Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

On King James Version of the Bible you left behinfd the caption of the image:

"Moses and Aaron flank the central text. In the four corners sit Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, authors of the four gospels, with their symbolic animals]]."

I've tried to put it in the infobox with no success, can you have a look. Rich Farmbrough 14:27 17 March 2006 (UTC).

• Sorry about that. Caption is now showing; you just need to use "|thumb" on the image :) Collard 01:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Astra-mk2-sri.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Collard, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.

To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting {{Wiki Auto Project}} where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add [[Category:WikiProject Automobiles members|Collard]] to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086^{Talk | Contribs} 05:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I was so rude as to not thank you for your photographic contributions to Wikipedia, so here's a big thank you for your very professional photos. BTW, if you haven't already (and I'm too lazy to check ;)), I'd suggest putting these files on the Wikimedia Commons; you can link to them from Wikipedia the same way you do photos uploaded to Wikipedia itself.

Anyway, thanks again for your time and support. :) Collard 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Collard. I appreciate your kind words! I have started using the Commons more now for uploading. I didn't understand the difference between the Wikipedia upload uses and the Commons upload uses until somewhat recently. Mactographer Mactographer 22:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing to allow the LOC material to have a place in the Separation of church and state in the United States article. While it seems to me that if the term "separation of church and state" was derived and popularized from the interchange between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists and is discussed in both this and this Wiki article, it would likewise behoove the presentation of the history of Jefferson and his contemporaries regarding the practices of the day in both articles on the topic. It seems to me to be very important when trying to ascertain the exact interpretation of any historical belief or attitude on such a controversial topic, that one take into consideration all facts ... especially historical records of the practices of the day when trying to establish the understandings of a culture which is separated from us by some 200+ years. In other words, since no one can interview Mr. Jefferson on this matter, we can only take into account his writings, the writings of his contemporaries, and any historical practices or artifacts as we may know about.

However, I will not press the matter further since you have very fairly allowed my findings to become a part of the United States article and have decreed that it must stay there.

Although, I am a bit confused. I am assuming you are an administrator with some form of authority when making decisions on this topic. Yet I can’t find any information on your user page to identify you as such. Am I correct in assuming you are an admin?

Again, thank you for your handling of this matter, and for fairly recognizing very pertinent (not to mention extremely overlooked) information on this topic. Indeed, this particular bit of information was new to me until just recently.

Very sincerely, Mactographer 10:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I added a graphic from the LOC web site which I think helps to illustrate with physical proof the concept as I've described it. There are other graphics (which I have not added) on that page as well. So it seems to me that this one should be welcomed as well.

Thanks again!

-- Mactographer 11:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am not an administrator, nor one possessing authority to force a resolution over possible POV (which is why I asked if we could consider the matter closed, rather than declaring it to be so). Indeed, if you chose, you could add all that material back right now, if you chose. The only thing stopping you from doing that would be the fact good editors like yourself generally keep out of edit/flame wars. I have not, therefore, decreed in any sense the content of the article; I've done what I think is best for it and offered a justification that is (hopefully) persuasive to you and others, in the hope of avoiding a less-than-civil dispute over it. (The line about a "unilateral dispute resolution" on the talk page was merely meant to be amusing.)

I offer my sincere apologies that I have, evidently, acted in a way to make you think to the contrary.

As for the dispute itself, discussion convinced me that an aside on the practice of Jefferson & Friends™ in an article that is meant to have global scope, especially in a section discussing the origins of a phrase, made for an unnecessary diversion.

Keep up the good work, anyway. Yours and stuff, Lewis Collard 20:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. You seemed to rule lightly but firmly with the (smile) message, but it did seem like you had some authority since you used the line break which indicated a ruling (I thought), and in speaking as you did. In any case, your comments seemed to finalize the discussion on the matter as I’ve seen no replies. And the compromise works for me. Good head fake if nothing else. (An American sports colloquialism.)

-- Mactographer 21:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Collard! Well, it seems to be kicking up again over my contribution over at Separation of church and state in the US. I'm getting specious arguments, or no argument at all ... just reverts every time I add the disputed text. I was quite fine with your suggested resolution we had a month or so ago. Would you care to go to bat on this one with the new crowd who won’t give it a chance? --Mactographer 05:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo, play it again, Sam. I'm there. :) Lewis Collard 07:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for trying, Lewis. And good luck trying to understand whatever it is Pmanderson says below and in his/her bottom line on the talk page. In between ignoring my arguments, he/she makes incoherent or just plain goofy statements about half the time. Apparently he/she believes the Wikipedia "isn't here to illuminate forgotten truths". Well then why discuss history at all? But it's the same old dodge you get with hardcore SP's ... and what's with the spade below? --Mactographer 07:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that's okay. That was the first ugly edit war I've been in. I intend to make it the last, too, so I'm making this subject an ex-parrot. Lewis Collard 14:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Searching the academic sources turns up several reviews. (The exhibit was in 1998, btw, and my opinion of it is unchanged.) They tend to say things like "bracingly original but selective". Since the author's not a Wikipedian, however, I can call this agrucultural implement a spade. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah great, so it's not a devious plot of the Bush administration to re-write history. That's an improvement of sorts. :) Also, see "ex-parrot" above. Lewis Collard 14:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work your on Eric S. Raymond. I know we don't always agree on the conclusions but I appreciate that you consistently approach the issue fairly and act in good faith. —mako (talk•contribs) 00:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, friend. That means more to me than you might know. :) And all of that applies to you too; you've shown yourself to be a very thoughtful and reasonable editor, especially in discussion (and upon reflection I should add, with a little regret, that I could have done with a dose of your cool-keeping). So thank you to you too. :) Lewis Collard 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work adding sources for the article! Keep up the good work. Megapixie 05:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton! :D Lewis Collard 05:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

With all due respect. Why did you just 'nuke' the 'Jaguar in fiction (etc.)' section? I agree it was quite long, but offering an external link instead is not enough. You could have moved the section into a separate article. Here's the reasoning: while you can find many Jaguar-related films through IMCDb, it will only give you loads of pictures (some 38 pages as of today) without much background information. The section you erased from the Jaguar article did (or at least could) give some extra information, and it was not just about films. It did include books or songs, too, and I guess you wouldn't find songs at IMCDb, would you?

So, how about resurrecting the trivia section? If not in the big article, then as a separate one?

Regards,

Manic-nirvana 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because:

1. There was little, if any content there that could be integrated into the rest of the article. See Avoid trivia sections and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (Note well: "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here, and Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines.")
2. The trivia section, as it was, was taking up in excess of a third of the article.
3. None of these appearances was any more notable than any of the others, so one may as well delete it all. Someone driving a certain car, or mentioning it in a song, is not particularly notable.

With that said, I shouldn't have nuked it without moving it to the talk page, so that's what I just did. :) Love, Lewis Collard 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Flairz&oldid=144591342 i must now pop a cap in your ass.

Please get a life before you die.

And my cousin will steal your panasonic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.29.180 (talk • contribs).

Mmmm, the smell of idiocy in the morning. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 12:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please avoid removing the AfD tag when you add a speedy deletion tag to an article. For one thing it often means that the page will be deleted without the corresponding AfD discussion being closed (as was the case for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Stops Time). Furthermore, you might have noticed that I precisely submitted the article to AfD because the article did claim notability, albeit a very weak one. My biggest concern though is that this indirectly is biting the newbie: clearly, the article was started in good faith by a user who believed he had a decent case for demonstrating the group met WP:MUSIC. We send it to AfD but before he has any chance to make his point the article gets nuked and most likely the result is an unnecessarily bitter newbie. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 09:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by. :) So here's a little context, which might make me seem a little less irresponsible: as I recall events, someone added a speedy tag before me. Later, someone (I very strongly suspect the person that originally created the article, so there's reason to dispute the "good faith" claim) removed the speedy tag, and then the article got AfDed. I considered removing the speedy tag to be a form of vandalism.

So rightly or wrongly, I applied the dibs system: speedy got there first, so speedy gets to keep the article.

As for biting the newbie, that's a rather minor concern of mine in this case. As I hinted above, I find it hard to assume "good faith" when they removed the speedy tag without discussion (and without so much as an edit summary!). With such people, I care very little whether they're bitter or not, especially since such people never return to Wikipedia after their spam article is created.

HTH, Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 11:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. This is why I said you're not going to believe this!! Its 100% genuine honestly -I have referenced it -and I believe has been part of Tibetan festivals for centuries. In parts of Tibet they love their festivities -its a fascinating country it really is. I'll find alink so you can see an external photo ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a new page controller you must think it might appear as a hoax but study my editing history and you'll see I'm serious! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [ http://www.humanrights.cn/zt/magazine/pic/046/p29-1.jpg Here is a photo]

I think I'll add links to photos on the page so people can see it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more you read and see pictures of Tibet the more astounded you'll be trust me!!! User: John Hill who has visited practically every country in the world believes it is the most fascinating and photogenic country he's ever visited. Have a look at

• http://www.kekexili.typepad.com/

or some of my wikipedia articles like Tashilhunpo, History of European exploration in Tibet, Shalu Monastery etc ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add some more info to the yak racing in a minute. I don't think our friend User:Hu is convinced!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found info on a Yak Festival held in Mongolia -there is even a yak rodeo!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sense of humor aside (can you really imagine landing crotch down on one of those Yak horns!!!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Buzkashi ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

haaa!!! I've just been checking out Wikipedia:Unusual articles.I'm pissing my pants here!!!!! Icelandic Phallological Museum for instance. What in earth??? Its like watching Tarrant on TV but with a greater coverage. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 13:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite astonishing what articles we have on here isn't it!!! Hey thanks for adding the article to the unusual list - I didn't even know about it. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 14:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For instance Raining animals - can you imagine walking down the street in heavy rain and finding a lobster or a mackrel of something on your umbrella!!! or seeing a little sheep landing on a taxi!!! huh. Anyway back to serious work for me now. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 14:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey yak racing is on the main page!!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 17:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for writing about the {{badjpeg}} images...that'll save me some work.  :-) Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For tireless effort on converting and rescaling non-free images, a generally thankless, but extremely necessary, task. Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 13:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! :D <3 <3 <3 <3 Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 13:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that most of the images that showed up in the newly created Category:Rescaled fairuse images with invalid timestamp were added by you. You might want to consider tagging with {{subst:furd}} to automatically include the relevant timestamp. Either forgetting the ~'s or adding the wrong number of them as parameter to {{non-free reduced}} will prevent the image from showing up in the category of images ready to have their old versions deleted. Other than that, keep up the good work. --Pekaje 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agggh, sorry about that. That's probably me typing four tildes instead of five; I'm sorry for getting sloppy. :/ Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 19:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I made the category above specifically to catch these kinds of things, since practically nobody will be looking thorough the main category any more. It also caught some that had gone unnoticed for nearly a month. BTW, the 0.1 megapixel rule is generally a guide-line (I see you quote it in the edit summary). For some images it's not worth the trouble of resizing a few percent, for others it's more important to consider the maximum dimension than the total size, and yet others again may have a specific reason to be a certain size. Image:CatseyeNM.JPG is one situation where I might have reduced it even further in size (to limit the height), but then again, it would look pretty thin in the infobox. The job is tough, not only because of the amount of work involved, but also because of all the judgments and considerations that must be taken in the process. A good thing someone cares enough to do it. I see you're using the external editor interface. I've considered installing it myself. What is your opinion on the maturity of it? --Pekaje 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a guideline, but I've been following it semi-rigidly for one good reason: Non-free image size reduction request was getting huge. At times like that, using judgment is overrated and the wisdom of Ken Thompson kicks in ("when in doubt, use brute force").

Setting a hard limit of 0.1mp (actually, 0.09, but whatever) allowed me to do it the easy way: set ImageMagick to size to a maximum of 90000 total pixels, write a shell script to invoke ImageMagick (necessary because ee.pl passes one filename to a script, while ImageMagick requires two), and hack ee.pl to support a default edit summary. That way, it's just *click*, wait, *tab tab* *space*, edit page, apply {{non-free reduced}}, save, move on to next image. Maybe one or two slip through that could be reduced even further, but not to the point where they're putting Wikipedia in danger of being sued for copyright infringement. More importantly, the backlog of images which might do so are getting cleared at a pace that judgment and careful editing would not permit.

As for the external editor interface, as mentioned, I use the helper script ee.pl (which I don't think will work off Unix; I don't know what you use). The externel editor interface + ee.pl is certainly a very, very good thing for jobs like this. However, I've noticed that images with non-alphanumeric characters in their names (excepting spaces and dashes) are not re-uploading with ee.pl. This is more than likely a bug in the ee.pl script; I'm at a loss as to what it might be. But for the most part, I hold it in very high regard.

With love, Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point on the automation part. But in that case, I think you might need to tweak the script a bit, because the example I noted earlier was already at 0.084 megapixels and was rescaled to almost 0.07 megapixels. Perhaps this automated way should be left to images with a resolution ratio no greater than 1:1.5 (stop if dc <<< "8k ${res1} ${res2} /d1r/f" | sort -r -g | head -n1 is more than 1.5). For some time now I have been considering going through the entire album cover category with the API calls to find and tag all the high-res ones (though I should probably seek bot permission first). Perhaps combining it with automated rescaling is something worth considering. Thanks for the heads-up on the possible bug in ee.pl. I'm using Linux, so the script should be able to run. I'm going to go try it out for a few edits. --Pekaje 22:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. :) If you want a patch to allow you to specify a default edit summary in ee.ini, just let me know. :) Also, I just remembered ImageMagick *does* have an "only resize if it's actually bigger than what I'm telling you" parameter; it's some angle bracket after the size specification. Go figure. I'll be sure to put that in my shell script before I do any more resizes. But for now, I'm going to go back to doing some normal editing for a few hours before I go to sleep. :) By the way, your bot idea is a very good one. With love, Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 22:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←I thought you might like to know that I seem to have fixed the bug with uploading files with special characters. Sniffing the HTTP traffic showed that Wikipedia complained about illegal characters in the filename. The script simply neglects to set the wpDestFile to an unescaped version of the filename (as it would normally already be when uploading a replacement manually). Therefore it would not have uploaded to the correct filename, even if Wikipedia had allowed the % character in filenames. The fix is to just add the line wpDestFile=>uri_unescape($filename), below the line with wpUploadFile. It worked for me (though a bot then came and confused me for a bit, because it had been confused by the unicode characters). --Pekaje 13:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thanks for the hint with that. :) What did the bot do BTW? Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 20:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The bot decided to inform me that I had uploaded an image with no rationale (which was untrue), and then proceeded to instruct me to add one at an image description page for an image that doesn't exist (was at some broken unicode name). I notified the operator, and it looks like it's a known bug. I asked that it simply not post the warning if unicode characters exist in the filename. If it misbehaves again, it should be forced to shut down until the problem is fixed. I certainly knew what was going on, but someone new to the Wiki could become quite confused by that kind of message. I've been testing the modified version of ee.pl a bit today, and it seems to work just fine with special characters now. Together with my tagging shortcuts (User:Pekaje/moretabs.js), I'm getting quite a bit of work done (certainly easier than saving, editing, and uploading manually again).

BTW, I see that you have been tagging some images with missing rationale. Please remember to mark the captions, as the uploader is often absent and virtually nobody looks at the image description pages. Twinkle has an image instance tagger, but it doesn't handle infoboxes well (for a number of reasons). Better yet, see if you can add a rationale instead ... ;-) --Pekaje 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I got sidetracked for a bit (my friend came and picked me up in his tractor and it kinda went from there...long story). Anyway, let me know if the owner fixes his bot; I won't rescale any more until it's fixed, because I don't want anyone to think (by my talk page) that I'm one to upload copyrighted non-free images without fair-use rationales. :)

As for the missing rationale thing, I always assumed there was a bot that might automatically tag the captions on images. I'll go to efforts to go that in future. And, as for adding a rationale myself? I've only ever uploaded one non-free image, which was of a totally different kind to *most* of the non-free images uploaded here. So in all truth, I'm not too clear on what a good fair-use rationale is for most of the ones I come across. :) With love, Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 15:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't worry about the bot. The bug is apparently only for images with unusual characters, such as accents. You can just avoid them for now. Or just delete the message from your talk page and mark the faulty page for speedy deletion (this criterion seems to fit). I believe you can also request white-listing at the bot talk page, though I wouldn't bother. One other thing is that if it notices that there is no rationale, it will inform you because you were the last one to upload a new version. What I have done so far is to just copy the warning over to the talk page of the original uploader, if it looks like they are still active. Otherwise I just add whatever seems appropriate. I (generally) won't rescale an image I feel has no place, so most times I don't have a big problem with adding rationales. But as I said, if the original uploader is present, it is their problem. As for what should be in a rationale, well, it should generally point out how these criteria are met. If the standard {{Non-free use rationale}} template is filled out, you're generally well-covered. I've started writing up the most common stuff I encounter here. Also, feel free to dig through my contributions and look for edits with the summary "Fair use rationale added" for further inspiration. --Pekaje 17:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K, thanks for the hints. :) I'll get back up to speed with editing soon. :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was tagging images quickly, and I failed to see the rationale on the above-named image, and tagged it, using a tool which automatically put a template on your page.[1] Pekaje pointed out that the image did have a rationale, though not in the standard format. I took another look, and he was right. The format doesn't matter at all, but there should really be something to show how the use of the image fulfils Criterion no. 8 (if it does). Anyway, the message to you was left in error, and on looking at the image history, including the deleted files, I see that you weren't the original uploader at all, that you just uploaded a reduced version. So, apologies for bothering you. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) With love, Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 20:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you hate the bogus notices, but the work you do is great! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and don't worry about the bogus notices. I'm still not up to speed on image rescaling, but I'll get back around to it soon. :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 19:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for clearing the bogus notices for me as they come up, even when they're not you. Right now ee.pl isn't working for me; it's not letting me log in for whatever reason... Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 03:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had some login problems with the domain matching in ee.ini. Would you be interested in trying a version that uses the login information from the Firefox cookies? --Pekaje 09:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Do you have one? :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, right here. The concept of having my password in a plain text file irks me, so when I learned how the "remember me" functionality works on Wikipedia, I decided to learn enough perl to code this change. This version differs from the default by having an optional CookieFile global setting. If present, it will not try the passwords (and they can be omitted) and instead tries to obtain the cookie from the cookies.txt file specified. Other changes include and optional Summary setting (which I think you can guess what does), some minor fixes to the editor settings, and of course a fix to the URL encoding bug I mentioned earlier. You should run a diff with the original to make sure there are no unexpected changes that I forgot to mention. It should work as long as you're logged in with the "remember me" setting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pekaje (talk • contribs) 19:55, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Cool. I'll be sure to check it out real soon. :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works a charm! Although the default edit summary feature doesn't seem to work... Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 04:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's odd. Not sure what could cause this, except perhaps a version difference in our respective perl implementations, or if you missed something in the config file. But IIRC, you had your own implementation of that particular feature, so I guess you can just use that. --Pekaje 09:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 17:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this, thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be right on it! Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 04:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way - I did some checking around and I guess PNG is preferred for screenshots and most comic/video game stuff unless they're photorealistic. This is mentioned in WP:IUP. Apparently file size isn't a concern. I wouldn't worry about doing the conversions yourself - PNGCrusaderBot will do it automatically to files tagged with {{ShouldBePNG}}. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:IUP is wrong, and if I get around to it, I'll be sure to say so on the talk page there; in the meantime, I'll raise you a WP:IAR. By the way, thanks again for keeping my talk page clean of those irritating warnings. :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 04:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on the warnings, brother! On the PNG thing, I recommend talking to User:Remember the dot, who is the author of PNG crusader bot. Later! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're so nice it's unreal. :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 20:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not feeling so nice right now - trying to install ee.pl (so I can do my own reductions instead of bothering you) and it's kicking my ass. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to install it on Windows, well, that'd kick my ass too. Don't forget to set your HOME environment variable. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 15:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange upload at Image:Feejits 2006.jpg. Given the space in the name, I suspect you may have an unquoted variable in one of your scripts. --Pekaje 23:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No clue! The only thing I'm using is ee.pl and that has never had any problems with spaces. Maybe I just didn't wait long enough for the convert process to finish; either way, it all works now. :) Sorry! Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 12:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, OK, so you have no feedback on completion? Why not just echo a ^G to a TTY device (assuming you haven't disabled your PC speaker)? :-) --Pekaje 13:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of that. Done. :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-Star_Trek_Archer.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Taric25 19:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:CharlesTucker.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Taric25 19:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I thought I should leave you a personal message too. We're not allowed to use fair use images if we already have free alternatives for copyrighted images, so I have replaced them, just like in Uhura. Also, I'm going to get some more pictures to add to Scott Bakula and Connor Trinneer. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! Taric25 19:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, sorry about the two notices for the same images, because of the two templates. Taric25 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. I'm not the original uploader; I just happened to be the person that resized them (non-resized versions are deleted for copyright purposes. For that reason, I'm used to deleting huge slabs of text (when my buddies like Pekaje don't do it for me); deleting two warnings isn't worse than deleting one. :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of the rules governing replaceable fair-use images. But for future reference, please bear in mind that I am not the original uploader of these pictures. A couple of months ago I went through and resized hundreds upon hundreds of these; doing this is necessary for a fair use claim. The original (non-resized) versions of these were deleted, therefore, the pictures appear to be uploaded by me, but they are not. Please keep my blood pressure under control by not warning me of these again. :) Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 20:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC

Sorry about that, I just thought you would like to know if an image you resized was going to be deleted. Cheers! Taric25 21:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiven. :) Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. With regards to this photo, Image:Someday official cover.jpg, you are the only user in the file history. So, I can't just post the notification to somebody who's not involved in the page at all. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the log. User:Kageorge was the uploader. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought all users who upload pictures do appear in the file history. Thanks. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Videmus, and thanks. :) Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 01:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alien joe/userboxing/V is lame: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--CyberGhostface 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for templating me. Whatever. Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --CyberGhostface 22:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes! Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported your violation of the Three-Revert Rule at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. You have been alerted to this report in accordance with administrative guidelines. Adraeus 11:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hokay. Lewis Collard! (when in doubt, move on) 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if you could come over to NyLon and have your say as to the right of this article to exist. I created this article a couple of days ago but the sleuths are already lashing out at it and at me too for a(n) (unkonwn) reason. The article is backed by SOLID references (FT, The Observer, The Indie). Yet they are about to delete it. Quite scary.. Anyway...Have a look and please do vote..Thanx... Apostolos Margaritis 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]