User talk:Glane23: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:20, 10 January 2010

Geoff Lane

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Glane23}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Bacon WikiCup Week 1 - Leader Interview

Glane23, as the current leader of the race for the Bacon WikiCup 2010, can you give us some feedback about how the Bacon Challenge has being going from your point of view.

1. Firstly, what are your general thoughts about the concept of creating large masses of bacon-related content and why?

Bacon is the perfect food.

2. You have managed to climb into first place by uploading an impressive twenty-three pictures. Shall we expect more pictures to come from you, or are you thinking about writing an article?

Finding, creating and uploading photographs, especially of food, seems to be a niche I've found for the moment. I've also gravitated more toward elf-like activities than toward creating new articles, as there are so many articles that need content improvements. I might write an article if the right bacon moves me.

3. You currently hold the lead by more than thirty points. Are you expecting to maintain your lead for a long time?

One time I won a frozen turkey. Since then, I've never won anything, so I've had my moment of triumph. I can't imagine holding the lead for long, especially since the contest is just now starting to gain momentum.

4. Other editors have earned points by contributing content too. Which contributed content have you found the most interesting and why?

I'm appalled and fascinated by Drmies' Calfs' Liver with Bacon article. Since he won't cook it, and since I haven't been able to find an existing photo with the proper rights available, I may have to cook it myself so we have a photo to illustrate the article. I've been trying to nerve myself up for the attempt, but catching the calf has proven to be the toughest part so far. I can't imagine why it runs like crazy whenever I try to approach it, although I suppose it might be the axe.

5. Apart from yourself, who do you think is most likely to win the Bacon WikiCup and why?

I'd put my money on prolific contributor ChildofMidnight. I think he started the whole contest just so he'd have an excuse to write about something new.

--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 02:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Geoff ^{Who, me?} 15:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your repsonses.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 20:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, Sky. And thanks for my 15 minutes, I cherish each of them. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the interview be posted to the Bacon Challenge talk page? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! Vipin Hari || talk 19:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 20:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeuws spek DYK

Bacon's temptations are of course not to be laughed at, but that doesn't mean that bacon DYKs shouldn't have the minimum length: see T:TDYK#Zeeuws spek. Ucucha 12:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in from CoM's talk page, the article is too short, approximately 1,000 characters (minimum 1,500). There are a couple ways to calculate it, you can copy the text (prose, not see also, lists or references) to MS Word, or you can use this nifty tool.--kelapstick (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you most kindly. Now I know...Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to add a sentence and a phrase to the article, as much as the internet would allow me. Geoff, measure it again? Drmies (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's up to 1,322 now. Almost there...Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think there was a minimum length for bacon. But DYK is very technical and they have high standards for everything (even steamed clams had to be globalized first and the Imperialistic Brits at DYK didn't want to accept barberpole candy whatsover (apparently there's something remotely similar over there called rock, and they may have been embarassed that our version is so much better looking)! Maybe you can find a lengthier batch, or bulk up the article so the strips seems bigger and more substantial. I'm not sure if it matters whether it's thick cut or regular (if this type is anything like stegt flæsk, it's thick cut) but I prefer mine not to be cooked for too long. The really cripsy pieces are fine to use as bacon bits in a salad, but a la carte I like some chew to my bacon. Thanks for asking. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Count 'em again, Geoff! Drmies (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1633, Doc. Thanks - I'll be able to go back to DYK to see what they think of the hook and content, now. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 01:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded there: there's still some more work to be done. By the way, I saw the IP vandalizing your user page today and threatening further disruption; please let me know if you need semi-protection there. Ucucha 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ucucha. I never know when those airheads are blowing smoke so it's nice to have the offer in my back pocket. And we'll just keep plugging away on the bacon thing until we have a proper DYK. ;o) Geoff ^{Who, me?} 02:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JKC

Hi Glane. The author of an article is in fact allowed to blank the article, provided no other editor has contributed to the article, compare WP:CSD#G7. Favonian (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that, but I thought that removing the deletion tag, which occurred in this case, would keep the blanked article "below the radar" so that an admin wouldn't know it needed to be deleted. I suppose the better course would be just to add back a {{db-self}} tag? Perhaps I still don't understand the process fully. Thanks for the note, though. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 16:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recommended procedure is exactly as you describe. The processes around here are best described by a quote from The Simpsons: "These guys have more crazy rules than Blockbuster Video!" Favonian (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Favonian. Now I know what to do in future. I hope I didn't inadvertently offend in this case. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo! It's a very common error, especially for Huggle users. Favonian (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zeeuws spek

On December 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zeeuws spek, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hey Glane23, AIV Report initiated. Cheers and happy holidays.--kelapstick (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, K. These are all coming from an IP range noted to be a Navy/Marine intranet server bank. I think it's the holidays and some bored mil offspring are playing. I think I trod on their toes by taking away their spray paint cans. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they got a short range block, should handle things. Cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers also and Merry Everything! Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You hurt my feelings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.101.162 (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to which of your edits: [1], [2] or [3]? Geoff ^{Who, me?} 19:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

..for reverting my user page. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Cheers! Geoff ^{Who, me?} 16:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism at Dehwar

You did warn the IP User talk:119.155.99.25, however he is using a newly created account to vandalise the same article User:Kanapul. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Warned and reported the new account. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 19:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Account Kanpul has now been blocked indefinitely by an admin. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for restoring my Talk page. I was going to report User:Mcmillanm at WP:AIV, but somebody beat me to it. Woogee (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I reported Mcmillanm as the vandalism to your Talk page was the last bite at the apple for that user. Cheers, mate! Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted licensing on image File:Almond butter.JPG

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Since I took the photo of the trademarked product, I meant that my own photo was released under those licenses, while the content of the image itself was non-free as depicting a trademark. I've removed my GNU and CC tags to mitigate the confusion, leaving only the non-free tag and rationale. How's that? Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW You might want to check the list on User:Sfan00_IMG/Conflicted-_Jan_1st_2010 to see if there are other images

YOU can help fix :). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted licensing on image File:AlsoSalt.jpg

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised. . You know the drill by the now :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Licensing

Bakers coconut vintage ad.jpg - a trademarked logo contained in a photo uploaded to flickr by a third person and released there under a CC-BY-2.0 attribution license.

This is a photo I uploaded from Flickr based on the CC-BY-2.0 license under which it was released by its creator. The image is used in the Franklin Baker Company article. I think, in this case, I can't remove the CC-BY-2.0 license as the photo not my own work and, by its terms, the photograph can be used for any purpose so long as the attribution is included, as it is in this case. The fact that the photo is itself released by its creator does not mean that the content is also free, if the content is (or may be) otherwise non-free. In this case, I'm going on the assumption that the content includes (potentially) trademarked imagery, specifically the images of the Bakers coconut containers in the lower right, so the safest licensing for en-wiki is non-free with a fair use rationale.

Indeed it would be, by all means mention the original flickr uploader (somehow), but if it's non-free content featured it has

to have a non-free licence and a rationale..

BTW I also suggest you check back over your previous uploads as well..

To name but a few, also have confused/conflicted licensing issues. Cleaning these up will help improve Wikipedia immensely :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied by email. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the conflicting licensing on these images. Where they were from others' work posted to flickr, and where they were created and uploaded by me, I added a note regarding the source of the image in the permissions line of the template, along the lines suggested by J Milburn below. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your mail

Fisrtly, I prefer to do things 'on-wiki' :)

In relation to some of the points in your e-mail..

i) An image on Flickr with a certain license doesn't mean that license is always OK. A lot of people misunderstand copyright issues when it comes to product artwork ( Flickr and Wikipedia users alike )

ii) If it's non-free content featured, then it has to have a non-free license tag/rational on wiki, REGARDLESS of what license the source claims it is.

iv) if you don't feel comfortable removing license tags, ask an admin, They WILL usally know what the correct tag for something is. ( Speak to User:J_Milburn for example , he's been very responsive to well-made queries I've made on image issues). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right-o, mate. The non-free rationale part I understood, which is why I uploaded all the images we're discussing, regardless of their source, with non-free tags and fair use rationales. The issue is the inclusion of a free use license for the photo itself along with the non-free notice and rationale where the content is non-free. I'll run it by J Milburn, as you suggest. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Image licensing - non-free content

My question was:

I have a number of food-related images of products, logos, organzations and other trademarked, copyrighted or otherwise non-free images I've uploaded to illustrate articles under the fair use rationale. Some of them were photos I took myself and some I found on flickr posted under CC-BY-2.0 licenses. Sfan00 IMG has let me know that a number of these have conflicting licensing tags, because they have both non-free notices/fair use rationales AND a free use license noted on the image page. Examples:

I thought the easy way to answer Sfan's concerns for photos I took myself was to remove my own GNU and CC licenses for the photos themselves, but I had another thought when I ran into one of my uploaded images on his list that I had found on flickr. I didn't take the photo, but the photographer had posted it with a CC-BY-2.0 attribution license, which means it could be used anywhere and in any way so long as the attribution (and the license) was included. I'm not comfortable removing someone else's license tag. So, it makes sense that the photo license be included and also the non-free tage and rationale as the subject matter depicts non-free material, such as an image of a product label.

As I thought about it, I noticed a note on Sfan's talk page from WhisperToMe regarding French licensing:

AFGonesseMemorial.jpg

In France two licenses are recognized: One for the photographer, and one for the non-free object being photographed. The photographer license is a free one, but the object is non-free. The image is treated as a non-free picture. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- in which there are two separate licenses, one for the photo itself and one for the content. That concept seems to perfectly sum up a photo taken of a trademarked or copyright-protected subject. I'm wondering if that is the correct approach to take regarding this specific type of product, logo or organization photo, whether or not French law is involved? It makes sense to me. What do you think? Thanks for the help. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The situation isn't really as complicated as you are making it- basically, these images must be treated as non-free on the English Wikipedia, and so the only copyright tag should be the non-free one. You are correct that there are two licenses at work (and also correct that the license and name of the Flickr user should be included) but that does not mean we need to use one of our templates. Instead, as already said, the only template should be the non-free one; the provenance and licensing of the photograph (as opposed to what it depicts) can be discussed in the sourcing or "other information" sections of the non-free use rationale template. The same is true in the case of French buildings. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK makes sense. I'll get to work. Thanks very much. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

You should now what to do about these , so I'll just list them directly :)

File:Wheat Thins (Cinnamon).jpg Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like you'd already fixed it when I checked just now. All I did was to slightly edit the non-free logo template from "cereal box cover" to "logo". If you find any more, just let me know and I'll fix them. I didn't keep a list of the food photos as I uploaded them to en.wiki or to Commons, so I don't know how many might have been non-free vs. free. (The free ones I put over on Commons.) I've probably uploaded over 500 food or other product photos in the last year. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Amedei Porcelana chocolate bars.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Amedei Porcelana chocolate bars.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Skier. Another editor uploaded a better image to illustrate the article (Amedei Porcelana). I've tagged this image with a G7 tag - OK to delete. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 15:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010 Olduvai Hominid 8

Please don't send messages without thinking as you did with this edit to my talk page.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, mate, it looked, at first glance, like a tribe of passing vandals was having their way with the article. Found a cite for Louis Leakey (rather than Richard) as the discoverer of OH8 and added that, along with correcting the word misspelling that had crept in. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 20:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize too, I got into a temper and cursed at the bot, even though I knew very well it could make people think I was a vandal. The poor useful thing had previously reverted another edit of mine for having a page number 666, so I was kinda irritated. You did a great job with those refs, it would have taken me hours if I had tried. I just hope the original author comes back, he seemed rather upset by the bot's revert.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo! I'll add the other refs mentioned briefly in the article if you can flesh them out for me - couldn't find them based just on the author names/dates. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wrong warning

i haven't done any edit to the page u mentioned. May be a mistake. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.232.61 (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this edit from December 23. IP addresses may be used by a number of different users as the address may be reassigned when logging on and off. Consider creating an account to avoid messages that are not meant for you. It's free. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 12:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You recently warned a user about vandalizing the Greensboro Massacre page, and he's up to it again. his IP is User:75.83.219.46 User talk:75.83.219.46, and I have reversed his nonsensical recent edits. He's been warned repeatedly since October 2009, and has been banned twice for the period of one week; is there nothing stronger that can be done? Cdtew (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye, Art!

Gumby's poppa has left the building...Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Lane you are a Nazi and a fascist and this is a verifiable fact.

Furthermore, Richard Madeley is most definitely a thief. This is also a fact.

The very act of you attempting to censor my edit without taking the time to read the information already contained within the article that confirms this statement to be true is indicative of your fascist ways.

Message end.