Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Discussion page archive

Archive 1

VLC

VLC official page is http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ not http://www.videolan.org/, which is the official page of VideoLAN. I don't understand why you reverted those edits...

Angora

Could we just change the image in the Turkish Angora article? Because the previous one is not a typical Angora breed. I don't understand why you reloaded the old photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpan (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Book Cover

Hey, How can I upload an Book Cover to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Little_Things without "no fair use images at Commons"??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaSiMüFi (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upload it to en wiki. Do not choose "Upload a free image" and go to Commons, select "It is a cover or other page from a book,DVD, " instead. --Denniss (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:KosareLjudi

It's got to be VJ-Yugo - I've filed an SPI report -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Enquirer

I am not trying to vandalize wikipedia. I am simply trying to update the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper to a higher resolution, more current image. Can you please inform me as to the correct way to upload this image? Thank you

17:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)~~rtbyrd21 3/3/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtbyrd21 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using a current image is no problem. But without having a permission from the newspaper to use a free license you need to upload it to the english wikipedia as lowres image under fair use claim. --Denniss (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to upload a fair use image without being autoconfirmed? Thank you

19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)~ Rtbyrd21 3/1/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtbyrd21 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SVG Resizing

Just wanted to let you know I removed a {{reduce}} tag you placed on an SVG. SVG images cannot be shrunk like that, they can, however, be rendered in small sizes, as the {{SVG-Logo}} template indicates. Thanks anyways, Sven Manguard Wha? 05:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Reltih Floda

Hello Denniss, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Reltih Floda, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this turned out to be a blatant hoax and was deleted per {{db-hoax}} Ϣere SpielChequers 12:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Reltih Flöda

Hello Denniss. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Reltih Flöda, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lamborghini Gallardo image (re: edit war with HappyLogolover2011)

Hey, if you look closely at the image here you can see that the yellow paint job was added digitally (Photoshop or whatever). The lines are not straight and the yellow is exactly the same throughout (i.e., doesn't change in the shadow or from the glare), and the reflected portion on the ground is different. Even if it somehow passes copyright it looks so bad it doesn't belong on WP anyway. Cheers! SQGibbon (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore it looks like this person used the image taken from here (scroll down or go here for the big version). SQGibbon (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing edits

Hi there. Please do not use the undo-feature to revert valid edits, at least not without specifying a reason why you did so. In your edit here you undid a valid change introduced by an IP editor without explaining why you did so, thus not allowing others to understand your motivation. Regards So Why 13:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because it wasn't a valid edit - no need to add redlinks to infoboxes. --Denniss (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review our guideline for such links at WP:REDLINK. In cases like this one, it is valid because it was meant to lead (and, here, lead to) the creation of a valid article related to the subject. Red links are not bad per definition, neither in infoboxes nor elsewhere and our guidelines specify this clearly. Also, please remember that even if you think an edit is not valid (no matter if it really isn't), you should always specify your reasons in the edit summary, so that others can understand your motivations without having to ask you. Regards So Why 08:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AMD 3800+

sources: Screenshot http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/122802/amd-athlon-64-x2-3800+.html#tab:info

p.s. I see I failed reading sorry it was listed..

(Basti640 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Basia Bulat profile picture

Hello. I just noticed you have reverted my edit of Basia Bulat's page citing "non-free file" as the reason. actually, the permission for the file I put is creative commons with attribution (as you can see it linked to and written under the "license" section here) therefore it is free to share and can be used on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate it if you paid more attention next time. thank you. Zeddian (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the chart of what we can use here. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah yeah, I got it. thanks. it's more complicated than I'd imagined. I also apologize to Denniss. I'm gonna try to sort out the right license and put it in the infobox though!! --Zeddian (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Message on my talk page

See here for the answer to your question. Doh5678 (Talk) 19:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Please stop this reverting and wait for a reply from OTRS. Let's talk about things, not just revert EVERYTHING without discussing first. Batavier2.0 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not force others to use you old, small, low quality and/or misplaced images. Several other users reverted your edits. You do not own these articles. If you further revert the misplaced image removals you'll be in trouble with Administrators (you even undid reverts made by Administrators calling them vandals). And do not outlog and continue this behaviour as an IP as you have already done. --Denniss (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some images were in place. You just remove them ALL. Without any discussion. Please wait what happens. If others find them misplaced, they will remove them. If not, then not. What we no do is engage in editwarring. Which isn't good. :) Batavier2.0 (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from an outside observer Denniss, you appear to be removing Batavier's images simply because you do not like them. How about opening a discussion to achieve consensus on the relevant talk pages before simply reverting. You both are dangerously close to receiving a WP:3RR block. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to prevent any of us from getting blocked. Why don't we just log out and leave things the way they are now? I seriously doubt I caused any harm whatsoever and it wasn't my intention to cause any harm or conflict. Batavier2.0 (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Batavier2.0: As has been pointed out on your talk page, adding images to article is really only useful if the images actually enhance a reader's understanding of the concept. Adding a bunch of 90 year old images to article that they only marginally relate to doesn't help. However, since you added the images in a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, Denniss should have engaged in a discussion before reverting the edits rather than engaging in an edit war. I think your idea to take a cooling off period is an excellent one. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you like my idea. ;) I'd gladly take your advice in this case, of course I would. It's just that I loved seeing this images on those pages and I really like the results. I believe most of these images were indeed related to the articles. What is wrong with including a picture of a man smoking a cigarette to a page on smoking, or an image of an engaged couple to a page on engagement? Also, in silent film, I added the picture of the most famous living actor from the era. I see no problem with that at all. I can also provide sources if needed. Batavier2.0 (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have started a WP:SPI here regarding this issue [1] What we have is three user accounts that have made few / no other edits other than to add images of this person to dozens of pages across Wikipedia. These edits have been reverted by many long time user. Per WP:BOLD you add the image. Someone reverts it. Than the person who wishes to add it is supposed to discuss before re adding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

Hi there. This change was not vandalism because it actually has talk page consensus. The edit by Woodstone was against the talk page consensus. I have already reverted the change. Fnag aton 11:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Air France Flight 7 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Air France Flight 7 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air France Flight 7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

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 template from the top of the article. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uriel227 at Dylan and Cole Sprouse

Uriel227 has been reported to WP:3RRN for breaching 3RR. The discussion is here. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might also like to check out the SPI case that I've just started. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kosare

I was going through various battle articles and saw the edit war with a continuisly blocked editor that you are having at the article Battle of Kosare. I also read the articles discussion page and saw that in previous years heated debates developed over the result of the battle. As it stands, we couldn't just leave the article without a result. But a neutral result should also be found that could satisfy both sides. So I took the liberty and put that both sides are claiming victory. With Yugoslavia on the basis that they repelled almost every KLA attack wave and retainded control of Kosare up until the end of the war, leaving the KLA without fullfilment of their strategic objective. And the KLA on the basis that the Yugoslavs withdrew after the Kumanovo treaty at the end of the war, after which KFOR took control of the border. I did this in an attempt so future edit wars over the article could be avoided since this seems as a good attempt at a neutral stand point and compromise. Hope it helps, cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sturmtiger

Hi Denniss.
Please visit the Sturmtiger talk page, and give a reasonable explanation for your revert. Megaidler (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude...

...have you even read the source? Like, before you assumed right away this was a vandalist action and reverted it? Because that's where the source is about: Stalin's link to Przewalsky. 84.87.138.125 (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Types Of Guns

Hi Denniss.
Please visit Talk:List_of_artillery_by_type and write on this talk page what you think. Megaidler (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of link (to Operation Sea Lion wargame result).

Could you explain (via Adolph Galland Talk page) why you deleted what I would consider, not just a good link, but a perfect one. I intend to replace it unless you can come up with a reasonable argument. --JustinSmith (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

theaviationindex.com

Please see discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Bismarck sources

Hello Denniss, I got my source about bismark displacement from this page: http://www.kbismarck.com/bsweights.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armada09 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tagging

Why did you tag this for deletion? The uploader is claiming it as there own work, and I see no reason to doubt that based on image quality and the presence of metadata. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the logs of this user, all of his images with own work claim were deleted as copyvio (except this one). --Denniss (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decent reasoning, although I would suggest noting why you tagged it in unclear cases like this (or taking it to FFD/PUF instead of DIing it). However, I'm still unsure as to whether or not this particular image is a copyvio; TinEye comes up with some results, but this is twice the resolution of the others so they other images may have been copied from us. If you still want to argue for deletion, I'd recommend taking it to FFD because this doesn't look to me like a completely clear-cut case. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was bist Du der Deutsche Stellvertreter Gottes (Administratoren)?

Die Wikipedia, die Deutsche Wikipedia ist in erster Linie eine wissenschaftliche Kommunikationsplattform. Wie Deinem Bearbeitungsverlauf deutsch [2] zu entnehmen ist, bist Du ein Militaernarr oder ein Adolf Hitler Wehrmacht Narr. Von Computertechnik hast Du keine Ahnung. Hier ist nicht eine Deutsche Universitaet, wo selbst schlechteste Professorleistungen als Massstab der Deutschen Unversitaetsschule gilt. Wer hat Dir das Recht gegeben (Eigenmacht) Dir nicht passende Diskussionsbeitraege und Artikelveraenderungen rueckgaengig zu machen? Die Deutschen und Englischen Administratoren sollten Dir mal eine 1-Jaehrige-Zwangspause erteilen. 62.200.86.169 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]