User talk:Zscout370

; Archives
	User talk:Zscout370/Archive 1; User talk:Zscout370/Archive 2; User talk:Zscout370/Archive 3; User talk:Zscout370/Archive 4; User talk:Zscout370/Archive 5; User talk:Zscout370/Archive 6; User talk:Zscout370/Archive 7; User talk:Zscout370/Archive 8;

User:Zscout370/header

Current time: Friday, May 17, 2024, 13:01 (UTC)

Number of articles on English Wikipedia: 6,824,584

Belarus

Great work so far! If you want me to review it again, drop me a line when you're finished. Good luck. --Victor12 21:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need a second opinion on this

Dear Zscout, how are you? long time no see...

I contact you because, being yourself a member having great knowledge in flags, I'd love if you could take a look at this article: Flag of Valencia.

I created the article, proving that the flag is of proportions 2:3 (length is 1 ½ times the width). This 2:3 version is sourced by a decree, the Spanish Vexillological Society, a book and pictures on official buildings.

User Benimerin keeps reverting and reverting claiming unsourced or even "invented by himself" points (like 1:2 proportions are more "representative").

Other users have expressed their agreenment with my point in my talk page, but having written in spanish, I cannot use it in the article's talk page.

If you would be so nice to take a read at both our versions and the talk page, I'd love to have a second opinion in how to manage this situation. I believe my edits proven and sourced enough for this user to revert them every single time. I also believe this user is preventing WP:V (he is erasing sources given by me) and WP:NOR (is theory that 1:2 is more "representative"), apart is countinuous edit warring.

What do you think? --Maurice27 23:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it. Anyways, if the law says the flag must be displayed like X, we will have to display it as X. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that Maurice27 is not telling true things. The decree he mentions is not about Valencian flag, but about flags of Valencian municipalities (the title tells "... se regulan los símbolos, tratamientos y honores de las entidades locales de la Comunidad Valenciana", translation from Spanish: "... through symbols, treatments and honours of local entities of Valencian Community are regulated"). The concrete decree about the Valencian flag is another one different, and it's being included as footnote #2 in Flag of Valencia (the title tells "... es regulen els simbols de la Comunitat Valenciana i el seu ús.", translation from Catalan: "... through symbols of the Valencian Community and its usage are both regulated").

In adding, the decree about flags for Valencian municipalities is telling that it's "preferably" to be 2:3, but not uniquelly (Article 12.3: "2. La bandera será preferentemente cuadrilonga de proporciones 2:3 ...", translation: "The flag shall be preferably rectangle in 2:3 proportions ... "), so different proportions can be used if the Town Council agrees that. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 06:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are only suggesting 2x3 since the Spanish flag is that way (same with the EU). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

Sorry, what on earth was this about?--Rambutan (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, using the {{vandal}} tag for an admin isn't the best thing in the world and sorry about that there. But I think telling an admin that you will revert until evidence is provided isn't the best thing either. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an admin I told that. The {{vandal}} tag is just a convenient way of displaying the list of his blocks etc., and I tried dialogue on his talkpage and he said "there's nothing to complain about". Anyway, if that's your view of the situation, you should write it underneath, not just delete the thread?--Rambutan (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me?

I am currently involved in an edit war with an anon User:User: 70.189.74.49 on the article Thematic motifs of Lost. I have reported this editor for a 3RR violation, but nothing seems to be happening. He blanked his talk page, with the warnings, and his edit summary was "good luck with that." I and other editors have tried to engage him in discussion on the article's talk page, but the only response we seem to get is "you're wrong and you just don't see it." I really want to avoid 3 reverts myself and I want to discuss this content dispute rationally. Any suggestions? Ursasapien (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention but I found assistance already. Happy editing! Ursasapien (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOTW copyright/license

Hi there again,

I was looking to improve some flags from Spain articles, and of course I was investigating at FOTW a little bit. I noticed that all articles at FOTW state that: "Flags of the World is produced and maintained by an Editorial Staff of unpaid volunteers and the contents of these pages are offered freely to the Internet community."

Does this mean I can freely copy/paste its content in wikipedia as long as I attribute its author(s) or licensor(s).?
Is there a copyright/license tag inwikipedia to do this?

Cheers, --Maurice27 10:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice, FOTW images cannot be used on Wikipedia. FOTW staff have been debating that for years and they will not allow the work to be added here en mass. However, you are allowed to email the individual editors to see if their images can be used. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hawkins

you know what, no matter what everyone does or says, I am always getting emails about this being a BLP violation or some copyvio. Take your matches elsewhere, I am done with this.

I'm not sure I see in your comment a valid reason to delete the article. The last version had three sentences. I can't beleive that those three sentences violated BLP or were copyvios. If they were, those problems can be fixed without deleting the article. The subject is undoubtedly notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three sentence thing was a BLP violation in the OTRS emails, so that is why I nuked the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should remove the offending material and restore the rest. There's no question that this fellow is notable, and that neutral material is available on him. I realize you may be tired of dealing with this matter, but frustration isn't a good reason to delete an article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, as I said before, I am getting emails from all sides of the debates for copyvio for this, BLP for that, libel for this and, quite honestly, with Jimbo's new decision to do no harm, it played a factor. But honestly, I people are citing BLP and libel with the article being three sentences, there is a major problem. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks will complain about anything. It'd be great if we could make everyone happy, but I've never heard of a subject who thought his biography was perfect. While we don't want to repeat libels, or the any personal information disclosed as part of OTRS, we can still discuss the problems with the article. I see no legitimate reason to delete the article entirely. If the subject or his agents have identified specific sources or material they find repugnant then let's say so and work around them. Again, it sounds to me like this is a frustrating matter, but that deleting the article isn't within policy. Maybe I'm mistaken - feel free to email me if there's a special circumstance. Otherwise I'm inclined to take this to deletion review. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since many of the issues were hashed out on OTRS, DRV will most likely be denied there, since I would have to repeat the things I can. Go ahead and email me and we can work it out on there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Flags Based on British Ensigns?

Why was this deleted? Is there anywhere I can access some of those flags? - MichiganCharms 03:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved to the Wikimedia Commons, so it qualified for a speedy deletion. The flag images exist there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball

Made a bot request for this. I have done all of the years, except for 1978, 1933-1942, 1948-1957, 1963-72 for the New York Yankees. Cheers. Miranda 09:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rape Victims category

Looks like the category was deleted without a discussion (XFD) based on the actions of one determined editor. I think it was wrong, that he empties the category, then puts a speedy and someone deletes it when other admins (such as User:Pascal.Tesson) have adviced him to take it to XFD to see what the community thinks. Ithink as the person who deleted it, you should actually put it up for XFD instead or someone will recreate this category. Thanks Taprobanus 15:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not doing it. This category is a violation of BLP, as others have stated on the talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to add panorama of Milpitas Civic Center?

Hi,

I've added panorama of Milpitas Civic Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milpitas_Civic_Center.jpg

with an idea to change the passage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milpitas

== The Milpitas Civic Center, which includes the City Hall and local branch of the Santa Clara

County Library... ==

and the following

== The Civic Center... ==

with the same but referencing this pano.

I really think that we can bring Milpitas article's photos to the level a little bit higher ;)

Regards, DmitryG