the Moon

3rd quarter, 84%

Thanks for uploading Image:Eldon Dedini00.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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 STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try contacting the Cornell archives by filling out the form here: http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/services/reference.php They usually have obituaries for alumni. Cornell2010 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The explanation is that the image had this red link {{PD-South Africa}} as copyright tag. Some country public domain copyright tags has been deleted, don't know why. For that, it's needed to use some tags like {{PD-old}}, {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-because}} to explain it's copyright status. In this image, I didn't notice that exist the copyright tag {{PD-South-Africa}}. If I knew the existence of this tag, I surely had fix it. Sorry about the trouble. Regards, Sdrtirs (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing some great work adding images to articles. Might I ask you to consider making a greater use of captions for images, by using "thumb" rather than "frameless" in the image: string - rather as I have done here with your inserts into Henry John Boddington. Image placement using "thumb" defaults to "right", and so that can be left out.

You're already supplying text for the caption, but with "frameless" the text is only viewable as the ALT tag for the picture, rather than as a true caption shown below the image.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images The Manual of Style:Image suggests that you should "Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article". The MoS goes on to say "Photographs and other graphics should always have captions, unless they are "self-captioning" (such as reproductions of album or book covers) or when they are unambiguous depictions of the subject of the article. For example, in a biography article, a caption is not mandatory for a portrait of the subject pictured alone, but might contain the name of the subject and additional information relevant to the image, such as the year or the subject's age."

Finally, not sure if you're aware of Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, so I'll point you there as well.

thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Edit summaries are also encouraged.... --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More. I've come across a couple of pages where you've moves a right-facing image to the left of the page, at header level. I don't agree that the MoS remotely provides a mandate for this. The MoS is very specific - first injunction is "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image.". Recent discussion suggests this remains consensus. It is preferable to place right facing images to the left, but that does not override the first injunction that the lead image is to the right. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments. The use of 'frameless' and the ALT tag is deliberate as I feel that no information is lost and the appearance of the article is improved by having no distracting text around the images - if the user wants to know what the image is about, then he simply moves the cursor over the image. I have a long-standing aversion to meaningless lines dissecting an article, whether in the shape of an information box, a frame or headings - (see a tedious discussion with Rkitko on this subject). That aside, the matter is simply one of layout aesthetics or good taste, something which I'm afraid is sorely lacking throughout WP. Edit summaries are for the greater part a redundancy, since any article's history page will show the changes effected by an edit. Thanks for your interest..... ciao Rotational (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll forgive me for saying that's a rather dog in the manger response. Edit summaries enable understanding of edits without the redundant click on the diff. Captions enable understanding of images without the redundant mouse-over movement. I appreciate your personal aversion, but remind you there is community consensus on these things, embodied in the MoS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume good faith from you despite a remark which teeters on the edge of gratuitous rudeness. I also fail to see how the "dog in the manger" fable is relevant, since its lesson is the immorality of denying others access to something which is of no use to yourself. There is something inconsistent about touting the value of consensus on the one hand and brazenly ignoring an "in use" tag on the other. Perhaps you would profit by looking up the meaning of "Pharisee". Rotational (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Karl Joseph Brodtmann, and it appears to include a substantial copy of https://www.georgeglazer.com/prints/nathist/monkeys/brodtmonk.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, regarding this... The following is your copyright violation version and the actual text from [1], bolded text showing the offending phrases.

Karl Joseph Brodtmann (1787-1862), was an accomplished Swiss artist and lithographer, as well as a printmaker and bookseller who worked in Zurich and Schaffhausen. Brodtmann's natural history lithographs include Heinrich Rudolf Schinz's works on reptiles and birds, published in the early 1830s. Brodtmann also produced natural history lithographs, as Naturhistorische Bilder Gallerie aus dem Theirreiche.

"Karl Joseph Brodtmann was one of the most accomplished lithographers of his day, as well as a printseller and bookseller who lived in Zurich and Schaffhausen, Switzerland. His natural history lithographs include Heinrich Rudolf Schinz's natural history volumes on reptiles and birds, published in the early 1830s. Brodtmann also produced the offered folio natural history lithographs, probably also in the 1830s, as Naturhistorische Bilder Gallerie aus dem Theirreiche."

Removing a few words here and there and changing one or two words (e.g. printseller to printmaker) does not make this your own words. It's a clear violation of copyright. Please rewrite those two short paragraphs in your own words. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth can Karl Joseph Brodtmann, in Zurich and Schaffhausen, natural history lithographs, Heinrich Rudolf Schinz and Naturhistorische Bilder Gallerie aus dem Theirreiche be regarded as copyright!!!!!????? This is a clear case of bureaucracy gone mad and if the words or their order offend you then kindly change them to something you regard as appropriate, but please don't try to make a pharisee of me as well. Rotational (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, with regard to your edit on the talk page, as well as this edit summary, please bear in mind that everyone is a volunteer and just trying to help out - we aren't experts in copyright law and mistakes can be made - but it's best not to copy whole sentences or half sentences, but to submit content that you have created yourself, not copied from what someone else has written. Please read WP:CIVIL, as well as, perhaps, the article on actual bigotry. – Toon^(talk) 22:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have found a new cause [2], I've wondered about this convention myself. I follow it, but I don't know why it is so. Would you care to formulate a rationale for changing the guideline? cygnis insignis 14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always searching for new causes..... I see that the sentences dealing with monogenus and monospecies were slipped in by User:Ricardo Carneiro Pires over here [3]. He doesn't say whether this was his own idea or whether it was arrived at after discussion..... There is also a bit here in which about four users take part. I too find it a strange exception to the Wiki convention which normally gives both genus and species in a title, unless the plant is well-known by its generic name eg Gardenia, in which case the species are still treated separately. Bottom line is that I don't think that using Xymalos as a title has any rational justification whereas Xymalos monospora at the very least has the merit of consistency. ciao Rotational (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also see here for a whole bunch of titles that don't obey the naming convention..... or perhaps just haven't yet been discovered by the White Knight crusader.

I would have hoped there was more discussion than that! The next most surprising thing is that it has remained unchallenged, this makes me suspect there is more to it. Mind you, the width of roads is based on the width of two horses behinds. The mention, at your linked discussion, of monotypic families is what initially prompted my concern. I have a reference somewhere that states, 'obviously', that species is the fundamental (base, principle, unit) of biological taxonomy. I propose that we seek some learned opinion on this matter, and proceed from there. cygnis insignis 17:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the initiative and opened a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)#Monotypic genera. I seem to remember more discussion on this point but I can't seem to find any. I'd appreciate your input there. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotational, please do comment at the discussion linked above. I've asked for the input of other editors and some might find your views compelling. If you decide not to, I would have to wonder why you openly questioned the naming convention and pointed out the lack of debate, but then refused to work toward consensus. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was archived to make way for the current one, when the latter is done can you comment on the monotypic one? BTW, please use an edit summary. Cheers, cygnis insignis 12:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rotational!

I was a bit surprised of your usage of Mutatis mutandis, where I would have uset Ceteris paribus, in the former article. I suppose it either was a temporary confusion (in which case the edit perhaps should be reversed), or a confusion in more common usage (in which case it should stand, but perhaps be annotated as 'slightly improper'). Please see Talk:Mutatis mutandis. JoergenB (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion transferred to Talk:White_Mountain_art

It's a new discussion opened on October 8. Circeus (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rotational. In a discussion on the guideline, User:Mzajac has offered to help with your user style preferences so that your aesthetic preferences will be displayed while complying with the guideline. You can contact Mzajac directly if you need or want that editor's help. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(following section copied from [4])

Hi, all. I've been encouraged again to open a discussion on the headings. I'd appreciate clarification of MOS:HEAD. How do you understand the guideline that states:

The nesting hierarchy for headings is as follows: the automatically generated top-level heading of a page is H1, which gives the article title; primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on.

Previous attempts for input failed or were marginally successful: see here and here. I have had a long-standing disagreement with Rotational (talk · contribs) that remain unresolved (see AN/I requests for input here and here). I'd like to finally put this to bed. The language of MOS:HEAD seems clear to me: The automated title is H1, and below that primary headings are H2, not "choose whichever one you like best". Thoughts? --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of what the dispute is. Can you provide an example of differences between your view of MOS:HEAD and that of Rotational? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Rotational prefers H3 or H4 as primary headings, reverting changes to his articles to his preferred style (diff). Several of the comments on one of the AN/I discussions ended up endorsing his preferred aesthetic at List of florilegia and botanical codices, though the recent FLC failed for many reasons, one of which was "The list does not follow style guidelines (i.e. headings, en dashes in year ranges)". I believe the guideline is clear, and certainly consistency among articles also establishes H2 as the primary heading, not H3 or H4. I've found this to be more of an issue of WP:OWN and WP:POINT (see AN/I discussions), but nothing's been done about it and that part of the discussion is beyond the scope of this one. Each time I bring this up, other editors invariably say, "What's the big deal?" - You may be inclined to agree. Regardless, if the intent of the guideline wasn't clear, perhaps it should be reworded for clarity. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.k., now that I understand it, my thought is that (a) you are right (see also wp:Layout#Headings and sections) and (b) it doesn't make that much difference as long as there is a hierarchy that starts somewhere. Granted, starting at H2 prompts the "edit" button to appear, which is a nice feature, but if Rotational insist on being irrational and the issue isn't substantive then I'd say, since you asked, that your best option is to say to yourself that Rotational is wrong and then move on to more productive battles. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. FYI, the edit link does show up for any level heading. The purpose of my question here was to affirm or challenge my interpretation of the guideline, which is one of many facets of my disagreement with Rotational (this one issue may not be as substantive, his breaking of policy such as WP:OWN and recently WP:POINT is more so). Moreover, his preferred aesthetic extends to image placement (diff - MOS:IMAGES states "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image") and other choices. He's admitted to not liking Wikipedia's aesthetic and doesn't seem to care for working toward consensus or challenging the guidelines, except in the articles he creates. Well, I digress, all of those arguments are laid out in the AN/I discussions mentioned above, if you care to read more. Appreciate your time. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation is correct, headings should be nested down through all the levels, starting at h2. Yeah, it is an MOS, so that means that we can diverge from it when consensus allows. Rotational should strive to find consensus or just smile and lump it and get on with building the encyclopedia.

If it's only the headings' appearance that's at issue though, you might suggest that he adjust his user style sheet so that top level headings's will look the way he wants them to. If he needs help, he can drop a note on my talk page, and I can show him how to do this. —Michael Z. 2008-10-31 02:35 z

I wasn't aware you could alter your style sheet that specifically. I believe it was tangentially suggested earlier by another editor about a year ago. I will suggest it again. Thanks. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Rkikto is right, but ... it's not one of the biggest deals I've seen. I'd let him have his/her way—perhaps s/he finds H2 rather large for the context ... Tony (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotational doesn't seem interested in help altering his user style preferences. Letting him throw certain provisions of the MOS away without a reason other than "I don't like it" has allowed it to become a larger issue. He reverts other productive aspects, including stub tags diff. --Rkitko ^(talk) 17:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and a tendency to remove infoboxes diff. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who pursue different ways of setting out articles, and to a certain extent we not only allow that but in a sense encourage it, as the changes may be beneficial. We progress and get better through challenges to the status quo. MOS:HEAD is a guideline - that is to say as a community we feel that the approach we advise works quite well, but we are open to different ways of doing things. However, if we find that an editor is working in a way that is disturbing other editors, and their method is not seen as a net benefit, then as a community we can start to suggest that that editor listen to the wider consensus, which is where a guideline can come in useful. Having looked at the ANI reports linked above, it is not clear that Rotational's edits are disturbing to all editors - there seem to be at least as many who feel that Rotational's use of headings is as or is more aesthetically pleasing than that detailed by MOS:HEAD. I don't see that Rotational is behaving in a manner that is a significant MoS issue; nor is Rotational being so disruptive by the individualistic use of headings as to be the cause of another ANI. This may be a matter for some other conflict resolution method. You could try Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, or I would be willing to mediate between the two of you. I have worked within various of the Wiki dispute resolution areas including the Mediation Cabal, so I have some experience of and some success with dealing with personal conflicts. There would be two points to consider is a dispute resolution. One would be that Rotational's edits are causing you some distress, and are against general consensus, so it would be interesting to hear Rotational's rationale for continuing, even though you have made it clear that you are unhappy, and that in principle the edits are against general consensus. The other is exactly why the edits are so bothersome to you, as they are fairly innocuous, and can be easily ignored. Let me know if you wish me to set up a discussion between the two of you. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rotational. After discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Headings_-_input_needed, and my offer to mediate the conflict between yourself and User:Rkitko, Rkitko has accepted. I can see there has been a long-running disagreement between the two of you which is potentially harmful to the project as a whole, and would be distressing to both of you. The intention of the mediation would be to allow both of you to continue contributing positively to the project without conflict. Would you be interested? SilkTork *^YES! 04:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork, Reading through your comments you seem to be one of those rare birds on WP having an even-handed approach. The friction between Rkitko and myself has taken up an inordinate amount of time and energy, both of which could have been used more productively elsewhere. Your kind offer to mediate is gladly accepted. ciao Rotational (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I've set up a page where we can all talk - User_talk:SilkTork/Rkitko_-_Rotational_Discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 11:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would assist matters if both of you refrained from reverting each others edits while we are in discussion. In addition, Rotational, it would be helpful if you didn't revert others' corrections to your non-standard edits. I would say that you are welcome to make non-standard edits, but if someone objects or adjusts your edits back to what is in the guidelines, then you do not persist in the matter. The proper route for ensuring your non-standard edits remain on Wikipedia is to gather consensus through discussion. Engaging in edit wars and trying to force your way forward is not going to win you many friends, will make you upset, will disrupt the project, and will be unlikely to ensure your edits remain on Wikipedia. You cannot watch all the articles you have edited all the time, and eventually the work you have done will be unpicked as people come upon it, see it as not following guidelines and so will put the article back. SilkTork *^YES! 19:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about the edits to which you are referring? I also wasn't aware that you expected some sort of moratorium on contentious edits while our 3-party discussion was under way. ciao Rotational (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ones provided on User talk:SilkTork/Rkitko - Rotational Discussion.

Have you given more thought to drawing up a proposal for H2 not producing a line? Would you like some help drawing up that proposal? Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great catch, so fresh Google doesn't seem to know about it yet! Many thanks. --Philcha (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rotational, I reverted your edit at Ordovician. When a unit rank is added to a geochronologic or chronostratigraphic name, it is explicitly not part of the name. With unit ranks I mean eras, eons, periods, epochs, ages, chrons or erathems, eonothems, systems, series, stages and chronozones. The opposite is the case for most units in lithostratigraphy. The correct names for any unit in the geologic timescale or stratigraphic column can be found at the IUGS/ICS websites (for example: see here). For any local stage name it should be possible to find the spelling at websites of local stratigraphic organisations. There are a few notable exceptions, especially subdivisions of the Quarternary. Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with the decisions of the IUGS/ICS, except to point out that they are wrong..... Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian are all adjectives and like all adjectives they need a noun to be complete, so that if the noun is not regarded as part of the name, then it becomes a grammatic and logical absurdity, and if it is part of the name then it should be capitalised. But as we all know, absurdity is part of our culture. ciao Rotational (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, I find they are sometimes used as nouns too. For example: During the Ordovician, global temperatures dropped and so on. But I am not a linguist, so perhaps you're right about the IUGS being wrong. Woodwalker (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Diamphidia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you are editing Bodden this was a redirect page for a village in Somerset. I would siggest we need a dab page or otheruses templates to direct users - perhaps you could comment at: Talk:Bodden. Thanks— Rod ^talk 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[5]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nadia Comaneci00.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. BJBot (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:John Farleigh00.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. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that - I must admit I simply overlooked the tag when I started to edit. Once again, sorry for any inconvenience... GregorB (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fruitful New Year to you and thank you for your offer of help. Perhaps one could start with the matter of separating lines and headings, which you feel may stand a fair chance of success. The other issue which I think stands a reasonable chance of gaining support, is removing right-facing images from infoboxes that are right-aligned. I can't recall ever seeing a left-aligned infobox, but if that is possible then it simply becomes a matter of moving the infobox to the left if it holds a right-facing image. I suspect that the right alignment of the infobox is a holy cow to a lot of editors, but there might be a silent majority out there who don't agree with its undeserved status - however if we don't shake the tree, we won't know what's going to fall out. ciao Rotational (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's start with the headings. I'll be in touch within a couple of days. SilkTork *^YES! 19:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be involved with some Good Article reviews for about a week, and then I'll be free to look into this. Happy New Year by the way! SilkTork *^YES! 10:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay. I am still keen on this, but don't want to start it and then not have the time to follow it up. I have a few things to finish up, and as soon as I've got the time we'll start. SilkTork *^YES! 00:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! Appreciate that you're busy. ciao Rotational (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Arthur Szyk02.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded File:Flowerin Plants of Africa01.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Ceramic artists, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Ceramic artists has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Ceramic artists, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd shoot for about 400x600 px for this image; rule of thumb for non-free images, there shouldn't be a difference between the actual size and the "preview" size - normally the preview size, if it's different, would be close to the appropriate size. The general guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Image use policy. If you have very specific questions, those that watch the page's talk page are very good about answering them (especially the technical details). Skier Dude (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Maxine Peake10.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but it could be easily replaced by an image of the subject at another event. There's no need for the infobox image to be of the subject at that particular event. J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True - it was just a good photo of which there are very few on the web. If you know of a better one at some other event, please let me know! ciao Rotational (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you possibly provide a link where details on thisone could be looked up now? If so, please answer rather here than there -- no problem to move that file to enWP under Fair_Use policy, but "over there" it might/will be "killed" as soon as the first admin feels worth while to do so. On the identity, please compare the eyebrows on File:Hubert von Herkomer c.1900 portrait photograph b.jpg and 1907 File:Hubert von Herkomer 1907 - Self-portrait in Oxford Gown.jpg. H. shaved his beard for acting (main part, of course ;) in an adaptation of Le Luthier de Cremone in his theatre, in 1890 and 1891 [according Baldry, A. L., 1911 1901 -- date of performances, and Herkomer: My School and My Gospel, 1908 - notes to have shaved his beard.]. Thanks, Wolfgang. [w.] 09:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baldry also notes that he never wore a beard afterwards. [w.] —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Please reread the non-free content criteria. They are quite clear that content may not be used if it is replaceable, not only if it is replaced. A free image of the subject could easily be created, and the use of a non-free image is therefore not justified. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest that a "free image of the subject be easily created"? Certainly not by me - I am nowhere near Maxine Peake's normal haunts. The point is that "replaceable" is an entirely theoretical and very subjective concept which has no practical value. A copyright close-up image of Saturn is "replaceable" if one had someone up there with a camera. If the requirement has no practical value, then it should be scrapped. ciao Rotational (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't create a free image of the Empire State Building, doesn't mean I'm justified in taking one from elsewhere. An image of a living person just to show what they look like is always considered replaceable, except in a few rare cases of known recluses, non-public figures or possibly for other reasons- perhaps anyone who is imprisoned. There are other ways to aquire images- for instance, have you tried Flickr or other free image repositories? Have you tried requesting an image? If you genuinely believe that the idea that non-free content should be non-replaceable is a bad one, you're welcome to raise it on the relevant talk page, but I doubt you'll get very far. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right! It needs an earthquake to move most Wikipedians out of their fairly comfortable ruts. To achieve consensus on the most trivial of issues is well-nigh impossible and even changes that should be uncontroversial are fought tooth and nail. Bottom line is that we're dealing with one of the most stubbornly conservative organisations ever, and making decisions by democratic vote is an exercise in futility. What WP desperately needs is a body of wise super-editors who can make sensible decisions and dictate sound policy without having to toss every issue at the electorate. This sort of democracy simply doesn't work. ciao Rotational (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't operate on democracy, and for good reason. If you feel that removing the need for non-free content to be irreplaceable is the kind of thing we need an executive decision-making body for, then perhaps your philosophy is not inline with Wikipedia's aims. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia- it's in the name. The rule is that there is only free content- the amendment to that is that non-free content can be used in very strict circumstances. I admit that, at times, it seems that a decision making body to "lay down the law" would be useful, but the fact that you do too (when our beliefs about what the encyclopedia should be are so drastically different) is indication that such a body would be guaranteed to alienate someone. The irreplaceability aspect is well-established, well-respected and an incredibly important, valid point. It isn't a minor detail, it hasn't just slipped in and it certainly shouldn't go- it is inline with Wikipedia's key aims and objectives. J Milburn (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia IS largely democratic in its structures and procedures, the only exception being its core policy. This democratic leaning is what enables it to evolve, and just like any evolving organism it inevitably sends some of its growth into what finally proves to be dead-ends. Differences of opinion and diversity are the lifeblood of Wikipedia and drive the sort of changes we are discussing, whereas conformity, conservatism and stagnation are what ultimately could bring this entire structure to its knees. Replaceability, as I have been at pains to point out, is not a black-and-white matter, but rather a question of judgement, and it is a judgement which is sadly flawed in a lot of the decisions I have seen handed down. Rotational (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rotational. I noticed you had made an edit to Ernst Heinrich Friedrich Meyer, a stub I created that's on the fringe of my usual interests. Since I tend to post fairly arcane subject matter that goes largely unnoticed, I like to look up users who help. When I saw your self-described interests, I wondered whether you might take a look at some stubbish articles I created on 16th-century astronomers, botanists, physicians and such: Bartolomeo Maranta; Cornelius Gemma; Johannes Baptista Montanus and his student Valentinus Lublinus; and two correspondents of Kepler, Helisaeus Roeslin and Herwart von Hohenburg. I lack the expertise to do them full justice, and hope others can fill in the gaps. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Flanders & Swann00.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Dab of Giovanni Battista Fontana has been tagged for Dab cleanup, and the existing bio will probably be moved back on top of it, unless either

1. a viable stub for the painter is created, or
2. a lk to the painter from an article (i think an entry on a list page would not suffice) is created, and an article is also lk'd from the Dab entry that provides some kind of information useful to a user who came looking for an encyclopedia article on him.

(The standard i personally apply re "useful" is "more than a dictdef", e.g. the entry for "Fonteyn, Dame Margot" at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/margot%20fonteyn and reading

Fon⋅teyn

/fɒnˈteɪn/ [fon-teyn]

–noun

Dame Mar⋅got  /ˈmɑrgoʊ/ [mahr-goh], (Margaret Hookham), 1919–91, English ballerina.

would not suffice, even dressed up into a sentence, and i suppose the accompanying one reading

Fon·teyn (fŏn-tān')

British ballerina who joined the Royal Ballet in 1934 and began her acclaimed partnership with Rudolf Nureyev in 1962.

might.
DabRL is a guideline you may want to consult.
Thanks for your attention.
--Jerzy•t 20:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Rotational. I've been gathering my thoughts and wanted to reply to your edit summary here in full. Once again, I offer evidence that it is not just me that has a problem with your non-standard headings:

• diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, and so on. Clearly the consensus is against your odd heading style, yet you persist. This is indeed your problem, not mine. I implore you to consider, again, altering your user style sheet so that the way you see Wikipedia's pages will be to your liking. I can fathom no other reason for your crusade other than how Wikipedia's aesthetic appears to you in your browser, other than you want to force your aesthetic opinion on others.

I recently asked User:Stemonitis to clarify a point he made in an edit since I didn't have a very good understanding of what he meant. For the sake of brevity, I'll copy and paste part of his reply here:

Regardless of what size one individually thinks looks best, all the headings should be similar across different Wikipedia articles. That way, if a given user prefers to have headings smaller than 24 px boldface with underlining (or whatever), all they have to do is set up their own style sheet which overrides the site style sheet (as is the nature of cascading style sheets), and all the headings across the site will become more aesthetically pleasing to that user. This whole system falls down if particular articles have different sorts of headings (e.g. ===Second level=== rather than ==First-level==), because they will then be smaller than the others. I, for instance, see the headings in a different typeface to the standard one (see my style sheet), and I would suggest that User:Rotational create his/her own style sheet if it's purely a question of aesthetics, because only then can everyone be happy. Insisting that a particular article has different heading types to all the others is to enforce one user's style decision over and above other users' style sheets.

Do note that Stemonitis asked not to be drawn into this discussion and I only quoted because the answer was clear and concise. I'm sure, though, that if you wanted help creating User:Rotational/monobook.css to your liking that he would be willing to help. You can also check out Help:User style for more information (you seem to have an affinity for the different gadgets and templates this site employs, why not check this one out as well?). User:SilkTork appears to be on a wikibreak or is rather busy, but I do remind you of one of the last things he said in our discussion: Rotational's methods are not helpful and do disturb people, and this has been pointed out and suggestions made for how Rotational should go about getting consensus for the edit changes. I would strongly urge Rotational to consider the project as a whole, and the reasons we have guidelines, and to seek consensus for making contentious edits.

Take care, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a number of times that you not post messages on my talk page and am not going to be drawn into a rehash of everything that has already been discussed ad nauseam. Rotational (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate because I really do think this is the solution to the problem. I know you already take advantage of fixed larger image sizes instead of editing every one of your pages to change the size of the image to default to user preferences. Why not also take advantage of this function and choose the colors, font, and text size you wish to see without imposing your style preferences on others? Believe me, I don't want to get back into our old discussion, but I do believe we never fully discussed the merits of this resolution. Is there a reason you'd rather not set up a user style sheet? I'd like to understand. Best, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that retracted question would be MOS, which happens to accord with good taste, you edit warring time-thief. cygnis insignis 11:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]