This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Your restoration of material on the talk page of Elevator immediately gave me cause to wonder how many other talk pages are vandalized in a similar way. I do a fair amount of anti-vandalism, but most of what is presented to me by the tool is edits made by anon IP's within the last few minutes.
I wonder if a tool could be devised to recover talk text that's inappropriately removed. Do you have a concept of why your (constructive and fairly neutral!) material was removed? It seems a shame to lose almost any comments for articles that have very few in the first place. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I can only think of a few reasons to remove talk page contents:
Fixing vandalism
Archiving old discussions
Editing your own comments
I do spend quite some time fixing talk page vandalism by IP/anon users, in particular flagging speedy deletion on talk pages with no corresponding article - a problem that is often overlooked by others. However, in this case I just happened across Talk:Elevator while researching an answer to a reference desk question.
It has been suggested that I should use page patrolling to do this, but I find the patrolling tools particularly difficult to use (eg. the "patrolled" link is not always present and I cannot select only IP users in the list). Astronaut (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I do: I generally use the Recent Changes link (in the toolboxes on the left), but modified to give a longer list and filtered to give only IP users. This link gives me the last 5000 Talk page edits by IP users. I then look through the list (usually from the bottom) looking for those flagged with a bold "N". I'm basically looking for pages IP users create for vandalism, vanity, test edits or asking questions. I usually flag them {{db-talk}}, unless there is an associated article page in existance, in which case I just empty the page giving my reason in the edit summary.
One other thing I look out for is the creation of separate comment pages. Many project headers have a link to a comment page and some editors think that is how you must leave a general comment. The trouble is, those pages are rarely seen by anybody (they were intended for page assessment comments but have pretty much fallen into disuse now), therefore I will often move the IP user's comment to the main talk page and request speedy deletion of the comment page with {{db-reason|Comment moved to Talk page}}.
In amongst the crap, I sometimes find something interesting, letters to Phillipine TV shows in Tagalog, one guy was vandalising police article Talk pages by writing in Japanese that he had been kidnapped!, etc. I do occasionally come across a promising article that is just in the talk namespace, in which case I'll just move it to the main article space and maybe do some cleanup/translation/etc. (eg. Givi Alkhazishvili was one promising article that started in Talk space). Astronaut (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Astronaut. You tagged a page for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I very much doubt Cristina Canhos meets our standards of notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you think I overstepped the mark with Cristina Canhos, then fine and feel free to decine speedy deletions where necessary. On the other hand, to notify evey vandal that I have nominated their crap for speedy deletion is both impractical and might encourage them to spread their vandalism further. Astronaut (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The article may not meet WP:N, however all that is needed to avoid speedy deletion is a mere claim of notability. Of course actual proof is required to avoid deletion by WP:AFD. You could also try a proposed deletion. This article something I don't think anyone could consider vandalism, notifying the author is a good-faith gesture to give the author a chance to fix the article. It's not an actual policy or anything, it's just the nice thing to do. New users often simply don't understand how we determine what to keep and what to delete, and if they are not notified of the reason an article is deleted, they often simply re-post it because they simply don't understand why it is gone. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I should also note that I have just removed the protection from this page. It never should have been indef semi protected, as indicated by this section of the protection policy:"User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users." Obviously, this was the admin's error and not yours. The admin who did the original protection has since recused themselves from taking any admin actions, since they are apparently now an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, but if you think this was an error and protection is still needed you can file a request at WP:RFPP. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
No it wasn't the admin's error; the protection was at my own request after some severe vandalism. However, it had been in place for quite some time and I was considering asking the protecting admin to remove it, but thank you. Astronaut (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
To quote you, "Glittering Pillars ... has proposed 6 articles for deletion and !voted delete on 4 other AfD discussions in an editing history of just 43 edits." I think it's time for checkuser. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I briefly read through your discussion with Rama regarding the Nakheel Tower image. It seems as if my arguments for the Chicago Spire image, which is discussed on his talk page below yours, also apply to the image you brought up. While I'm not active on that project, if you want I would recommend doing what User:Xeno recommended I do (see: User talk:DR04#FYI).
His image he uploaded, for the reasons I stated on his talk page, are also copyright violations because the designs are copyrighted - not just the image. If you have time or want to I would recommend posting to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as well requesting that the original image get restored and a proper discussion first. I would be willing to post my comments on that proposed deletion as well if it gets restored. Have a good day! DR04 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh wait, I see now that wveral 600 meter plus towers have no articles. Are they going by HAAT though; cause that would be Bull Shit to count a mountain as part of a tower's height. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
What?? I have no idea why you are asking me this. What the hell is "HAAT"? I do know that building heights are measured from the surrounding land on which they are built - otherwise tents on Mount Everest could be considered 8,000 m tall buildings. Astronaut (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Height above average terrain; basically it would make a tent on everest be about 100 meters high if it was on the peak; they take the average by taking how high it is above the ground at several points around it. i.e. 500 feet, 1000 feet, 1 mile. Daniel Christensen (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Astronaut. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Burj Khalifa, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kaldari (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Be careful dishing out the vandalism warnings. On a very active page like Burj Khalifa it is possible that edit conflicts cause errors in judgement to be made. My edit was to correct a link and avoide a redirect in the link. Astronaut (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not my intention. It was this edit by 86.18.47.107 which introduced the vandalism "donkey" and was quickly reverted by Marek69. I do remember getting an edit conflict during my edit. I've noticed today that edit conflicts sometimes seem to be incorrectly resolved and sometimes result in two edits being added in together. I would layoff this this article for a while, but the high level of unhelpful edits today has been keeping myself and the other regulars at Burj Khalifa busy. Astronaut (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I've semi-protected the article for now, let me know if it continues to experience a high level of vandalism. Kaldari (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Another correction
Sorry to bother you again with corrections, but shouldn't the World Trade Center in this image be between the Empire State Building and the Petronas Twin Towers? I shouldn't need to tell you that the antenna wouldn't count to its overall height... I know it was not your intention but that of the previous image's creators/editors. Once again, I would do it myself but I don't think me downloading and figuring out how to use Inkscape at this late hour will be very productive. By the way, I found the above section (in particular this edit) quite humorous :) Thanks, timsdad(talk)14:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Terribly sorry for interrupting you and I feel more sorry for myself for bothering with this message. Thanks anyway, timsdad(talk)14:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure.
Sorting by max overall height, I get the current order: The Pyramid, Eiffel Tower, Empire State Building, Petronas Towers, Taipei 101, WTC, Willis Tower, CN Tower, KVLY-TV mast, Warsaw Radio mast, Burj Khalifa.
If I sort by architectural top, I get the following order: The Pyramid, Eiffel Tower, Empire State Building (381 m excluding the antenna), WTC (417 m excluding the antenna), Willis Tower (442 m excluding the antenna), Petronas Towers (has 452 m spires), Taipei 101 (has a 509 m spire), CN Tower, KVLY-TV mast, Warsaw Radio mast, Burj Khalifa.
Yes, I realised after my first message that as the image contains nonbuilding structures as well, they should all be ordered by max overall height. Sorry if my second message didn't hint to this well enough. --timsdad(talk)15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Astronaut! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 877 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Your edit here was not helpful, and I have reverted it. Your reasoning was somewhat unclear. What's wrong with mentioning the parachute in two consecutive sentences? Without mentioning the parachute in the 2nd sentence, it could be understood that they reached the speed of 140 MPH right before impacting the ground, which is obviously not the case. However whatever (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Editing an SVG file
Hi. I'm having considerable trouble finding out how to get an SVG image from Wikipedia or the Commons, so that it can be edited in Inkscape and then uploaded as a different version. I thought I'd ask you as you recently updated File:BurjDubaiHeight.svg with File:BurjKhalifaHeight.svg. Did you have to save the file as a PNG and then use software to convert to SVG before editing with Inkscape? Or is there some way to directly download the image in SVG format. I'm surprised I can't find any help with this anywhere else... Maybe it's just so obvious to everyone and not to me. Thanks, timsdad(talk)06:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
No conversion to PNG is needed. Inkscape is capable of editing SVG files. I just downloaded Inkscape from the official site (it is available for Linux, Mac and Windows) and installed it. To get the file from Wikipedia or Commons, I ignored the "view image as ???? pixel png" which is provided by the wikiw software and simply clicked on the image like I was going to view the the full resolution version of a JPG. My Windows Vista and Internet Explorer 8 setup offered me the chance to save the SVG file on my disk (I believe it does that because IE8 is not able to display just a SVG file without a plugin). If that doesn't work for you (perhaps you use Firefox which I believe can display SVG files properly), you should be able to choose a "save image as..." option and save the SVG that way. Note that SVG is a vector file format that uses XML to store data about the objects in the image (for example, in File:BurjKhalifaHeight.svg the building shapes are stored as paths, the text is stored as text objects with the fost specified for each, and that lot is on a separate layer from the grid lines). Viewed in a regular text editor, the part of BurjKhalifaHeight.svg which draws the Burj Khalifa looks like this:
If you saved it as a bitmap file, all that vector data would be lost and you would have to edit the pixels in the bitmap image. Astronaut (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the talkback message, although I am currently watching your talk page because of this discussion. My only problem was getting the image from Wikipedia, and it turns out that it was Firefox that wouldn't let me save the SVG version. I gathered that I shouldn't render the image in PNG sizes, but Firefox just wouldn't give me the option to 'Save Image As...". It turns out, as you said, Internet Explorer does. Now I know that I can just use IE8 to get the SVG files, and I have taught myself how to do the rest on Inkscape. Thanks very much, timsdad(talk)01:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but I'm puzzled because, while your alter ego did create the article, you don't have a recent history with it. Astronaut (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Burj Building
"it was only declared a building when opened in 2010)"... That's a bit absurd, no? Can you cite this "declaration" (and under what authority)? Obviously it is considered a "building" as soon as the first floor was completed. As such - when it surpassed the tallest building that would be when it actually became the tallest building, and can be cited. I'll await your response prior to editing and citation. Obviously the infobox would need to be updated appropriately. Srobak (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
During construction, there was a part of the article about the CTBUH and their definition of a building. See this version particularly the "Current records" section where it says:
On 20 July 2007, the Executive Director of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), Antony Wood, said "We will not classify it as a building until it is complete, clad and at least partially open for business to avoid things like the Ryungyong [sic] project. Taipei 101 is thus officially the world's tallest until that happens."
Just because that part needed to be removed when the building opened, does not mean it is suddenly incorrect. Burj Khalifa took the title of the world's tallest building when it opened on 4 Jan 2010. Astronaut (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello Astronaut. You tagged a page for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
