(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 18:
Line 18:
==Malware==
==Malware==
Thanks for your interest at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#TaskManager my question]. I am having the exact symptoms. What should one do ? [[User:Jon Ascton|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> Jon Ascton </font></span>]] [[User talk:Jon Ascton|<fontcolor="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 11:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#TaskManager my question]. I am having the exact symptoms. What should one do ? [[User:Jon Ascton|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen; padding:1px;"><span style="color:white; background:DarkGreen; font-size:x-small;"> Jon Ascton </span></span>]] [[User talk:Jon Ascton|<span style="color:DarkGreen; font-size:x-small;">(talk)</span>]] 11:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
:I can't really remember all the details - it was well over a year ago on my brother-in-law's PC. I do remember the Google results and not being allowed to access the Task Manager. Instead, I used [[Process Explorer]] and [[autoruns]] from sysinternals to seek out suspicious programs, then a variety of [[rootkit]] detection programs so I could find and delete the malware. Each time I thought I had finally got rid of it, it came back again and again. In all, I spent half of the Saturday and most of the Sunday and still wasn't really convinced it was all gone. All the same, the problems didn't reoccur and I was able to enable the task manager again with a small change in the registry (I can't remember where - you'll have to Google for that). I then gave my brother-in-law another lecture about safe surfing practices :-) [[User:Astronaut|Astronaut]] ([[User talk:Astronaut#top|talk]]) 11:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
:I can't really remember all the details - it was well over a year ago on my brother-in-law's PC. I do remember the Google results and not being allowed to access the Task Manager. Instead, I used [[Process Explorer]] and [[autoruns]] from sysinternals to seek out suspicious programs, then a variety of [[rootkit]] detection programs so I could find and delete the malware. Each time I thought I had finally got rid of it, it came back again and again. In all, I spent half of the Saturday and most of the Sunday and still wasn't really convinced it was all gone. All the same, the problems didn't reoccur and I was able to enable the task manager again with a small change in the registry (I can't remember where - you'll have to Google for that). I then gave my brother-in-law another lecture about safe surfing practices :-) [[User:Astronaut|Astronaut]] ([[User talk:Astronaut#top|talk]]) 11:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join '''[[Wikipedia:Cleanup|WikiProject Cleanup]]''', a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.<br>
You are invited to join '''[[Wikipedia:Cleanup|WikiProject Cleanup]]''', a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.<br>
To '''[[Wikipedia:Cleanup#Members|join]]''' the project, just add your name to the member list. <small><fontface="arial">[[User:Northamerica1000|Northamerica1000]]<sup>[[User_talk:Northamerica1000|(talk)]]</sup></font></small> 09:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)</div>
To '''[[Wikipedia:Cleanup#Members|join]]''' the project, just add your name to the member list. <small><span style="font-family:arial;">[[User:Northamerica1000|Northamerica1000]]<sup>[[User_talk:Northamerica1000|(talk)]]</sup></span></small> 09:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)</div>
|}
|}
Line 640:
Line 640:
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 20:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 20:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
== Nomination of [[:Live XXX TV]] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[:Live XXX TV]], to which you have [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Live_XXX_TV significantly contributed], is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or if it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].
The discussion will take place at '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live XXX TV]]''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit [[User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier|the configuration page]]. Delivered by ''[[User:SDZeroBot|SDZeroBot]]'' ([[User talk:SDZeroBot|talk]]) 01:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template -->
Latest revision as of 01:01, 21 February 2024
Welcome to my Talk Page
See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. Likewise, whenever I begin a message section on your Talk page, I will watch the page for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity.
I can't really remember all the details - it was well over a year ago on my brother-in-law's PC. I do remember the Google results and not being allowed to access the Task Manager. Instead, I used Process Explorer and autoruns from sysinternals to seek out suspicious programs, then a variety of rootkit detection programs so I could find and delete the malware. Each time I thought I had finally got rid of it, it came back again and again. In all, I spent half of the Saturday and most of the Sunday and still wasn't really convinced it was all gone. All the same, the problems didn't reoccur and I was able to enable the task manager again with a small change in the registry (I can't remember where - you'll have to Google for that). I then gave my brother-in-law another lecture about safe surfing practices :-) Astronaut (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found John Ham as a separate article. Was it merged? (Also, I edited out the vague reference in Ham re "Commander".) Thanks. --S. Rich 22:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did. Some months after the AfD decision was made it seems nothing had actually been done, so I redirected John Ham to Ustream because there wasn't any material that needed to be merged. However, it seems just a month later 74.85.19.163 undid my redirection. The same IP editor has also made POV edits to John Ham, Brad Hunstable and Ustream and I strongly suspect a conflict of interest there. Thank you for letting me know; I have raised another AfD for John Ham (though I have exclused the Brad Hunstable article for now because it seems better referenced). Astronaut (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a minor issue for me. I did some edits on Ham simply because he graduated from my alma mater -- Poly High. Thanks.--S. Rich 23:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I have removed both usages of the image again. This is not appropriate as a lead image in either article (it doesn't even illustrate the article's subject in one of them) and I request that you do not add it back. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The User talk:Mdmday, is doing vandalism by reverting again and again my edits on list of tallest buildings in the world, list of tallest residential buildings in the world, and list of tallest buildings in Asia. World One, in Mumbai is not under construction at all, but this user do not understand. All the reliable sources like CTBUH, Emporis, and skyscraperpage say that either its Approved or Proposed. But this user reverted these sources from the article page without giving any explanation. I am hereby to invite you to please participate in the discussion at this user's talk page for consensus to reach.
I have created a few list of tallest articles and a few building articles and I was wondering where do you find a comprehensive list of the tallest future or proposed buildings? One at a time through a site such as skyscrapercity?
Also I see that emporis is not very reliable at all. I added the criticism thing to it and a talk page thing. I just made the List of tallest buildings in Hartford using mainly emporis but it's top 25 list for Hartford does not include the 2004 built Marriott Hartford Downtown, which does have an emporis entry.
The Hartford Marriott is at least 50 meters while the list goes down to under 50; also the list does include the 2006 Hartford 21. Emporis does have a disclaimer of all it's stats and there really is no profit motive to what it does but it still seems surprisingly outdated. It also contrasts skyscraperpage.com a lot and usually has different years than most other sites on buildings.
Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it wasn't me. I correctly archived the talk page on that date, but the archive got left behind when the parent page was moved from Talk:Sudhun to Talk:Sudhan by Bennylin (talk·contribs) on 31 August 2010. I've now moved the archive to be under the new name and the link has now reappeared in the Talk page's archive box.
Please note: you should not edit the archive. If you wish to reopen a previous discussion, please start a new topic on the current talk page - you could refer to the old discussion if necessary, like this: Talk:Sudhan/Archive 1#Religion (for example). Astronaut (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Astronaut, I see you are pretty active in the skyscraper articles. I'm mainly contributing in the dutch wikipedia and encounterd this Mervyn who keeps adding speculation to Pagcor Tower. This 2008 proposed tower has actually no news at the moment, it seems to be sleeping. I don't know the procedures here and cant simply go on with reverting this person, that's why I am reporting this guy here. Cheers, Leodb (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page is not really the right place to report this problem. The usual procedure is to warn the user by placing a warning template on their talk page; starting at level-1 and gradually increasing to level-4 should the user seem to not be taking notice of the warnings. After a fifth incident, and after having been sufficiently warned within a reasonably short space of time, you can request that an administrator take some action (the place to go for this is one of the administrator noticeboards.
It took me YEARS of searching, but I'm glad I had the foresight to ask the Reference Desk (even if twice) and that you happened to be around to find it.
Now I will have to go back to the Reference Desk to ask a question about how deep the deepest parking garage on Earth is, and what all the resources it would take to make one 720+ floors deep, as depicted in the commercial you found for me.
Thanks for taking the time to contact me. I think we were looking at different sources. The other article cited at the end of the sentence in question (the link doesn't seem to be working for me now, but it's still cited as of this writing) has the 70% figure in the title and I think treated it somewhat differently. That's what I was referring to. I'm not particularly familiar with the topic though so I trust your judgment. Andreona (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask permission to use an image which has also been requested above, it is the newer version of the Burj Dubai height comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BurjKhalifaHeight.svg
It is for a book, I can provide all the publication info, please let me know if this is ok and if so what credits you would like me to use.
Thank you
LucyH
Lucyh24 (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you may use the image. Please bear in mind the license under which it appears in Wikipedia, namely Creative CommonsAttribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) which allows you to use the image, or create derivative works from it, so long as it is attributed to the authors (presumably, myself and maybe the other authors involved in its creation, namely: Rama (talk·contribs), MrWeeble (talk·contribs) and Hc5duke (talk·contribs)), and that you release any derivative work under the same or similar license.
You may credit me as "Astronaut", or you can request my real name by email if you think it would be more professional (or maybe it is mandatory) to use my real name - there is an "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox to the left.
I request no fee, but the publication info would be appreciated. If you could also e-mail me a scan of the finished page containing the image, that would also be appreciated.
The geolocation of the IP along with the style of question suggest that it's a Light current alternate address (I've seen a few others from this ISP recently, in his style) or a copycat. It doesn't really matter which; they can be blocked on sight as pretty obvious trolls. Personally, I think your response was reasonable. By being utterly matter-of-fact, without showing any sort of overheated response, it's not going to give the troll the food he craves.
In the future, it's your call whether to reply to these questions or to just roll them back outright. (If everyone handled them as well as you did, there wouldn't be any problem.) I'm hoping that other Ref Deskers can show similar good judgement and restraint, but I fear that it's going to be too tempting a target for certain more childish regulars who can't resist the opportunity for a bit of toilet humour. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I wanna say that I agree with you, for the most part, regarding the Strait of Messina edit, that it was a bit confusing or repetitive. Hence why I did NOT revert it back. Though I did put "miles" as well as the "km" thing, as many people are not that familiar totally with the metric system, and as is done on other WP articles, both "miles" AND "km" are put to make it abundantly clear. I hope you respect that.
That's one.
What I did NOT appreciate or agree with you at all was your stalking me, and checking up on what I did on other articles, by obviously checking my "Contribs". That's very UNCOOL...nerve-racking, and disrespectful. And it's arguably against WP:Hounding policy and etiquette. Good-faith and provably accurate edits should only be reverted or changed if there's a genuine problem. Like "repetitive or confusing", which is why I agreed with you (mostly) with what you did in the first article in question.
But it seems you went into the "list of proverbial phrases" article with an obvious bias against me, second-guessing me, and that I HAD to be wrong. If you deny that, so be it, but you were still arguably wrong in undoing my edit.
Here's how...
to that other editor who undid my edit before (wrongly), as I said, it doesn't matter that Burns wrote it that way originally, as that's NOT the point...the point is a "proverbial saying" in GENERAL...of how it's spoken today.
it's not "misleading" to give the understandable and intelligible rendering of the words, and also how it IS spoken today.... the original wording is NEVER REALLY used as a proverbial saying today.
The question is, is that saying worded the way I edited today or not? As "gone awry" or not? You KNOW it is. How many people either say or understand "agley"?
Also, you said the wording was exactly the same in both references. Actually, no. (At least not as far as I can tell.) The first reference link only had the word "agley", NOT the word "awry". The reference page that I myself put in had the word "awry" too. "Go awry" is better known, and better understood. And the reference page I put had that one.
(By the way, I see that you've disrespected my edits on "John Cabot" and "Russia" which I will revert back...since you're clearly violating WP Policy now...and arguably edit-warring because of bias.)
Anyway, I felt compelled to communicate the matter out. I appreciate your own work and contributions to Wikipedia, as I guess you're accomplished to some extent, when you're not stalking or edit-warring, and of course I don't take away from valid points or edits; and I rarely even go on this, as I'm busy with other things. This is not really that important to me, cuz I don't live on Wikipedia. But when I do edits, I try sincerely to make sure they're good and effective and meaningful. But respect is more important to me. Please do not follow me around, hound me, second-guess me with things I do. I don't need that. Otherwise I'll have to stop WP or just change screen names, as I don't want hounders on my back discouraging or undoing things I do, valid things, simply because they have a personal hang-up against me. Again, you may have had a point about the Messina article edit, but was it necessary to check my contribs, and rudely try to find fault with things there? Archiver of Records (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously can't be reasoned with, so I won't even try anymore. You're obviously (lol) one of those WP nazis and neurotic hounders and bullies, violators, warrers, and stalkers, but will somehow make most Admins think you're smelling like a rose. I've seen it done to others as well...
I did put "miles" as well as the "km" thing, as many people are not that familiar totally with the metric system, and as is done on other WP articles, both "miles" AND "km" are put to make it abundantly clear. It's obvious you're not being cool about that, or respecting that. You got issues, sir.
(I can't respect someone who is so blatantly disrespecting me or my good-faith AND ACCURATE edits, because of whims, or psychological issues, tastes, or dogmatic attitudes... Hence my blunt tone with you now.)
I'll say it again though.... "Miles" ARE in fact put in MANY Wikipedia articles right alongside "kilometers" (and you being supposedly Brit should even more understand the need or good thing about putting "miles", since that's how it was long used in England, no? But I don't expect you to be logical, cool, or reasonable about anything. You already showed that with your rude revert-happy stalkish nonsense with me.)
What is the policy on "reverting"? Is it how you're doing? Uhh, no, not really.
it says:
"Revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter."
You, of course, violated that, and discussed nothing with me, but simply reverted at will, cuz of your uptight taste and whims, and didn't care.
Also, this is policy:
Revert wars are usually considered harmful, for the following reasons:
They cause ill-will between users, negatively destabilize articles and make other editors wary of contributing.
Also, you might wanna consider this (NOT my words, but WP Policy's):
Avoiding or limiting your reverts
Having realized that article development has ground to a halt because of incessant reversions, two or more people agree to give higher-than-usual respect to each other's edits.
One-revert rule
Some editors may choose voluntarily to follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
Zero-revert rule
Editors may also choose to adhere to a zero-revert rule, for example:
"Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page."
Of course, someone like you can't follow any of that, I see. (And those were NOT my words, but Wikipedia's.) Because you don't have respect. But will revert ACCURATE, GOOD-FAITH ADDITIONS OR EDITS, that are done by someone you don't like, or if it's an edit you personally (no real good reason, but just personal whim or taste) don't like or care for. Meaning, you're NOT cool or respectful or self-controlled when it comes to "reverting."
But will stalk, harass, follow around, put on your "watchlist" (only pathetic trolls and bullies feel the need to do crap like that, who have no lives), hound, goad, medal in, second-guess, discourage and hurt people you THINK are not very good editors, because of some psychological hang-up with this and that. For childish or neurotic reasons. Again, all in VIOLATION of WP policy and principles, regardless of what uptight or sloppy or pressed-for-time or friendly Admin may or may not back your nonsense up. Reverting good-faith and valid and correct and accurate things, simply cuz you don't like them, is NOT favored or suggested by clear WP policy. Just the facts. Cheers.... Archiver of Records (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You just need to do a little research to find that the Manhatten Life Insurance Building did get demolished in 1963. There is plenty of photographic evidence. Nasnema Chat 00:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on the editor's talk page about the distinction between skyscrapers and towers. It has nothing to do with the country or the implied racism. Astronaut (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the joke's on you. If you're in a shop that sells only American and Swiss cheese, it was almost certainly selling a cheep flavorless brand of Swiss cheese manufactured in Wisconsin. So yea, it was made in America.
"Swiss cheese" refers to a type of cheese, not it's nation of origin. (My favorite brand of swiss cheese comes from Finland.) APL (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Astronaut,
Thanks very much for your input. In fact, I was hopeful to get a little more of it...
You indicated that the entry reads like an advertisement - I understand that criticism as the entry focuses on a business, but I am having a hard time understanding how to then avoid a promotional tone. I feel the entry focuses more on the facts and history of the company rather than its selling points - accordingly, I was hoping you could specify what points of the entry seem the most promotional or how to best eliminate the elements that appear like an advertisement.
I don't mean to seem thick-headed, I simply want to ensure the entry is as informative as possible without crossing the line into advertising territory. This, of course, is why the entry has remained in personal draft space.
Again, thanks very much for your time and input. I'll look forward to a little more feedback.
Oh! And the below link is one of a few entries used as a general template or guide for the (M&M Tool) entry in question.
Hello again. I am sorry for my bickering (above), but you have 3143rd place in most edits (14998). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Get your 15K EDIT now! Here:
Hello! Since 10.28.2010 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munchplate}}.
Please see (and respond when you have a chance) to my response to your concerns on the "requests for feedback" page. Thanks. Eckmann (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took your advice and stuck with this username. I'm still working on the page but I would really appreciate it if you came back and gave me additional advice. I would like to start editing other users' pages after I get more familiar with how wikipedia works.
thanks for your help and hope to hear from you soon.
Gfrocky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfrocky (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated Kingdom Tower for GA status. But I think it will take a while for someone to pick it up unprovoked, if you or someone else whom are in the scope of the subject could review it, it would be appreciated. You have not edited it much at all so you are likely eligible to review it and me suggesting it to you shouldn't be perceived as a COI. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dan. I'll try to take a look sometime soon. However, I am currntly on holiday with a rather poor internet connection, so you might have to wait for a while. Astronaut (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else picked it up. It's gonna pass. Except for it's length, which is exceptionally good considering the circumstances of the subject (it hasn't even broken ground yet), there really is nothing stopping it from meeting FAC. You can still partake in the review, it's common practice, but the original reviewer is supossed to have the final jurisdiction. You could help by condoning the appropriation of the use of more than one fair use render since every other source has exploited them already and it's an exceptional subject. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the editor who was reviewing it has grown an interest in the article and wants the GA responsibility handed to someone else, so you can do it. By this point, it is more than qualified as a good article and should be passed quickly so we can do a DYK with it. Take a look at it when you can. Kingdom TowerDaniel Christensen (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry I called you nuts for thinking KT and MHT were different props, but could you extend this diagram to feature Kingdom Tower? You did a good job on it, all the buildings are detailed and in realistic proportions, are the renders of Kingdom Tower good enough to use? I know in the WTTW interview, Adrian Smith said that although KT was more slender than BK, it was wider at the base. Looking at BK and then looking at the KT renders, it doesn't look that way, but I'm not sure. Just make BK black and add KT in red, if you find the available renders are suitable to work with. Thanks.
I didn't check the unspecified copyright viol as I usually would, or do a Tineye search, since the other tag was that there was no freedom of panorama in the UAE, so it was not acceptable anyway. I should have amended the summary to that effect. Unless that reason is incorrect, it has to stay deleted. Jimfbleak - talk to me?14:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that, just like other copyrighted works, it is possible to use an image of an architectural work from a country with no freedom of panorama under a claim of fair use. I was under the impression that the image in question had a valid claim of fair use, but I could be mistaken or maybe the claim was faulty in some way. As I said on your talk page, I would like the opportunity to add or improve the claim of fair use and/or verify the claim of copyright violation. Is it possible for the image to be undeleted, at least on a temporary basis? Alternatively, could you tell me who put the image up for speedy deletion so I can ask them for their reasoning? Astronaut (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did a Tineye search on Chrome. Five results came up, one was copied from Wikipedia, one was dead, but this claims copyright. The suspicion of a copyright violation therefore seems to be correct. Nevertheless, I've temporarily restored, so you can check the Tineye search if the link above doesn't work, or attempt to reattribute and come up with a FU rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me?05:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About that The Four Major Rivers Project page.... yeah. There's a reason why I said "you have to know better about Korea". There are many incidents of politically-geared vandalism. In other words, South Korean political conservatives (AKA those IP contributors from South Korea) are deleting huge portions of Korea-related documents in the English Language Wikipedia. Even some mods here are having a hard time dealing with them because those people don't respond in English. Here's a recent similar example of this. I hope you wouldn't be that offended; now that I have explained my reasons. Komitsuki (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete your most recent edit, I instead posted a query at the talk page. I genuinely don't know the answer to this and don't feel strongly about it. I guess how we handle Hong Kong in other similar cases would be a data point.
List of cities proper by population lists Hong Kong as in China, while List of urban areas by population lists Hong Kong as in Hong Kong. List of metropolitan areas by population lists the metro area as partly in China and partly in Hong Kong. That's a random sample of three, so I'm not sure what it demonstrates. Obviously Hong Kong is a special case generally. It's well known and people have an opinion on it, and it's maybe different from other semi-autonomous areas for historical and social and business reasons. I was just working on List of United States cities by population, and they list Puerto Rican cities separately. So I don't know. Not sure about the MOS. It says "generally" and then goes on to talk about passports... do Hong Kongers carry Chinese passports or not? Don't know. Herostratus (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's really quite an interesting question. Of course there are political ramifications too, I suppose, but I don't care much about that. Anyway I laid my case out at the article's talk page. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done three reversions of attempts to put back unsupported material back into the article. I cannot do any more for 24 hours.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to your message:
Based on my screen's resolution I thought all the pictures were a bit too small and hard to see, so I enlarged them just slightly. By the gallery being off-balance I meant there were five pictures on top and only one on the bottom. That doesn't look right so I shortened the width by a tad so all the photos could be on the same row.
I don't like it when people revert other people's good-faith edits just because they "don't like it." My adjustments were so slight I don't know why anyone would protest them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadiomals (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 September 2011
It seems odd to me to increase the size of the images on the right of the article text because you think they are too small, and then make the images in the gallery even smaller. But at least now I understand you have a much narrower screen than I have. The {{gallery}} template used to make the gallery, automatically fits the images across the width of your browser's window. If there is insufficient space to the right, it simply creates a new line. Now consider this scenario: If another image was added to the gallery, it again probably wouldn't fit across your screen in one row; would you then reduce the image size even further?
Choosing images sizes to fit the size of your screen is something to be avoided as a general rule. Each user has a default size for thumbnails (it's set in the [tab of your preferences]) which is used where no thumbnail size is specified. The images in the skyscraper article used to all be in a strip down the right side (see this example) and a narrower-than-most-defaults thumbnail width was required to make them fit nicely at most window sizes. However, earlier this month some images were moved to a gallery and the pressure on space for the images has been relieved somewhat. Pending the response to this help desk question we could consider dropping a defined thumbnail width altogether. Astronaut (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually considered my screen size too, and that's probably it. To be honest, it's really not a big deal to me. If you want to revert it you can, this is a trivial problem.
As you wish. But consider this. The South Korean public could impeach Lee Myung-bak in 6 months, something that my Korean relatives wish. Plus, the negative view about this four river project is growing. A Filipino like me would absolutely love to see the collapse of the Grand National Party (the largest political party in South Korea). Komitsuki (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of this article between me and User:Longwayround. And there is a need of third party opinion, the discussion is over the following subjects:
Reliable sources, the user User:Longwayround, claims the sources (CTBUH, Skyscraperpage, and Emporis) are not reliable and he says that there is a need of more secondary and tertiary sources.
Topped out status of Princess tower. (As per Emporis the toweris topped out, but elsewhere it is mentioned as under construction)
Hi. When you recently edited Canton Tower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terracing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I've been trying to edit a section in Thor Heyerdahl's page and it doesn't seem to work. I just established my account and am still a little confused on the procedure for objecting or editing out to an item. I sent and e-mail to "Oversight" but the response said they were the wrong place. Now I'm more confused :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by DixieDear (talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the IP is trying to get at [1]. Anyway I'm now on the limit of 3RR and the IP has already exceeded it; as someone more familiar with this article I'll leave it to your good judgement what to do with it. Deryck C.21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has taken me over 6 hours to work out how to respond to you! Its a slow process this learning thing with me but I am getting there slowly! I wanted to thank you for the work you did as an example on my page. It was very kind of you and I wasn't expecting it. I feel some people have been a little harsh when I have repeated questions, I have never ever done this type of thing before and even after reading the instructions they boggled my mind and I repeated myself a lot. I posted the same type questions 2 or 3 times and and pretty much irritated most folk. I really appreciated your help though, so thank you for that :). MissLadyLawless (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Astronaut,
Thanks for your answer to my question on how to enhance FAO presence in Wikipedia. May be I should have explain better. I’ve received the mandate to do so, to enhance FAO presence in Wikipedia. At the moment, few articles have been added to the complex and we are thinking on developing a FAO portal similar to the one United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:United_Nations) with the new revised strategic framework. Again, any advice on your side is most welcome. I’m trying to contact someone from the UN Portal, but till now, it seems most of them are on holidays. Would you know someone around there? Thanks again.
No wonder I don't remember this... it was over a year ago. I now notice that there is a an error in what I wrote: In "I think you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's mission is to enhance some organisation's presence in order to disseminate all its knowledge in a proper way.", I left out "not"; as in "Wikipedia's mission is not to enhance some organisation's presence..." None the less, my advice that we already have a comprehensive article Food and Agriculture Organization still stands and I don't see what benefit a separate article with your then proposed title, or the Wikipedia portal you are now proposing, will achieve apart from much confusion on the part of readers of the encyclopedia.
However, a bigger problem is your desire to "enhance FAO presence in Wikipedia". Phrased like that it sets all kinds of alarms ringing in my (and I suspect many other's) mind. If you wish to improve the existing Food and Agriculture Organization article, then please go ahead and do so, making sure your contributions are relevant, encyclopedic, and well referenced with reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
---
Thanks again. I agree with your views and comments, but "my supervisors" wanted something similar to the UN portal. We have changed the Director General and he is very much interested in the dissemination and new FAO strategic framework wit its 5 main objectives to erradicate hunger.
Please be assured we don't want to make a "revolution" inside Wikipedia pages, just to make more visible FAO's mandate. On the past we had some problems with a former worker who kept deleting any modifications we tried to do.
Hi! Given your interest in and knowledge of skyscrapers, if you get a chance I'd really welcome any views you might have on an article I've put together on early skyscrapers. Any feedback or advice would be gratefully received! Thanks in advance, Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I know it is an easy mistake to make, especially after you have done a few and kind of got used to the editing actions. Astronaut (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did write there "...under a claim of fair use" and then go on with the following:
For the reasons for my concerns, there is a lengthy discussion on here which followed the wholesale deletion of images of Burj Khalifa (although it was judged that under construction images could be kept). I wasn't happy, especially because I think UAE law has been misinterpreted, there is no evidence of the law ever being applied in the manner feared by the Commons deletionists, and even Wikipedia's own lawyer suggests we shouldn't delete things as a precaution.
Another thing though... is your image better than the current image? It is hard to say. I like the warmer colours and the indistinct reflection in the water on the current image. I also like the shiny-ness of the upper reaches of the building in your image. Astronaut (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you were one of the prime contributers to the Burj Khalifa article, and I thought you could help me. I am trying to take Skycity to DYK, considering what an interesting hook it will make. For which, I intend to expand the article as much as I can (to meet DYK expansion standards). For this I request your help to expanding the article and making it a truly great hook.
I am trying to keep all edits at User:TheOriginalSoni/Sky city so that we have more than the traditional 7 days to finish this hook. Hope you shall help!!!
I'm not sure what else you have added over the existing article, Sky City (Changsha), that would warrant a DYK entry; nor can I think what you might add at this stage that would meet DYK's rules. What I do see however, is some rephrasing that might have been produced by machine translation from another source (eg. "layers" in a building are more usually called "floors" or "storeys" or occasionally "levels") as well as a highly dubious claim that the project will consume 270 million tons of steel. That is a hell of a lot of steel equal to ~18% of the world's yearly steel production - similar sized buildings have a much smaller mass.
If you are planning a major expansion, do go ahead, but with a possible DYK entry as a secondary consideration and perhaps only if construction actually starts. Unfortunately, I won't be able to help you much. I have had to reduce the time I spend at Wikipedia due to a very busy real life schedule. Astronaut (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the other images in the skyscraper article, you will notice the majority are very notable on the world scale or serve to illustrate specific buildings in the history of skyscrapers. Now take a good look at the images you added - can you really say the same about Lisbon's Torre de Mosanto, Dublin's Liberty Hall, or São Paulo's Mirante do Vale, for example? Astronaut (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the List of tallest buildings in Milwaukee for featured status here, and I was wondering if I could get your honest input on the discussion, especially concerning "Tallest approved and proposed buildings" on the list. Thanks Zonafan39 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Energy in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Wikipedia is particularly hot on copyright. Throughout the history of the Burj Khalifa article, people have been deleting images claiming they fall foul of the lack of a Freedom of Panorama in UAE. My personal view is that UAE law has been misunderstood, but that is another story. A couple of years ago images of Burj Khalifa were deleted from Commons en-masse, with little room for discussion. I just don't want the same to happen to our lead image in this article. Since that event, there has been a change in Wikipedia's understanding to allow images of new buildings under the fair use criteria of US law and that has led to the use of {{FoP-USonly}} on these images.
As for why one was listed in "Possibly unfree files" and the other not, is unclear to me. They both seem to fall under the same rule and both include the {{FoP-USonly}} template. Looking further, I just came across Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 3#File:Burj Khalifa.jpg which indicates the nominating user made a mistake and has withdrawn their objection. Unfortunately they didn't remove the note from the image itself; I have therefore removed the notice for them. Astronaut (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they are both now identical in their issues (or not) then could you restore the better one. It is currently an FP candidate but this will fail if it is not used. Colin°Talk20:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the discussion you had here. You don't have to type the entire thing for it to work as a redirect, you only have to type for example "a.b.c.d." and then the search box gives a list of suggestions. This list includes A.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.n.o.p.q.r.s.t.u.v.w.x.y.z. which you can click and therefore it functions as a redirect. Th4n3r (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of tallest residential buildings in the world
Hi Hope you will be fine. I have nominated List of tallest residential buildings in the world for featured list status. I have really worked hard and improved this article enabling it to achieve FL status, however i want your help to make some copy edits in order to improve its grammatical mistake, if any, as English is not my first language.
You don't need to be the goody goody two shoes of Wikipedia. You should mind your business. At the same time, stop stalking me and my work. I will do whatever I want and I do not need your approval for it. You should stop before I alert the authorities.
I'm baffled why you think I might have heard of BoBoiBoy. And I really have no idea whether it is shown on ITV in the UK. Astronaut (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's an anonymous said that the Season 2 of the series is aired in ITV. I think that article better be protected from anonymous for i while. Before that anonymous have his action again. If you don't believe me, just check the revision history. AlfinIzraqsaatini (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why contact me about this? I have no interest in the show and never even heard of it until now. I also have no idea of the truth or otherwise about what channel it may appear on. I am not an admin so do not have the ability to protect any article from editing by anonymous or anyone else. For that you need to go to WP:RFPP and make your own request, supplying evidence. However, it will almost certainly be refused due to a lack or recent (within the last few hours) vandalism. The best advice is for you to add the article to your watchlist and fix vandalism when you see it. Meanwhile, something you can fix right now is that the article has no references. All material, especially contentious material, must be supported by references from reliable third-party sources (and that does not include IMDB, Facebook fan pages, YouTube, blogs, or forums) - take a look at other articles to see how that are added. I have edited the article to indicate the kind of things that need a reference and suggested where you might find them. Astronaut (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but a lot of the motivation for the switch was more anonymity and less of a 'self advertising' feel. I remember a time when a Google search for my name would yield my user page before anything else, even the actual article for the Daniel Christensen footballer. I also remember telling that to one or two people as if it were some mark of achievement. The vast majority of people try not to use their "real" identity online, and further to be honest when I see any of the intentionally humorously written arbitration, administration, guideline, user page, "village pump" and "cabal" like stuff on Wikipedia it's frankly embarrassing to be associated with that. I'm here for the meat and potatoes to be honest not to find some sense of community among plausible misfits. B137 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read your newest comment on Talk:Kingdom Tower and was going to suggest you contacted directly someone who had a major contribution to that article. A quick zoom up the talk page reminded me that his username is Daniel Christensen, but before making my suggestion I thought it best to check out his recent activity in case he had 'retired'. However, that's when something rather odd happened: the popups gadget I use said Daniel Christensen had only ever made one edit! This is despite there being many comments from him on that talk page. In that way, I found that you were Daniel Christensen and there was no point in suggesting you contact yourself.
You might change your username, but old talk page signatures remain. With your many talk page comments on Kingdom Tower and the rather odd presence of a separate User talk:Daniel Christensen page, I suggested you make a comment about your former username on your current user talk page. Astronaut (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is appropriate, will do. I am fully aware of how many links there still are to the old name, including talk page signatures and pictures; I even still credit new ones under my real name. It's just a minor case of paranoia, there is a next to zero per cent chance that I would become famous, let alone for something next to which a Wikipedia membership would be embarrassing... Cheers B137 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New reference desk question and response to archived question
I finally got some new information I could use about my computer problem. And in the process of going to tech support for my virus software company McAfee, I was told to download this software that could fix and repair the computer. The monitor problem was just a temporary thing but the other problem could have caused everything except the monitor mysteriously turning itself off, which hasn't happened again since the first instance. I somehow didn't read your answer to me earlier.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Your revert of my edit to List of tallest buildings in the world
You state "these building are already marked, and more completely, by footnote B" but that is not true. At the top of the page it states:
The lists include buildings that
* are completed or topped-out
* have continuous occupiable floors
* are under construction and buildings partially constructed but on hold
but the buildings I marked do not meet those criteria and should not be in the lists. The footnote says they are topped out but not completed but does not note those that are not occupied. Properly, some should be removed or the statement at the top needs to be changed. I felt highlighting them was sufficient. I chose red because that color frequently denotes negativity and added italics for the benefit of colorblind people.
--- Vroo (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To your question in the airport talk page, the answer is Yes, before being called Ciudad Real Central Airport, the name Madrid South Airport was considered, but discarded under threats from ministers in Madrid Regional Government (now one of those ministers is the president of Castilla-La Mancha Regional Government). Even earlier, the name Don Quijote Airport (like the novel by Cervantes) was in the first plans for the airport.
It is right that the airport is 180 km away from Madrid, but if plans for a railway station had succeeded, there would be trains that would link the airport to Madrid Central Station (Atocha) in 1 hour. Same when heading south to Córdoba (136km and with neverending plans to open their own airport to commercial use). Times with car (235km to Madrid by motorway) or bus would be much higher, of course.
There are some links in Spanish if references are needed:
For rail times, look in http://www.renfe.es and try with the combinations between Madrid, Ciudad Real, Puertollano, Villanueva de Córdoba and Córdoba (the airport is between CR and Puertollano).
Thanks for uploading File:Doha Convention Centre Tower.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live XXX TV until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
