User talk:Hektor

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

130H

Converting this to a redirect without preserving either the information or sources, & without discussion was ill-advised. A bit more care in future? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Copies of a book"? Really? It's called "sourcing". As for whether a single page is a better idea, I thought actual discussion, rather than your arbitrary action, was preferable. Moreover, IMO, separate pages may encourage expansion, where a single page might discourage it. Which is also worth discussing, IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

SVG logos and the Graphics Lab

You asked if it was official Wikipedia policy in regards to "SVG recreations of Olympic logos." We don't have a specific policy that says "No." to these sorts of things, but there has been a lot of talk in the past about the topic. The most recent discussion concerning this was initiated by me, and supported by others at WT:NFCC, see this discussion. What we oppose is the recreation (either tracing, hand re-drawing, or autotracing) of official/corporate logos, because the nature of such a conversion does not allow for an exact duplicate. We don't necessarily oppose SVG logos, if not user created. Companies often spend thousands and thousands of dollars on branding, which involves choosing specific typefaces, tweeking the fonts and letter spacing, choosing spot colors, and drawing unique logos and marks. Whether the differences between our recreations are minor or major, we still do not have an exact copy, and thus are degrading those designers original work. That said, especially with contemporary corporate logos (but maybe not the older olympic logos), it is often not hard to find vector versions from official sources (whether in PDFs found on official websites, or in media packets or what have you). Additionally, since non-free content is limited to size output restrictions (WP:NFCC #3b), a good quality PNG serves just about the same purpose as an SVG, so the gain is minimal (or we really aren't loosing a whole lot if we keep raster versions of these logos). Furthermore, we allow our graphists to devote their skills to producing free content that can be used more liberally across many different projects, where the scope of non-free content is very minimal and restricted. I'd be glad to discuss this further with you, and would like to hear your side if you have any issues or concerns. Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ugetsu DVDcover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ugetsu DVDcover.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Miura 2006.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Miura 2006.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Clervoy

I thought he was just ESA as well, but according to his official NASA biography "Clervoy was seconded from the Délégation Générale pour L' Armement (DGA) to CNES (French Space Agency) when he was selected in the second group of French astronauts in 1985." Rillian (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Piotr Nurowski

A tag has been placed on Piotr Nurowski requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Shashwat986 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Piotr Nurowski

A tag has been placed on Piotr Nurowski requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Shashwat986 (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. Shashwat986 (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• A) I edited while you were editing, so I didn't see the speedy. The second revert is not mine BUT
  B) This does not qualify for a Speedy, the head of a NOC is notable by my book. Go to AFD if you disagree, please. Hektor (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The

ITN for 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

On 10 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tadeusz Płoski

The article Tadeusz Płoski has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:ONEEVENT

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Singapore 2010 logo.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Singapore 2010 logo.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. House1090 (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN: X-37B OTV-1

On 23 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article X-37B OTV-1, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

-- tariqabjotu 22:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Companions in Doctor Who

Companions are people who sources say are companions. Jackie travelled in the TARDIS in Army of Ghosts, two of the Bowie Base crew other than Adelaide in Waters of Mars; they're not companions. There is no basis to list River as such. As for Rory, it's entirely possible he might fit the companion bill in Vampires in Venice, but usual practice is to wait until the episode airs unless there's an official source. To me, however, it looks like he is not going to be a companion in that episode to be quite honest. U-Mos (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• That's an opinion. Not mine. Hektor (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is, but difference is I'm not forcing my opinions into a Wikipedia article. U-Mos (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Marilyn Jess

I have nominated Marilyn Jess, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Jess. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. EuroPride (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Eleventh Hour

[1] "You recall wrong" – no, I did not recall wrong, you did not list a reliable source as is required. Simply adding the reference without the snide and inaccurate comment would have been sufficient. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 10:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of L'Étudiante (novel)

A tag has been placed on L'Étudiante (novel), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Template:Do not delete Stillwaterising (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Own

Hello, Hektor. You have new messages at Barsoomian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Hektor. You have new messages at Talk:The Vampires of Venice.
Message added 15:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Hektor. You have new messages at Talk:The Vampires of Venice.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Lodger (Doctor Who)

A tag has been placed on The Lodger (Doctor Who) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ηyχαμς 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article The Lodger (Doctor Who), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 20:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Vampires of Venice

Thanks for providing a source! (Your edit summary did have me worried, though - it made it look like you'd simply reverted...)

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 21:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

...and your more-recent edit summary here makes it look as if the matter wasn't, in fact, being discussed on the talk page. TFOWR^propaganda 22:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to The Vampires of Venice. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. magnius (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Citroen-c4-2010.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Citroen-c4-2010.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:2005–2008 Citroën C4 hatchback.jpg is a reasonable replacement. Moreover, the article says "The second generation Citroën C4 was presented in June 2010" — if it's been presented, it surely can be photographed. Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

a) I guess it's the same in the US as in Europe, there are multiple generations of cars with the same name, you wouldn't illustrate the 2010 Camry with a picture of the 2005 Camry, or the Golf V with the Golf IV. File:2005–2008 Citroën C4 hatchback.jpg is not a reasonable replacement. b) I think I have quite clearly written that the car has been presented, this means that pictures have been distributed to the press, but it has not been shown publicly. The car will be publicly displayed in four months. So please revert your deletion, fair use applies till October 2010. Thanks. Hektor (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You can take a picture of a previous edition and describe the changes in words. Moreover, you could create a composite image from nonfree images that have been distributed publicly; because you'd be using several such images, it wouldn't be a derivative work of any of them. Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the third party; Feydey was the first to dispute its use. Why can't you describe the changes in words? Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, this is a completely different car, no element is common, describing the differences amounts to describe the whole car. I stop here. Hektor (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Falcon 9 Flight 1

Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Manned mission to Mars

Hi. I've reverted your move of this article to Human mission to Mars. The word "manned" is the one that's predominantly used in the literature and is nowadays taken as synonymous with "human", which is a but clumsy anyway. Also such a significant change should really be discussed on the talk page first - WP:BOLD has its limits!. andy (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree. Your litterature must date back from the time of Mad Men. Human is nowadays predominantly used by space agencies and astronautics specialists as manned is considered male chauvinism. NASA and ESA no longer talk about manned space flight but human space flight. We need to remain gender neutral.
  • See ESA And NASA And JAXA - Hektor (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Nevertheless, this is something that should be debated first. andy (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The key point is that it is only very recently that manned spaceflight has been referred to as human spaceflight, and the vast majority of references in the literature are to a manned Mars mission - just take a look at the article's references, many of them quite recent and from decidely non-chauvinistic publications. E.g. #33: "Russia proposes manned Mars mission by 2015 - 08 July 2002 - New Scientist". Or #37, from the American Physical Society, which refers to both "manned space exploration" and "human exploration" as if everyone knows they're the same thing. Let's stick with established usage and not worry about "a foolish consistency" andy (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Not a valid reason to be offensive towards half of humankind. I consider the wording taken by the world's leading space agencies as valid. I have as a student here in Paris worked in workshop led by engineers from ESA and CNES and never ever would they use the term "manned spaceflight". Hektor (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Well Werner von Braun used the term (meaning males) and so did generations of other advocates (meaning women too). Nowadays "manned" is simply the counterpart of "unmanned", whatever it once meant, and Wikipedia should not be rewriting history. Would you say that Cassini is an "unhumanned" space probe? I think not. English is a clumsy language but it is also infinitely flexible. Anyway, if you really want to make political corrections to this article you should talk about it first, and I for one would resist on the grounds of historical accuracy and common usage. Nuff said. andy (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Werner von Braun ? well, you really choose odd references. Cassini is a robotic space probe. Historical accuracy is not a justification. There were things which were commonplace to say regarding race, gender or sexual preference twenty or even ten years ago which are no longer palatable. Manned spaceflight is one of them. Hektor (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
            • Different schools of thought. IMHO if an encyclopaedia isn't accurate it's toilet paper, so historical accuracy to me is a justification and the alternative is revisionism which I find objectionable. As it happens I chose von Braun as an example because he's prominently cited in the article as "the first person to make a detailed technical study of a Mars mission", so it's not all that odd, and he was of course somewhat important in the development of the US manned space program. This article is based in large part on historical proposals and they were for white males to go to Mars. A good encyclopaedia article is about the world as it was and is, not as some of us would like it to be or have been. That's why wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a political tract. Maybe this is a difference between being British and American. Most of the time we Brits simply don't care - we assume good faith. But if you really feel so strongly about this one there are plenty more out there - Manned Orbital Laboratory, Manned Maneuvering Unit, Manned Venus Flyby (my favourite lunatic space idea), Man In Space Soonest and then all the references in all the articles. And that's just space stuff. Why waste your time? andy (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
              • I think that there are two cases. Manned Orbital Laboratory, Manned Maneuvering Unit or Man In Space Soonest are historical programs and it would make no sense to change their name. On the contrary Manned mission to Mars or Manned Venus Flyby are generic missions which hopefully will happen someday in the future and should be renamed. Hektor (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of 2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who)

I have nominated 2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Maccy69 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pommereuil and Neuvilly

GAAAHHH!!! Thank you very much. I TRY to check the generated links and fix them when they go wrong, but I failed here. Not only did I miss the Neuville/Neuvilly distinction, but the other link went to "Pommereuil" which is an alias of Le Pomereuil, if I've got the spellings correct. I've been off Wiki for almost a month, so I apologize I didn't fix this sooner. While I was at it, I found a couple of more communes with the same arms. Again, Thank you. --David V Houston (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)