User talk:Lesfer/Archive.1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk 
23:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight
As a member of WikiProject Comics, I thought you might be interested in the Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight we have set up. Please feel free to vote on the articles listed, although bear in mind that a vote for a particular article means you are pledging to help improve the article. The goal of the collaboration is to improve articles to Featured Article status, as we feel Comics is under-represented in that area. Thanks for your help. Steve block talk 15:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
About the anonymous editor
- 141.150.81.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
I've checked out his contribs, and it seems like he's stopped. Increasing the size of the pictures in the infoboxes was a bit disruptive, but nothing requires a block. I'll keep an eye out. Thanks for the revert work, though. Cheers, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 19:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
My mistakes
Howdy, I was just wondering as to what kinds of errors you were referring to. I've made some basic errors (such as the too many wikis), but I think that my work has mostly improved on articles (especially the Northwind one). I just noticed I fudged up on that Superherobox for Skyman, yeah. Sorry about that one. Thanks for helping out.
Kusonaga 06:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Ben Reilly and Catwoman
There's nothing wrong with the images I uploaded. The Ben Reilly image is a better quality and shows him in his spider-costume. The Catwoman image shows her current outfit, as opposed to the previous image which showed her in a police-lineup crying. --DrBat 17:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- The SHB box for Catwoman shows all her costumes, not just the new one.
- Concerning Ben Reilly; so, using an equally valid image will now hurt the community? --DrBat 02:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Batman too long still?
Hey, I just reduced Batman from 84 kb to 45 kb... what more should I do? Dyslexic agnostic 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Updates to Artemis of Bana-Mighdall
The former affiliation to the Justice League was removed for the reasoning that Artemis was never a member. This is actually not true. Back when Artemis took over the role of Wonder Woman she went on a couple missions with the JLA but that proved to be shortlived. She stopped her adventures with them though due to the fact her opinions to their stratagies were ridiculed by other JLA members. They prefered Diana on the team and felt she didn't deserve the Wonder Woman title. [[1]] December 16, 2005 - 12:25pm PT
Images at Flamengo article
Hi. I notice you've been doing a lot of work at the Flamengo article. Recently, you added some images to it. My concern is about the following images:
- Image:Flamengo 1981 World Champions.gif
- Image:Junior_Flamengo.jpg
- Image:Zico_Flamengo.gif
As the uploader, you tagged those images as free of copyright restrictions. When you tag images such as those as copyright-free, it is always important to name the specific source. You have not named it/them. The thing is: those images are not usable under the Fair Use provision, although that is not what you claimed anyways. But that being the case, we could only use them if they are free or if we had permission to use them. Images from the early 1980s are still covered by copyrights, they have not expired. That being the case, the only possibility (other than express consent for use) would be if the copyright holder waved his rights at some point. We would need to have the source(s) for those images, so that the status of copyright-free images that you claimed can be verified.
In my humble opinion, by the looks of those images, it would appear unlikely that they are indeed free of copyrights: those look like professional images, from some news agency of photographic reporter, and those are always copyrighted. That doesn't mean that the images are not usable though, since the copyright holders might have allowed the free use of their work, and hence the importance of the links to the source. In that case, however, the tag you have used is not the correct one, which would actually be this one.
So, if you could provide the source, that'd be great. Thanks, Redux 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. Actually, it happened to me too some time back. There were some images I wanted to upload to the website, and since I was finding them on several websites, I assumed they were free and uploaded them. Of course, that didn't last for very long. However, of the several images I uploaded under these circumstances, there were actually a couple I ended up finding out were indeed free. You might want to conduct a search and see what it turns out about those images. But if you are already certain that they are not free, or if you don't think it worthwhile to research that, the next step would be deleting the images from our servers. Only Administrators can do that, and since I'm one, I could do it, or hold out a while if you'd like to research the images' status. Notice, however, that once you remove them from the article, they will become what we call orphaned images, which makes them candidates for speedy deletion (criterion #5 for images and media: meaning that any Administrator can and will delete them on sight), so deletion would be sort of unavoidable. Let me know what you want to do about it. Regards, Redux 15:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Sargon
All right, I'll bite. Is honorary membership in the Justice League not criteria enough for being listed in that category? Korvac 19:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Just read the page in detail, sorry about that. My mistake! Korvac 19:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Flamengo again
Hi Lesfer. Not that it is a problem, it's not, but are you sure about the necessity of having flag icons next to the names of every player listed? Remember that whenever someone accesses the article, all the images have to be loaded, and articles with too many flag icons can be a real drag to load (just try one of those lists of Tennis champions...), especially for people with slower internet connections. In some cases, the icons are of some relevance (as in the case of those lists of champions, I believe), but for the article on Flamengo, they might be making it a little too "heavy" (slow to load) needlessly. I suppose we could do without those (especially since Brazilian clubs aren't as..."multinational" as certain European clubs). What do you think? Regards, Redux 03:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hi again. As I said, it's not really a problem. Personally, I don't have any problems loading the page, since my connection is relatively fast. But there are many, many users with dial-up connections. If options are needed, there's the alternative of creating a legend of some sort. For instance, something like non-Brazilian players marked with a *, or use specific markers to inform the nationality at the bottom (as in: 1 Paraguayan). All of that would be just so the article could load faster, since in terms of layout and didactics, it's looking just fine as it is now. Then again, maybe nothing will work that well, and in the end, I'd rather have a "heavier" article than one that might not look as well as it could, or not be as didactical as possible. Regards, Redux 01:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Award
Solid work, especially in the Flamengo article (the "other three" are eating our dust ;)!). Keep it up. Congrats, Redux 02:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
