User talk:SGBailey/2009

SGBailey: User, Talk, Talk archives: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011.

new WP:RDREG userbox

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaming lawye r^c 23:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bizz buzz

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bizz buzz, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bizz buzz. Thank you. Schuym1 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carcassonne references

Sure, happy to explain. Wikipedia has clear policies about what does and doesn't count as a reliable source; you can read them at WP:RS. In essence, we need a quote from a newspaper, magazine, academic paper, or a respected authority in the field. Sites with open editing policies (like BGG and Urban Dictionary) aren't any good as sources, because anyone can add material there with zero editorial oversight (I could, in a couple of minutes, create BGG and UD sources that confirm the wooden pieces in Carcassonne are actually called "McGeddons").

meeplepeople.com and meepleschoice.org aren't great sources either, because they have no particular authority, beyond naming their business after the word; they'd naturally have a vested interest in claiming that "meeple" is the only common colloquialism for Carcassonne pawns.

It shouldn't be too hard to find a better source for this, though; presumably there's an interview with Klaus-Jürgen Wrede where he mentions it, or at least a review in a respected games magazine that specifically mentions how "meeple" is a common term among gamers. --McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a reference on Rio Grande games? http://www.riograndegames.com/games.html?id=244 (If the review shows hidden, unhide it!). -- SGBailey (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, although that review implies that they're officially called "meeples" by the game rules, which (the last time I checked) they aren't. It'd be good to get a source that mentions how the term originated and spread among players. --McGeddon (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Reg. Col. B

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Reg. Col. B, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Dicdef; thould be transwiki'd to Wiktionary.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Firestorm ^Talk 04:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SGBailey. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dalejenkins sig

I took it to AN/I: WP:ANI#External links in signature. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Word_carcassonne.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Word_carcassonne.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz ^{[[User talk:MBisanz|talk<}

Thanks for letting me know. I never like to delete anyone's work, even if there is a note, unless they say it is ok. Happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 11:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Text February 2009 tornado outbreak

Please can you do all alt text images for me? Showtime2009 (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, but a user says there is issue with two of them. Here is his comments: Showtime2009 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to review this article's alt text. It looks pretty good; I particularly liked the description of the tornado. However, the last two maps need work. Alt text for a map should convey the gist of the useful information conveyed by the map, rather than focus on unimportant details such as the false colors used (please see WP:ALT#Maps). So, the alt text for File:Tornado Watch 10 2009.gif should focus on that strikingly intense straight line of thunderstorms running north-northeast from San Antonio to southwest Missouri, and the alt text for File:02102009 1.radarloop Mineola tornado.gif should cover the striking pattern of an amorphous region moving west and a bit north through the map. Since neither map has a legend that says "thunderstorm" the alt text should not say "thunderstorm"; instead, that sort of interpretation should be in the caption (please see WP:ALT#Verifiability).

		The Original Barnstar
		For you work with alt text on February 2009 tornado outbreak. Showtime2009 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]