User talk:Nard the Bard/Archive 2

Saber's Beads

This is not a repost. The article has been rewritten and updated with additional canon sources. It has also been an accepted external link for New Moon for several months. -saberscorpx

Regardless, -you- invented this so called phenomenon and self-aggrandizement is not allowed on wikipedia. Nardman1 10:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How does an astronomical glossary term not rate WK? God invented it. I just discovered and reported it. And I did not name it. Also, why is *my* additional bio info considered self-aggrandizement? (If it's personal, I understand. I get it alot.) -saberscorpx

• Would you stop editing my user page just to make your comments seem better? Nardman1 03:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• You invite me to discuss the article here, and then delete my responses? Lol. I thrive on such contempt from nobodys like you. Btw, my sister's kid learned about Saber's Beads in school just the other day (3 states away). Thanks for your continued support. -saberscorpx

Uberfic

Please pay attention and don't revert good faith edits as vandalism. I removed that sentence for a good reason, which was explained in my edit summary: its references did not support the claim made, or have anything to do with the subject of the article at all. —Celithemis 14:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Kalanidhi Maran

I added some references to Kalanidhi Maran, which I think demonstrate notability. --Eastmain 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments

I've removed your comment on Talk:Dicta License with a highly inappropriate edit summary of "taunt the anon". WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL apply when you're speaking to any editor, anonymous or otherwise. Seraphimblade 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Nardman1, Do you mind to give a second thought to your comments here? I really don't see any notability in this case.

Regards. Mr.K. (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Don't go mad with the userboxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs)

She invented a new tissue type! Anyway someone has to play Devil's Advocate. The article will probably be deleted without y changing my vote. Nardman1 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pentecontagon, and so forth

Please read WP:DELETE. A no consensus result at AFD means only that there is no consensus to delete an article and its edit history altogether; anything else, including merging, is a normal editing decision. When, as here, that non-consensus is divided between those who would delete, and those who would merge and redirect, that's consensus that we don't need a separate article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably submit it to deletion review later. Nardman1 22:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I still see an overwhelming majority at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hectagon for delete, merge or redirect, which is consensus that Wikipedia does not need these as separate articles. Pilotguy is right that there is no consensus between these alternatives, but that's chiefly whether it's worth keeping the article histories.

I do not see any suggestion of Mediation, but I would be willing to accept it; I would expect the mediator to tell you the same thing.

These articles consisted of a dictionary definition of the alleged term as an n-sided polygon, and a diagram of a regular n-gon.

• I have no objection to having the diagram of a 100-gon added to Polygon; I wouldn't do it myself because I don't think it adds anything to the article; it's barely distinguishable from a circle; but I won't contest it.
• I will object, remove, or mark as dubious any use I see of Hectagon. It's a non-word, use rarely and in error; it is used much more often as a misspelling of Hexagon or Heptagon.
• One of the articles also had a sentence about Michelob using a 30-sided prism as a beer can. I doubt this will add anything to Polygon either; it belongs it Prism (geometry), but I won't contest if it is added.

Regards, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You should be contacted by WP:MEDCAB soon. Nardman1 03:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

China Copyright Tag

Thank you very much for creating the new copyright tag for works from China!! Enjoy stay on wikipedia!!!Dongwenliang 02:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Dear Nardman1,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under main here). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Prodego ^talk 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!

Hi. Philvarner and I have various thoughts on how to restructure the entire mixed drinks and bartending section of Wikipedia, and that also squarely ties in with WikiBooks. Some of these are pretty sweeping changes, and as a sometimes active WikiProject Participant, I value your input on these matters. You are very good at spotting cruft from good stuff, and you are familiar with some of the things we have gone through to get to where we are now. Please visit the Restructure Section to read, discuss, and hopefully help plan these important changes. Thank you. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 11:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:NB87ASS-226.jpg

This image is under Crown Copyright. Thus is non-commercial use only. Non-commercial use images are not allowed on Wikipedia. Cavenba 04:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is if it's fair use. Click the link and read it. Nardman1 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That page says nothing about Non-commercial use only images. Cavenba 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The specific image license DOES NOT MATTER. We can use the image on wikipedia under fair use regardless. Nardman1 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, so you know I've contacted the GNB for a sample plate in public domain. But, how could this image be used in a commercial product (i.e. German Wikipedia DVD) and not infringe on Canadian Copyright Law? Cavenba 01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can't understand what fair use is then I suggest you stop editing wikipedia. Nardman1 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the concept of fair-use (which is not mentioned in the Canadian Copyright Act, at least not by that name). You suggestions will go unheard. Cavenba 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Image:ON96ST.jpg and Image:NB87ASS-226.jpg

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and they have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Cavenba 01:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're the one making nonsense edits. I will revert everyone of them. Nardman1 11:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Because you reverted to CopyVio after solution was made? [1] Cavenba 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ebony Anpu AfD

Hello. You recently commented and/or voted on the AfD for the Ebony Anpu article here. FYI, the AfD has been reset because the discussion was not about the merits of the article, but instead about procedural issues. You are welcome to leave a new comment about whether or not the article should be included here, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu. In order to be as fair as possible to the article's creators and those who feel it should be deleted, all comments about Wikipedia deletion procedure as it relates to this specific AfD are being directed to the AfD's talk page, here. Thanks for your time, and sorry for the wikispam. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nazi images

I responded to your point on military-insignia for Image:French uniform emblem.jpg & Image:Iron Cross Charlemagne Division Officer.jpg and explained why I think it had zero validity. 82.29.229.116 20:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Hectagon

I can help mediate this situation. Can you please leave a note on my talk page letting me know what your current view on the situation is and what your desired outcome would be? Hope I can be of service. Best, JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 04:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. To clarify, your position is that there was no consensus to delete and at least one person other than you wants the articles kept instead of just being redirects. You seem to concede that hectagon was misnamed, but you believe the other names contained in the Polygon article are correct. Let me know if this is an accurate summary of your position.

In terms of compromising, except for the fact about the 30-gon being the basis for a Michelob Gold can (which has been included in that article and in Prism (geometry)), would you concede that it would be difficult to write a non-stub article about each individual polygon, given that the pictures are not illuminating and that the information could be summarized in a table in the Polygon article? I mean, I think the principles of WP:NUMBER come into play here, and keeping them as redirects for now means that someone later can come and write a good article if there's sufficient non-trivial information to do so. On the other hand, in terms of the names of the polygons, there's a verifiability, not truth argument to be made that works in your favor. Let me know if this would be an acceptable compromise or if you have a counter-proposal. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 07:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon thinking it over it would seem my position is very weak. I think I just let my judgment be clouded. Your proposal is more than acceptable. Nardman1 10:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate if this compromise offer is acceptable or if you would like to suggest changes. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Shi Tao

I recommend translating it into Chinese and including that in the Chinese version of wikipedia, rather than infusing a bunch of foreign characters into the English version. If you need help translating it into Chinese let me know. Lordvolton 05:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:CheriDiNovo180.jpg

Hi, it's besides the point we are giving free press. Permission only images are not allowed under wikipedia, only in some cases under fair use. In this case I think it fails Wikipedia:Fair use criteria but that's another issue. You could probably assume from the fact that it was for media purposes that the image can be redistributed. But not all the other options of the {{attribution}} tag. That's legally incorrect and also goes against our image policies. Garion96 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Nardman1! 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. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Df 2.jpg

The way I understand it, photographs of three-dimensional works are exempt from the originating item's copyright, or does the presence of the logo negate that? Alternately, if the photograph were to be of the backside of the image (where there is no logo) would that not then be acceptable? Garrett^Talk 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Coke bottle design /itself/ is copyrighted. I think if you took a picture of a guy drinking a Coke and the focus of the image was the guy, the Coke in the picture would be incidental and implicit fair use. If you take a picture of a Coke and the focus is the Coke, you have some 'splainin to do (Lucy!) Nardman1 02:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right, I got a bit confused for some reason. Copyright law and I aren't the best of friends. :P Anyway, the point is to use images that come without any additional copyright claims from the photographer (e.g. Image:Nintendo DS Lite side.jpg). Since this is a collector's item that was available from ordinary stores I think it would be quite possible for someone to photograph it and release it under a copyleft license. This particular image was taken by some random eBayer (rather than the company) so they could theoretically lay some claim to it, and, additionally, the camera watermark (in the bottom right corner) is in itself a protected logo of eBay or one of their sister companies. While it may not be possible to find a copyleft version of this, at the very least one could be found (or made) that eliminates the watermark issue. Garrett^Talk 02:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the original uploader. I just hate to see good images deleted because people are copyright nazis. I see your point about the ebay logo. I'll remove my fair use rationale from the image. Nardman1 02:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

207.166.7.208 (talk · contribs)

Your views go against Wikipedia blocking policy. School IPs are not always used to vandalize by one or two people. There are usually a number of different people who do this. Given that the person may or may not be different than the person on the 23rd, they can only be blocked if they vandalize after the t4 warning. It's blocking policy, sorry. Nishkid64 22:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do remember that bit of policy, but the user was last blocked in May 2006. Two blocks in the history is not a lot for a school IP. There have been some good faith edits made, and I would only do a long block if they went past the t4 in the first place. Nishkid64 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Livejouranl links

I've removed the same links minus the "offical" journal page of the Funday PawPet Show. I've also created a section in the articeel talk page to discuss the matter if you find this to be inappropriate. NeoFreak 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Before I revert you again please see the article's talk page, I'm tired of tlaking to you in edit summaries. NeoFreak 03:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I give you, Nardman1, this Barnstar as a sign of my gratitude for refraining from calling me an idiot when you should have done just that. NeoFreak 03:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not treat proper edits as vandalism.

In the Haunted Mansion article, you undid an edit which attempted to contribute to the article's fact/fiction separation. 'Fancruft' is a serious issue with a lot of Disney articles and fiction-based articles in general. Please do not let your personal formulation preferences overrule encyclopedic necessities. SergioGeorgini 15:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction and the source. SergioGeorgini 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:24DNTV.PNG

I gave this some more thought I decided that it does make sense for this image to be in the public domain, however I feel that if used to represent the show 24, it retains its copyright status. I would like to propose removing this image from the userboxes but not deleting this image and leaving it under the public domain. Let me know your thoughts. I have also withdrawn my request for the image's deletion. --24fan24 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Removing it from the userbox defeats the purpose of having it on the Wikipedia. Unwithdraw your nomination and let the admins decide it. Nardman1 19:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

American High (disambiguation)

I realized that you have changed the links for American High and American High School so that they point to the disambiguation page instead. I just wanted to address that perhaps that at least American High School redirects to American High School (Fremont, California).

If you simply look at the articles themselves, there is definitely a lot more substance and effort that has been applied in the case of the Fremont school's article, where as the Miami-Date County school's article contains very little information at all. Additionally, if you look at the edit histories of the 2 articles, the Fremont school has nearly 250 edits, of which a majority are actually useful and a significant number have made a noticeable difference to the page. On the other hand, the Miami-Dade County school has been vandalized several times, and the majority of the edits appear to be by vandals, or editors reverting the changes made by these vandals.

It seems very likely to me that an individual, when searching for "American High School" will be much more likely to be searching for American High School in Fremont, California, quite evident according to its notability as a California Distinguished School, receiving a very rare 6 year accreditation from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) twice in a row, as well as receiving a large grant from the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC) as well as grants for its innovative Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) reform. I see very no mention of notability on the behalf of the Miami-Dade County School however.

I respectfully ask you to consider what is much more likely to be searched for, and edit the Redirects to reflect this. I believe that this is a very straightforward and obvious decision, I hope you come to the same conclusion.

Thank You, --Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. I would appreciate it if you could leave a note on my talk page upon your reply.

Jiahu Flutes: Chinese fair use tag

Nardman1, I believe the picture of the bone flutes is under fair use according to China Copyright Law.

Please see here the definition of the word "comment":

"1. a remark, observation, or criticism: a comment about the weather. 2. gossip; talk: His frequent absences gave rise to comment. 3. a criticism or interpretation, often by implication or suggestion: The play is a comment on modern society. 4. a note in explanation, expansion, or criticism of a passage in a book, article, or the like; annotation. 5. explanatory or critical matter added to a text. 6. Also called rheme. Linguistics. the part of a sentence that communicates new information about the topic. Compare TOPIC (def. 4). –verb (used without object) 7. to make remarks, observations, or criticisms: He refused to comment on the decision of the court. 8. to write explanatory or critical notes upon a text. –verb (used with object) 9. to make comments or remarks on; furnish with comments; annotate. ".

Writing an article on Wikipedia, is a remark, an observation, an interpretation, a note, an annotation, an explanation, a rheme, a communication about the topic. So using this image is commenting something per definition #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9 of this word.

Please also see the definition of the word "archive":

"1. Usually, archives. documents or records relating to the activities, business dealings, etc., of a person, family, corporation, association, community, or nation. 2. archives, a place where public records or other historical documents are kept. 3. any extensive record or collection of data: The encyclopedia is an archive of world history. The experience was sealed in the archive of her memory. –verb (used with object) 4. to place or store in an archive: to vote on archiving the city's historic documents. "

Writing an article and store it on the server of Wikepedia, is a record of document, a public storage of data. Specificly, the dictionary quoted that the encyclopedia is an archive. So using this image is archiving somthing per definition #1, #2, #3 and #4 of this word.

So I strongly believe it falls into "fair use" of Chinese law and Jeffrey O. Gustafson Shazaam should not delete this image.

Thanks for your support! Dongwenliang 14:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Replied on talk page. Nardman1 21:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam

2005 or not, that link is full is advertising and I don't believe there is not an acceptable alternative link that could replace it. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you say revert, AGAIN. The guidelines say NOTHING about pages with ads. Please refer to WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided then look at number 5 which refers to Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. Please do not use agressive edit summaries that accuse other editors of editing in bad faith and if you are going to make assertions about guidelines, its a good rule of thumb to actually check that you are correct. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I am a real person, with real experience and knowlegde to add to wikipedia. Thank you so much for sticking up for my right to add a link that I feel is quality material that readers would like. I have repeatedly been labeled as a spammer and it just makes me sick that these wiki-police think they own the place. So anyway, thank you for your effort, I do appreciate it! Mexicanfood 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Edited to add- I also took up the matter with Spartaz on his talk page. Mexicanfood 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

My brother used my account when I was watching TV and is doing stupid stuff. He does this alot and I'm always trying to fix what he does.--Animasage 02:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your warning against User:Dakotathomas

I put a strikethrough on your vandal4im warning on his talk page. Quoting the reason I posted there:

Canceling out the above warning. I had placed a comment on the talk page stating that the comment written above it was falsely signed. This user removed my comment, and offereed a very reasonable explanation that he'd copied the text from another (non-Wikipedia) wiki website dedicated to the band in its place. I don't believe that's vandalism, and shouldn't warrant a vandal4im. Newest users take some time to adjust. Play easy :)

Just giving you a head's up of what & why. If you wish to reply, please do so on my talk page as I don't intend to check back here for this issue. Thanks for your help, nonetheless. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Help Me

I think some body might be using my Username against me. You keep saying that i have vandilized but i just added some links to webpages inside wikipedia please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcolin (talk • contribs) Some one is sockpuppeting under my name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcolin (talk • contribs)

• I'll remove my warnings from your talk page because I think you mean well. Nardman1 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

63.161.208.174

Well, I did not block because of the t2 warning, and the fact that the user has not vandalized in over five hours. Also, I believe what you're citing is a justification for long-term blocking, not blocking, in general. Say, if I was dealing with a school IP vandal that has vandalized for many months, and after many blocks. After the user violated a t3 or t4, I would probably block that IP for a period of 3-6 months. I feel that part of the policy serves as justification for blocking for extended periods of time, and not for general blocking. Nishkid64 23:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Deeporiginal@hotmail.com

I have unblocked - the user that reported this user apparently didn't look at the creation log, and neither did I, which was my mistake. Yargh. Natalie 01:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• replied on talk page. Nardman1 01:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• I actually saw a different user report that to AIV. I removed it from the list and left them an explanatory note. Then minutes later another user reported it. I wonder if maybe WP:UN should be reworded to make the '@' prohibition a bit less prominent and the disclaimed more visible. —dgies^t_c 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate 747

Hi Nardman1. Thanks for your support on the ultimate 747 article. But guess what - the Editor to wants to delete this article has now undone your revert to undermine the article again. They would like nothing more than to block me under 3RR so could you oblige? many thanks NBeale 22:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern about your username (1312020Wikicop)

Hello, 1312020Wikicop, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

Your name implies an official wiki role

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

• If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
• If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
• If you decide to just go ahead and change your username, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under the new username: simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV), or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at WP:RFC/NAME. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you again! -- Nardman1 21:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The user name to me means that I monitor and stop vandalism like a cop who would watch and stop crimes. Thanks, 1312020Wikicop 21:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)