next section in your talk page. Being an apparent non sequitur in this section, I didn't want it to interrupt logical discourse. You might want to move it. You might also consider archiving your old discussions, because your current table of contents is too large and unwieldy. It's your decision, of course, but long-time Wikipedians typically archive old stuff as a courtesy to their correspondents; i.e., to make it easier to follow current discussions with you. Just a thought. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing talk-page postings

You should always sign talk-page postings. Many editors don't think when they're posting that discussions easily and often expand to multiple editors with interleaved comments. They also frequently don't think about how confusing reviewing old discussions is when signatures are left out, or if people mess up the indentation or bulleting of interleaved conversation. It may be obvious as your writing, but coming back to review an old discussion can be as confusing as trying to read someone else's program code, without clear formatting and timestamped signatures. I speak from considerable experience from many ten-way conversations and re-reading of archived discussions in order to marshal facts. It's a very good idea to always assume discussions can get complicated; that way, you're never caught off-guard. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait — I just noticed that you did sign your posting, but it was buried in the text, where it was not easily distinguished from any other text with a link. Postscripts do make things a bit more complicated. It's natural to go the end of a block of posted text to find the signature, so if it isn't there, it throws one off. Because of this, I find it useful either to break two ideas into two separate paragraphs (signing the last), or to insert a "BTW" or similar subject-changer into a single paragraph. (When I split into multiple topics, if I anticipate people responding to them individually, I'll even sign each paragraph. Believe me, it can save a lot of confusion later!) Well, that's probably more than enough of my yammering about Wikipedia best practices. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Series

Yeah, as I'm going through these, moving trivia to the individual articles, it seems like 2 out of every 3 says either "some consider the best" or "some consider the most exciting", blah blah. I say just explain how the series went down and let the reader decide about the excitement level. If every game is a one-run game and Game 7 is ended in the bottom of the 10th, people will figure out that it was exciting.

BTW, feel free to look at a couple things in User:Wknight94/World Series. There's a new little section with one line explaining the most obvious highlights of WS history (it's called Highlights and lowlights now but that may change) and the gigantic section listing series is reduced into the table at the bottom of the article. Let me know what you think. Of course it's a work in progress. --Wknight94 (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, good point about the tense. I think I fell into the trap and didn't realize I was doing it! --Wknight94 (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Leagues

> For consistency, when editing the National League you need a sockpuppet named "Uncle Nl".

Ha! Ha! That's a good one! Actually, sometime in the late 1980s, before the consolidation of the umpiring crews, I purchased an American League umpire's cap--which I have worn from time to time--because it had my name on it, "AL". --Uncle Al (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> I added the sections in the lower portion of the NL page that I had mentioned. I have not actually altered the earlier text yet. Please review (unless someone else gets to it first)

I added SORT of the same thing on the American League page. I say sort of because the AL has nothing in its history to compare with the coming and going of NL teams from 1876-1899. I put this information in the "Current Teams" section, if for no other reason than listing all 14 (or 16) of the teams seemed pointless to me, just duplicating the standard MLB info box at the bottom.

Maybe you could do the same for the NL?

Oh BTW, from what I've read, old Wrigley was demolished in 1969, not 1966, but I've found no specific date. Remember the palm tree on the INSIDE of the fight field wall? --Uncle Al (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IPA

First of all, IPA is not only used in Wikipedia but also in dictionaries such Websters. Also, for people not familar with it, there are pages such as IPA chart for English which explain it very simple, so noone needs a PhD to understand it. But I see your point that people unfamiliar with it might have problems, and replaced your non-standard note (I doubt the second part of that is correct, anyway) with the most common explaination of how it is pronounced (it rhymes with fiddle), which should be easily understandable by everyone. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Reeves

I see you are getting angry, and I can certainly understand why, but I remind you that Wikipedia:No personal attacks applies even to anonymous users, and even to people who have not made positive contributions to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand, but you presumably don't want to be in a position where if this ever calls for a formal decision, they have to sanction you as well. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I don't like having my comments removed. I realize you are having a hard time with this user, and I thank you for working on this, so no hard feelings, but in the future please let my comments stand. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's very persistant. He has a small group of pages that he keeps reverting, and as soon as I see one of them (usually Franjo Tudjman), I see that he's hit all of them again. Now he's after my Talk page, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's also obsessed with Rocky Marciano, the Chicago Bulls and the NBA. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably just as obnoxious in Croatian as he is in English. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Best

Hi Wahkeenah. I saw that you reverted my edit to Personal Best without giving any reason in the edit summary or adding anything to the talk page, and I wondered what your reasoning was. I didn't remove the links because I'm a prude - I'm certainly not one! - and WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. However, I really don't feel that they add to the article. Finding an image such as a DVD cover would surely be a better way of illustrating the article. Besides, surely three links to different sets up screen grabs is excessive? WP:NOT a repository of links. Regards, CLW 12:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that was a tongue-in-cheek justification for including the links, rather than a serious one! As a compromise, I'll move the links to the talk page from the main article page so that your lesbian friends can still find them... CLW 13:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Español

Look over the es. wiki and see if you can understand any of it. I haven't really had much use for my Spanish on Wikipedia yet, except for answering a couple of Reference Desk questions. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I have es-1 and nobody has asked me any questions about Spanish.  :) I could probably add de-1 as well, ja? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say, No, no, bad user in Croatian? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juaquina? LOL! You have to get an admin to protect your User page. But if it's protected, you can't edit it, either. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was checking out the above image you uploaded and noticed that the public domain tag you placed on it was out of date and they want a more specific tag on the photo. I was going to do it, but I figured I should err on the side of caution and tell you about it. Cheers. Youngamerican 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Your edit summary here is a personal attack. I deleted the image because it had had an unconfirmed copyright status for over six months. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks. CLW 12:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, calling me "some wiki-nazi" is a personal attack. I can't possibly imagine what you think I would have a guilty conscience about - I deleted the image in accordance with procedure. Please explain what you think I would have a guilty conscience about. CLW 13:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. There's no need to notify anyone before speedy deleting a speedy deletable image. CLW 13:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Users can't be speedy deleted, but you could try Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Kindly explain where I have been "hassling registered users". CLW 14:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV in Game

You tagged the article with a POV sticker. Can you please go to the talk page and respond to my question? Thank you. - JPM | 19:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal House

Thanks for your vigilance about the Animal House article. Unfortunately, Jacrosse keeps on reverting. Is there some way we can get him blocked? It is clearly, at this point, straight out vandalism. Hydriotaphia 06:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Thought you might be interested to know - we have the same situation with the same editor and the same paragraph over in the Toga party article (check out the discussion page, it's longer than the article because of this issue). We asked for a mediator's assistance, and the mediator has asked for an explanation from Jacrosse, but he is not responding. J. Van Meter 11:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would it be possible for you too add the information on which book the images came from, the name of the protographer and the year the image was taken. If the image is really old it may be in the public domain in the US. If the images is not that old you need to add {{fairusein}} and include a fair use rationale; if you need any advice, just ask.--nixie 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo shows a historically significant event, so it can probably be used as fair use on Bobby Thomson and Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball), but not on Polo Grounds since it is not directly relvant to that article. So you need to add the source information to the image description page, and add {{fairusein|Bobboy Thompson}} {{fairusein|Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)}}, and then add the fair use rationale, you can copy one for historic images from here.

As for the battle cry, I have no idea :) --nixie 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


All these images also need copyright information:

You might want to try looking on the Library of Congress for relate public domain images.--nixie 03:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched for polo grounds on the LOC and looked thorough some of the first hits. If know the names of specific photographers or players you might be able to find more historic baseball photos there.--nixie 03:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wahkeenah&oldid=37625518"