User talk:RenniePet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I started a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching it. Please leave responses on your talk page. Thanks.

Contents 1 Modesty Blaise 2 Cover images 3 Your question on the Monty Python's The Meaning of Life talk page 4 IMDb 5 basic ref tags 6 Article on Paul Bremer 6.1 Article's Talk Page 7 Palin articles 8 Non-free images problems 9 You are getting drafted 10 Regarding User:Hopiakuta 11 The new Iraq private security group scandal 12 The DSLR Page 13 Michael Palin 14 Hello 15 "cfd-user" tag 16 Islamophobia 17 Images and the bots 18 Re: anti-Arab & anti-Muslim backlash 19 A small comment 20 Willie Garvin 21 Sensor size diagram 22 Image:Pig_person.jpg 23 Peer Review for Blackwater Worldwide, please help! 24 Your message 25 Image sensor format 26 Containerization and port-related topics 27 Re: Muhammad 28 Captions should not end with a period 29 Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10 30 Blocking Jack Orchard 31 Thanks! 32 I am not dealing for distruction 33 Note 34 tangeroiseimmobilier.com and the Tangier page 35 Foruming 36 The God Delusion 37 Please consider taking the AGF Challenge 38 Creationist tosh film 39 Perceval 40 Thanks

[edit] Modesty Blaise

Please do keep contributing. Your edits to Pieces of Modesty were fine, just that one line that wasn't allowed, and on Willie Garvin it was just a grammatical point ("unknown afterlife" was a bit of a redundnacy and sounded a bit conversational as opposed to the formal tone articles are supposed to have). t takes a bit to become familiar with the Wikipedia rules and style. I recommend reading WP:STYLE as a good starting point as well as WP:V and WP:CITE which set out the rules regarding adding information that requires citation. 23skidoo 12:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to ask permission to replace something like a plot summary (re: I, Lucifer). If you can improve what's there, please do. The one thing to watch for is that Wikipedia policy frowns on extremely detailed plot summaries. The length you have for the first two books is fine. In terms of writing style, remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so the writing style needs to be somewhat formal. What you have is OK, but it reads a bit informally. Just picking a couple of my own summaries as examples, see Knight Templar (The Saint) and The Saint in New York. Not that I consider my summaries to be the be all and end all -- I'm just giving them as examples of what I mean by formalized tone. What you've done so far is fine -- and I certainly encourage you to continue adding plot summaries. 23skidoo 03:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject does prefer the use of first edition images whereever possible, so if you have any, please feel free to change the images. Right now the only first edition illustrated is the Pieces of Modesty Pan paperback (as it was never released in Hardcover). I'd like to try and keep the image for the first Modesty Blaise as the American edition pictured because that cover has become iconic over the years, in no small part through its use in Pulp Fiction. 23skidoo 23:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cover images

Good work with the cover images. My only request is if you can leave me a note when you've replaced the images so I know to delete the older files (otherwise the automated system floods my talk page with "orphaned images" notifications. 23skidoo 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your question on the Monty Python's The Meaning of Life talk page

Hello RenniePet. I just wanted to let you know that I have left a longish answer to your question about the move of the films article on the same talk page where you left the question. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 13:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMDb

IMDb doesn't count as a reliable source, as it is user contributed. Wikipedia:Citing IMDb is just an example of various arguments about how lame the site can be, especially with future films. I only really count on it for end credits or the official news articles. Alientraveller 10:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] basic ref tags

I've enclosed a copy of your text in "nowiki" tags below, so you can see the markup.

This is the very basic way to do ref tags.. there are fancy cite(whatever) templates that you can use if you know them, but as long as there is a <references /> or {{reflist}} section in the article (in the References section usually), this basic method will display references properly.

begin your text

The legal status of Blackwater and other security firms in Iraq is a subject of contention. There are indications that L. Paul Bremer, two days before he left Iraq, signed an order giving all Americans immunity from Iraqi law. <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20892483/site/newsweek/ Article Title Here]</ref> A July 2007 report from the American Congressional Research Service purportedly says that the Iraqi government has no authority over private security firms contracted by the U.S. government. <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/23/blackwater.probe/index.html Article Title Here]</ref>
end your text

I added the ref tags in the article, but didn't fill in the "Article Title Here" since I didn't have them.. --Versageek 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I finally got around to doing a bit of research and found a "Reference generator" for Wikipedia: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php That made things much easier. --RenniePet 15:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Paul Bremer

The Bremer article is morphing into one large, sandbox for debate again. Since you have more information on your subtopic, perhaps you should contribute to it further.

As you know, the CPA had a web-site during the period of 2003 and 2004. Transcripts and press releases were posted on this website. I was unaware those Orders were available to the public - not until some disgruntled Wikipedian began posting links to them. I wonder why there are problems with CPA Orders now; not before when Bremer and the CPA could have perhaps done something about it?

Here's a little piece of personal opinion (whatever it's worth): it's influence of the worst kind of bureacracy. when it was time for everyone to speak up, no one does. when it was time for everyone to contribute and brainstorm with different ideas, everyone agrees in unison on the same thing - usually with the person of highest rank. and when idea(s) don't work, everyone finds someone to blame. And in this case, it seems as if Paul Bremer was the chosen one. Must be because of his charisma and great looking business suits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.22.40 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My original contribution was based on the Newsweek article by Michael Hirch, which later further research indicates was a little bit over the top. I did tone my contribution down a little bit. If you feel it is unfair or incorrect please make corrections. --RenniePet 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi RenniePet. Long-time no edit. Wishing you a festive Christmas Season. Hey, I'm glad you're keeping watch over the article on L. Paul Bremer. I too thought the December 8th edit by Taliaeditgirl was a hoax - at least until I discovered that the former ambassador has been indeed, visiting and making guest appearances in Northern California; including the town of Modesto California for a guest appearance at their annual Almond Board meeting http://www.modbee.com/local/story/143976.html.

Oops, messed up the reference link. Hee Hee.

Thanks for the link. That, of course, makes all the difference. --RenniePet (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article's Talk Page

I really don't understand your reason for deleting the letter written by the Ambassador to President George W. Bush. I do have a rather full schedule and truly unable to respond to your request to provide a source to the letter. A quick google search retrived the source a New York Times article. The link to the source can now be found in the Talk page for the article on Paul Bremer. 65.188.22.40 (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palin articles

Great work on the Palin travel articles! One thing: You might want to copy edit the book articles to remove book review-like statements (e.g. "Not bad, considering that Palin was 60 years old at the time."). Other than that, they're great. I'll see if I can have a look around for some material on critical reaction to the books for you. Brad 19:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Brad, thank you for the "good work", that warms.

On the other hand, I'm rather peeved at you systematically editing out some of the "POV" things I happened to write in these articles. To me contributing to Wikipedia is a hobby, and the pleasure I get out of it is in part being able to do things "my way". I realize that someone else can come along and change things to be more "his/her way", and that's OK if it is part of a contribution that adds additional content and results in greater combined value. I don't like it when someone just systematically removes things that indicate that the author was actually a real person with opinions, and not just a fact-collecting robot.

Wikipedia encourages contributions from everyone, so I think it should be acceptable that the result reflects that "everyone" does have a point of view, even though this results in articles that are not entirely 100% fact-based. The alternative is something so bland that it is not interesting.

I'm sure this has been debated thousands of times and that the consensus is against me. --RenniePet 18:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free images problems

Thanks for the note! It looks like User 23skidoo is on a long-term wikibreak :(

There have been discussions over at the bots areas about these problems (namely false negatives) for a while, and there have been some resolutions to the discussions. And bots aren't deleting any images - that all has to be done by an Admin, who has the choice to fix or delete. But their job as admins really isn't to fix, that's why there's the notification bots to get the uploader to do their "job" before an admin gets to it. Sad to say, most uploaders don't want to do the extra work with fair use - and surprisingly quite a few don't even want to put any! or the correct licensing!!

Regarding the fixes: A few of them are quite easily fixable (missing correct article title - problem with the "Fair Use templates, which is in discussion at Template talk:Non-free use rationale), but I'd say 90% are simply missing rationales. Not much a bot can do about that. The judgment call on the actual use in an article is a human judgment call. (and, as an aside, I'd say about 80% of the images tagged by the bots don't belong on wiki!)

So, that's why there's a few of us that monitor the proposed deletions in specific categories (films, books, albums, singles, dvd's are the ones that i know of) and try out best to fix those before they're deleted. Sadly, that's about all that can be done at this point. SkierRMH 19:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are getting drafted

Have you considered joining a wikiproject, where editors from many places come together cooperate, coordinate and collaborate contributions to a specified subject.
I can see from your edits that you are improving a great deal of articles related to Denmark, and I therefore ask you if you would be interested in Joining WikiProject Denmark
Best regards and happy editing.
Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding User:Hopiakuta

My advice is to ignore him. Take a look at his user page, and at his various postings. He's just playing with the system and trying to get a rise out of people. --RenniePet 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is good advice for now, yeah. After I asked him the second time I saw all the oddness on his pages. • Lawrence Cohen 21:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The new Iraq private security group scandal

BBC has identified the group, [1] Unity Resources Group don't have a page on Wikipedia yet, but they are mentioned as member of International Peace Operations Association. Here's their web sites: [2] and [3]. Something for you and/or User:Pleasantville to dig into? --RenniePet 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you let her know too? She may have more time to have a go at it, I'm going to be less active (possibly) the next 1-2 days. • Lawrence Cohen 00:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The DSLR Page

On the Digital Single Lens Reflex Page, your comment: "Some newer DSLR models feature live preview, allowing the image to be seen on the LCD display, although with certain limitations and with the optical viewfinder disabled." is merely a rewording of the text in the next section where live preview is introduced and discussed. User:MurderWatcher1 at 12:56 p.m. NYC Time (for some reason my Wiki formatting bar doesn't work).

[edit] Michael Palin

Hi, er.. well I'm more interested in when the trip was done but, that said, I think your new version of the box is much better than mine! Thanks. Marcus22 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi RenniePet. Thanks for the note on my talk page. Sorry for the delay in responding. I'm watching geoeg's contributions very closely. He will not be permitted to further disrupt the project. Oh, and hej from KBH. ;-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "cfd-user" tag

Just noticed that you applied a "cfd-user" tag on "Category:Atheist Wikipedians" back on 20 Oct. 2007. Since the category seems to still be in existance, should the tag be removed? --RenniePet 16:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the message.

To answer, it was a part of a group nom that I've since split into separate nominations. I haven't renominated that particular category yet.

So, you're welcome to remove it if you wish. - jc37 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

hello RenniePet. i considered your rationale for the deletion of this category - while i agree it is open for misuse and may have inappropriately been added to certain articles, i don't think such a category is open to misuse any more than Category:Homophobia or Category:Anti-Catholicism are (i am very happy to work together with anyone to prevent this or any other category's misuse). i think that the discussion revolves around whether the category is inherently appropriate. its appropriateness, in my view, is established by the fact that it has been highlighted by the EU as a significant form of discrimination; the UN recognises it; the UK government and many others recognise it; it frequently appears in reliable media and academic discourse, and so on. to me, that is sufficient to justify a category on the topic. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 18:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images and the bots

I agree with you re: the bot attacking the Modesty Blaise novel article image. Those bots (who are in fact stupid in the literal sense of the word) have completely turned me off even uploading images, yet along putting in the time and effort to "save" the images. One thing you might want to watch out for it we may not actually be allowed to delete bot announcements as you have done at Talk:Modesty Blaise (novel). I'd hate for you to get in trouble over it. The general response is to add strike-through coding before and after the bot message and then a line indicating that the situation has been resolved. 23skidoo 22:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't help when they change the rules every 6 months. Apparently now you need to have some sort of high-falutin' template on the page or the bot flags you. To heck with it is my attitude now, at least in terms of images. 23skidoo 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: anti-Arab & anti-Muslim backlash

Yes, people have their heads in the sand about all sorts of things, don't they. -- Cgingold (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A small comment

You linked a thread on Wikipedia Review. That site is mainly run by people banned from Wikipedia, exists in large part to disparage us, contains a fair bit of active harassment of Wikipedia editors and is in sundry other ways not a great place to link to. It's probably best if you try ot avoid linking to that site in future. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 15:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Willie Garvin

Re this last edit. The cite is fine, and there is no doubt about Saigon, mentioned several places, but why state (unreffed) this bit about Bangkok. I've recently reread quite a bit, and haven't found any sign of O'Donnel mixing it up. Bangkok is only mentioned as where Garvin learned his skills. MURGH ^disc. 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In Dead Man's Handle, on pages 13-14, it is fairly clear that Modesty and Willie are in Bangkok, not Saigon. It says Willie was "trying to earn som baht to get out of the country" (baht is the currency of Thailand), and Modesty tells him to meet her at a certain Hotel on a certain street, and both are in Bangkok. (I don't have the book here and I can't remember the exact names, but Google finds them in Bangkok.)

I'm fairly sure it says Bangkok in one of the other of the later books too, but I can't remember for sure. You're welcome to remove what I've written if you think that what it says in Dead Man's Handle isn't good enough. --RenniePet (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry. Hopefully you can relate to reading one thing and then comprehending a completely different thing crisply in your head.. I saw that you wrote Dead Man's Handle but I just automatically took it as The Long Lever (which was a bit on my mind). My embarrassment.

It would be cool to find an RS that would back up this charming O'Donnell mistake. MURGH ^disc. 11:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sensor size diagram

Hi RenniePet, apologies for the aggravation of dealing with Image:SensorSizes.png/.svg shenanigans. Let me try to address your concerns one by one.

“

Then along comes someone and flags it as a candidate for SVG conversion. That is complete bullshit - it's small and looks OK and nothing will be gained by converting it to SVG.

”

First of all, the primary motivation to convert this to SVG is not to reduce the file size. The primary motivation is to make it easier to edit the file in the future! A PNG image only contains an array of pixels, so it's impossible to enlarge it, rearrange things, edit the text, etc... without essentially re-creating the image again. Whereas a vector image in SVG format basically contains all the instructions needed to re-draw the image. Unfortunately, Wikipedia seems to lack a good page explaining why it's a good idea to convert diagrams and line drawings into SVG form.

“

Then along comes Hotshot, and, God help me, runs the PNG through a tracing process to vectorize it! This is guaranteed to introduce a certain level of error because the diagram data it not 100% accurate; it is by necessity rounded to the nearest pixel. (If the diagram really had to be re-done as a vector-based graphic, I would expect the person doing so to be conscientious enough to enter the data properly from the specified dimensions for each sensor, not do a quick-and-dirty tracing.)

”

I did not realize that HotShot had used a tracing program to convert it. I'm sorry about that, and thank you for alerting me to it. I will certainly go back and correct it! Hopefully after this you will find that the dimensions of the resulting image can be much more accurate than a PNG image, since it's possible to specify object dimensions exactly (e.g. make this rectangle 36 mm X 24 mm), rather than having to round to the nearest pixel.

“

Incidentally, you mention on your latest posting that the file size is not important because the graphic is shown as a thumbnail. This is not true, it is not the server but the browser that resizes the graphic - the full file is sent over the Internet every time. (Even if you were right, the performance hit would still affect the server, it has to read the unnecessarily-large file from its hard disk.)

”

This is commonly believed, but it is incorrect. Go to the page Image sensor format and hover your mouse over the SensorSizes.png image, then right-click and choose "View Image". You will actually be looking at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/SensorSizes.png/250px-SensorSizes.png ... as you can see, MediaWiki pre-renders thumbnails, saving both server and client bandwidth. So the full-size image is never transferred when viewing thumbnails.

Also, the pre-rendered thumbnails are cached on the server, so that the server only has to read the small thumbnail version at each access. (Talk to a MediaWiki hacker if you want to know the gory details.)

“

Anyway, the SVG has been manipulated and now it's been rasterized. So we started with a crisp and exact (as exact as possible) raster graphic and end up with another raster graphic that is less exact (two conversion have been done, and each conversion introduces some error), not crisp (look at yours at 300% viewing and you can see that it is blurry due to anti-aliasing), text still too large and also blurry, and the file is 3.5 times larger.

”

Well, as I said, I'll go back and fix the rectangle dimensions to make them exact! Secondly, anyone who wants a dimensionally accurate version of the image should be looking at the vector SVG version, not the PNG version, so the inexactitude of the PNG version seems not too important to me.

The beauty of the SVG version is that all the problems you cite are easy to fix. Don't like the anti-aliasing? It's easy to render it without that (and indeed I'll do so, good suggestion). Don't like the text size, just resize it!

“

On top of everything else, it now says, if I understand it correctly, that the file is a condidate for deletion!

”

Not exactly! It would be more accurate to say that the file is a candidate for promotion Since this image is freely-licensed, it should be made available on Wikimedia Commons rather than just on English Wikipedia... that way all the other wikimedia projects can use it as well.

If an image is referenced from Wikipedia, but does not exist on it, Wikipedia automatically looks for the same-named image in Commons. So (and this sounds retarded I know) it's necessary to delete the image from Wikipedia in order to make it available to a wider array of projects.

Unfortunately, the current process for moving images to Commons is cumbersome and confusing... first they must be copied to Commons (done: commons:Image:SensorSizes.png), and secondly the Wikipedia version must be marked with the {{nowcommons}} template, after which the Wikipedia version will be deleted and all references changed to point towards Commons.

“

I hope you can understand that something like this makes me loose all motivation to use my free time to try to make things that will be of use here on Wikipedia. Thanks for listening.

”

I hear you . I hope I've been able to clear up some of the reasoning behind why this image is valuable enough to be converted to SVG. I certainly think your image has been extremely valuable to Wikipedia, and that it will be even more valuable in an accurate vectorized form... since it will be easier to update in case some new sensor format comes out, and since the vector version can be printed at any size without loss of resolution.

ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(PS- Thanks for correcting my stupid caption mix-up in the battery grip article! <- DSLR newbie here! ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 00:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

UPDATE: I've fixed the SVG to maintain *exact* dimensions in mm (one-to-one), and re-rasterized it to PNG, and put the updated PNG on both commons and wikipedia. Whew!  :-P ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict - the following was written before your latest.

Thanks for your well-written answer.

A couple of points...

If you want to do the most accurate possible data entry, I can send you my Excel spreadsheet where some measurements are to 3 digits of accuracy, not just 2. (Not that the human eye will be able to see the difference, but ...)

If Wikipedia does do a pre-resizing of thumbnails (I'm still not completely convinced, although you do sound like you understand these things, but MS IE 7 does not give me the information you indicate on right-click, and a right-click and save image gets the full image) it is the first web site I'm aware of that does this. Good idea, of course.

Turning off anti-aliasing is probably not good if you need to make a rasterized version - you get a thin or invisible line where a line falls between the pixels and a thick line where it falls just right on the pixels.

And I still don't understand, if SVGs are so great, why the need for a rasterized version? And if both a rasterized version and an SVG version are needed, why not use my/Dicklyon's 17 KB PNG for the rasterized version?

--RenniePet (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for not responding, I forgot to add a watch on your talk page.

As for accuracy, the current SVG version has the measurements of the sensors specified to the same precision that the text does, so I think that is good enough.

As for image caching/resizing, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size:

“

Since Mediawiki dynamically scales inline images there is no need to reduce file size via scaling or quality reduction when you upload images...

”

You're right, I tried to turn off the anti-aliasing in the rendered SVG, and it looked awful. The reason the rasterized version is needed (for now) is because, although SVG really is great, MediaWiki's support for some features is not. In particular, MediaWiki cannot render flowed multi-line text right now... so it is necessary to rasterize such an SVG offline for now. The SVG 1.2 standard is in flux right now but hopefully will be fixed soon so that this feature is usable!!!

ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pig_person.jpg

The image has been restored, replaced in the article and ifdc tag added to the caption. The new discussion is at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_December_23. -Good luck Nv8200p talk 00:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review for Blackwater Worldwide, please help!

Blackwater Worldwide, an article under this WikiProject, is up for Peer Review to move to Featured Article status. Please help out and offer up reviews, advice, or edits to the article or review at:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Blackwater Worldwide/archive1

Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 14:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I don't really mind mediocre content where there would otherwise be no content at all. Mediocre is better than nothing. And if it's truly important, eventually someone will come along and improve it.

My frustration comes about when you have a good or great article, and then someone comes along and makes a poor or mediocre edit, reducing the overall quality. Vandalism is easy to deal with: you just revert. But it's not so easy when the edit is well-intended, but wrong. Or well-intended, but of such poor quality that it just shouldn't be there without significant improvement. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image sensor format

Hi RenniePet, I agree that it's useful to have area listed in the table of sensor format sizes BUT you should know that area usually is not the most important figure of merit. It's actually the 1-dimensional extent of the pixels that determines most of their noise and dynamic range characteristics, as you can read at this site which is referenced from that article. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 20:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I must admit it was all over my head, though. :-( --RenniePet (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Containerization and port-related topics

		Interested in ports-related articles?
		Hello, I notice that you recently made some improvements to Containerization, and I thought you may be interested to know there is a WikiProject working to improve articles about port-related topics. Your help would be greatly appreciated on other port articles, so please consider joining WikiProject Ports. Euryalus (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm trying to keep my Wikipedia activities under control, and not get into anything demanding. Actually, I have a bad conscience about the A. P. Moller-Maersk Group article - I started doing a major rewrite, but then lost interest. :-(

But thanks for the invitation. --RenniePet (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Your made some major improvements to the Maersk article so I wouldn't spend any time feeling bad about it. Denmark's ports articles are either non-existent or very thin (Copenhagen Malmö Port for example), so if you're sitting round looking for something to work on ...  :) Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Muhammad

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles)#Muhammad the user you reported for vandalism for removing "prophet" from articles, is correct in doing so. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 12:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, his entire way of doing this does not strike me as constructive. A brand-new account and he's off and running with a mission, and no explanation attached to his edits. Also, the guideline page you refer to says "except when it is the first reference in an article". I still think he's doing more harm than good. --RenniePet (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Captions should not end with a period

All right. IAMTrust (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If the editors decide that the article can't stand on its own, perhaps we can integrate the information from it into the Lumix page, links to individual pages from that page have already been removed. kchanyr 12:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchanyr (talk • contribs)

[edit] Blocking Jack Orchard

I have never used a talk page before so please don't block me if i am doing something wrong in writing here. I merely wish to challenge your most recent warnings towards me on the issue of vandalism, though i will accept that my contributions to to actual article on Richard Dawkins, however true, are less than productive, my contributions to the Template of other articles which address him, it is a valid place for links to the South Park Episodes which include him. there is no 'Richard Dawkins in popular culture' section on the page. Would I be allowed to create such a section? and if so, may i include these references?

> so please don't block me ...

I'm not a Wikipedia administrator, so I can't block anybody. (When I post a boilerplate vandalism warning threatening blocking, it is because I, and anbody else, can report another user to the administrator's forum, and an administrator will then take action if he/she thinks it is warranted.)

> for links to the South Park Episodes

> there is no 'Richard Dawkins in popular culture' section

The place to discuss this is on the "talk page" (discussion page) associated with the Richard Dawkins article, Talk:Richard Dawkins. Good luck. (Although I think this has already been discussed a couple of times, and the general consensus is that they (the editors who are most interested in maintaining the Richard Dawkins article) don't want it, perhaps because they think it reduces the seriousness of Richard Dawkins' message and the whole situation of religion and its good and bad influences. --RenniePet (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Gotta love those kids and their crazy scatological humor :) --jonny-mt 13:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I am not dealing for distruction

I am just pointed to do not post such material on wiki it hurts muslims and islamic point of view it is prohabited to published any picture of any prophet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbukhari (talk • contribs) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am not interested in destruction. I wish there was a better dialog between Muslims and the rest of the world. But a real dialog has to be based on open information, otherwise it is a false dialog based on preconditions that one side says are not subject to discussion. And if some things are not open for discussion, then the whole idea of trying to reach understanding is doomed to failure. Good luck. --RenniePet (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Was just writing the Mohammed Atif Siddique article myself when I noticed that Kohlmann had been the one to label his collection of downloaded documents as being related to the potential commission of terrorism, rather than the study of it. Seeing you two discuss it, I figured you might be interested in the article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. That guy Kohlmann gives me a bad feeling of someone who, for pay, will label anyone as a terrorist, while proclaiming that he is a world-class expert on the subject without having any real credentials for his so-called expertise. But don't quote on this. :-)

You might be interested in contacting User talk:Geo Swan - ah, I can see you've already been there. --RenniePet (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, Geo and I converse quite regularly -- and I agree, Kohlmann doesn't seem to have any readily visible credentials, it'd be like hiring you, Geo or I to testify. Sure we know more than the average person, but people shouldn't be going to jail on account of our "hunches". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If my suspicions are correct then hopefully sooner or later there will be some publically-available document where someone, for example a defense attorney, criticizes Evan Kohlmann's competence, and that can be added to his article. Right now it reads like an advertisement. --RenniePet (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tangeroiseimmobilier.com and the Tangier page

answer in my talk page, thanks--Khalid hassani (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foruming

I have reverted your comments here- talk pages are not to be used as a forum for general discussion of the topic; they are for discussion relating to the improvement of the article. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The God Delusion

[4] I'd say vocal atheist is definitely accurate, but should it be in the lead and is there a better wording? Would you prefer something less grating, or leaving it out completely? Dawkins' vigorous defence and promotion of atheism is highly relevant to the page, but I was torn about adding it in the first place. Whaddya think? WLU (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. But rather than ask me I think you should take it up on the talk page of the article. There are several other editors whose influence over that article is much greater than mine, and if you and the others think "vocal atheist" is suitable, so be it. To me it sounds negative (perhaps that was your intention? - fair enough if so), like stamping someone as overly hysterical in agitating for their views. --RenniePet (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw 'vocal atheist' as something hopefully acceptable to both - those who dislike Dawkins see it as pejorative, while those who like see it as testament to his passionate defense of the concept. Personally, I thought he over-reached a very good point, but I'm inclined to like him, if nothing else than for his dislike of creationism. I don't think it's crucial, but the prominence of his atheism, both in the book and elsewhere, seems like something worth putting in the lead. But if your idea of bringing it to the talk page is probably a good one, so I'll do that. Please, provide input if you've an opinion! WLU (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [5] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creationist tosh film

It's a documentary. The genre of the film is "documentary." Just like An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary and Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary. The fact that something is polemic doesn't mean it's not a documentary. I think Expelled is a pile of lies, but it's in the category of "documentary" films. FCYTravis (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that the word "documentary" was inserted and removed several times a couple of days ago, and the eventual result was that the word was removed. I'll not revert it again, but don't be surprised if someone else does. --RenniePet (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the article is in the Category:Documentary films, it makes no sense not to call it a documentary film in the lede :) Documentaries are not prohibited from being polemic. All of Michael Moore's stuff (I'm a huge fan) is polemic, but they're still "documentary" film, because they're not created-from-whole-cloth fiction. The definition of "documentary film" is using your cameras to document "reality," but in almost every case, the manipulation of what you shoot and how you edit, is designed to put some point or another across. FCYTravis (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

RP, i agree with you 100%, especially your point that calling the movie a documentary "legitimizes it excessively", and I would make exactly the same point about An Inconvenient Truth, which is political tripe masquerading as a documentary, as is most of the crap churned out by Moore. However, it appears that we are in a distinct minority. Frustratingly, the definition of "documentary" is so absurdly broad that it would apply with equal validity to an amateur porn video or a home-movie of my cat using the litterbox. Doc Tropics 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I would wonder what your definition of "documentary" is, then. Every documentary film has a point of view. It is not possible to do otherwise. The mere act of choosing to shoot a particular scene and not another, or choosing to include one part of an interview and not another, or even aiming the camera in one direction and not another, is inherently a demonstration of the director's point of view and vision for what he or she is choosing to create. Ken Burns' The Civil War, one of the greatest documentaries of all time, ends up presenting a significant point of view regarding the causes of the war, as it is clearly written to emphasize the historical perspective that the war was caused by slavery. Significant disagreement exists among historians on that point - not that anyone doesn't believe slavery was part of it, but there are historians who feel that it is merely one part of a larger conflict. Does the fact that Burns' film took a clear position in this debate mean that it is "political tripe masquerading as a documentary?" FCYTravis (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perceval

"Company" is indeed better than "press". Thanks for that. Panclatter (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Your correction on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 was completely right- thanks for picking it up. Tvoz/talk 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)