User talk:Dbenbenn

• /archive1 01:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• /archive2 22:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• /archive3 16:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• /archive4 14:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• /archive5 21:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• /archive6 03:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• archive 7 23:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• archive 8 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vilnius city mun location.png

Why did you request red on white? There are 60 such maps (User:renata3/gallery) and the rest of them are green on green (because it's sort of theme color for Lithuanian subdivisions). Renata3 17:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, green on green is hard to see, and I imagine the difference can be impossible for some people to make out. Of course, I think all the maps should be changed, not just one. Also, they should all be SVG now, and they should be put at the Wikimedia Commons instead of here. dbenbenn | talk 23:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You wanna change them? :) 'cause for me they are fine as they are. And they are on commons - first they were here, and then uploaded to commons (my mistake, I admit). Renata3 01:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, too much work for me. Feel free to revert the one that got changed to red and white. (Though perhaps User:Mysid would be willing to change the colors on all of them?) By the way, is it okay with you if I delete the local versions, so the Commons versions will show? dbenbenn | talk 02:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

You can delete those because commons have them all at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Municipalities_of_Lithuania . As for changes, maybe one day when I'll be dead bored with having nothing better to do. Renata3 05:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

So are you deleting them? Renata3 19:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll get around to it eventually. Possibly this weekend. If you want them deleted quickly, you could tag them for speedy deletion. dbenbenn | talk 20:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Knot polynomial

At the cleanup taskforce we have been trying to sort out knot polynomial for some time (see Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Knot polynomial but have run to the end of our knowlage. I see from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants that you know somthing about knot theory, so maybe you can help. Could you have a look at the article and let me know if it looks sensible? Cheers. Andreww 10:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Zip code tabulation areas

Hi Alansohn. If you end up making articles for individual ZIP Code Tabulation Areas, let me know: I'll contribute locator maps. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 18:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! If you're ready to create maps for ZIP Code Tabulation Areas, please let me know. Why don't we pick a ZCTA for a ZIP Code and see if we can come up with a page. Alansohn 02:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a couple samples. I chose Virginia since that's where I am right now.

Locator map for area 226 in Virginia

The 5-digit ZCTAs in Virginia

Suggestions welcome! dbenbenn | talk 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. I've been thinking about Deepwater, New Jersey, which I already started as a template of a ZCTA page. I'm also thinking about the melifluously named Buttzville, New Jersey (page not created) ZIP Code 07829. I'm also curious about creating maps for ZCTAs, and any method to figure out what municipality (or municipalities) are covered by a ZCTA. This all comes comes from the work I've done with minor civil divisions (MCDs) and Census-designated places (CDPs) in New Jersey. Many people will say that they "live" in their ZIP Code, and not in the MCD or CDP in which they reside. Many highway exits are ZIP Codes / ZCTAs, and a means to create ZCTA pages to match the MCD / CDP pages would allow the mass creation of pages to fill many of the holes in new Jersey and elsewhere nationwide. Though, note that ZCTAs work best (if at all) in non-rural areas. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 03:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

An even better example would be Basking Ridge, New Jersey. I had always been sure that it was a municipality (or maybe a CDP), but it's only a ZIP Code. I think its in Bernards Township, New Jersey, But I'm not even sure. the Census Bureau maps are unreadable for this purpose and any assistance would be fantastic. I'd love to be able to create a page with a map and census data that would allow someone to see what Basking Ridge is all about, just like any other place. Alansohn 03:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonfree images

Greetings, and thank you for your diligent work in detail improvements to WP. Please note that all but one of my cc-nc images that you removed have been changed to cc-sa and (hopefully) have been restored to the articles. However, a single image should remain, Image:PeterhoffCourtDress.jpg, with the reasons for it being nonfree documented in the image text. This was uploaded when cc-nc was a legitimate license. Has WP policy changed to delete all such images, even if uploaded prior to the cutoff date? Please answer on my page, copying this text for my archaive. Thanks, Leonard G. 19:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what you could do is add the tag {{cc-sa-1.0}}, and include a note that commercial use might be illegal without the models' consent. Basically, there are two separate issues: copyright and privacy laws. Another way of looking at it: if I cropped the faces out of the picture, the models' consent wouldn't matter any more, but I still couldn't use the picture for commercial purposes because of the copyright license.

And yes, all non-commercial images are to be deleted. Jimbo wrote [1] "All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_." dbenbenn | talk 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Watermarked images

I'm really surprised that as hard as you work to improve the quality of Wikipedia that you want to keep watermarked user-created images. Having to use an image manipulation program to reconstruct a useful image is not good practice and the end product is not a factual image. Oh well, keep up the good work on quashing those non-commercial/permission images -Regards Nv8200p talk 19:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a self-admitted inclusionist. I think the photo at Polizia di Stato, for example, is better than nothing. Obviously it would be better if TheDoctor would voluntarily upload untouched pictures. But deleting the images is something that can't easily be undone, so I think it should be more of a last resort.

Also, if you think that removing a watermark results in a "non-factual" image, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Many of those are digitally edited. For example, compare Image:Pomegranate03 edit.jpg to Image:Pomegranate.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 22:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Point taken on the non-factual image. If you are an inclusionist, why do you push to delete non-commercial and permission images uploaded before the May 19, 2005 deadline. Doesn't seem to jive -Nv8200p talk 22:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that our encyclopedia must be free. Jimbo declared that all non-commercial images (that can't be used under fair use) must be deleted, and I quite agree. I'm only an inclusionist for free pictures that are useful on some page. dbenbenn | talk 22:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The watermarked images may be useful (and nasty looking:-)) on a Wikipedia page, but they really are not free in the Wikipedia sense (Free content) if they cannot be re-used, distributed and shared. The uploader admitted he watermarked the images to discourage this. I've bothered you enough about this. Thanks for your indulgence Nv8200p talk 22:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are free. The author released them under the GFDL, so they can be re-used for any purpose whatsoever. If the author doesn't like that, that's too bad for him. dbenbenn | talk 00:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

btw is there any software availible for removing such watermarks? Plugwash 00:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I know very little about that kind of thing. It looks like is should be possible, in principle, to remove the watermarks. dbenbenn | talk 00:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the heading from In the news

By doing this, you fixed a major bug in the Main Page Redesign drafts. Now each design can standardize its own headings without using a bizarre formatting trick. Thank you! --Go for it! 22:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Do you use Internet Explorer? Can you confirm that Main Page still looks fine? (It looks the same in Firefox, which is what I use.) dbenbenn | talk 22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine in IE. --Go for it! 02:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Main

FYI, I'm going to run one more pass just to double-check, but there are no longer any articles that use Template:Main for more than just one article link. I've moved them to use Template:Main articles. You are probably safe updating Template:Main to remove the esoteric code and look just like Template:Main article (though you have to add the [[ ]]'s ) . -- Netoholic @ 06:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. dbenbenn | talk 06:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You can probably remove the "Esoteric" template, and maybe add a "see also" linking to Template:Main articles. -- Netoholic @ 06:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's pretty un-esoteric now. Good ideas. If you still have energy for this kind of thing, see Template talk:See also. dbenbenn | talk 06:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image fair use

Thanks for pointing me to the right link. The pull-down didn't have a fair use section in it. The warnign template was quite clear, though, in what to do. You guys got to this so fast I hadn't had time to write the text using the article before other users here had made their comments! SteveKd4ttc 02:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (re:Image:NEJM 347(19)1477-1482 Table 2.jpeg)

Hi Steve. We actually have a policy against using fair use images except in articles (Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy, point 9). Also, fair use images that aren't used in articles are supposed to be deleted after a week. I'm not going to delete it, but I just wanted to warn you that it probably won't be around very long. dbenbenn | talk 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. If I make my own tables though we're ok with it, though, correct? Steve Kd4ttc 04:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I did read the fair use policy, but stopped at the law. Sorry I didn't read down to policy on that page. Ooops Kd4ttc 05:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I guess if you make your own table that would be fine; the data isn't copyrighted, after all. Alternatively, you could just upload the image somewhere else on the web, and put a link to it. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 22:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The afd thing

Hi there. Someone (maybe not you) has added subst: to the PAGENAME variable, and this breaks non-subst: usages. A removal of that would unbreak that problem, and there'd be no need for that message of yours. The tag has always worked fine in the past. Note that PAGENAME is not a template, it's a variable so there's no transclusion load. In fact, someone has made Template:PAGENAME. It should be unnecessary. -Splash^talk 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I added it. See Template talk:Afd#template broken. There are two benefits to having the PAGENAME be substed. 1) If the article gets moved, the deletion discussion link doesn't break, and 2) Admins looking at the deleted article will still see the right link. dbenbenn | talk 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw the template pop up on my watchlist again. I forgot about your message in amongst other stuff. OK, well, I don't care enough about it. Removing the optional parameter was deliberate, as it seems to be the source of all the complications. The amount of wikitext that tag dumps in an article now is bordering on the insane. -Splash^talk 02:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the {{{1}}} parameter is the cause of the complications; it's been around for a long time. I see it does get substed into the page code, though ... Hm. dbenbenn | talk 02:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The {{{1}}} parameter was only added a couple of weeks ago (on the 18th), and to me seems pretty unnecessary since it's hardly used. If it's leading to qif tests and things, it's probably a lot more hassle than it's worth. -Splash^talk 02:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, true. I suppose I have no opinion about the {{{1}}}. Seems like it could be useful from time to time, but as you pointed out it does make the wiki code uglier. Of course, if you don't want ugly wiki code, the best way would be to change the policy so the template isn't substed at all. Anyway, there's no qif / meta-template business going on. dbenbenn | talk 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

why me?

Why did you put up two of the images I have uploaded and one of my articles I started up for deletion?

Because I thought they should be deleted. dbenbenn | talk 03:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

ifd2 broken?

Hi. I'm trying to use ifd2 in accordance with the instructions at WP:IFD and it doesn't appear to be working. I notice you made a modification to that template just yesterday. Is the usage of that template different now? Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I broke it! Fixed now. dbenbenn | talk 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

no license template

Hi. I had another question about a template. Wouldn't the no license template have to be used with a subst:? If not, won't the date just update to the current day every day? Maybe I don't know enough about the inner workings.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to use {{no license|month=January|day=7|year=2025}}. That is, when you add the tag, you hard code the current day, so it doesn't change. (I think there's a bot that fixes cases where people simply use {{no license}}.) A shortcut to do that is {{subst:nld}} (nld is short for "no license date"). dbenbenn | talk 17:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

New Year's Howard Stern Fist + Sirius Dog

File:2006 Chinese New Year Dog.jpg

I thought it would be nice to put this image on the Howard Stern wiki entry for the duration of the Chinese Lunar New Year celebration. And I thought it was absolutely fitting that 2006, the year that Howard Stern moved to Sirius, is also the year of the dog. Now, to explain the tangerine: It's traditional during the Chinese New Year to give tangerines, which are supposed to mean good luck, I think -- at least that's what my mom told me. In fact, it was after I asked her what the tangerines mean that I created the image in Photoshop. The Chinese caligraphy on the right is the symbol for "dog." I'm in such a festive mood!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

P.S. Thank you for being a great Wikipedia admin. Your work is exemplary. As Ted L. Nancy would say, you should be SINGLED OUT and COMMENDED!  :)

Something I forgot to mention. People may notice the font used for the number 2006. It's a Star Trek font, which I used just because George Takai is the Howard Stern Show announcer on Sirius. "Oh my!" The Star Trek font can be found on the saucer section (or primary hull) of the U.S.S. Enterprise A -- the one seen in Star Treks I through VI.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HeWhoE (talk • contribs) – 23:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Never fear, faithful sidekick! I have re-uploaded the deleted image! After all, I created the image and I still have the photoshop file on my hard drive! HeWhoE 07:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dbenbenn, my faithful sidekick, I love you, babe! Call me! My rectum is waiting. HeWhoE 04:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User Tannin's images

I think your nomination for deletion of these images is inappropriate. It is relatively clear from the context of the upload that these are the user's own images. They were uploaded before tagging became mandatory. You are not adding to the sum of knowledge but taking away; nor are you protecting the wikipedia from copyright issues. --A Y Arktos 21:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

See [2]. Jimbo wrote "All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_." Tannin has refused to license his photos under the GFDL. dbenbenn | talk 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He appears to have licenced some images under creative commons though. My suggestion is perhaps instead of nominating them for deletion, you could offer to help tag these many good images appropriately, a constructive rather than destructive action to rectify the situation and probably taking no more time. Appropriate tagging to be discussed with Tannin. If he won't come to the party, I understand, but I can appreciate he uploaded many images before tagging was required and he has been a very long standing wikipedian.--A Y Arktos 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

All of the ones I've listed at WP:IFD are tagged, usually with Template:Cc-by-nd-nc. I am going through Category:Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial images and nominating all of the images for deletion. dbenbenn | talk 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to raise it with him at User_talk:Tannin#Picture_tagging but he has been very rude to other editors who have tried to help and his only edits in recent months have been to revert their help.--A Y Arktos 22:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Main article/s

For some reason I can't really fathom, these low-use templates were protected. Can you please look into this? There is a unprotect request on WP:RFPP. -- Netoholic @ 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Luxor

Regarding deleting the Four thousand years of tourism section, I believe the article you specified it was a copyvio of actually copied it from Wikipedia. I compared from the history of the article on Wikipedia and I see the date of buzzle.com article is 7-31-05 or 8/2/05

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-31-2005-73999.asp

Duran 11:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that about the date, too, but compare the May 30, 2004 revision of Tourism in Luxor, which is the original source of that text on Wikipedia, and actually contains the byline "By Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis". If buzzle.com were going to plagiarize from us, I hardly think they would copy that line.

Possibly the buzzle.com article has been "reprinted", and appeared there earlier? Or, perhaps User:194.79.100.109 who originally posted the text here actually is Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis? dbenbenn | talk 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Australia template.svg

Cool, thanks for pointing out the futher errors in my flag template. I think I must have forgotten to change the 3 to a 1 when I copied the text across from the big star. I got all my measurements from this and did the conversions in my head, so I am not too surprised I made some stupid mistakes. I will try to get a new version of it uploaded tonight. It is a shame that I can't get svg fonts to work out of illustrator or these changes could be made with a simple text editor, but as it is the text is included as shapes and I need to go back to the illustrator original to change things. --Martyman-(talk) 21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Text included as shapes? Oh, evil! Maybe I'll give a shot at making it actual text some time. dbenbenn | talk 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Flags of Egypt

Regarding the images of Egyptian flags (Image:Eg-1897XIXth .gif, Image:Eg-1972.gif, Image:Eg-Khedive flag.gif) which you have marked for deletion as unfree: this depends on what the laws of Egypt say on the copyright status of the flags. Even if they are protected by copyright, it is most certainly not owned by the website which displays them (Template:Flagimage states: "... the source of the image is probably irrelevant to its copyright status if it was designed to faithfully adhere to the original flag"), and their inclusion on Wikipedia in the relevant articles likely constitutes fair use. (If your opinion is different, please list them at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Fair use claims.)

Sincerely, Mike Rosoft 23:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Green light

Yes, please. I regretted contributing that image as GFDL. Do delete it if wikipedia requires, please. Thanks! Mr Tan 07:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Suspicious images

Hello, I've seen that someone uploaded Image:Kylecole2.jpg with NoRightsReserved tag, but couldn't find the photo on site provided and it doesn't look like they give up copyright to any of their photos. I also looked at his other images and his talk page and found similiar problems. Would you take a look at it please? Thank you. ~~helix84 13:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image source and copyright status

Hi JJ. I noticed that you upload a lot of images, but almost none of them have sufficient source or copyright status. For example, Image:Fuk22.jpg, which you uploaded today. You tagged it with {{PD-USGov}}, but you give no reason to think that tag is actually true. You need to provide more information about photos you upload, or they will get deleted. dbenbenn | talk 21:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fuko is a US government employee and the photo was released from a gov website/ organization. Its government released. 90 percent of the photos I upload are either premeire press release photos or government releated.

JJstroker 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

By "Fuko", do you mean the subject, Francis Fukuyama? According to that article, he works for Johns Hopkins University. Regardless, the copyright is held by the photographer, not the subject. For the PD-USGov tag to apply, the photographer would have to be a US federal government employee. dbenbenn | talk 21:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I made a mistake I had the wrong person. I upload a lot of photos. It was a university released photo and I am not sure what that would go under. But all of the uploads I make I am sure to get the copyright correct. Sometimes I may make a mistake which comes with the territory but almost all of them are legit.

JJstroker 21:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think it's a "university released photo"? The issue isn't whether the copyright tags you use are correct; you have to include enough information that others can verify the status.

Another example is Image:Ndg132.jpg. You found it on a North Dakota government web site, which is not public domain. Look at the very bottom of nd.gov.

Another example is Image:Tauzen.jpg, which you tagged with {{promotional}} without any explanation of why you think that tag applies. dbenbenn | talk 22:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

With regard to image Ndg132 it was released from a gov taxpayer funded museum. When you go to the main government page its completely different. The section where I took the photo from had no copyright status but obviously when you venture to the main page it would. I am 100 percent sure the copyright is fine for this picture.

As for tauzen it appears a lot of people get mistaken. When you upload a picture as "press release" it appears on the main page as from an organization. It was a press released photo and I usually specifically pick press release photos to avoid copyright problems. I will start giving more information from now on.

Also where is that picture taken on your front page? Looks like a cool area.

JJstroker 22:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The picture shows Vail, Colorado. dbenbenn | talk 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh I really feel that you are making a big mistake by adding copyright violations to all my pictures. 90 percent of them are legit. You keep adding "I think" and "Why is this a promotion?" Again when you add a photo as "press release" it shows up as promotional. The copyrights are fine. If they werent I wouldnt be able to upload any photos on wikipedia. Please talk to me first before removing all the images that i put up. (It takes a long time to put up all those images also and I made sure to do it correctly) I did actually do a few images wrong by stating that I am the creator of this work I accidently chose the wrong option but I will fix it.

JJstroker 00:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Now you can delete Template:Flags of European Countries because im finished with it. --Elmo12456 01:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Template interwiki

Hi there. You [[nominated this for deletion, with a comment that it was no longer used. Unfortunately, you were a victim of Whatlinkshere not properly working for templates until recent days, and it is in quite wide use still. If you're feeling up to the task... Meantime, I've added it to the Holding cell on TfD, so someone might do it for you. -Splash^talk 00:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Val Valentino/Masked Magician Merger

At first, I was going to disagree.

However, the longer I think about it, the more I realize that I don't have a valid argument for not doing it.

So thank you for the suggestion.

I'm going off to act on it right now!

Daya 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Masonsigns.gif is now Image:Mason_penalsigns.gif

User:Basil Rathbone is attempting to circumvent your deletion notice on Image:Masonsigns.gif by creating a new version Image:Mason_penalsigns.gif and claiming it as personal observation (meaning original work).--Vidkun 16:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your recent votes on Featured Picture Candidates

Hi Dbenbenn. Please note that some of your recent votes on FPs are not valid. Read the guidelines at Wikipedia:What is a featured picture before you vote an any other images. An image does not have to be uploaded to commons to be considered as a featured picture here on Wikipedia. If you think that should change, propose it on some talk page, but please leave it out of the voting area. Please strike or amend your opposing votes that didn't state any other reasons for declining your support. Thank you. Mstroeck 12:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Who says they are not valid? I feel that one requirement for an image to "exemplif[y] Wikipedia's very best work" is that it be located on the right project. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates merely says "Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." I have provided a specific rational that is extremely easy to address.

So, I'm not going to strike my recent votes. I want to get others thinking about this issue, and I felt the best way to do that was to voice a handful of oppositions. But don't worry: I don't plan start a huge campaign or anything! dbenbenn | talk 13:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying "Object, because not on Commons." is like saying "Object, because I have a nasty headache.". Both have absoulutely nothing to do with the quality of the picture, and both have absolutely nothing to do with the consensus that editors have reached on criteria for voting on FPCs. Yes, the reason for your opposal is easy to adress, but it's not very productive, and in some cases downright stupid. Images in FPC often undergo extensive changes during the course of their voting period. By the way, if you want the picture on Commons, just take it and upload it. However, I think it would be more reasonable to do so after potential problems have been resolved, which typically is after voting has ended.

If you have a point that might be controversial, it's just more reasonable to add it as a comment, not as a vote. You also have a higher chance of success of actually getting heard when you make such proposals on a talk page, where they don't tick people off. Mstroeck 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that Special:Upload has for a long time said "Uploading your files to Commons instead of here is highly recommended." There's nothing controversial about the idea that free pictures shouldn't be uploaded here.

Also, I fail to see the relevance of the fact that "Images in FPC often undergo extensive changes during the course of their voting period." The Commons is a wiki, just as this project is; images there can be changed as easily as images here.

Finally, about your suggestion that if I want a picture on the Commons, I "should just take it and upload it". I have in fact uploaded over a thousand images to the Commons. But even if I were to spend all of my effort on moving images, I doubt I could keep up with the rate of uploads here. A much more effective method is to try to get uploaders to put their images on the Commons in the first place.

Anyway, I'm sorry that I ticked you off by opposing your picture. For what it's worth, my vote will obviously not have an effect on the featured status of Image:Eight Allotropes of Carbon.png. dbenbenn | talk 16:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, I just object to your voting for reasons that aren't generally accepted. I just don't think that's a good idea. To clarify things, I'm not ticked of because you opposed one of my pictures, that doesn't matter at all. I wouldn't even have written all of this if you had just opposed mine, because it won't have any effect. Featured pictures is first and foremost about quality, and about exposing Wikipedia's users to some of the excellent work that is created here. We should not make it harder to do that by opposing pictures that are otherwise fine. Mstroeck 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright. WP:FPC#Supporting and opposing doesn't really explain much about what reasons are "generally accepted"---maybe there's an opportunity for someone who's an expert about how that page works to clarify it. I honestly did not think I was making "invalid" votes. (How about my comment at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Inside a Carbon Nanotube?)

I'm highly in favor of "exposing Wikipedia's users" to these excellent pictures; that should go for all of Wikipedia's users, not just the ones who use this English edition. What do you think: could we add a note to WP:FPC#Nomination procedure encouraging people to put their FPCs on the Commons? dbenbenn | talk 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly my point! I absolutely think we could -it's not a bad idea- but we should bring it up on WP:FPC's talk page. That is a popular page frequented by many people with strong opinions, acting without talking about it first will just cause trouble and minimize the chances of an otherwise pretty useful idea. I encourage you to head over there and propose it :-) This is one of the times where being bold and editing away is probably not the best idea.Mstroeck 17:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Metsovo picture

I just received your message regarding the deletion of Image:Metsovo.rugs3-tb.jpg, and it appears it has already been deleted. What was the reason for this deletion? I searched the page listing images for deletion but there's no mention of it. Acarvin 21:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The photo was under a nonfree license, {{cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}}. Pictures here on Wikipedia have to allow commercial use. If you're willing to license the picture under {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, please feel free to reupload it!

A few of your other uploads have problems that need to be corrected. Please say who the photographer is for Image:Harran-beehouses.jpg and Image:Sega.drumdancer.jpg, and add a copyright tag to Image:Kenteweaving.jpg and Image:Nobledizzy.jpg. Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 23:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cabinet counties

Earlier (on the relevant talk page), I pointed out an error in the map with the article on the Cabinet counties of Michigan. There are ten "cabinet counties", but the map highlights eleven, by incorrectly including St. Joseph County, which is named for the St. Joseph River.

Sad to say, a correct map would show two somewhat separated clusters of counties rather than a single region.

I mention this small error here because you requested such notes, on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. counties. Kestenbaum 07:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually I wanted to know if there were any errors in my own maps. ;) Anyway, is the new map at Cabinet counties better? dbenbenn | talk 08:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, many thanks! Kestenbaum 17:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)