User talk:Dr Zak

This user may have left Wikipedia. Dr Zak has not edited Wikipedia since June 8, 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Good call on the Thayer image.

Amazing color. Sylvanus Thayer deserves a first class image. The article looks 100% better with this single change. BusterD 04:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a real problem with reading

I won't be the least bit generous with you on this. The article is quite clearly spiked with pro-MSG material. I've made note of it in the discussion page Talk:Monosodium_glutamate#Revert_on_July_13.2C2006. I did not revert without researching, cause or thinking. I'm not going to get into a revert war with you Wikipedia:Reverting#Revert_wars_considered_harmful_.28the_three_revert_rule.29. I'll give you 24 hours to decide, if you want to research this article and give a real response. If not, I'll go straight to arbitration.

--meatclerk 06:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You screwed up the references, you see that you fix it. Dr Zak 11:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Parrot Award

Hah it looks great, thanks :) Dionyseus 00:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a honour!! Thanks very much, I squwak with pride! Bwithh 02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Raising the Stakes on You

This is to advise you. I intend to make a complaint in the near future of your methods. My complaints are as such.

Not acting in good faith.
failure to read "discussion page".
failure to read "summary" information.

I'm more than willing to admit and fix any gray areas. I believe I have. I know I will in the future.

But Image:MPCivicCenter2006_500px.jpg is by no means scanned. This points to your presumptuous nature and unwillingness to act in good faith.

I'm not saying anything else. My suggestion is we stay clear of each other for the next 5 days to let things cool down.

--meatclerk 06:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you get familiar with fair use. You are using a picture of a copyrighted map as a map; it's beyond what fair use would permit. And please don't use phat words on this page. Dr Zak 16:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 days. --meatclerk 05:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Zak to be fair to you and get the images reinstated without issue, I have updated the reference page for Image:MPCivicCenter2006_500px.jpg. You'll note the image is NOT scanned, but in fact a sign posted on the Civic Center Grounds. Note the original is oversized (2080x1368px) and large 574K. As such, there should be no copyright issue.

On the other image Image:RWC-NaturalFeatures-Pg.21_519px.jpg, I'll update the reference later.

--meatclerk 18:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Thanks for replacing the images on my user page! Paul 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic totalitarianism

This is pointless. You cannot just "speedy close" my nomination here. The outcome of the deletion review can never lead to deletion since the article has been changed in the meanwhile. Therefore the 3rd nomination for deletion based on a criteria different than the one used in the two earlier nominations. Intangible 14:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience! Dr Zak 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "patience" results in unneccessary "name calling" in the deletion review and on the talk page of the article. If one is to relist this article for nomination on the basis of WP:OR it will -fail- any deletion attempt. I will seek a fourth nomination. Intangible 14:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you must... I see three "overturn and delete", seven "relist" and two "keeps". Dr Zak 15:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSG Cleanup, Archive and Revert

I think I'm, thanking you for doing some of the above. However, I'm left confused. Please confirm your intent and actions. A note on the MSG discussion page would be best.

Thanks --meatclerk 05:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the talk page within reasonable size discussions are copied to an archive page. That makes the old material easily accessible (it's now all at Talk:Monosodium glutamate/archive1). If the material were deleted one would have to go through the page history to find a particular discussion, a tedious task, especially on dialup internet. Dr Zak 05:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. To keep things clear. It's clear now. Thanks. --meatclerk 08:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PNG vs JPG

Can you walk me through the logic here. I noticed you switched the Martin Luther timeline to a PNG. So what is the advantage of a screen capture being saved as a PNG over JPG? Thanks David D. (Talk) 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JPG employs a lossy compression algorithm built around wavelets - essentially the Fourier Transform is involved. When sharp transitions between dark and light occur one must employ many Fourier terms and still ends up with series termination errors. (What this means is: compression is inefficient, and there are noticeable compression artefacts. Just look at the JPEG image with, say Microsift Paint and zoom in, you'll see!) PNG, on the contrary is lossless and better suited to line art. Dr Zak 21:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i see the difference. I'll redo the png version from scratch, but leave the one i just upload for now, since it is the correct version despite being a png saved from a jpg (obviously artafcts will still be present). David D. (Talk) 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was to save a screen capture of Template:Timeline Martin Luther as PNG image. The compression artifacts are gone, but Windows XP obviously does anti-aliasing when rendering the picture... didn't notice that! Dr Zak 21:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'll check my screen capture from a MAC. Although, i suspect the anti aliasing may be worse. Regardless i learned some good stuff. Another option is to clean up the screen capture in photoshop. or even just recreate it in illustrator and save as an SVG. I'll think about it. David D. (Talk) 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorsey Brothers stamp

Image:Dorsey stamp.jpg What is wrong with having an image of a U.S. postage stamp? Is it not fair use to use postage stamp images? Talk to Dr. M 21:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, since 1978 US postage stamps are copyrighted by the USPS. We can use pictures of stamps only to illustrate the stamp itself, but not to discuss the subject of the stamp. An article where stamp images are used correctly would be the article on the Transportation coils, which talks at length about that series of stamps. On the other hand, one can't use Image:Transportation coil, Canoe, plate 2.jpg to give an illustration of a canoe. Perhaps a better example is at Brontosaurus, which mentions that the Post Office should have known better than issuing a stamp with a dinosaur that never existed. The stamp image is not used to illustrate what the Brontosaurus looks like, instead it appears in the context of discussing the "Dinosaur" series of stamps. Please read Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use for the fuill story. Dr Zak 22:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR

It's a borderline case. Since there is a citation to a reliable source who described them that way, that would make the excerpt not OR, since it's the cited source that is describing them that way, and not a Wikipedia editor. That's my take on it, anyway. Nandesuka 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now with the direct attribution the sentence is approaching meaningless hagiography... mostly harmless! Dr Zak 16:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what the point is

Jane Goodall is a scientist, an expert in her field and on the subject matter of Langley's book, which she is endorsing. Why is she doing this? I don't know, and don't care. I was speaking as to whether Langley's work is peer-reviewed. It is. IronDuke 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how familiar you are with science - but calling Jane's endorsement of Gill's white paper peer-reviewed is stretching it. Peer review is done by (typically anonymous) reviewers to advise the editor about the novelty and technical correctness of a publication. I must know because I have reviewed a couple of papers.

I doubt I called Goodall's foreword white paper, since I'd not heard of the term until you linked to it (and it it no way applies here). "Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field." Goodall is an expert. She reviewed it favorably. IronDuke 23:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "white paper" is a document that argues a position. Maybe you can elaborate why "Next of Kin" doesn't argue the pusition of the BUAV. The report even has a "Call to Action" on page 6. To comment on the foreword - sentences like "We must pressure scientists to use ... technologies that make the use of non-human primates ... obsolete" isn't what one would find in a referee's report. You review a paper for novelty and watertightness; this is endorsing a position. Not that there is anything wrong with the act, it's the business of the BUAV to lobby against use of animals, but we shouldn't misrepresent this. Dr Zak 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was in reference to her notability for the AfD. I believe it strongly supports the idea that Langley is notable. But the AfD is closed and the article's been kept, so the point is moot. IronDuke 15:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such endorsements are solicited in advance, and we shouldn't forget that the BUAV - which commissioned the report - is amongst the largest anti-animal-experimentation groups in the UK. Having Goodall's name associated with it says more about the organization than the author. About Gill's notability we have to disagree. Dr Zak 22:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to disagree. IronDuke 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Carl Alexander's phone number

Hi, Dr Zak. In my most recent post to Talk:Uranium trioxide, I am asking you to correspond or speak with Dr. Carl Alexander at Battelle (who was a coauthor of the Ackermann et al (1960) paper on UO₃ gas, and the sole author of another pertinent paper last year) in hopes that we might resolve our dispute about the production of uranium trioxide gas from uranium combustion. Dr. Alexander and I have been corresponding, and he is responsive. I want you to have his phone number here, because although it is in public documents, the Battelle directory isn't easily available (although dial-by-name from their main number works fine), and so I'm not sure I want it recorded in the article talk page out of courtesy. You can reach Dr. Alexander at +1-614-424-5233. LossIsNotMore 03:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you want to speak with someone who has 45 years of experience on the subject, states that UO₃(g) is produced by uranium combustion and "is quite stable"? Is it because you would have to admit the truth after arguing the wrong side for so many months? Do you have the intellectual responsibility to face that possibility? Or, will you continue to claim my exposition on Dr. Alexander's opinion, supported by so many peer-reviewed sources is "disruptive"? Disruptive to whom? Those who aren't willing to admit that they may have made a mistake? Any you call yourself a scientist? LossIsNotMore 06:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lcdcp

I see you redirected it to DCP, thank you. Question, what happens to Lcdcp now? --meatclerk 05:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ONJ

I have left a message on Talk:Bisphosphonate on the linking of osteonecrosis of the jaw. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gill Langley

It's awfully quiet there since I stuck my nose in... - brenneman ^{L} 06:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably be called names if I go back to that denizen of the Corridors of Power. :-( Dr Zak 14:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Yanksox

Hey, Dr Zak, thanks for supporting my RfA, with a tally of 104/4/7...

I am now an admin!!!

I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yank sox 07:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luther GA Nom Comments

The Martin Luther article has been nominated for Good Article status. A reviewer dropped by and said that everything but the Luther and Antisemitism section qualified. Mantanmoreland said, in effect, the section was just fine but the rest was hagiographic. While I intend to leave the issue well enough alone, I thought you might be interested in helping see if he will offer us some suggestions. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

You indicated on my RfA that I don't need admin tools to work on image tagging. I've expanded my answer to question 1 to explain why I need the admin tools to properly run OrphanBot. Could you reconsider your vote? --Carnildo 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in...

Wikipedia:Expert Retention and the proposed policy Wikipedia:Tendentious editors. --EngineerScotty 23:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proton Sponge

Hi, I noticed you converted Proton Sponge from a redirect into a two sentence stub. Do we really need this article as well as 1,8-Bis(dimethylamino)naphthalene? As I see it:

The first sentence merely duplicates content from the main article
The second sentence cannot easily be substantiated, it seems to be your opinion. I'm not familiar with that usage, and when I heard Roger Alder speak last year (and I see I still haven't uploaded Image:Roger Alder.jpg I took that evening!) I believe he used the term only to refer to the original compound. See [this] to confirm it.

Even if this usage is commonplace, does it deserve a full article to tell us? I can't see anything more that can be added to this stub beyond this. Do you have something else in mind for the article? Personally for legal reason I don't like the use of a copyrighted name as an article title unless absolutely necessary, especially if you are blurring the meaning from the copyrighted meaning. If we need a general article on these things should it be included in superbase? Walkerma 04:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, when I started that stub I was planning to include stuff on those biguanides whose strain is relieved on protonation - it's work that Sian Howard and some Polish guys did some five years ago. IIRC there is also a review in Angewandte somewhere. As far as "superbases" go, thr word is much less well defined than "superacid". Everyone seems to have their own definition for the term. Some use it for the KOt-Bu/n-BuLi system, others for amide bases and even others include the proton sponges and stuff. Dr Zak 01:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand your reasons now. I still think it might be better to include it as a section under superbase, though I accept your comment about the latter being a vague term. Do the authors you mention use the term "Proton Sponge" to describe their products, or is this just a usage you have heard in the lab? I would say that unless it appears in print, and is used by different authors, the term "Proton Sponge" shouldn't be used as the article name on these compounds. Those compounds are definitely interesting, worth writing about.

By the way, thanks for your contributions, it's good to see another chemist showing up in my watchlist (I never knew CDCl3 was made that way, I'd assumed it was by base-catalysed proton exchange!). I hope I can do more chemistry work once Version 0.5 has been released, and perhaps we can get to know each other better. Cheers, Walkerma 04:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what the Citation Index throws up the trademark is heavily genericized and several groups (not just one!) use "proton sponge" to refer to any kind of sterically congested nitrogen base.

I am not sure, however, if it's worth the bother to contribute here any longer. Here [1] is a revert to a factually incorrect version, the reasoning being that my edit made the writing deteriorate. Right! OK, physical-organic chemistry is an agenda-free zone and won't ever attact cranks, but... these soapboxes masquerading as articles continue to exist and ask to be improved. Dr Zak 03:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've convinced me! I wouldn't say chemistry doesn't attract cranks, but it's definitely a lot less controversial. I would encourage you to stick around and write on some things that you think are important, like proton sponges! An active chemist can really make a big difference in Wikipedia chemistry content, and believe me, the whole world is watching us, including the chemistry world. Not only that, but all of our students are downloading Wikipedia articles by the billion, let's make sure that the chemical information they get is accurate and free. Cheers, Walkerma 04:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme inhibition

Hi there. I've now added a chemical mechanism for DFMO reaction with ODC. It does add a more chemical feel to what was otherwise a mol-biol biased article! TimVickers 22:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thanks for your efforts. Enzyme inhibitor is now a FA. TimVickers 14:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

de-merge planned Ullmann reaction

Please be advised that I intent to undo all your merge actions involving the Ullmann reaction within a few days as these merges are not according to Wiki quidelines. V8rik 14:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind these reactions are all very similar - especially the oxygen-Ullmann condensation and the amida-Goldberg reaction. Could you advise why you intend do de-merge all these. Dr Zak 14:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

several reasons: concepts are related but not identical, no merge notice posted, categories messed up, initially the Goldberg reaction was linked (not bold) although this is corrected in the latest edit. Also: writing up all the organic reactions is a undertaking involving many editors and involving at least 4 years by now and everybody seems to be happy with the current format of treating one reaction at the time. What you are proposing is piling everything together in big articles, whats next: combining all coupling reactions? Why switch to images in frames? the organic reaction pages do in general not have frames. Also: my general concerns on mergers: see my personal page. V8rik 21:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with your essay on merging articles.

However, when planning a synthesis one is concerned with the type of reactions (carbon-carbon bond formation, carbon heteroatom bond formation, hybridization and polarity at the reactive centers and also reaction conditions) that are involved along the way. My class in Advanced Organic Chemistry was organized along those principles. Thinking about the last sentence: it does make sense to keep the Ullman coupling and condensation seperate. (Since you asked: I wouldn't mind one article for all Pd-supported sp²-sp² cross-couplings; those all have quite a similar mechanism and the choice of metal is mainly dictated through the starting material.)

It is not correct to say that there is no consensus for a merge and everybody is happy of classifying reactions by name – there hasn't been much discussion either way, and there is no consensus for any approach. I might say that you are the only dissenting voice.

Frames are a style issue. Here you added comments to the reaction scheme that are invisible to the reader. A frame was the most straightforward way to add comments to the schemes. I am unaware of any style guide for reaction schemes in Wikipedia; everyone seems to follow their own esthetic compass. Dr Zak 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay lets meet halfway then. The only things I have left to add: feel free to expand the article on organopalladium chemistry or expand the coupling reaction page. Also: better to first put up a merge notice, then have a discussion and then perform the merge (or leave it as it is). You are right when you state that there are no style guides in the reaction pages but take for instance the pages created by User:~K (and he did a lot of them). He did not use frames from the start, this works for me and I also do not use frames, makes everything more consistent. V8rik 20:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme kinetics

I was impressed with your review of Enzyme inhibition and the more chemical view you brought to this. A daughter article on kinetics in general is now up for FA candidacy, if you have any comments the discussion page is here. Thank you. TimVickers 20:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments, your different perspective is very valuable. I have gritted my teeth and added more discussion of the Lineweaver-Burke plot as well as a figure. You were right about this being a significant omission, as the plot was discussed later and did need to be illustrated before it was applied. Thank you! TimVickers 14:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and constructive edits Dr Zak. A minor point is that the steady-state approximation is separate from the equilibrium assumption. These two separate ways of deriving the MM equation were delt with sequentially in the article. (I'm trying to follow an outline such as this). I'll expand the section on the steady-state approximation a little, as you are correct that this is the more general case. Thank you. TimVickers 17:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is there any particular reason you removed the Xiaolin Showdown images? Your edit summaries only say remove image, and there's no elaboration on the talk pages. It looks like you were only removing them so they could be orphaned and deleted, and I don't know why you would want to do that. If you have a reason please explain it, and in the future include it in your edit summary or a post on the talk page. Jay32183 19:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images were removed because they do not comply to the fair use guidelines. Specifically, #8 ("contribute significantly to the article") is violated; the screenshots are used to illustrate Kimiko's appearance in particular Xiaolin Showdown episodes - something that can be done equally well in words. Indeed it is done for those interested in that bit of trivia. Why didn't I leave a note on the talk page? Because there were three dozen images that were so removed. My arm still hurts. Dr Zak 19:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is the fair use disputed tag, and you could have left a more specif edit summary. When you just say "remove image" it impossible to tell if you're disputing the fair use or vandalizing the page. Jay32183 03:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IOU x2

Thank you again for the amazing image. It is exactly, believe it or not, the image I keep in my mind. I write a lot of religion articles, and one of the stories from Gospel that haunts me is that of Maundy Thursday. When I was a young man, I even had a venture named Sheer Thursday (an alternative name for Maundy Thursday). The Bible verses are plentiful in this regard, but I will avoid using them on the essay. Thank you. Geogre 20:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erecura image

I do think my fair use rationale is valid, but we should definitely use a free equivalent if we can get our hands on one. You know, that would be a really cool idea – set up a kind of Wiki-clearinghouse where people like me who need a photo from Stuttgart can tell people, "Take these pictures!", and if somebody's in Stuttgart and feels like it, off they go. Quartier Latin1968 15:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking for Wikipedia:Requested images. As for the image, sorry, no, Fair Use guideline #1 specifically forbids claiming fair use for images where a free equivalent is easily available. Cheers! Dr Zak 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'd thought 'easily available' meant that the free image had to already exist. Hmm. Good to know. Thanks for the requested images link – so many good things go on in Wikipedia behind the scenes. Best, Quartier Latin1968

16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thank you for your note. A problem with image policy enforcement arises when people appear to try to enforce them against editors they've previously been in conflict with. It is close to impossible to find out with certainty who the copyright holder and photographer is of many fairuse images that are uploaded. All we can do in many cases is use our common sense; for example if Oxford University publishes an academic's image on a dept webpage, the copyright holder is almost certainly the subject or the university. To engage in further investigative work is fruitless, as is trying to track down the name of the photographer. When suggestions to do this are made to the uploader by editors who have previously been in conflict with that person, it starts to look like an abuse of the policies to make a point. This is bad for collaborative editing, but it's also bad for the image policies, because it brings them into disrepute. For all these reasons, I'd appreciate it if you would leave or refer any further queries regarding images I've uploaded to a neutral party. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NorthMiamiBeachHigh.jpg

The image is fair use because its taken from a public website, and that website is referenced in the text of the image, also, the reason for why that image is being used is to showcase the actual school, so it basically references the school itself on the article and is not being used for any other purpose, which is ok in terms of fair use. Though the image can be recreated easily, yes, it doesn't mean that it can't be fair use. I don't live in that area of the school or know anyone who does, if I did i'd just recreate it. Either way, the image has a link to the location from where it was lifted for this purpose within the text and credits, and since it is only used to showcase the actual subject of the image then it can be claimed as fair use. So that image is not in violation, though I guess it would be best to find or take an alternative, but until then we can still use it. If you have an opposition to this then feel free to contact me. If you agree then please remove the vio tag. Please reply anyway though. Thanks. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would be fair use to use the school district's picture in an article about the school. However, the fair use criteria on Wikipedia are clear: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." Anyone could go and take a picture, so this really ought to go. Another thought: a replacement picture has been requested for nearly a year and none has been uploaded. Maybe that is support for the that school articles ought to go altogether as there is little interest in them. Dr Zak 15:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if that's the case then we should single out every other high school in the district for images, except my high school, Miami Springs High School, since every single one of them contains images from the same site which I uploaded a year ago when creating them. There should be a little over 20 of them, though I believe there are a few in the elementary school articles as well. I replaced the district image on my high school with a self made one so that would be the only free one unless someone else has uploaded one somewhere and I haven't noticed. I do have to disagree with you on the notion that there's little interest in school articles just because no one wants to recreate a free image for them. Not everyone has a digital camera and most editors come here looking to write not upload images. The biggest point of my disagreement, though, comes in the fact that having about 45 school articles in my watchlist, I can tell you from personal experience that they are not in any way neglected. I'm often seeing them listed on my watchlist day to day, perhaps it's not the same school every day, but I'm sure that every school gets edits to it at least every two weeks, and I usually see at least 2 or 3 school on my list per day; some schools seem to be more high traffic than others. I also notice many of the edits are not just vandalism, but true edits. Of course, I'm also pretty sure those edits are mostly schoolcruft, since most everyone who edits the article has some relation to the school itself, but that's still interest I guess. Anyway, back to the topic at hand, we'd need to get rid of all the other images except the free one I created for my high school if we get rid of this one, and maybe I can go around to some of the nearby high schools and create images for them but not all of them (probably about the six that serve my local area of the city). -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest the same about the pictures. There are two or three schools that I pass regularly and that I could take pictures of. As for them receiving genuine attention, hey, that's a surprise. There are two or three in my watchlist that turned up in the New Pages list (extra-crappy ones, that got watchlisted to see how they would improve), and those mostly sit fallow, they receive an edit maybe once per month. But that may well be because they are so poor to start with. Maybe the fact that the image got removed will encourage others to get out their digital camera/scanner. Dr Zak 02:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I bet if we removed the Miami Beach, Hialeah, HML, Barbara Goleman, Killian, and Miami Palmetto images they'll get reaplced by the people who edit those articles regularly since those seem to be the most edited in my opinion, but the other articles might stay empty in terms of pics since those seem to be mostly edits by anons. So I guess you live in the Miami area then? What schools do you live by, I don't want to end up getting shots of the same schools, lol. I'll get to removing them once I have a bit more time, I'm more of a wikignome right now, I just haven't had time to do major overhauls like I did a year ago and earlier this year when I was doing all thre M-DCPS articles and getting Columbine High School massacre to featured status. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me, I live halfway between Image:Cherrypicker.jpg and Image:Trailerpark.jpg. (Coral Gables, that is.) Yeah, I'm pretty gnomish, too, but should sometime get around to improving Proton sponge. Dr Zak 02:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then you can do all the southern schools, and I'll do all the western schools... and then someone else can do the northeastern schools cause that area scares me, lol. I used to be a lot more active, now I just do a lot of maintenance and keep an eye on airport articles and such. I kinda of like the gonme life, it's a bit underrecognized but it's simple, I used to get stressed out by this place, that's when I realized I was spending too much time here. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Goodall Image

Wikipedia entries about famous people and television shows employ a wide variety of fairuse images. The cover of Jane Goodall falls into this category. See Law & Order, Angie Harmon, South Park or any number of entries. In particular, almost all popular movies contain an image of the cover or poster. Use of the cover as a bio picture is rare, but when no alternative is found, it is justified. If you feel this is not the case please explain here or on the Jane Goodall talk page. If no better rationale is given, the image will be reverted before it expires (see image tag for date Image:ngs_goodall.jpg). Or, feel free to upload a different image of Jane Goodall that you feel meets the fairuse requirement. --Cody.Pope 07:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Goodall

Just surprised that the video cover isn't "covered" under the tag provided. Noles1984 16:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it says so! Dr Zak 16:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doak Campbell Stadium photo

I want you to reconsider the aerial photo [:mage:Doak_Campbell_Stadium.jpg] as no average fan can get this photo. As you wrote: "says that such pictures are only suitable "where the image is unrepeatable." Noles1984 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! When you claim fair use for a picture it's always a judgement call. I would argue that we don't really need the aerial photograph because with all the images that we have already one have a pretty good idea what the stadium looks like. Besides, the picture isn't really that unrepeatable like a picture of a unique event would be - a Seminole fan private pilot could always photograph the stadium from the air!

Please consider that the aim of Wikipedia is to be freely distributable. Dr Zak 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quit it

Stop following me around; it's a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. You make yourself look stupid, and bring the deletion/tagging/image policies (whichever ones you happen to choose to use against me) into disrepute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowban.jpg

I really didn't think it was a proper upload. I only did it b/c the Bloods reban.jpg didn't have any tags on it. Very sorry, I won't make such a mistake again. Thanks for tagging it. Naufana : talk 06:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged all three - the red, blue and yellow ones. Someone must have a picture, they are on sale and people wear them. Dr Zak 14:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marcowater.jpg

Regarding your taggint it for copyvio, please see my comment there. JoshuaZ 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usual issue - works of the Federal government are free, works of the local and state govermnents aren't. This is a work of the city government. Dr Zak 03:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jellybeans

Here are some Jelly beans for you. I love jelly beans as they have sugar in them and most people love sugar. But on the other hand just receiving somthing from somone else just makes you happy and also just giving this to you makes me happy. I hope to spread the jelly beans all over Wikipedia, so here, you can have this lot. Please enjoy them. (I like the lime ones.)

Editors need a bit of a sugar high too.

An apple a day keeps -The Doctor- away. Or does it! ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but my store of good faith is exhausted. I can't see what could be achieved with the RFC and thus won't comment. Regards, Dr Zak 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, you are not here. [2] Dr Zak 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerani Village

Thanks DR ZAK I will write the text with my comments! Cheers Stelios —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steliosp (talk • contribs) 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

image tagging

Thanks for picking the right tag for Ahappyreltionshiprg0.jpg ... I was adding "db|only used in vandalism; profane and derogatory" when I conflicted with you. I'll keep in mind Template:db-attack for future reference --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

long articles

I join in your feeling that the committee has made some excessively strong suggestions, & I remain a member in the hope to moderate them, because I do very much concurr in the goal. Just as background, how does a Project get official sanction?DGG 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite is still ‎Listed buildings in Liverpool. How does a project becoming official? By virtue of being generally sane. Dr Zak 00:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length templates

At Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Article length templates I brought up the point about article length templates coming out of articles mentioned at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 12. ·maclean 05:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pict sures

I've just gotten a pack of Holy cards (hey, beats getting Magic: The Gathering or Pokemon), and I've been scanning them in. All of my scans are awful, because the cards are laminated, so the images have high moire and distortion. However, for whatever they're worth, I've added Prophet-Elias-Grk-ikon.png, Saint-George-Grk-ikon.png, and... uh... hang on... there are more... oh, yes, Saint-Anthony-Grk-ikon.png. Geogre 17:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget what's down the hall at Commons. If we can remember it those before us could remember it as well. Dr Zak 17:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aldol organocatalysis

Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look at Talk:Aldol_reaction#Organocatalysis and think about if/how we should incorporate this information? Thanks, Walkerma 06:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antioxidant

Hi there, I hope Wikipedia is treating you well. I have nominated this article for featured article here. This is a chemistry/biology article but I am unfortunately conscious of my lack of expertise in the chemistry side of the subject. If you had the time to review this, any comments or suggestions would be very welcome. TimVickers 05:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus and Dives RFC

An RFC has been filed to determine whether or not the position of the Jesus Seminar should be included in Lazarus and Dives. Your comments would be most welcome. --Joopercoopers 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 12:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Rat Park example removed from Wikipedia:Expert retention

User:Jayjg has pulled the Rat Park example. Perhaps you might want to take a look. Mangoe 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR violation

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dr Zak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Guess this is about the maintenance tags on the unsourced Image:DerSturmer_stand.jpg. I don't count three reverts, and {{PUIdisputed}} shouldn't be removed until the copyright has been assessed by an independent third party. So far the image is under copyright and unsourced

Decline reason:

Nonetheless, you did break the 3 revert rule. Sorry. — 24.211.212.20 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Assist needed

I'm still getting notices from User:BetacommandBot about rationale even though the below tag is placed on the image and discussion pages. Example: Image:Goodwood Plantation rc04488.jpg. As you probably know, the Florida Memory Project template was discarded leaving many images either deleted or with notices.

Digital Image Information
This is a one of a kind unique digital image from The Florida Memory Project, Florida Department of State. It holds the archives' number of: 0000000. This image is needed to enhance and improve this article and no other representation exists.
Use: The use of photographs and other materials in the custody of the State Archives of Florida is governed by state law and, in some cases, by the terms of the donation agreement under which the Archives acquired the images. In accordance with the provisions of Section 257.35(6), Florida Statutes, "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given." Please contact the Archives if you have any questions regarding the credit and use of any material.
Florida Department of State State Library and Archives of Florida 500 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 (850) 245-6700

Copyright Information

What can be done? Need help from an administator. Noles1984 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd of Mucoid plaque

Mucoid plaque is up for AFD... again.

The latest discussion is here. As a previous participant in a AFD discussion for this article, you are encouraged to contribute to ongoing consensus of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:TalosCambridge.jpg

File:TalosCambridge.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:TalosCambridge.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:TalosCambridge.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RuthBenedict.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RuthBenedict.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Kelly ^hi! 17:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:MargueriteHiggins.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MargueriteHiggins.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Cool

Isairon (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:EwigerJudeFilm.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EwigerJudeFilm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:USHMM 64415.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:USHMM 64415.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]