User talk:OsamaK/September 2008

This is an archive of past discussions about User:OsamaK. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Done. Flayer (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you marking talk pages patrolled. It's happening every 15 seconds, are you using a bot? -- Jeandré, 2008-09-05t11:38:55z

Replies.

Okay, it just seems to not be what patrolling is for - people carefully making sure the pages are okay. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-05t11:54z

Well, You shouldn't worry about that. These pages are under talk namespace (which is less vandalized) and all users are trust and very active in their wikiprojects. Why not?--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 13:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My basic attitude is that a generic header like that is harmless, and need not be deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. You left a message on my talk page that I'm not 100% understanding. I think you deleted the talk page that goes with one of my photographs. The talk page had a discussion of what kind of bird is in the picture, I think. It was deleted so now I can't see it.... Am I confused? Just wanted to make sure I understood what was going on. (You're deleting the talk page, not the picture, right?) Asbruckman (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the original uploader of this file, rather the person that provided a PNG version with an improved rationale. A free alternative most certainly cannot exist, because the UI itself is subject to copyright.

I was very reluctant to upload it in the first place, but is it truly inappropriate for an article to contain a low-resolution graphical example of its primary function?   — C M B J   10:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to let you know that images are no longer listed for investigation at the copyright problems board. {{imagevio}} has been deprecated. Blatant image copyright infringements should be tagged {{Db-i9}} for speedy deletion. Suspected copyright infringements should be listed at Possibly unfree images. I am moving Image:New Pic- Brant.gif to PUI for further investigation. Thanks for keeping an eye out for copyright problems. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I had noted on this image page that the painting was photographed or uploaded into Wikipedia upside down.

This is actually a well studied and important minimalist painting. It was shown at NYC's Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) as recently as March of this year, and was mentioned the NY Times as recently as Jan 4 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/arts/design/04wart.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22Suprematist%20Composition%22&st=cse&oref=slogin).

No mean feat, you know? This is an important work and should remain included in Wikipedia. Thanks for any advice you can offer...Please reply on my talk page. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you had initially commented to me about this painting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.237.232.74 here. I'm no longer at that IP. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you putting a deletion tag on the talk page? Deletion tags should be placed on the main page, and in any case this article does not justify deletion. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are doing here. Wouldn't it be easier to simply remove nonsense where you see it? Any editor has the right to remove patent nonsense or vandalism from a talk page. Is it even possible to delete a talk page without deleting the main page? After all we have to have a talk page for all main pages, so you achieve nothing by deleting the page. BTW on the RTIB talk page what you considered nonsense was a table of information on various locomotives used by the railways. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well on most of the pages I have edited talk pages are useful, and any vandalism easily dealt with. Anyway the fact that a talk page has not been used up till today does not mean it will not become very useful tomorrow. As I said, you could deal with the issue much quicker and easier by simply deleting nonsense where you find it without going though this bureaucratic and time consuming procedure. Cheers, --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

While many talk pages might fit the speedy deletion criteria, they also clog up the queue, so an alternative solution not requiring administrative assistance is replacing them with a generic talk page header {{talkheader}} or something project specific.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, because it costs us less work (one person simply choosing a different tag for transclusion, no admin needed to check the history, no deletion record needs to be created in the database) and deletion would not protect it from vandalism anyways.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems I am not convincing you that having a problem directly addressed by one editor with an edit is preferable over it being addressed by two with the help a notice board and a deletion. If a talk page catches my attention, I'd rather take first a look at the article to see what it needs. For the rest it is open to debate what deters silly edits most. BTW, admins are recently being promoted at diminishing rate and automatizing their actions is controversial.

As you seem to be interested in images and, for some non article space such as images we seem to be now actively discouraging editing the talk page upfront. [1]]. The current template seems to be {{Visibility}} but this would not apply to article talk pages. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)