User talk:The Tom/Archive 8

Image copyright problem with Image:Kosovo relations.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Kosovo relations.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

Check User_talk:Heracletus and User_talk:Getoar and our edits on Kosovo... Don't remove

on Kosovo... Heracletus (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again

Um. "Region" is OK, but the rest of that section which you restored refers to "the remainder of Serbia..." etc. which is POV and contradictory. Black Kite 01:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. I read it as indicating that Kosovo was unilaterally still part of Serbia (though the fact the pro-Serbian editors are reverting to that wording does suggest that is how it reads). I have reverted myself, anyway. Black Kite 01:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As regards the disputed tag, I'd agree except that the lead paragraph is disputed too, which leaves an obvious problem about where to put it except at the top. To be honest I'd leave it out of the lead for the time being though. Black Kite 01:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parties in the European Council

When we next update this -- on 29 February 2008, when Christofias takes office in Cyprus -- we'll need a new colour for the Communists... Will you be doing that? —Nightstallion 10:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then we might also want to mention that Yves Leterme is to take office in Belgium on 20 March if everything goes as planned. ;) —Nightstallion 07:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Eurodems.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Eurodems.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr ^If you've written a quality article... 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Eurodems.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eurodems.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. —Angr ^If you've written a quality article... 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Feedback on wikimetro.org

Tom-- can you give feedback on our local wiki? We spent 2007/8 creating a wikipedia type site to cover local info, but would really appreciate some feedback from a wikipedia Bureaucrat. Thanks! -- www.wikimetro.org Jeff Brauer, jjb9e 29 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Help

Could you please contribute your skills at Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence? Some to most content is questionable as editors have been abusing their powers to present a more POV. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cats re Boundary]]/Kootenay Countries

...and Shuswap and Thompson and Kamloops and....I saw your addition of the Kootenay cat to Category:Boundary Country and I know you hear it often that the Boundary Country is part of the West Kootenay (nb the cat refinement for Category:West Kootenay now exists) and I gave that some thought when I set up this category hierarchy and didn't want to go there. Because in other relationships and perceptions it's seen as part of the Okanagan; I guess in the way the Columbia Country is seen as part of "the Kootenays" when in so many terms it's not, and wasn't even when the Big Bend Highway (well, it was pretty much a rutted dirt road...) saw some population and presence around the northward arc of the Columbia; never was a big population, but like the Columbia Valley it was its own place; no longer there, or a shadow of itself anyway. Ditto with the Arrow Lakes, which in the general perception are part of the Kootenay cultural/social area but are really their own region (hence Category:Arrow Lakes); it's all so fuzzy, huh? But the mitigating factor with the Boundary Country situation, other than the Okanagan association - and Okanagan media and Lower Mainland do refer to the Boundary as part of the Okanagan, alternately with being part of the Kootenay - is that it's not part of the Kootenay Land District nor linked to the Kootenay basin, which is the core meaning of the term "the Kootenays" - the network of valleys surrounding the Kootenay River; it's the Kettle River basin and also was in its time more economically powerful and populous than the Okanagan, and was parallel to the heyday of the Slocan and West Kootenay mining towns; it's relatively empty now, whole cities have vanished; but it was a place of its own. Thing is, if you include it in the Kootenay category, there's grounds to include it in the Okanagan category; its northward counterpart the Monashee Country I haven't written yet, but it's definitely not part of the Kootenays (although culturally similar, between both Doukhobours and hippies/draft-dodgers/environmental-back-to-the-landers) and usually assigned to the Okanagan (e.g. Cherryville and the Shuswap River towns, which are on the Okanagan templates somewhere). BTW I chose Okanagan Country despite its awkwardness/archaic flavour despite the normal plain-jane "Okanagan" because of possible confusions stateside; maybe that wasn't necessary given Category:Arrow Lakes but too late now; people from BC know Okanagan's a region, and the Kootenays are a region; "Kootenay Country" seemed to be able to take in the Arrow Lakes and swuch more comfortably; but yeah it's a judgement call, ain't it? Fair's fair, it should have Category:Okanagan Country, too...but then so should, according to perceptional if not historical paradigms, the Similkameen Country; and the Thompson-Okanagan, Shuswap-Okanagan, Kamloops-Okanagan, Nicola-Similkameen dualities all rear their heads; I had to draw the line somewhere. Give it some thought, where do we stop overlapping them? Oh, and plain cat names like Okanagan and Similkameen could be confused for First Nations categories, that was the other reason. BTW in BC's history both the Similkameen and Boundary Country were gold rushed and otherwise exploited and settled much earlier than the Okanagan, and/or the Kootenay, that's the other reason they're distinct - they're older, and as it happens also linked to each other; Shuswap's a bit different, it's always been parallel, if separate from, the Okanagan and the "Kamloops Country" as the media call it; up to Barriere and out to Chase and over to Savona I guess, the cat is just "Greater Kamloops" or something I think. Sorry for the long post, it's typical for me, it's just there's lots of reasons....another is that the Boundary is part of the Yale Land District, as well as in a distinct basin; Christina Lake and either Eholt Pass or Blueberry Pass, that's where the Kootenay starts, for me anyway but I'm not from around there; I suppose how Grand Forks and Greenwood and Rock Creek refer to themselves would be the way to go....Skookum1 (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for straightening out the East/West Kootenay electoral items and the West/East Kootenay redirects; Kootenays may eventually break down into East/West Kootenay subarticles (and associateds, like Columbia Country/Columbia Valley etc.). Also a heads-up that when I created the CAtegory:Kootenay Country and similar (e.g. Category:Okanagan Country I chose those names for some "symmetry" in the region-names - they are ways those regions are referred to, although a bit more archaic and, if in use today, very casual, as in the way a weather forecaster uses it - "up in the Kootenay Country" etc. It's just lately in the course of adding the Kootenay cat I find myself typing Category:Kootenays, which is the more natural and also more widespread usage; do you think Category:Kootenays and maybe Category:Okanagan are worthwhile changes; Category:Cariboo also I suppose although most of the rest require "Valley" or "District" or "Country" in them to avoid confusions (as with Category:Chilcotin, although Category:Tsilhqot'in is a subcat of Category:Chilcotin Country anyway. These are of course mostly Interior designations in nature, coastal regions have a different sort of name (Lower Mainland, Central Coast, Sunshine Coast etc.)Skookum1 (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re regions of BC - I'm drafting a "Regionalization systems of British Columbia" or "Regions of British Columbia" which would encmopass all types of regions (and respective cats) - MoE and MoF and other ministry regions, landform/physiographic regions, geologic regions, climatic/biogeoclimatic zones/regions, volcanic provinces etc etc etc - reason being is there's various articles out there like Fraser Plateau and Basin complex which are WWF/Nat'l Geophysical Survey (?) derived, vs Fraser Plateau which is about hte landform and would be in the landform hierarchy, as opposed to the ecological context of the WWF-related article. Part of this has to do with my reservations about the use of Regional District categories on things that don't have to do with the jurisdiction of the Regional District (everything from IRs to fed/prov parks and Timber Supply Areas); this would get especially unwarranted if mountains were put in a subcat, if created, such as Category:Mountains of the Cariboo Regional District, British Columbia as there are already mountain/range-regionalization hierarchies at work (though no Category:Mountains of the Cariboo and not even Category:Cariboo Mountains - NB the CRD includes also the Chlcotin and other areas outside the traditional Cariboo; as do the Cariboo Mountains. Anyway, Category talk:Regional Districts of British Columbia has a discussion, which I've got to reply to later today at some point, about my reservations on all this and I think I also posted on the WikiProject British Columbia Discussion page on issues connected with it, including links to the respective MoE, MoF, and Tourism regions; I just found another map of Land Office districts/regions (not the same as Land Districts, oddly enough). BC has a multi-layered system of governance that belies anythying like the choesion of a county system; which is why Ithink the traditinoal-region cats are important. Especially on the "people from" cats where I think "people from Kitimat-Stikine" is not anywhere near as relevant as "People from the Nass Country" or "People from the Skeena Country" or "People from the Stikine Country" (all regions within that RD); applying RD divisions to things/concepts that RDs do ont themselves classify as, or that no one else has done the same for, is a kind of original research as it creates new paradigms, rather than reflecting them....

{{Canadian electoral district}}

The template was causing Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam and West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country to extend into the candidate columns instead of text wrapping. We need to figure out a way to textbreak riding names that are longer than the set column width on an election results template. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Canadian Forces ships

Category:Canadian Forces ships, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CA-NDP-2004-Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:CA-NDP-2004-Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for consensus

A question has arisen concerning classification of groups in the European Parliament. A discussion has opened up in Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament. Your input is requested there. This is a neutrally worded notification sent to a small number of informed, but uninvolved, editors and is intended to improve rather than to influence the discussion. This notification falls under the "friendly notice" clause of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bon nochi

I've noticed your recent interest in the Netherlands Antilles. So far as I know, I'm the only active Antillean editor. If you need any help with anything, give me a shout. Kww (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Ausdem newlogo.JPG

A tag has been placed on Image:Ausdem newlogo.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Ausdem newlogo.JPG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitikmeot Region, Nunavut

When you moved the page over you forgot to restore the deleted edits and merge in the material, here. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I just thought to look at this. Could you please go through that and fix it so they point to the correct article, either the NU or NWT one. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks as if everthing is there except for the fact that it's also the census division but it seems that it was never mentioned at all. The other two, Kivalliq Region and Qikiqtaaluk Region, note that they are census divisions under different names. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Adielogo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Adielogo.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

monarchy map outdated

your monarchy map needs some rework.nepal is no longer a monarchy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.8.57 (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair enough you want to undo the merge on Planet X

(though I can't think why) but why delete sourced, well written information from the Planet X article? The other article's equivalent is unsourced and badly written. Plus, how can an article be called "hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets" when most of the planets described in it are not hypothetical? Serendi^podous 17:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the information is there, and the citations are there, I don't really care where it is. My main problem with the article is that it isn't very clear on what it's trying to say. Serendi^podous 18:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, I do feel that, since Patryk Lakawka refers to his hypothetical planet as "Planet X" and nearly every article on the topic has described it as the new Planet X, it seems rather odd to keep his object out of the Planet X article. Serendi^podous 11:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not working. Already people are adding references to Lakwaka's work to Planet X. And they will continue to do so no matter how much we try to block it, because Lakawka calls his world Planet X, and there really is no way to break the connection. I'm going back to the original idea. The fact is that using the term "Planet X" to describe a gravitationally affective unseen planet, whether Lowell's or not, is standard practice, and it can't really be constrained to Lowell alone.Serendi^podous 13:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this to escalate into an edit war, so I've asked someone to come in and judge the situation. Here's what I wrote. I've sent it to a lot of people, including CKatz, who worked on the "Trans-Neptunian planets" article, so hopefully we'll get unbiased comment.Serendi^podous 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the Planet X article Planets beyond Neptune, and tried to preserve as much information from that article as I could. Serendi^podous 09:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Dominionism

Template:Dominionism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makemake IS recognized as a dwarf planet

Enjoy! Nergaal (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link.... it has prompted some head-slapping, but I would suggest that the USGS has made an error as Makemake quite simply does not meet the definition. 23:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/HotTopics/index.php?/archives/337-136472-2005-FY9-Named-Makemake.html Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makemake pronunciation

Since the dwarf planet has been named for a deity, it can safely be assumed that the pronunciation of the two is the same. The Rapa Nui deity had had a name for more than a few days. The citation for the pronunciation (which I did not add) gives an approximate rendering and describes the pronunciation as matching that of Hawaiian, which is another Polynesian language. Please check the sources before doubting them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry, as I seem to have posted to the wrong person. Apologies for confusing you, --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That would make sense, but being unfamiliar with Rapa Nui orthography, I went with the current citation. I'll make the correction to the IPA and my audio file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System

I noticed your edit, and would like your contribution to the talk page on Talk:Solar_System#New_List. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Labourpartyireland.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Labourpartyireland.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Efa_logo.png

I have tagged Image:Efa_logo.png as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Lokal_Profil 18:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RD cats/usage

Just noting your changeback of the attempted harmonization of RD names; the idea was really to harmonize teh category names, for ease-of-use, and also in the case of the cats to get rid of comma-province (which seems to have also been done at the saem time). Granted, if that's the way the RDs style themselves it's certainly appropriate to the article titles; not so certain about the cats (otherwise Category:British Columbia MLAs would be Category:Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, for example). In any case, if we're to stick hard and fast to usage, then Category:People from Cariboo Regional District and Category:Communities in Cariboo Regional District are incorrect (as well as odd-sounding) and should be Category:People from the Cariboo Regional District and Category:Communities in the Cariboo Regional District (of many potential examples). We don't speak of RDs as if they were stand-alone proper names; the usage is always with "the" (as you'll find on the RD's own sites). I'm not clear if you're an administrator, or who in WPCan is, but this is a change across the board for regional district subcats that's been needed for a while now; I just never got around to raising the issue (as other issues about the use of RD cats I've been more concerned with...note the creation of Category:Cariboo people and there will be Category:People from the Similkameen and the like, as subcats of the RD people-cats)Skookum1 (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a bit late

but I wanted to apologise for blowing up over the whole Planet X thing. I've recently completed the Planets beyond Neptune article and I wanted to know if you still had any issues with it. Thanks. Serendi^podous 11:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/0

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/0 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/13

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/13 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AA EVX logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:AA EVX logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]