User talk:Dmacf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Dmacf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Thanks for expanding your article on The Typophiles. At first, I thought it was a prank which is why I deleted it. Anyway, welcome aboard! - Lucky 6.9 17:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bearing with me - I'm going to stub out a few things and go back and fill them in as I pull out my reference material on them. I hope you won't mind this kind of iterative approach. Dmacf 00:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Textus Receptus 2 William Tyndale needs some rv for v 3 Commercial sites 4 Helpme 5 Macfarlane's law

[edit] Textus Receptus

Thanks for your query. As Cuiviénen guessed on the Newcommers help page, I reverted the edits as I felt that a couple of the earlier edits made had made the article worse rather than better. To explain in more detail, I have the page Comma Johanneum on my watchlist and User:Jocelyn1600 made a series of edits to it that I thought seriously degraded the article, so I reverted those. I then checked Jocelyn's other edits as I was concerned by them and found one of the other pages edited was Textus Receptus. I checked and thought that the version before edits by Jocelyn and two anons was better than the one after it (even with the subsequent clean-ups done by you and other users) and so reverted to the last version before the edits that I thought were questionable. I hope that this helps you understand my reasoning.

On the point of minor edits, Cuiviénen is wrong about that I think. Certainly the rollback tool you get if you're an admin seems to mark reversions as minor! They're useful for stuff like correcting grammar, extra spaces, spellings, etc, but they do get (ab)used too frequently unfortunately.

I hope this long message helps and that you enjoy editing at Wikipedia! Any other questions, just ask! --G Rutter 08:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a comprehensive answer to my question - I'm learning, and generious replies like yours certainly help a great deal. - Dmacf 18:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)·

[edit] William Tyndale needs some rv for v

It is a little beyond me at this point to fix something as damaged as the William Tyndale page, but I point it out to the first admin that answers this helpme that the page needs a lot of work. I think it can be reverted back to the last "rv v", but I'm made to hesitate by the large volume of text that such a reversion would be throwing out. If you have time to tell me what you did and why, I'd appreciate learning from this case study. And if I should just have fixed it myself, please tell me. Thanks.

I reverted (rv or rvv) his changes. It was copyrighted from [1]. You're free to fix it yourself. See Help:Reverting for how to do it. Reverting is done for vandalism, obvious pov additions, and obvious copyright edits. You can test how to revert on your userpage, if you'd like. Let me know if you still have questions. :) Gflores^Talk 19:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I will be less daunted the next time I see something like that. - Dmacf 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)·

Btw, admins have a special tool that does it one click and leaves a specific edit summary. Other users will have to do it manually and they usually leave a summary of rv (revert) or rvv (revert vandalism). Gflores^Talk 20:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial sites

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. Pollinator 02:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How is a link to the FAQ for the LetPress mailling list a "commercial site"? The LetPress list, with over 800 letterpress printers around the world, has a FAQ which I volunteer the effort to maintain. I happen to host it on a web site I own, instead of paying someone else to host it. I don't see how you can consider that commercial. Besides, you left in the actual commercial links, such as the link to a company that offers classes. --dmacf ^Talk 16:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Pollinator) As a relatively new Wikipedian, I'm trying to learn the community standards for content and editing. I added a link to the LetPress FAQ to the letterpress page because I thought it would be a helpful link to people looking at the "Letterpress" entry in the Wikipedia. It is not a commercial link - yes, I maintain the FAQ, but I was adding it more as an expression of my 'expertise' in letterpress than anything self-serving. I'm confused about how that could be a commercial link, and the link you left in the entry for classes is to a commercial print shop that offers classes for payment - which looks like something commercial to me. If you can clarify how you applied your judgement in this case, I'm sure it would be helpful. Thank you. --dmacf ^Talk 12:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There are ads on the site. Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising. I'm not unsympathetic to your position. It looks like a good page. But where do you draw the line? If one site is selling something as a small part of a page with major educational value, I'm inclined to let it slip. But then, as you can see, other sites that are pretty much only there for commercial purposes begin to pop up. When they are removed, they immediately protest that you allowed x site, now you are not allowing y site. Wikipedia needs some guidelines. Why don't you bring this up on the administrators page and see about consensus? I'll certainly abide by the consensus. -But guidelines more concrete than the subjective interpretation of individuals.

As to the other site with classes, I'll take another look. If I remember correctly, it was a university. Non-profits don't count. IMHO a few others get a pass. A business that is the subject of a Wikipedia article gets one link; period. Newspapers and magazines are kind of a gray area and a value judgement must be made.

There is a second question as well, and this would be true even if there were no ads on the site. You have admitted that it is a personal site. There were volunteers around that were putting out content on the Internet way back when it was all fluff and glitz and almost no content. If it weren't for these volunteers, the Internet might have "died aborning." When I look at a page that is obviously a personal page (and you soon get a feel for when someone adds a personal page), I look to see if it is a volunteer effort that is seriously bringing content to the world, or if there is some other purpose. IMHO your page qualifies to stay under this criterion. So don't give up. We've just got to get some clarification. If we don't remove spam, we wind up with guys making a lot of money selling bongs (and a lot of other stuff) though Wikipedia links. Pollinator 13:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helpme

First of all, please only use {{helpme}} on your user talk page.

Second, if you go to the page where you inserted the image, click on the red link, and read the information there about your image. You did not specify the source nor the licensing of the file, and therefore it is going to be deleted. I suggest re-uploading the image with proper citations for the image. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I'll use my talk page for helpmes in the future. Sorry for the mistake.

Secondly, I did enter the source AND the licensing information for the picture when I entered it. I picked Sharealike licensing, and described how I took the picture myself with a Nikon camera, etc. It didn't make the picture appear, so I am not at all sure what caused the problem. Is there a history for pictures? - if there is, you could see the original upload and my details there. Anyway, I'll upload the picture again and see. By the way, the original destination file name was " Arthur-Hansel-label.jpg", if that helps you find the history. --dmacf ^Talk 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I can't upload the image file: I get the error "Upload file From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Upload warning ".jpg‎" is not a recommended image file format." The help page on images (WP:IUP) says "Screenshots should be in PNG or JPG format, depending on the photorealism/color depth of the subject." Is the help page out of date or did I do something non-obvious wrong? --dmacf ^Talk 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just tried to upload the jpeg picture again - still the same error message. If I shouldn't use jpg, what should I use? Thanks. The source filename is "C:\Documents and Settings\David Macfarlane\My Documents\dmac\CL\pictures\hansel-label.jpg" and the destination file name is "Arthur-Hansel-Guitar-Label.jpg". --dmacf ^Talk 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You can view your contrib's to see images you have uploaded: here. Of course jpg is fine, you have already uploaded two jpg images. I'm not sure what the problem is. --Commander Keane 02:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither am I. I uploaded one image, but couldn't get it to display on the web page: Arthur Hansel (see above). I asked for help, and No1lakersfan told me that I didn't include source or licensing (see above). I replied that I actually did include both, but it still didn't work. However, I also said that I'd try again and ensure that the source and licensing both worked. When I tried (see above), I got the error message that ".jpg" is not a valid format. I tried again, and I still get the error message. When I look at the image listed in the link referenced by Commander Keane, I see the original upload complete with license and source. I don't know why I am getting the error message that ".jpg" is not valid, I don't know why it looked to No1lakersfan that I didn't include source or licensing information, and I don't know why the referenced image is not displaying on the wiki page. But I'm trying to work it all out.

BTW - if I don't put helpme back on this page, with anyone answering the first help me ever see my answer? Does an admin answering a helpme on a user talk page "watch" that page for the answer, or is it necessary to put helpme back on to attract the admin's attention? --dmacf ^Talk 02:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've fixed the image link on the page (you can see what I changed here — there was an arrow that was causing a problem, which probably doesn't show up in the dif). The image exists at Image:Arthur-Hansel-label.jpg. Hope this helps, —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You should use {helpme} if you have a follow-up question. I don't watch the page (I used to, but when I had 1000 userpages it got too hard to manage). Also, {helpme} is better in case the initial helper gets busy (or falls asleep). It's faster that watching too.

I'm not sure why you are getting the image error, perhaps the file is corrupt (the error message may not be accurate, and our servers check image files carefully for any irregularities). Also, the licensing info is not bound to the image at upload. You can add the licensing info after you upload, just by visiting the image page and editing it.

Finally, the link I gave you for your image contrib's is ok (and can be found my going to "my contributions" at the top of the page), but won't include deleted images. The upload log can be better.--Commander Keane 05:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for your help - I don't know what "arrow" you are referring to but I am glad you could fix it. I don't know how I could have fixed it myself because I can't see anything wrong. I wonder if it is a character-map problem: I notice that many web sites assume Microsoft Explorer and so look weird in my Firefox browser.

[edit] Macfarlane's law

I've prodded this article as I don't think that the adage is sufficiently widespread to qualify for Wikipedia.--Nydas 15:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)