Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:45, 2 December 2008

Houston chronicle image

For that one, I'd rather that the IFD run its course. The difference is that for the houston chronicle image, the text is not legible and it is very low resolution. It's at least arguably a fair use of the image. For the AP image, it reprinted the entire story, which is clearly not fair use. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of newspaper articles that aren't on the internet that are used here as sources. Check out Akris, which I just wrote, for example. To cite to the source, just write the name of the article, the author (if appropriate), the newspaper, and the date. If someone wants to verify it, they can check LexisNexis or go to the library. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Don't vandalise my user page. Do it again and you get reported - ok? INTGAFW (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You wrote on my user page and vandalised it when I had nothing there. I have a user talk page which you are more than entitled to write on, but you chose to vandalise by user page. INTGAFW (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

But it is not your choice to turn the user page blue. I am entitled to keep nothing on it. Yes? INTGAFW (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Repairing a newbie's mistake"

Hi. I'm not sure if you noticed, but in this edit you (accidentally?) deleted a comment I'd made half an hour earlier. Don't worry, I've restored it already, but please do try to be more careful in the future. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

No problem. I didn't know why you'd done that, but I was fairly certain you didn't realize what you'd done. I removed the name of a recently added wounded, it didn't sound familiar. If I was wrong, please let me know. The thing about the images is, agree or not, I gave my opinion on them, and decided not to go back and revisit them, except to change the comment about the court case to clarify that this is what the rationale stated. I'm not a fan of reproduced newspaper titles, the Truman/Dewey one would be a notable exception to me, mostly because the newspaper itself, and that image, were hugely and notably reproduced, discussed and cited for decades. Cheers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh geez, you do like stirring things up. They shouldn't be on the right under the subheading you know. Not to mention they screw up the nice boxed listings already there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Does it on your browser? In mine, it lines up with the photo of Whitman. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Now they line up with the .357 image. I use Firefox, I don't know how it looks other places. Speaking of Firefox, it's about time to clear the cache. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a template at the bottom of the section. I moved it once and it got lost in an edit conflict. Try it now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the main photo is a bit big myself. It makes me think Whitman would have right at home in the end scenes of the original Night of the Living Dead, toothpick in his mouth "Shoot him good there. Yeah, that's right. There's another one for the fire..." Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the size can just be adjusted. imagesize=150px maybe. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Look now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The default infobox size is 200px, and usually that works fine, but sometimes it is just too overwhelming. I recall having adjusted image sizes and left edit summaries like "big, scary teeth". I think that was for Julia Roberts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Whitmans 357.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Whitmans 357.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Whitman arsenal.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Whitman arsenal.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Whitman relaxed.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Whitman relaxed.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Whitmandeck.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Whitmandeck.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

I'd just started looking at the article, so give me some time to look over what's going on. One comment I can make is that if these are public domain images, they could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, so they will be retained whether they are used in articles or not. Just be sure the licensing is correct. I'll get back to you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, off-hand, the licensing needs to be supported. I need to do some looking to find what they actually need to show. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

They need verification of the source to prove it is a government work. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The source is the FBI, they took over the case because of control substance issues and their sources as well as other issues as well as Whitman being a Marine.Victor9876 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New

Take a look at the page. I moved the box placements and I think it's a lot more balanced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing is that they don't much like the closable content links in the main body of the article because not all web browsers support it (antiquated, but true). Regarding the work, with all due respect, the changes I made make the article look a lot better than the way the boxes and images were lined up before. I'd fight reverting it back to the unbalanced view. I'm kind of in the middle here, but so far, no one has undone the good faith improvement efforts I've put in. I would think that should continue.

About Chronie, she's a good girl, be nice to her. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You were nice to Chronie. I was patting you on the back for it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean as in a new article page? If so, I'd bet it would be challenged as not detailed or significant enough to support a separate article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm brain-dead tonight. I can't picture what you mean. Show me and if it isn't workable, it can always be undone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that actually is a separate article... well, list. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a little surprised that list is still there. In general, victim lists have been diverted back to main articles. There used to be a separate page for Columbine victims and that was redirected back to the main article and removed as a separate list. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted, you could create a new article for it, but I'm betting it won't survive deletion. I think the boxes look fine as they are myself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing incidents

Hey! I didn't have much of a Thanksgiving, we had dinner on Sunday, so on the surface, it was just another day, though underneath, it felt quite weird. I think the turkey is about gone now, and for that I'm relieved!!

I don't know what brought on the sudden "incident" onslaught, but it looked to me like it was going to become more than a minor point, so I tried rewording things to minimize that before it happened. Personally, I think that when an ill individual climbs a clock tower and starts playing sniper, there are few who would classify it as anything other than a tragedy, but that's me. Obviously, there are people in the world who can find a reason to snipe (with apologies) about anything, and I think this is one of those cases. I find it a bit bizarre to see the same people who would object to photos on the page being among the ones who takes exception to the word "tragedy". Until the image issues, the second tragedy objector had not edited the article before, and now seems to watchdog it. That, of course, is just my perspective, and my thoughts on why should be clear. Meanwhile, have you put in the sources for the second round of images that person targeted? If they are all public domain released by the government, etc., I don't see that there is a need for a source url, perhaps a statement of where you got them, wherever that is? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you post that clarification was made on the images for deletion page? If not, they will get deleted. Actually, I think that nominating them for deletion before ever tagging them for clarification of source was out of synch with what is supposed to be done. First you tag, then if nothing is forthcoming, nominate. Maybe because the first nominations were challenged? Ya think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You should really post it on the nomination page or things will proceed without discussion. You can do the Godfather Moment too, though, if you want. Like I said, I think he put his cart before his horse. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You forgot Image:Whitman relaxed.jpg. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's on the images for deletion page, but nothing's been added to the image page itself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thought I'd let you know that he's still challenging the last round of images, wanting library record numbers or some such nonsense. Can you say "can't let it go"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is something like I wanted. I might tweak it a little bit later, but not right now. I adjusted some spacing since the removal of the deletion notes in the images changed the spacing on the boxes and a couple big spaces, but it looks good. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

From the Thorn

Could say the same about you. All you do is change usernames and destroy the Whitman/McCoy pages and get kicked off, I'll miss your Victor username when you lose it. So what name will you use next?? May I make some suggestions

PsYCHOSTalKER KNOWitALL COMPLETELoseR HomElessCraZYguy PhoneyFAKEandSAD BOTTomFEEDERskumbag ExploiterSUPREME FaKELAWYER SCAmARTist

Like those? Since you believe that you can tell so much from a person's username... I'd like to go other articles but you obviously follow me, so my project is you. Get that screenplay written yet? Clock is ticking....better do it before someone beats you to it (like me) or you can just do the world a favor and walk in front of a bus.

For the last time...I am not Houston McCoy. Wrong again, like always. You are thinking too small. Stop trying to figure me out, you aren't good at it. You can keep guessing though its fun....hey maybe one day we can meet for coffee. Don't worry, I'll pay for it and for your bus ride home.