User talk:Lexein/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Lexein. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Re:
Hi Leixen, your VPN exits to the Internet through EGIHosting, since we had spams and other abuses from that prefix and it is not supposed to originate legit traffic or to be the only way for legit users to edit wiki, I choose to block it. Currently it's impossible to whitelist a single trusted IP caught in a rangeblock, so an IPBE is what should be done with your account. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem. How about if the VPN vendor provides an exit IP range? --Lexein (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh I forgot to mention another detail: mediawiki's sysmessage is definitely crappy, since it doesn't show the actual range blocked but just your IP address. Anyway if your VPN vendor makes you wander among different exitpoints it makes no difference: with IPBE your account will be able to edit from any of these IPs. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. When may I hope to see the block exempted, do you imagine? --Lexein (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Came here by accident. Have you considered the other process of getting IP block exempted? You've been around here long enough and have a noticeable lack of block log. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm informed by other admins that an RfA would be rejected harshly. No need for that. --Lexein (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Done--Vituzzu (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- What, harshly rejected without applying for RfA? Wow, man, that's cold. (grin)
(Thanks for assist with the unblock!). --Lexein (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- What, harshly rejected without applying for RfA? Wow, man, that's cold. (grin)
- Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm informed by other admins that an RfA would be rejected harshly. No need for that. --Lexein (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Came here by accident. Have you considered the other process of getting IP block exempted? You've been around here long enough and have a noticeable lack of block log. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. When may I hope to see the block exempted, do you imagine? --Lexein (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh I forgot to mention another detail: mediawiki's sysmessage is definitely crappy, since it doesn't show the actual range blocked but just your IP address. Anyway if your VPN vendor makes you wander among different exitpoints it makes no difference: with IPBE your account will be able to edit from any of these IPs. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Furby, a McDonaldsToy circa 2001, with bright blue coat.jpg)
(moved to User talk:Wikiwide, the original uploader --Lexein (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC))
Talkback
Message added 23:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
NFCC
As a side discussion, I think our major point of disagreement lies in the interplay between NFCC8 and NFCC1. You are right that critical isn't the word used or the standard to apply. On the other hand, to try to downgrade "significant" to the point where it means "detectable" is to err in the opposite direction. At some point, the amount of information conveyed by an image is so low that it becomes easily replaceable by text. At that point, it doesn't matter if the image has been discussed or is central to the work: if the additional understanding can be dealt with in text, the image is replaceable.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I had to declare the outer limits, in order to define the center band of normal use of "significant", which I think fits comfortably between "a bit more than noticeable", "apparent", and "unambiguous". In other words, flipping from "insignificant increase in understanding" vs. "significant increase in understanding" - a hysteresis point where the increase snaps into view and is of apparent, arguable value to a reasonable person, and mirrored in the opposite direction, to a "significant decrease in understanding" by a image's removal. The words "three people standing on a stage" is reductive and explains nothing: the picture does it far better; coupled with the critical praise for the scene, the "significant increase in understanding" is to me, readily apparent.
- We don't have to argue about this, we can measure it, using crowdsourcing, by testing whether readers of the article notice if the image is missing. When the reader leaves the article, we popup a query, based on the (random) presence or absence of the image:
- "Now that you've read the article, would addition of this image significantly increase your understanding of the episode?" and
- "Now that you've read the article, would removal of the image significantly decrease your understanding of the episode?"
- I'm thinkin'. --Lexein (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- That would unfortunately attract the "articles with pictures are more fun to read" vote, which is an unfortunately large crowd.—Kww(talk) 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, we'd need a pollster/expert to correctly design the question series. But as to my points prior to that? --Lexein (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I actually think the problem lends itself to rational analysis, not polling. In the case of the stage picture, you should be able to express what you think the picture allows people to understand, and why you think that understanding is significant relative to the episode in question. What was it about the episode that you couldn't express in text? I agree that the picture describes the picture better than words describe the picture, but how is it that the episode as a whole can't be understood properly unless the details of that particular image are grasped?—Kww(talk) 03:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- You've twice avoided responding to the point made, the now-bolded text above - are you here to discuss, or avoid it?
- Anyways, without tautology, and without irony, the picture, in visual language, describes the critically discussed/quoted/cited moment, the scene of the play, better than any non-OR prose could. I claim nothing more: there is no sensibly small amount of non-OR text which could be used to describe the scene adequately, but the picture adds to the understanding of the topic concretely. Somebody already proposed some silly reductive nonsense prose: I rejected that there, as you should. You prove that text could replace it; I am not obligated to make your argument for you. Such text would be, as noted, WP:OR. I'll just disarm that intended trap: policies, to be met, do not require the breaking of other policies. NFCC#1 is intended for much simpler images, not this one. --Lexein (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't intentionally avoid them, I tried to address why it isn't the relevant question to ask. No, NFCC#1 is not intended for much simpler images: it's intended to cover the case where an image can adequately be replaced by textual description. The context of "significant" is the entire topic. Certainly, the picture conveys a level of detail about the scene that no reasonable textual description could provide, but how is that detail significant in the context of understanding the episode? As for your last statement, yes, it is the responsibility of the uploader (or someone arguing for the uploader, as in this image) to make the case.—Kww(talk) 14:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I meant, in context, that I'm not required to make the case that text can replace the image for you, because I clearly think that in good faith it cannot. --Lexein (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't intentionally avoid them, I tried to address why it isn't the relevant question to ask. No, NFCC#1 is not intended for much simpler images: it's intended to cover the case where an image can adequately be replaced by textual description. The context of "significant" is the entire topic. Certainly, the picture conveys a level of detail about the scene that no reasonable textual description could provide, but how is that detail significant in the context of understanding the episode? As for your last statement, yes, it is the responsibility of the uploader (or someone arguing for the uploader, as in this image) to make the case.—Kww(talk) 14:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I actually think the problem lends itself to rational analysis, not polling. In the case of the stage picture, you should be able to express what you think the picture allows people to understand, and why you think that understanding is significant relative to the episode in question. What was it about the episode that you couldn't express in text? I agree that the picture describes the picture better than words describe the picture, but how is it that the episode as a whole can't be understood properly unless the details of that particular image are grasped?—Kww(talk) 03:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, we'd need a pollster/expert to correctly design the question series. But as to my points prior to that? --Lexein (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- That would unfortunately attract the "articles with pictures are more fun to read" vote, which is an unfortunately large crowd.—Kww(talk) 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
What is the page of Bart's reasoning why Rogers did not receive commission for WHS new hall?SLY111 (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)SLY111
- I don't know, you added that part in 2007. In truth, I don't know who Bart is. Did you mean Bertram? Sorry. --Lexein (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Furby, a McDonaldsToy circa 2001, with bright blue coat.jpg)
(moved to User talk:Wikiwide, the original uploader --Lexein (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Image
Hello i want to let the image lower because i think it looks better as i am working in its main article to achieve GA status.I am reverting it.Thanx---zeeyanketu talk to me 19:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that tinier images "look better". If there's a problem fix it without reducing so drastically. If you want to re-upload a 218x374 version with better quality, please do that. --Lexein (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
My statements
Please keep a couple of things in mind. First, I believe you to be fundamentally incorrect about the intention and meaning of NFCC#8. The relevant foundation policy says "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." No interpretation of the NFCC that allows the broad use of screenshots is compatible with the "narrow limits" requirement.
Second, you are not necessarily a part of the horde, but to deny the horde exists is unreasonable. Many articles about musical singles now contain an image of every different cover the single was released with and a screenshot of a music video (if one exists). Many television episode articles contain a screenshot, not because the writers had difficulty explaining something, but because they wanted an image of the show in the article. Articles about musical artists get screenshots of performances to "explain" how the artist happened to look at some random moment in their career, and it's a constant battle to keep fair-use images out of BLP article infoboxes. There are numerous editors that view the NFCC as an obstacle to be overcome, rather than understanding that it provides guidance on how to keep our usage of non-free material to a minimum. They craft FUR pages out of boilerplate as a formality, not with any intention of complying with the spirit of narrow usage that minimizes the amount of non-free content.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're going to have to be linguistically precise in defining exactly how my literal quoting and explanation of the individual words and sentences contained in NFCC#8 is "incorrect". And writing or implying that I am in any way advocating "broad use of screenshots" is pure Koavf-class public lying about me.
- "Significantly increase understanding" becomes subjective, and remains so, as long as you refuse to act on real definitions, within the bounds of other well-known real definitions. The words wouldn't be in the NFCC if they weren't intended to be there, and I simply demand that they be treated as written, not as interpreted by extremists who regurgitate lazy, reductive off-policy arguments.
- Lucky for me, the Foundation's text "copyrighted contemporary works" includes all copyrighted contemporary works. Like television series. With episodes. With multiply RS-noted scenes. Which can serve to identify the episode. And significantly increase the understanding of the topic. --Lexein (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- You've advocated an interpretation of "significant" that basically guts the policy, and have never acknowledged the interplay between NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. The images you've defended as being justifiable under NFCC impart such trivial information that supporting their inclusion inevitably leads to a "broad use of screenshots". I'm hard put to envision a screenshot that would not cross your threshold of inclusion.—Kww(talk) 23:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, for fuck's sake.Gutting nothing. By reductio ad absurdum I can make the very same claim of you: your position attempts to gut the inclusion of anything. The trivial text proposed to "explain" a scene was ridiculous, and indefensible. By that logic, there is no image on earth that could not be explained by a fewbleatingswords: "It's a man wearing a bowler hat at a beach by a wall with an apple in front of his face" - see? Gone! Explainable in text! Perhaps I should go through some of the images you've advocated keeping, and really apply what you seem to think NFCC#1 means. None will be left. You're going to have to do better, to persuade me that there's anything to what you saythat's not gobbledygook and doubletalk. --Lexein (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC) edited 22:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- You've advocated an interpretation of "significant" that basically guts the policy, and have never acknowledged the interplay between NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. The images you've defended as being justifiable under NFCC impart such trivial information that supporting their inclusion inevitably leads to a "broad use of screenshots". I'm hard put to envision a screenshot that would not cross your threshold of inclusion.—Kww(talk) 23:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
BLP sources
Sorry for the confusion over the italic text. I've responded to your latest comment. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- (post hoc) I replied at Template talk:BLP sources. No problem. --Lexein (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've edited the template by copying the contents of the sandbox as edited by Redrose64, so I believe that this will resolve the issue. Could you please check, and then file a new editprotected request if you find some sort of error? Again, I apologise for the confusion; I just was afraid of implementing the wrong thing. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've replied there - looks great, thanks a bunch. --Lexein (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Courtesy
Please see here I can't imagine that the irony is lost on you. Please do comment there, as I am keenly interested in how you will explain yourself... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Not done - due to lack of good faith request or communication. --Lexein (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- What? How did I lack a good faith request? What do you mean? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Solved one problem, found three others
Apparently I need to begin archiving every web page I use. Three of the links for the article I was working on are broken. And I have no idea how to find the information I used from these.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're correct in your assessment! Archive.org misses many pages, and we don't know for half a year, due to their lag. Webcitation.org works except for robots.txt exclusions and has a nice bookmarklet. The new archive.is seems to be able to "get" anything, keeps an html and a PNG image of each page, and also has a bookmarklet. My other trick is to download local copies of pages, so that if/when they disappear I have their raw text to search for in HighBeam, Proquest (not Questia), Ebsco, Infotrac, etc. These last
twothree are accessible free via library, and I've been using them a lot. See Jeff Curro, Celestine Tate Harrington. Are you anywhere near a decent public library system? I only had to visit one branch, just to get a card. Then login to their online resource connections is free. --Lexein (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)- I just wanted to advise you that there are a lot of editors who conserve refs - a dead link is not enough reason to delete a whole ref. We assume good faith that the ref originally provided verification. The problem that I see is insufficient recoverable info in the original cite: author (PR contact), publication, date, etc. This should be recoverable via Thomson. If they sold the database, they can say to whom. Of course if you're absolutely convinced the ref is no longer needed, out it goes. --Lexein (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think I found everything. The one detail missing from the other source may have been the specific name "Voest-Alpine Industries".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you know how to contact Thomson, I could do that. The local paper's article on Fuchs Systems had everything but its German name, so I put back the link to the Thomson source. I probably should update the link to the local paper's article because when they changed their web site recently, that messed up the links and that's how I got started working on this company again.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I cc'd you a copy of the email I sent to Alacra (Thomson). Thomson's web assets seem to be all sorts of messed up: http://www.thomsonfinancial.com Just noticed - I just backtracked with archive.org - in 2009 or so, thomsonfinancial.com started redirecting to thomsonreuters.com, which at the moment seems impenetrable for old M&A news.
- Glad to see the progress you've been making. I was at VAI in the late 1990s for an arts exhibition. I should upload (find, scan) my pics. Very impressive physical plant(s). --Lexein (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you know how to contact Thomson, I could do that. The local paper's article on Fuchs Systems had everything but its German name, so I put back the link to the Thomson source. I probably should update the link to the local paper's article because when they changed their web site recently, that messed up the links and that's how I got started working on this company again.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think I found everything. The one detail missing from the other source may have been the specific name "Voest-Alpine Industries".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I just wanted to advise you that there are a lot of editors who conserve refs - a dead link is not enough reason to delete a whole ref. We assume good faith that the ref originally provided verification. The problem that I see is insufficient recoverable info in the original cite: author (PR contact), publication, date, etc. This should be recoverable via Thomson. If they sold the database, they can say to whom. Of course if you're absolutely convinced the ref is no longer needed, out it goes. --Lexein (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.
Their former plant near where I live looks like it should house a large number of horses or possibly cattle. And yet I am told they made furnaces there. Actually, they only owned 49 percent of the company but they were listed at the address along with that company in the city directory.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)