User talk:Djr xi/Archive 3

Archives
for DJR's talk page

• Archive 1 - August 2005 – February 2006
• Archive for RfA
• Archive 2 - February 2006 – March 2006
• Archive 3 - March 2006 – January 2007
• Archive 4 - January 2007 – January 2009

---

• My CD Collection
• Edit this box

Re: FIFA World Cup 2006

The ad was created and does exist. The website which used to have the ad on it has since evaporated (http://www.worldfootballnetwork.co.uk/), and many Google hits (seen here) prove its existence. Any questions, seek out my talk page. I have chosen not to revert your changes until you respond. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 06:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save the Game!

Help us track down verifiable sources to bring The Game back! Go to SaveTheGame.org! Bkkbrad 19:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Easy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Easy.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London..................I Feel bad

I'm sorry i must have missed the London Portal images when looking through the article. Oh well. Sorry. And yes it is more clear on the Portal london page. Should i get rid of my comments on the London talk page and WikiProject London talk page? Simply south 10:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top cities

I am erring on taking Top cities straight to AfD as I really can't see what can be salvaged from it - for a start, even the title would have to be changed! However, as you have requested a clean up I wanted to get your opinion first. Many thanks, Aquilina 14:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do i delete a page?

How do i delte a page i have mad such as Top Cities, maybe you could delete , it is to much hassle to do it all over again,

thanks

Fuse101

Politics Portal

Hi thanks for you comments. I should point out that I've done nothing with regards to editing the portal (apart from editing the introduction today). I was merely browsing, came across this portal, and thought it ought to be featured. I take your points, and I shall remove the external links tomorrow, and change the Wikiproject thing as well. With regard to how up-to-date it is, it looks as though it is being kept reasonably up to date, but I'm going to start up-dating it in the future. --Wisden17 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite Songs

My survey has changed. I am now continuing my mission for the best songs, but now I am accepting all genres. I'm giving you a chance to revote for your top ten favorite songs of any genres (not just classic rock which is still the best). I've made a executive decision to keep the existing survey results and just add on to that with the new entries. My feeling for doing this is because classic rock is the most influential genre in music currently so it should be expressed more in the survey. Thank you for contributing in the past, and hopefully in the future. ROCK ON. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^FOR LET? röck 03:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Great to hear from you..anyway great job with the Arctic Monkeys article. The changes you made proved to be very useful.Victoria Eleanor 11:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:SIG

It doesn't alter the fact that all of the complaints the guideline makes about imaegs in signatures hold true, regardless of what sporting event is on now. (And if you'd glanced at my userpage for a moment, you'd realise that I'm from Malaysia, where our football team sucks so much that most of us would rather support England or Manchester United instead of the national team.) The presence of a once-in-four-years event has nothing to do with the applicability of a guideline related to signatures. Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that the first time. Doesn't matter. The reasoning of the guideline is impeccable, and honestly, if your only reasons for not following it are: 1. It's a guideline; 2. It's the World Cup; then I don't see why we even bother with guidelines in the first place. We might as well make anything either policy or non-policy. (The reason we don't is because for a long time we've assumed people will be smart enough to know when to apply a guideline and when not to...) Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop abusing Wikipedia to promote your football team. --Tony Sidaway 12:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to get this right so that I don't come off as unduly harsh. Firstly, I think it's arguably okay to have your support of the England football team on your user page. The tone of the support is probably a little over-the-top and I'd appreciate it if you could tone it down in recognition of the status of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia project, not a web forum like Myspace.

Secondly the signature guideline was recently changed to say that images shouldn't be used in signatures. But more important that that, I think, is the fact that you're now using your signature to spam statements of support for the England football team on all talk pages. That kind of use of Wikipedia isn't really allowed. You wouldn't be allowed to do it in comments (you'd probably be blocked as a vandal) and you aren't allowed to do it in signatures. But you're a good editor and obviously not intentionally defacing Wikipedia. I must ask you, however, and I hope my tone here comes across as polite but above all firm, to remove all references to the England football team, in images and captions and other text, from your signature, which currently reads as follows:

[[Image:Armsofengland.png|20px|FOOTBALL'S COMING HOME]] [[User:Djr xi|'''DJR''']] [[Image:Flag of England.svg|20px|COME ON ENGLAND!]] <small>([[User talk:Djr_xi|Talk]])</small>

Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

point taken. DJR (Talk) 13:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks fo your prompt and positive response. --Tony Sidaway 13:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coca Cola's Minions

Dear DJR, please note that I have responded to your comments in the Coca Cola talk page. I have been educated in the Brittish system and we both know how lying is considered a serious offense. Once Coca Cola is tainted by such an offense we must seriously question their behaviour. Regards Carlos Cgonzalezdelhoyo 22:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Monkeys

Hello. While I strongly disagree with the usage of that fair-use image — because there are no particularly stylistic designs (AC/DC/ABBA sort of thing) and because the logo appears on their debut album cover which is included twice in the article — I will not pursue this issue because I have no interest in that band nor their article. I should be studying too! Happy editing! -- getcrunkjuice 02:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the barnstar

You deserved it. Now maybe you can retire the sad donkey to greener pastures... :) Brisvegas 10:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I think I may be able to let him run free into the wilderness...! DJR (Talk) 10:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"irrevertable changes"

Perhaps you should follow your own advice. Although it is unclear to me what exactly on Wikipedia is irrevertable. I am saddened by your behaviour today and think you should take some time out to consider your approach. Mrsteviec 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map or no map

Yes. I agree it should be rolled out for all UK place templates. Mrsteviec 14:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would do Scotland and Wales first. I want to try and create an infobox for all other England places regardless of if they are parished, in unitary districts, metropolitan counties etc. If we work together we could create such a template. Mrsteviec 14:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. When I get some time I will spec-out how the infobox needs to function. Mrsteviec 15:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Project

Hi there, thanks for your message, at the moment I'm just beginning to find my feet on WikiPedia and I'm gradually adding and editing a few of the london articles (notting hill tube/notting hill gate) where I've felt that I've something to add: I'm reading up on what you've already done and I'm seeing where I could perhaps add stuff.

It's all rather exciting!

Best, N.

WP:Lon

Cheers for your message, I've signed up like you suggested. I'll try to do as much as I can for those main tasks, also planning a day or two out with my camera around London SW to start populating the articles with pictures where needed. Cheers again, best wishes. Driller thriller 23:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London sub-article templates

Hey DJR, Thanks for inviting my comments on these. I've made a full reply on the Template's talk page. --Dave A 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Most referenced articles

Regretably, I will not be able to update this page. Please see meta:Toolserver/Reports. -- Beland 00:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxonion userbox

See my proposal here. What do you think? --Danrees 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there...

Sorry haven't been touch for long...anyway I have a problem with my talk. It seems that it's long than needed and I was wondering whether you could help me in this, like get an Archive like you have. Victoria Eleanor 14:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the archive and for the explanation! Victoria Eleanor 14:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP:Under

Hi! Thank you for joining WikiProject Underground. We hop you enjoy your time as a member, helping improve London's Metro articles. Lenny 13:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry portal

Hi there. I posted a response to your comment about the Poetry portal. I really want to see it pass, so I'm willing to make any adjustments you feel are necessary. But, at this point, I don't feel there are any flaws serious enough for objection. Let me know what you think here. Thanks, AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned WP:LUL

There hasn't been much activity going on in WikiProject Underground, please add ACT next to your name in the list if you are still active in the project. Lenny 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LONDON Qs

Did i quit rather prematurely? In what ways could i improve? Could you mark me as inactive? If i am part of WP:Under, does that make me contributing? Am i asking too many Qs? Am i obsessing? Simply south 17:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revert to United Kingdom

No worries, it happens sometimes :) Regards, Mr Stephen 23:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer user page

DJR you seem to have overhauled your user page after I last saw it several months ago. It has a deadly look now:-)--PremKudva^Talk 06:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lovejoy

I've reprotected the Talk:Tim Lovejoy page and indefinitely banned the latest account. They almost certainly are the same IP, but unfortunately there's no way to know what that IP is, so I can't stop it. However I can keep the article protected for a while, which in effect stops them. Gwernol 14:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lovejoy article

The semi-protection blocks IP users and new users. The criteria for determining when a user account is no longer "new" is based on time since registration, not number of edits - otherwise it would be easy for vandals to quickly make a series of null edits to overcome the barrier. Unfortunately this means vandals like Jasonmcrae] can wait for a while then start using their accounts to vandalize.

I agree that the vandalism to Tim Lovejoy has become a real problem. I don't want to fully protect the article unless I really have to, so the best that can be done it to keep an eye on it and revert and block where possible. Best, Gwernol 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London history

Hi, Djr xi, it looks (to my untutored eye) as if you created this template. It would be great if you could look in at Template talk:London history where some concerns have been voiced--basically, that, for some pages, the template is too big, or too tall, and that there's a need for a smaller alternative as well. Or would it be possible to have one that goes sideways (for insertion at the bottom of article pages)? I guess none of the people on the talkpage has the skill to be bold and create something like that themselves but you clearly do (hint, hint). Bishonen | talk 10:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Infobox musical artist

Please discuss any changes such as the removal of the color system on the talk page of the template before doing it. Thank you. – Heaven's Wrath  ^Talk 18:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it may be possible that we can do something to address your concern, but changing thousands of articles which don't use a logo is not the right way to go about it! I've actually been considering ways that your desired feature could be implemented without breaking things. But it's necessarily going to be a fairly low priority. It's an extremely uncommon and non-standard thing to do. I think I've only seen one other article using a logo in the infobox, and I've looked at hundreds of musicians' articles in the last month alone. Also many people feel that fair-use images (like logos) are overused on Wikipedia, so there may be some opposition to the idea of making changes purely to accomodate them. The best suggestion I can make in the meantime is to move the logo outside (above) the infobox, and resize it to be the same width. I've seen at least one article doing that, and it looked pretty good to me. cheers Xtifr _tälk 07:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Leave Before the Lights Come On

No, I cannot provide a citation because it came directly from a newspaper article that I read. Since the Toronto Sun does not archive their material (or at least to my knowledge they don't), it's entirely a print-based reference. For the Canadian Singles Chart, see here. Thanks! Velten 01:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM

Please relist your Farringdon disambiguating move at WP:RM following all instructions including creating a place for discussion on the talk page. —Mets501 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I was actually referring to was the lack of a place for discussion. There was no place to discuss the move on the talk page of the first page to be moved. —Mets501 (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I missed that section! My apologies! —Mets501 (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global city

Hi. Arthur is not even imagine to stop with Global city article. Please help me to watch out over it. Elk Salmon 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I am rather upset about the fact that Elk Salmon seems to own that page. No criticism can be discussed on the talk page, it is just pushed aside as irrelevant and 'my opinion', any remark that people object gets removed and if I try to put anything in that is critical about the Loughborough approach, it gets removed too. This is pretty disgusting Jcwf 22:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a professional researcher to say what is correct and what is not. You basing on the own feeling. This term is not about average incomes or level of life. It is much more deeper. I repeat what was said already by several other wikipedians. You are absolutely free to add another ranks and cocepts, if you have any trustable source to another professional research. Therefore is nothing to dispute. Elk Salmon 07:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

("Right of reply", if I could figure out what Elk was saying.) I concur with User:Jcwf to some extent, although his addition to the article was not adequately sourced. (As for User:Djr xi's complaint about 3rd party discussions on this (his) talk page, I thought it was generally acceptable for discussions to be kept together, even if on a 3rd party's page. You can remove or archive this section as you will, though.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Done, I do enjoy these little games of whack-a-fool, they're quite refreshing :-) Gwernol 02:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British English (Football Clubs are, but a Football Club is)

Hi, I noticed that you changed the Torquay United article from 'Club is' to 'Club are'. As a football club is a singular entity, I'm assuming that the article was correct as it stood. However, I've now noticed that most other articles have it your way. I thought I might bring this up on the football project page, but out of courtesy thought I'd seek your thoughts first. WikiGull 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to UK stations infobox

See Template talk:Infobox UK station#Bilngual station names for my proposed way to standardise the formatting of stations that have names in more than one language (e.g. English and Welsh names). Thryduulf 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied your archive box:-)

Hi DJR, just copied your archive box, very neat I should say. Meanwhile while correcting the Mangalore template to read as Manglorean (Which sounds better, instead of the "this user is a" that I had copied from other templates) Now my question is to you is, what did you mean by "substitute userbox per WP:AMT"^* What is WP:AMT? I mean you could have edited it anyhow! Couldn't you? I did check the WP:AMT page, all it does is warn you about the dangers that templates can cause?!--PremKudva^Talk 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ^* In your edit comment ie.[reply]

What's up with the image widths?

DJR can you check Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy for me. It has two images of the aircraft on the right. If you check the code both are thumbs set at 280px, yet the image on the top is less wider than the one below it. I want both to be of the same width.--PremKudva^Talk 06:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply the other day. I went and checked the page once again and tried various combinations. Until I checked on the source image. That's when I found it, the image on top has a size of 275px uploaded only, hence was showing less wider than the one below. I would have thought that a 280px command would make a smaller image bigger.--PremKudva^Talk 05:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science portal

Okay, here's a big one! Please offer any feedback you have at its talk page on how to improve this portal to featured status. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 15:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LONDON talk

Just a note. Isn't it about time you archived the talk page for the wikiproject? Simply south 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Chemistry

WikiProject Chemistry would like to see this portal attain featured status. If you have any tips, tricks or suggestions, please feel free to add them here! Thanks, riana_dzasta 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mint polo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mint polo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tim lovejoy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tim lovejoy.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Quentin X 11:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helen chamberlain.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Helen chamberlain.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Quentin X 11:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovejoy/Chamberlain

Whether or not people are rude enough to or not is not the point here. The fact is that these are people who are in the public eye and as such it is simple enough to take a photograph of them. Whether or not somebody would want to put it on Wikipedia is a moot point, it is the fact that they can that is crucial here. There are plenty of photos knocking around this website of people more famous than Tim and Helen (Brad Pitt for instance) that are examples of photos that can be used. (Quentin X 13:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The Fish Portal

Hi, User:Melanochromis has done a great job getting the Fish Portal up an running. At this point, more sets of eyes can help make it even better. If you can offer some tips on the portal talk page about how to improve Fish up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 13:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal review volunteers

Hi, based on your previous good deeds, please consider becoming one of the portal review volunteers and adding your name to the list. :-) Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 18:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Exeter crest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Exeter crest.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 18:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Keble.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Keble.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 15:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Hello there...saw your CD collection. Man you've got some collection! I envy you so badly!! Anyway HAPPY NEW YEAR 2007 to you and have a great time.Victoria Eleanor 13:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S-Love that message about pay for your music. That's really cool!

WP:LONDON

Just to say i'm stupid and i've rejoined. What have i missed? Simply south 17:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]