User talk:SVTCobra/Archive 1

Robie House

I am a volunteer at the Frank Lloyd Wright Preservation Trust and give tours of the Robie House. I intend to provide additional citations to sources of authority on that page but wanted to correct some of the descriptive material on the page that was inaccurate.

165.124.76.192 (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that disclosure. However, you are not the only one that has added and changed information to Robie House. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should ask TakeThisName why s/he continues to remove the portion of the Robie House article entitled "Current Controversy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.76.192 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have a point. All this talk however ought to take place at Talk:Robie House so that other interested editors can follow along. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'm glad to see you here. I enjoyed your article on Morten Frost. I just feel I should ask what the source of the picture:

Image:Morten-frost_400x401.jpg

is? Did you take it, or did you get it from somewhere else? You need to state what licence it is under, in order to make sure it is legal. Is it public domain, or some other copyright? THanks,

Peregrine981 10:31, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

You are right, of course. I got the pic from http://www.badminton.dk/?pageid=470 This is the web-site of the Danish Badminton Union. It is an old picture, but I have sent them an e-mail to ask if it is ok to use. --SVTCobra 21:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!Peregrine981 02:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Danish Cuisine

Thanks for adding a paragraph on the concept of a morgenbord to the Breakfast section of Danish cuisine.

You question whether there should be mention of "ham and sausages" in the part of Breakfast#Europe that deals with Denmark. I still think its appropriate. Now when I read it with a critical eye perhaps it should be clearer that I'm not talking about "ham and sausages" like in the USA, but rather pålæg, such as pålæg skinke or rullepølse or salami, all of which I have seen at the breakfast table, although not on a regular basis, i.e. when one wants more than the usual basics on the table. Perhaps instead of "ham and sausages" --> "cold, sliced ham and other cold cuts". What do you think? Sfdan 1 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)

Enjoy your trip. And remember the cold cuts come on the morning table only when a little more is required for the occasion. Sfdan 1 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

Categories in preview

Categories do show up in preview, but not where you would expect them. Thay are at the bottom of the page (below the edit box and help text) after you have done a preview.--Per Abrahamsen 06:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio "Kitín" Muñoz Valcárcel

Thanks - the upgraded page is much better! Cheers, Sliggy 02:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for upgrade the IBF page and I'm so appreciate. Aleenf1 10:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen fire

Yeah, it's great. Honestly, I only wish to get the hard parts done and let others help me refine it. Thanks for the help. --Orbit One ^[Talk|Babel] 03:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henning Lynge Jakobsen

Thank you for your contribution. Where did you find his birthdate? I have had a hard time finding information on Henning Lynge Jakobsen even among Danish websites.--SVTCobra 23:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, found it on http://www.databaseolympics.com/. Regards, Darius Dhlomo

Interested in Project???

I have lauched a badminton proposed project, you want to join it??? Please visit this page and have a consideration. Thank you. Aleenf1 08:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I have signed up today. I have never worked on a WikiProject but look forward to it.--SVTCobra 21:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have start the badminton project,so go ahead and do it!!! Aleenf1 10:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVTCobra, you can help to expand the badminton player list in the WikiProject Badminton, i saw you do nothing, indeed your contributions is very important. Thank you. Aleenf1 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because only 5 members in our WikiProject, i considered to quarantine the Badminton Player project. However, i need your comments about it whether it should be or not, and give some idea. And whether we should run portal? If does, you know how to run it? Your comment is include in the future and provide some idea if you have. Thank you --Aleen f1 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean halt updating players until tournaments and organizations are finished? That might make some sense. I realize that I have not done as much work as I would like, but it has been a busy summer (and with the World Cup!) I haven't had so much time. I do not have any experience in doing a Portal. In fact, I don't really use those that exists for other subjects. But, yes, a Badminton Portal would be nice.--SVTCobra 21:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Talk[reply]

Sorry, i'm not make clear. I should say are we should terminate to updating badminton player or can be say left out from WikiProject (not a part of)? In fact, I don't really use those that exists for other subjects what you mean, i not so understand. Aleen f1 04:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this time i want to ask opinion, should 2006 Thomas & Uber Cup article split to 2006 Thomas Cup and 2006 Uber Cup, think about it and give opinion to me. Thank you. --Aleen f1 17:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dot in canada on map

Hi, to answer your question on the map talk page, the dot means it was one of the original members of the Badminton Federation, same dots are on some of the european countries & new zealand --Astrokey44 07:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Video Voyeur cover.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Video Voyeur cover.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 23:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Harmon/Video Voyeur image

I was so annoyed, yet realizing that you were right, that I went and created a new article for the image where it is used in proper fair-use. So, please don't delete the image now.--SVTCobra 00:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was really great! Congratulations for your article. It seems very good. That image now has a (fair) use inside Wikipedia. --Abu Badali 01:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooops!!! It seems that the text on the Plot section was a copy of a review from Rotten Tomatoes. Unfortunatelly, we do not have the permission to copy (not to redistribute) their contents. I have removed that section. Please, do not feel down by this. It seems you have watched this film and you really liked it. It's time for you to write a plot summary of your own. Hands at work ;) --Abu Badali 02:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't see the movie and thus cheated on the plot summary. From what I have read they told a story, that could have been compelling, so one-sided that I'd probably gag during a viewing of it. However, from reading about it and it's real-life implications, I thought the movie deserved an article. But my original mission was to try to find an image for the article Angie Harmon, and I have tried again. I hope my work was not in vain. --SVTCobra 23:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badminton

i put national team in 2006 Thomas & Uber Cup, but which one is appropriate: "Malaysia national badminton team" or "Malaysia badminton team" ? Thanks --Aleen f1 16:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the standard already used for football, I think it should be Malaysia national badminton team (see Malaysia national football team). Also, this list List of men's national football teams shows that the word "national" is included for all countries. --SVTCobra 09:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidste Omgang

Heh, imagine that. Oh well :) Mikkel 03:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badminton World Federation

Should you or me move the page IBF to Badminton World Federation? Because you see official site, all change to BWF. Thank you --Aleen f1 10:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:MTV EMA 2006.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MTV EMA 2006.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Angie Harmon Video Voyeur Promo Photo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Angie Harmon Video Voyeur Promo Photo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kalina.jpg

Hi. When you uploaded Image:Kalina.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 21:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Video_Voyeur_cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Video_Voyeur_cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. ShakespeareFan00 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Holbaek byvaab mellem.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Holbaek byvaab mellem.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Susse Wold.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Susse Wold.jpg. I noticed 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:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
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 even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert

I think you were right about the photo orientations so I re-uploaded the two that were more square. --David Shankbone 04:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Interview on Wikinews

Hello, did you post Interview with James Kyson Lee aka ANDO from HEROES? If so you will need to obtain the permission of Matt Sernaker for its use there under CC-BY-2.5 before it can be published. Please do so quickly, or we will have to consider it a copyright violation. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sernaker said I may redistribute it under the GPL. http://phpnuke.org/files/gpl.txt Wikipedian 02:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you get Matt Sernaker to send an e-mail to Wikinews confirming this permission? --SVTCobra (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On http://www.comicsonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=474, scroll to the bottom of the page n' you'll see "This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL." Wikipedian 06:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the software that runs ComicOnline, it does not pertain to the content. Sorry. --SVTCobra (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. Wikipedian 04:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford debate

Yes I am - I've stuck four up on Commons and linked them from the talkpage on wikinews, though I haven't had a chance to incorporate them into the article. If you'd like any others do feel free to pinch and upload them - all that set is CC-BY-SA. Shimgray | talk | 22:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French riots

So what? I said [1] sorry for the error, and I knew there will be a mess. Don't you expect me to make a bot's work? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews

Yes, that account on Wikinews is an impersonation. Please delete the user page there. Thanks. Academic Challenger (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Munoz.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Munoz.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Kitin.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Kitin.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Peter Gade logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter Gade 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) 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Peter Gade portrait.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter Gade portrait.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) 05:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Peter_rasmussen_400x266.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter_rasmussen_400x266.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis I-35W bridge spans Mississippi River

Response from comment on my Talk page: Oh, I didn't know about the two-source standard. Well, in addition to various media reports, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has a web page about the project which surely mentions this event. I'll add that as a source; I'm sure it repeats much of the info in the article. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

$700 Billion bailout

Yeah, I knew it was (at least partially in part) an editorial, in effect and I wasn't sure; I never really saw anything to state one way or the other whether "think" pieces offering to clarify the news were acceptable . I felt that it was useful as an explanation. I had already written it for something else, and I thought it would be useful for people to understand what was going on, as a lot of the concepts I relate in the piece were things even I didn't realize until someone explained them to me. I thought, hey, worst case scenario, it's rejected; no big deal. But otherwise, it might be useful to allow some people - a lot of whom are not Americans and have no idea how our system of finance works, or in some cases even understanding their own - and thus add to comprehension of the issues.

Thinking about it now, if it were re-written as a straight fact piece, e.g. explaining how Fractional Reserve works, that banks have to foreclose on mortgages to raise money when their loans go bad in order to restore their reserve, and that's the purpose of the bailout, to ensure that banks both have cash on hand to pay depositors who make withdrawals, I am wondering if that would be acceptable, or whether the only thing Wikinews is for is straight reporting of events, no back-story or explanation of issues, even if strictly facts only? Probably not that significant since I'm not really that interested, but it would help me with respect to future items, and it might at least set policy so someone doesn't bother wasting time if a fact-based expository piece as opposed to a fact-based explanation of an event would be unacceptable. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]