User talk:Solver

Please note: If you leave a comment, I will respond to it on this page unless you request that I respond on your talk page.

On X-Files

I was just wondering... do you think it is a good idea to put all X-Files episode descriptions on one page of the season, as you have done in moving separate articles? I can see the advantages of this, but am worried that the pages of seasons then may become very big and hard to overlook with all episodes filled in, as I'm currently working on adding more? Thanks for taking the care of articles, however! Solver 15:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I doubt they'll get too big. Take a look at Futurama (TV series) episode pages for a look at how this sort of thing can work. Keepin them on one page (per season) will allow us to keep the formatting of each summary consistent. It's always posible that at some future date these can be spilt off if they are truly too large, but I doubt it. There is only so much you can write about these. -- Netoholic @ 15:42, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good point, seems like a rather decent example to follow. Thanks for the help. Solver 15:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

765,000 volt power transmission line seems to exist. Do you still want to cancel the VfD? Niteowlneils 00:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do, I hit the page at the moment when it was nonsensical. Solver 18:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Y S Rajashekar Reddy

Under which speedy deletion criterion does this article fall? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The same question for The Gold Bug Variations. I've removed the tag from there; "poorly written and somewhat POV" is certainly not a case for speedy deletion. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)Alexkrycek.jpg]]. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. For now, the image is marked {{unverified}}. Thanks so much, Superm401 06:19, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Alexkrycek.jpg. Please leave a note on that page about the source of the image because of copyright law. Thank you. --Ellmist 06:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The image is a screencap from an X-Files ep, either Tunguska or Terma, I think. I recognize the bunch of bearded Russian dudes in the background. {{film-screenshot}} should cover it.

That's correct, a Tunguska screencap, and the film screenshot tag covers it, thanks for applying that :). Solver 22:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers, mate. They seem to have got bored and gone away now! Anilocra 15:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll keep watching his contribs page and your userpage history, though, for a bit more, just in case. Solver 15:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No more lyrics

Please stop adding lyric links to song articles. Those are copyright violations, which we can not have in our articles. Please go back over those articles to which you have added lyric links and remove them (I have already removed some of them for you). -- LGagnon 23:10, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I was told on the Help Desk that adding lyrics constitutes copyright violations, but NOT adding links to lyric sites. Referrence: here, where User:Cyrius tells me that links are acceptable. I'll stop adding lyrics for now, but I want to see this dispute resolved. I am not a legal expert, but as far as I know, educational use is typically an exception for the copyright law - and here on Wikipedia lyric links serve an educational non-commercial value (just like the lyric sites themselves are not illegal under the copyright law). Therefore, I'd appreciate some more input on this. Solver 13:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Whether or not using them here or somewhere else counts as "educational" is still questionable. You can use a small amount of the lyrics (2 or so lines) under fair use in the articles, but anything more would be a copyvio. As for other sites, few of them ask for permission, and just as few are meant to be educational sites. Thus, most of them are very possibly illegal. And linking to illegal sites could be potentially bad for Wikipedia. I'm not a legal expert either, but I wouldn't doubt that Wikipedia would be in legal trouble if we linked to illegal sites. I doubt we could get away with linking to warez sites or other contraban sites, so this should be treated no different. -- LGagnon 17:58, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  - I agree insofar that linking to illegal sites, like warez, is bad for Wikipedia. My point is that lyrics sites are legal (note that they always say that lyrics are copyright of respective owners and that they are provided for educational use). I've done some Googling and it appears those sites are legal, and moreover, there are many big lyric sites, and I don't hear of anyone trying to take them down as copyvios. My assumption is that if a site says "all material is provided for educational purposes", then it is so. Do we have someone with legal background here on Wikipedia that we could ask? Solver 18:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eugene Onegin (opera)

Here's what I suggest:

Make a judgement: would this material be worth having? If not, just delete it.
If it's worth keeping, then paraphrase or cut sufficiently so that there should be no copyright issue in the resulting text. In short, use it as you would use any other reference: this includes explicitly crediting the original source (see Wikipedia:Cite sources).

The situation isn't ideal, but it's the one we're faced with. Note that either way we are stuck with a copyvio in the history; if the original copyright owner complains, we need to get a developer to actually fix it. However, this almost never happens. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:31, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've paraphrased some, cut some and hopefully it's OK now. We won't have a problem with the copyright owners, as there is still very little respect for copyright in Russia, and they certainly won't raise a complaint with us. But either way, the article should no longer constitute a copyvio. Solver 19:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sim City 4 Fan Sites

I noticed that you have previously reverted a user named Superchad for adding links to various Sim City 4 fansites. I'm not sure if this dispute has been settled or not but I want to ask a question or two regarding one of the sites. You are quoted as saying in your edit summary that you "Remove DudyConstructor", because its a "non-notable site with extremely little content". I want to ask how exactly you define 'extremely little content'. Superchad also has posted what he has said to be "his company site" however this had nothing on it, and I wouldn't mind this be deleted. But the DudyConstructor site has thousands of posts at its forums, and an exchange for its members to share their creations. I think that the amount of information in the forums at DudyConstructor is a little more than "extremely little content". If thats the case, then Simtropolis can be deleted also because it is the same format; forums and exchanges, only on a much larger scale. It's not like we're making these articles, you know. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:48, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:External links. It says that we should have one fansite (or alright, that is preferred). Going along with that, DudyConstructor indeed has way too little content - way too little to be the only fansite represented. I've also only reverted Superchad once in Sim City 4, the real problem lies with Age of Empires III where I and other users have revertd him numerous times as he insisted on adding a link to a certain clan site. Solver 20:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Understood. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:32, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

BlueRhythmJohnny

Hi this is BlueRhythmJohnny, you went to delete some of my pages and I'd really like if you didn't, as I want to be able to send them to friends and people to show that I wrote an article. But everything I put up people are trying to delete it - and the oy carumba joke, that's funny! and I really do make frankensauce, I promise you.

See What Wikipedia is not. You're not supposed to add jokes or articles about personal stuff here. Try to write an article about something else instead. Your idea to start on a manga article was a better one. Also, check out the tutorial. Solver 21:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this is BlueRhythmJohnny, you went to delete some of my pages and I'd really like if you didn't, as I want to be able to send them to friends and people to show that I wrote an article. But everything I put up people are trying to delete it - and the oy carumba joke, that's funny! and I really do make frankensauce, I promise you. Sorry, I guess the oy carumba thing is kind of nonsense - but the frankensauce is real, and there are plenty of people called baldy or ol' baldy, and Slut Girl is awesme. BlueRhythmJohnny 21:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out that link I posted above. The Frankensauce is a personal thing anyway, and doesn't belong here. Also, we don't include slang and word definitions here, as they are not really encyclopedia articles, despite the fact that a lot of people may be called Baldy. As for Slut Girl, you see that a vote is undergoing and the article might actually be kept. Note that Slut Girl is only a vote for deletion (so people vote and decide whether to delete), but the other pages are speedy deletion candidates (which means, usually, that they get deleted within a few minutes). Solver 22:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I keep the Frankensauce recipe on my homepage? How do you indent? Is that the colons?

Indent this BlueRhythmJohnny 22:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the colons are indents. Try the Sandbox for experimenting with markup. I guess yes, you can keep your recipe on your user page here. Generally, your user page should contain stuff related to Wikipedia, but it's normal to have some personal stuff there, too, many of us have something about ourselves, so if you want to include a recipe, feel free to. here is a good list of guidelines about user pages. Take a bit of time to read the different help pages (you have the links now) and it will be a lot easier for you. Solver 22:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hateful, it's true

Ariel Sharon is a Jewish terrorist. How could you call that vandalism or hateful? (was added by User:Dick Upton)

Well, it is hateful towards most Jewish people, but more importantly, it's in the violation of one of the fundamental Wikipedia policies, the neutral point of view. Labeling Sharon (or Arafat or Abbas) a terrorist is NOT neutral in any way. These are all definitely controversial persons, but labeling someone a terrorist is not the way to work here, please read the NPOV page. Solver 13:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Tater?

You are probably not going to believe tis but Darth Tater seems to be a genuine product. Perhaps the article is non-notable trivia but it isn't quite nonsense. --Doc Glasgow 22:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC) (not the creator)[reply]

I Googled for it and was about 97% sure that it's a joke. If it's a genuine product nonetheless, then I am absolutely amazed at the imagination of its creators :). Solver 22:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

There seems to be some dispute over what justifies an external link in the Age of Empires III article that I was just hoping could be resolved. The links that you are consistently removing should be quite useful to visitors of Wikipedia, and there was no conflict over whether or not they should be included before. I was just curious why you've decided to remove them now.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see the External Links link you provided. Thanks for helping clear this up anyways.

(above added by User:SoggyFrog)

Yes, to clear it up again, the reason I keep removing those links is Wikipedia:External links policy. Please note that addition of other links might be justified if there indeed appears another site with a lot of non-duplicated content, but that's something for after AoE3 is released, and not certain even then. You'll notice that most other games only have one fansite link, too, which is the biggest fansite - for instance, that goes for Age of Empires II. Solver 12:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The External Links Policy suggests a directory of fansites in extreme cases, and it seems that there will be a problem here if only one site is provided. The change has been made, and I don't think there's anything worth contesting; people can simply visit the directory. Anyways, if there are changes to be made there, edits won't have to be made on Wikipedia. SoggyFrog 20:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does not constitute an extreme case now. The game isn't even released. So unlike other games, there are no fansites with a lot of different content. There are a few traditional Age sites that cover AoE3 (Through The Ages, Planet Age of Empires, Age of Empires Heaven), but the information there is generally the same. Plus, there are a couple of useless personal sites that are definitely not notable enough. At this point though, it's really not neccessary to have a listing.

If you still disagree, I am probably going to ask for someone else to comment on this issue. Solver 22:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I know it's delayed, but I'm posting here to say thanks for the welcome you left on my Talk page last week. :) I just realized I thanked you there, but forgot to thank you here. So thanks! ManekiNeko 23:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, brings a smile to my face :). Solver 23:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your images

I noticed that you have some images in the category Category:Images with unknown source. Due to the vast number of images in this category (12000+), and the fact that, lacking a source, they present considerable copyright uncertanty, Jimbo has stated, and added to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, "Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" which have been in the category for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded." This means the images can, and will, be deleted with no notice. To see a list of all the images you've uploaded(at least, under this username), review the upload log. You might also find User:Pearle/by-author-Category:Images_with_unknown_source.txt to be useful(search for your username). If neither of those work, you can find a list of all the images you uploaded(mixed in with all the images you edited) by viewing your contributions by namespace. If you have any questions, please let me know. Specifically, Image:Radiotornis.jpg, and Image:Radiotornis2.jpg. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

State anthem of the Udmurt Republic

Great job on the translation. Really useful and nicely done. Thanks --JJay 00:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Solver 16:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice on the chronic wound page

Thanks for answering my question! I think that what I did is pretty much like what you said. I made a separate article with the pictures on it, and linked to it from chronic wound. My only concern was that someone might see the images of chronic wounds page and say "Hey! This isn't an article!" and maybe delete it. Is this the way people handle the shock sites? I didn't just want to link to image:chronic wound 1 and 2 because there are two, which would be more work for people to have to load, and because on the image page it's not laid out nicely with captions and stuff. What do you think? Thanks again for the help! Delldot 00:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wasn't really what I meant, but your way seems fine, too. I meant not creating a new article, but merely uploading the pictures and linking to the respective picture pages from the article. For example, [[images of chronic wounds]] is an article, but [[:Image:Interference-colors.jpg]] is a link to an image page. The code to link to an image like that is [[:Image:wiki.png|link]].

That works well if you want to place several links from within the text. If you want to have all the images readily accessible on one page, then you can just keep it as you did. It's a guideline not to create subpages for articles, however, there are precedents for pages that are merely images. See images of castles or images of plants. These are good examples, in my opinion, of picture page organization. I think your way of handling the issue is right. Solver 00:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for taking the time to help me. I guess if you don't think anyone will object to it too much, I'll just leave it like it is and see if anyone says anything. Peace, Delldot 04:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to revert

How'd you revert that post vandalism so quickly? I'm looking for a way to do that easily. Can you reply on my talk page? thanks, Jordanhurley

Eaglecbr and 69.134.149.145

Persistent, isn't he? :-) - Orioneight 01:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so :). By the way, I just looked at the guidelines, and they say that, while blanking one's talk page is a hostile act, they don't say anything about it being vandalism automatically. Since the user has only spammed once and the rest of his edits are blanking, perhaps he should be allowed to do so? Solver 01:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right . . . besides, wiki is getting all slooooooooooooow on me, and reverting is getting old. I'll be keeping an eye on him though. Maybe there's a decent contributor in there somewhere . . . - Orioneight 01:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although blanking your user page is a little uncalled for. - Orioneight 01:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but at least that's a new thing for the guy to have fun with :). Oh well, I'm going to bed now anyway. Thanks! Solver 01:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think your wrong, but its all cool. User:whothehellcares 01:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking is labeled "childish vandalism" at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. Ergbert 01:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies

My apologies to you sir or madam. I have come to find that people have been vandalising in my name, asking for my "release". Just let it be known that it'll never happen again, and that I wish there to be no hard feelings between us. I will be good and you and wikipedia will never be bothered by anyone claiming to help me. Rafterman 03:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Solver 14:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WRT WP:PNT

How many languages do you know, actually? I can't imagine a person that can read Sanskrit and Turkish and Portuguese and Malay and whatnot. Or do you use a machine language-guesser? --tyomitch 13:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all those languages, or else I'd know what the articles are about :). There are only four languages that I have a very good understanding of, although I'm currently learning more. I am, though, very interested in languages, and so I can identify most languages spoken in Europe and some major non-European ones, and I have at least a basic understanding of most European languages. Russian helps to understand other Slavic languages, English and Latin helps me with Spanish, Italian, Portugese and the like. As far as those machine language guessers, I have actually found them unreliable, they often make absolutely wild guesses. Thanks for hte nice words, though, I'm just going to add another portion of pages to WP:PNT now :). Solver 14:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can't see how Russian+English+Latin could help you to understand such weird European languages as Hungarian or Finnish, I'm in admiration for your knowledge :-) Keep up the good work! --tyomitch 15:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the trick, Hungarian and Finish are so weird that they're very easy to at least identify correctly :). Thanks again! Solver 15:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karlis Ulmanis

Please stop referring to Karlis Ulmains as the President of Latvia. It is insulting to the memories of his victims. Ulmanis overthrew the legitimate government of Latvia and had his enemies sent to the Liepaja concentration camp. Ulmanis usurped power. He was _never_ elected President of Latvia. Also, he openly invited the Soviet forces into Latvia, undercutting any argument in favor of an invasion theory. The Soviets only did the same thing as Ulmanis... usurp power and punish anyone perceived as an enemy. Stop championing the dictator.

You need to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. I know very well what Ulmanis did, but he declared himself President of Latvia and he served as such, although his regime was violent and a dictatorship. However, Wikipedia has no place at all for personal views or characterizations of people as good or bad. Solver 17:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/poll – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?

Greetings! I hope you're well. I see that you have been involved with the above issue previously. To that end, I thought I'd notify you of this request for comment (RfC)/poll to determine if there's sufficient support for a unified article (as is) or two. I encourage you to participate and to weigh in ... help solve this dilemma! :) In any event, thanks for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 02:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for your vote. I observed that you were/are involved in the issue, hence my prior note to you. As well, if you had a chance to observe the RfC discussion (and earlier), I had quite a dust-up with an antagonist who thought I was commenting too much ... Forgive me for any bitterness and if I am commenting too much, but he deserved what he got. All is fine now! Anyhow, thanks again for weighing in. :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and it's no problem at all! Solver 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia portal?

Sveiki! As you may have noticed, there are now portals for Estonia, Lithuania, Belarus, Russia, Finland, Poland... but there is no Latvia portal. I completely agree with your comment on your user page (that Category:Latvia is "probably one of the worst categories here on Wikipedia") and I wonder whether creating a portal might help draw more contributors (example: Portal:Lithuania). It would be nice to have a place where those editing or creating Latvia-related articles could drop notes, instead of Wikipedians doing so only on talk pages. Or would such a portal simply languish? What do you think, Solver? --Pēteris Cedriņš 10:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea. If other relatively small countries like Estonia can have a portal, so can Latvia. Besides, I have recently noticed an increasing number of Latvian/Latvia-related editors.It's probably worth a try - a lot of things need fixing. Category:Latvia is horrible, and the main article on Latvia is pretty much a disaster too, right now. I'm not very proficient with creating table layouts, though, but I'll definitely think more about this. Do you have anyone else that might be interested? Solver 14:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started the page -- Portal:Latvia -- but found that I have little talent for figuring out how to do the layout without a lot of trial and error! There is a template (the same used for Portal:Lithuania), so go ahead and add things, using that as a basis. I will, too, whenever I can, and I will ask around to see if I can get others interested. Any suggestions for a featured article? --Pēteris Cedriņš 16:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see about using other templates for the portal, too. Unfortunately I'm a bit busy these days, but I'll try to do something. Logically, the featured article should be Latvia, but it's in far from a good state now. Geography of Latvia isn't very wikified, but more or less fine. Solver 16:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peters Vecrumba just substantially expanded the Portal:Latvia, so you might want to take a look at it, esp. if you know anything about the easiest way to link it in. --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan

Was there a reason for your reversion, if I may ask? Radio Kirk talk to me 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting a different edit... one by User:81.107.39.176. This is the edit I wanted to revert, but I apparnetly made a mistake. Sorry. Solver 01:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]