User talk:Ü

Licenses

Ü, I am really sorry what I did with those images even they did not have any license information on the image page but at that time I was very new to tag the images. Now I ensure you this problem would not occur from my side. Sorry again and thanks for notifying my mistakes. Shyam ^(T/C) 00:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thanks for fast reaction :-) --Ü 00:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License info on The Cheesewring 2.jpg

Hiya I've updated the license info and date on Image:The Cheesewring 2.jpg as requested. I was new to Wikipedia at the time and it was probably a mistake on my part. Regards Mick Knapton 06:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North York Moors piccy

Have to say - that is a great photo. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was on about the new view one - you seem to have placed it (taken by a Colin Grice?). Either way it is a beauty - best --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutchman's Cap

Great to see a picture. I am searching for images for several such outlying Hebridean locations and if you can make any suggestions I'd be grateful. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben, you may try browsing flickr's compatible free images – CC-by-2.0 and CC-by-sa-2.0 – for some random Hebrides related tags or phrases. I just found another one at [1] some minutes ago, so feel free to upload it, if you like. (Uploading on Commons, e.g. Category:Inner Hebrides, is strongly recommended. And don't forget to tag the images with {{flickrreview}} then.)

Good luck :-) --Ü 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Sorry to be dense, but is the {{flickrreview}} tag the Source, the Author, or the Permission? Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC) PS I don't expect we will make verbal contact with one another very regularly, but how do you pronounce your name? Is it 'you', 'oo', or 'uh'?[reply]

Just add the flickrreview tag below the normal information template and the normal license template (according to the license given on flickr). You can use the Dutchman's Cap image as an example for proper image descriptions. The additional flickrreview template is used on Commons as a part of review process, see User:FlickreviewR for some details.

For the nick, see [2] and [3], and, of course, the article. *g* Cheers --Ü 19:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's very helpful. I added a Flannan Isles image and there are lots more that could be useful. A small point - I copied the file onto my desktop and then uploaded it to Commons. Can you download direct from flickr into Commons?

Hello again, Ben MacDui, I think I've answered on Commons this time :-) --Ü 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Knut (polar bear)

I hope you do not interpret my reverts as article ownership, because it's not meant that way; Knut (polar bear) is currently nominated for Featured Article status, so it would be better if there were not any major changes to the article, such as extra images or additional information, unless it coincides with MOS guidelines and FA criteria. Also, your last edit that replaced the image in the infobox just isn't necessary. As I said in my edit summary, the image that has been there since April is iconic (and not to mention a superior picture) and because Knut is growing at such a rapid speed, no image we could add would be "current" for too long. There is no guideline that says the image in the infobox should depict the article's subject as it currently is, because that would be nearly impossible with any subject, whether it be bear or human. I hope you agree. Take care, María (críticame) 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knut (polar bear) image concerns

I've replaced the one ambiguous free image with another from the commons (the one that you had suggested), and I've acted on a couple suggestions from a reviewer at FAC. Could you take a look, please, and see if you approve? I'm still sticking to my guns about the fair use images, and it would seem that two other experienced FAC people agree with me. I hope we can agree now that there's a "non-cute" image visible. :) María (habla conmigo) 19:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, please see my comment there regarding the copyrighted images.

Replied there; on a side note, have you read the article? (I'm guessing you're German, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Perhaps you are interested in this news in addition (try some online translation service for details if needed). The Berlin zoo increased its attendance about 20% in 2007 (presumably due to Knut, as it is noted there). One could say that 20% is much much fewer than expected after all the weird media coverage, or one could state the opposite, dunno, doesn't really matter to me.

Thanks for the link, I'll look into it. There may be an English equivalent somewhere.

And, of course, thanks for finally accepting the most up-to-date free image of the bear :-) --Ü (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being patient with me! I want to apologize for my bullheadedness about that: I know you're only trying to improve the article like I am, so I hope there are no hard feelings. I'm a Taurus, what can I say? :) María (habla conmigo) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, ok :-) We posted a bit simultaneously, it seems … --Ü (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've moved our discussion to Talk:Knut (polar bear) since, as JayHenry stated, it's not exactly FAC related since you're neither opposing or supporting. You're welcome to do either, of course, but if you want to continue discussing your concerns, I've moved it to a better venue. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 15:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Image:OuthouseAtCrabappleLakeRotated.jpg

I've reuploaded the larger version from the deleted history. Let me know if I did anything wrong. Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 02:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ditto, thanks :-) --Ü 22:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crotalus oreganus oreganus

Fine, I've deleted it, but please don't blank content when you tag it. It made it that much more difficult to understand your rationale for deletion that it appeared on what looked like an empty page. --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but what content? In case I overwrote the former redirect it was unintentional. --Ü 13:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can one of you please explain why the redirect for Crotalus oreganus oreganus, which points to Crotalus oreganus, was deleted earlier? It was there on purpose, so I've restored it. (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added this talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jwinius, uhm, sorry for the late reply (haven't been active here quite some time). As far as I remember I stated (together with the speedy delete tag) that this subspecies lemma is a needless "circle redirect" (is there any phrase like this?), that means it can only be linked from the main Crotalus oreganus article, and when you clicked the ssp. link Crotalus oreganus oreganus on this page you only went back to itself). I noted this after my edit to the page (adding the ssp. image with the linked caption). In addition and generally I'm a friend of red links to notify readers about the nonexistence of an article (and at first glance I thought an own article for this ssp. would be logical according to the other subspecies). Anyway, I noted your unlinking and the hint here, and I definitely won't object to recreating the redirect :-) --Ü 02:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ü, Thanks for the reply. I did still have you on my watchlist, although I had forgotten about this issue. I hadn't noticed the speedy delete tag either. Of course it's wrong if somehow a circular link had been created, but that was never my intention. In that case it's the link that should have been deleted as opposed to the redirect. I always include such redirects to backup the statement on the target page that this is also the place where the nominate subspecies is (to be) described. It doesn't always convince people, unfortunately, but the idea is to prevent them from creating new articles with names like Crotalus oreganus oreganus that would only repeat information found on the Crotalus oreganus page. That, plus the fact that it's a valid name that should end up somewhere. So, I've gone ahead and recreated the redirect... again. Hope this clears things up. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image discussion at article 17 Mile Drive

A discussion is underway about images on an article you have contributed to. Please help find a consensus for the article stub at: Talk:17-Mile Drive#17 Mile Drive info box and section images replacement.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2013 (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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]