User talk:Astronaut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my Talk Page

Please Note: I got fed up reading one side of a discussion. So I will, on occasions, refactor this Talk Page so it includes relevant materiel from other locations, using either copy&paste to preserve the flow of a discussion or adding links. The refactoring was last done now: Astronaut (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive
Archives

/Archive 1
/Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] Amit Choubey

There's speedy delete, then there's delete it before I've finished telling the author improve the article. Can you undelete it and give us a chance to improve it please. Astronaut (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Done with a prod so that he has 5 days to improve it. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been deleted again by User:Orangemike. Just letting you know. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that. I've asked User:Orangemike why so quick with the delete and if he saw the {{prod}} tag - no reply yet. Astronaut (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well it mysteriously came back, but radically trimmed and with no history. It'll have to do. Astronaut (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chetan Ramlu

I appreciate the efforts that you have made to improve this page! What other information do you requie to make this a better and more informative page? I will do my best to get you the information required with appropriate citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbetts (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As posted on User Talk:Richardbetts#Chetan Ramlu (again)
If you could find verifiable infomation in reliable sources to support the statements highlighted with the little [citation needed] flags, you can add links to that info by adding it between <ref> and </ref> pairs (see this article for more info about doing this). The reference will automatically appear in the references section of the article and will support Chetan Ramlu's notability for continued inclusion in the encyclopedia. A couple of important points to remember: Self-published sources such as: blogs, forums, and social networking sites like Facebook, Bebo, MySpace etc, are not usually considered reliable sources. And do not copy material verbatim from other websites (most editors will delete such copyright violations on sight), so take the time to at least rephrase or precis the info.
As for expanding the article, if there is enough information about his film & TV, that could be split off into a new section. If he has been nominated for or won any awards it would be nice to include that in a new section, again with supporting references.
One last thing. Some people are determined to see the Amit Choubey article deleted (it was flagged for speedy deletion 3 times in one day). I tried by best to at least give you the time to work on it. Even so, the poorly laid out page that was there, has been severely trimmed and is scheduled for deletion on 19 May. If you want that article kept too, it might be better to apply your efforts there first.
Astronaut (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shrimp Ecosystem

Hi, I'm answering your Ref Desk Misc comment here as I believe we should keep this sort of thing off the Desks. You are quite correct, I didnt answer the question: I did some research and because I couldnt find anything really pertinent or well referenced I didn't post! I hope my contributions, few as they are, respect the idea of the Ref Desks, and that they are useful and have decent references. And by the way, as an Antipodean it was past my bed time! I have seen your contributions and know your interest in architecture, so dont really want to have an argument with you, but CR and some other Ref Desk regulars do need to be reined in - dont you think it was a particularly unhelpful, pointless comment? Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree CR does need to reined in, particulary when he is been unhelpful like this or acting somewhat like a troll. You are usually a good answerer of questions and I did in fact agree with your comment, but it did strike me as somewhat ironic that while you were lambasting CR for his unhelpfulness, you seemed to have forgotten all about the question itself. Apologies if it looked a little harsh, but I didn't know you had actually done some research and decided not to post your research. If you are really bothered by my comment, I can remove it for you. Astronaut (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks for that astro, but as a historian, all records must stand inviolate! Does your interest in architecture mean you are a practioner, student, academic or that very rare thing (in my part of the world anyway) just someone interested in architecture? Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If I had taken a different academic path long ago, then perhaps I would have liked to have been an architect, but I'm really just someone with an amateur interest :-) Unfortunately, I live in a country were modern arcitecture is not appreciated. Astronaut (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Groan I know, its not that much different here, on a more positive subject! I see you like astronomy too, which I'm very keen on Mhicaoidh (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I've wanted to be an astronaut since I was a kid. But now I just make do with the username. Astronaut (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burj Dubai- Emaar is unreliable, outdated and Inaccurate

This same comment appears on Talk:Burj Dubai Astronaut (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barn Star

The Guidance Barnstar
This is a little something for your hard work on the wikipedia help desk, keep it up! ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· Talk 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh! My first barnstar. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you deserve it :> ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· Talk 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks a lot!!

Thanks! You were right. "Gravitation" is the anime series I was looking for. Aanusha Ghosh (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anime central

Comment moved to Talk:AnimeCentral#Closure? Astronaut (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maldek

Hi, Astronaut.

I have a question for you: How many times did vandalized by Maldek?

Thanks! Unknownquinones (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

On about a dozen occasions since the beginning of May, Maldek has repeatedly tried to add information from an unreliable source to the Burj Dubai article. Despite discussion on the article's talk page (also check out the latest archives) and the continued efforts of myself and other regular editors on that page, he persists on pushing his unreliable information. Do you think starting again with a {{uw-vandalism3}} was a little strong? Astronaut (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
One should assume good faith with all editors. If one has an issue with a particular editor or reliable sources, it is a separate discussion. Accusing one of vandalism can constitute a harassment if repeated. One should be careful as not to do it again [as you did after this edit]. Probably removing a {{uw-vandalism3}} notice from Talk page will be appropriate. That will also be a requirement under the civility policy. Wikidās ॐ 08:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - {{uw-vandalism3}} retracted. But what to do about repeated addition of unreliably sourced information against consensus, despite repeated discussion on the article talk page and a period of page protection? Astronaut (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I notice on WP:RSN will be appropriate. And possibly a different format notice on the user page. In any case its not vandalism, its a discussion on reliable source, that will be a normal editor to editor relationship. Wikidās ॐ 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
What other format of notice would you suggest? The reliability of sources for Burj Dubai has already been raised on WP:RSN - got one response. It's been discussed endlessly on Talk:Burj Dubai (see the archives too) - myself and the other regular editors all agree and think we have consensus. A couple of months back, when Maldek failed to get his way, he started adding increasingly outlandish data and eventually got blocked for 3 days. Whilst one could classify this as a low intensity edit-war, I really feel Maldek is being disruptive just for the sake of being disruptive. As I have said on the article talk page, I don't really want to see him blocked, but I think it is eventually going to come to that. Astronaut (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Al Burj

I can't revert edits, I don't know if it is a bug. So, you've reverted edits first rather than me. So, the IP address 121.216.152.253 must be reported and I'll give you a barnstar.

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I give you because of your good work. Continue your work to give you another barnstar. Unknownquinones (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skope78

Sorry. :-( I didn't mean to step on any toes. I am hurt and upset now. I thought my images were better in quality, that's all. Just trying to continually improve a source of information for the world to use. Why did you feel it necessary to delete them? Why couldn't they just be left up there? They are clearer and larger. Skope78 (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to be hurt and upset. It just seems a pointless exercise to replace well established and perfectly good images at a 300x300 with an almost identical image at 600x600. Furthermore, if your image is incorrectly licensed or too large for "fair-use" purposes (see particularly the sections: Policy 3b and Policy 10), it could be justifiably deleted; and then the article would have no image and how is that an improvement? I suggest you check out the relevant policies I have provided links to above. FWIW I didn't actually delete your image, but put back the original image when I found that your image was incorrectly licensed. Astronaut (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed!? How would it be an improvement? My point exactly. I still don't understand why I need to stipulate a licence when it's an image only clearer and larger but representative of the same subject. I will review these policy guidelines, and see why it is that you have reverted my uploads. So as I understand it, 300 x 300 is the maximum canvas size for non-free images, correct? Just so I know for future reference...Skope78 (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't actually specify a size limit, just that "Minimal extent of use ... Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used". However, if you look at most other album covers, you will find they are 300x300 or smaller, so that's obviously acceptable for album covers under fair-use. The need for a license and fair-use rationale is mandatory and without it the image will be deleted. Looking at the messages left on your talk page before (you cleared it) and your edit history, it seems the majority of them have been reverted due to a lack of licensing, just like when I reverted one of your changes. If you are going to continue replacing perfectly good images with your images, please try to get the licenses and fair-use rationales sorted out as soon as you have uploaded the image. Astronaut (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I cleared it out of guilt and shame. Continual stumbles aren't the resume I want for myself on WikiPedia. Guess that's the path some of us take in learning, isn't it? So, a 300x300 assists in maintaining that an image is of a low enough resolution. That, coupled with a fair-use rationale will put an upload I make in good stead for avoiding deletion. Am I getting close? LOL. This is beginning to become amusing... I liken it to a game of darts. This s what I gather from reading the rules and what you've said. :-P Skope78 (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)