User talk:Supercoop/Discussion2006

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting --~~~~ at the end.
If I placed a comment on your talk page, go there and reply; I have it on my watch list.
If you place a comment on my talk page, expect me to reply on my talk page.
Start a new talk topic.

Hello Supercoop/Discussion2006 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Your copyright question

Hi. Regarding your question, the GFDL does not mean "no copyright". In fact, quite the opposite. When you license something throught the GFDL you retain your ownership and copyright, but you license the use of it under certain circumstances. -- Decumanus 02:57, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Periods

Hello Supercoop. I have been taking part in the Wikipedia Punctuation project. I put my name down against a batch of missing-end-of-paragraph punctuation. I've been going through them and notice that very often you've already fixed these. Is this just a coincidence? My point is that if you are involved silently then I will have to keep going to pages you've already fixed. Brequinda 29 June 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Brequinda - hopefully you'll read this on my discussion page? Yes I was fixing the periods, which I thought was going to be easy. I went through about 5 of them and it started becoming quite complicated and I didn't have the time to avaliable to continue so I had to stop. So go ahead fixing the pages.

Aha. I see. OK. Yes, it can be quite tedious. Luckily I've got time on my hands today so I'm getting through a whole batch. Brequinda 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

ESB title

It is a widely known and common usage among people on the internet when referring to the movies. In the Star Trek article, they make note of this about their movies, and their article is was still featured. The Wookieepedian 13:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I reworded it so that it had a NPOV. Common would mean that everyone including grandma knew what ESB meant. I clarified that you may see ESB from fans on weblogs etc - fair enough for you?--Supercoop 13:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with you rewording the "ANH" abbreviation? It is very widely used on the internet, and is notable in an encyclopedia, especially an internet encyclopedia, so why do you insist on changing it? The Wookieepedian 17:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations should be used in a very limited fashion when delivering information, especially for someone new to the subject. It is cool to be in the clique and not be a noob to all the acronyms but what value is delivered to the end reader? If you noticed I backed way off when you replied that it was for web logs info and I though hmm maybe we can apply the proper English standard but that got reverted too. Ehh, don’t take it personal as I don't; I just feel that the information delivered with acronyms devalues the entire article, it further devalues to entire encyclopedia, and to an extent is devaluing the language - my motto for the day is speak like a man, don’t be bashful, and say what you mean with every word necessary. I will let the years of weathering see if the abbreviations stay. --Supercoop 17:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candian vs. Canadien

Sorry, supercoop, but I don't see where on the Canada article it uses either Canadiens or Canadians. The team name in English is Montreal Canadiens, not Montreal Canadians. Masterhatch 14:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I saw the Canadiens and thought the page was describing Canadians. I checked the Canada web page to see if how Canadian is spelled, maybe a Canadian called themselves Canadiens? Nope and the Canadian is Canadian. I then did a spell check to see if it was correct rather then a google search Montreal Canadiens. Confusion my part about the name of the sport team versus a resident of Canada.--Supercoop 15:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Location of stub and disambig templates

I just noticed that two of your recent edits were moving stub and disambig templates from the bottom of the article up to the top. Wikipedia convention for these types of templates is to put them at the bottom, see Wikipedia:Stub#Categorizing stubs and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The disambig notice. Not a big deal either way, but they'll eventually be put back at the bottom anyway so it just makes a little extra work. Bryan 01:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops I will adhere to that rule then. When I read the article, I thought that it was kind of thin, lacking in material and leaving me desiring more material. I then read the stub tag at the bottom and said oh if more people see the stub then it wont be anymore. The other was confusing as to being a stub and didn't have a good intro. Alas, I will move them back tommorow if they're not already done and thanks for giving me a the courtousey of heads up on the matter. --Supercoop 02:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, everyone discovers these arcane little customs sooner or later. :) Bryan 06:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Image Problems by Maulik2005

Lucy Maud Montgomery Article

I've added an image of Ms Montgomery on her article, and when I uploaded the image I've selected ' I don't know the licnensing status of this image' option. You put it up as a message to ask you to tag the image for me, so, please, can you? I got it from [1] . --Maulik2005 07:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the web page you listed sais this "A portrait of Lucy Maud Montgomery, 1903. Public domain". You can change the tag {{Don't know}} to {{pd}} [2] and list the refrence page. --Supercoop 15:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Zeta-Jones Article

I've added an image of Catherine onto her article, and -same as above-. Could you please tell me again what licence the image is? I got it from [3] .--Maulik2005 13:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This image appears to be a poster that falls under the fair use category of a movie posters [4] - {{Movieposter}} - for movie poster images of reduced quality. In good faith, I beleive that this would properly describe the status of Image:Z2 Poster I.jpg. --Supercoop 14:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Metro Article

I had added 2 images on to the page of Dubai Metro. Could you please tell me again what license they are? I got them from [ http://vgn.dm.gov.ae/DMEGOV/dm-metro-network] --213.42.2.22 13:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These images appear to come from the UAE government. I reviewed the current list of Public Domain by governments and this one isn't listed; therefore, will not be easy to answer this one. First I (or someone) will have to review the copyright law of government images for the country. If there are provisions to allow reproduction of these types of images then we'll have to create a template for this country (if no other PD type can be used). I will have to research this one or find someone to answer your questions. This will inevitably take a few days but I will try to find the answer. Stay tuned. --Supercoop 18:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this image for a long time; I think that this image might be tagged as {{Fairuseunsure}}. Most governments sometimes allow reproduction of their content with some stipulations. Until someone that is more familiar with UAE law and lets me know then I would use that tag. --Supercoop 15:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jhanak Shukla Article

I've created a new article of Jhanak Shukla , and I've added a photo of her onto it. Could you please tell me what license it is; I got it from [ http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030309/spectrum/tv.htm here] .--195.229.241.181 13:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this image would be tagged as {{tv-screenshot}}. For one thing, the image on the page is about a TV show and the url is tv.htm. --Supercoop 15:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Wiki

I'm going to try and start a heavy metal Wiki because the current "authority" on metal online, encyclopedia metallum is anything BUT authoritative... rather it is run by unprofessional yahoos who embody the "dumb metal head" stereotype. Anyway, I am recruiting wikipedians to help form a team to create the ultimate heavy metal wiki. Get back to me if you're interested. Metalgoodness

Image Tagging Image:ISS007-E-16538.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ISS007-E-16538.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 15:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an orphaned image - I recommend it be listed as an AFD. --Supercoop 19:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like message pop ups

Keep up the good work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.214.57.220 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks, but actually I hate the pop up method. I use a slightly different method using scripts. --Supercoop 13:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you so much for promptly reverting vandalism on my userpage. Bertilvidet 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was quite easy to trace the edits and revert them. I actually looked back at your page twice before reverting because I wanted to make really really sure when making changes to user pages. --Supercoop 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impressionism

On Impressionism, you missed a few vandalisms; I caught them by going back several versions. - CobaltBlueTony 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on it; In fact I was about to leave you a message also "I was foiled in my retribution of the vandals ;(" --Supercoop 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Supercoop/Discussion2006! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Eagle talk 01:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did User:Stollery remove me from the list with the lack luster comment of "undefined"? [[5]] I have spent several hours trying to login to the stupid tool and getting my monobook straigtened out and maybe this is my problem? If so that guy really (read that really twice) needs to leave comments when he does such things. --Supercoop 00:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof

I apologise for that I am not sure why that happened. Yes this page is self administered by the VP software so even if users tried to add their names to the list it would revert them; however you were added by a moderator so not sure why that happened. Regardless you're definitely on the list now! Thanks for your patience and apologies once again - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 14:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell, I was peeved at first but I am alright; everything is straightened out. --Supercoop 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B-1 Lancer

Please do not remove the cat Category:U.S. bomber aircraft 1980-1989 again, you should actuially read/verify what you are deleting! --Denniss 00:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yip my mistake - after reading it , that is the first flight category. I fixed the other link too which covers the b1-a. --Supercoop 12:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Galactica (Re-imagining)

I agree we should re-name that article re-imagining now. See my longer comment on the talk page: Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2003)#Title Rename

--ToastyKen 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Just so you know, I encourage people to update the vandal count when reverting vandalism. Royboy crashfan 19:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - it just seems a tinny bit odd to update other poeples pages. However, it was odd when I was reading your Texas category markup and read the vandalism and I just couldn't let it stay. Anyway I will keep an eye on it for a few days. --Supercoop 14:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica

Sorry for apparently rudely reverting your edit to mountain - I thought my previous one hadn't saved, and didn't look at the history properly, so didn't realise that you'd edited after me. Does the link you cited actually mention the magic 2000 ft figure? I can't see the whole thing as I'm not subscribed, and the opening paragraph certainly doesn't mention it. --Blisco 21:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I guess not. However, the only free version of the britanica is the cached student version --Supercoop 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]