User talk:TownDown/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, TownDown, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Speedy tags

Hi, I just came across this [1] edit of yours by chance and I'm a bit confused. What's the logic behind de-tagging that? If it's a Reuters picture it's a copyvio no matter what the tags say, it's got to go as fast as possible. Am I missing something? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote in the edit summary: "cannot be a copyvio if there's no licence" -- it's like saying "do not open the door" - when there is no door. feydey (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhm no, I don't agree. Of course an untagged image can be a copyvio. There objectively is a "door": the image. It's there. And it objectively is a copyvio. No matter what the tags are or aren't claiming about it. The seven-day waiting period for untagged images is only for cases where there is at least a realistic chance that the tagging might bring with it a satisfactory source/license declaration. With an image already known to be from Reuter, that chance is zero right from the beginning, so it's no use waiting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I see the uploader needs to be informed that the image has no license, in this case it is still possible to use f. ex. {{Non-free fair use in}} -- so the chance is not zero. So we would be jumping the gun here. In 95% of the cases the image is probably deleted, but we still have to give the uploader the benefit of the doubt. feydey (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides nowhere in CSD#F9 it says: "The seven-day waiting period for untagged images is only for cases where there is at least a realistic chance that the tagging might bring with it a satisfactory source/license declaration". feydey (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

With a commercial news agency photo, the chances of a successful FU case are close enough to zero so as to be negligible. In the extremely rare cases where such a claim can legitimately be made, we should expect of the uploader to make their case from the outset, or indeed for it to be apparent from the actual use of the image. When such images are uploaded by an obviously careless or irresponsible uploader, like in that case, waiting for further information is just not realistically useful. As for the other part, the waiting time is indeed for images that "lack the necessary information". It doesn't matter whether the information is present in the form of a standard tag, or whether it was provided by the uploader or by somebody else. In the present case, all the necessary information was there: the speedy-tagger had actually done the research and provided it.

I guess it doesn't really matter much as long as the image does in the end get deleted, and as long as a really blatant commercial case isn't displayed in an article during those seven days. I was really more concerned about the signal this gives to the guy who speedy-tagged it. De-tagging in such a case could come across as devaluating his efforts, which I'd be careful to avoid. Just a thought. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Argentina HDI

Hello. The links of the sources are dead. And these numbers in the article are confliting with the UN data. Please see the talk page for further informations. Thank's.--Italodal (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

They are not dead.--TownDown (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

About the report

Hi TownDown! I just thought I'd drop by and let you know why I got involved in the HDI article dispute. As you probably know, Wikipedia has a three-revert rule, meaning that if you get rid of someone else's edits more than three times in twenty-four hours, you may be blocked. I've seen some of your edits, and they are very good! Although you haven't broken the 3RR yet, it's getting close to that, and I just wanted to make sure you weren't blocked - Wikipedia needs fine editors such as yourself! Anyway, give me a shout if you need anything. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi TownDown, I saw that you already reported Italodal at WP:RFPP, so I thought he was covered on that front. Happy editing! JulieSpaulding (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I just saw the images you created. They're great! JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Paraguay Orthographic Projection

Hey, I saw your request at Ssoldbergj's talk page, and decided to take it on myself. What do you think? . Connormah (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's nice. Look this or or --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 02:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Chile Map

I reverted because there has been no discussion about changing the map. Also, to be completely honest, the current map being used is more detailed. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As you wish, never mind. I really don't care to be honest. Regards.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 07:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that the edit you made was well intentioned, it's just that Chile is a very narrow country and the newer image makes it difficult to accurately view. Cheers. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice to find you

I'm very happy to find another commited Mexican in this vast community. You don't know how happy I am. You should be aware that there are several topics in which a certain user is always trying to push a POV that Mexico is not part of North America but Central America, and if this criteria is not followed, he then says Mexico is part of "Middle America". Then may be you can give us a hand. Gracias. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware about the term Middle America. However, as I already told you, this user is always trying to advance the false idea that "Middle America" is a commonly used term in the Americas, all in all just to exclude Mexico from North America (meaning US, Mex and Canada). Also, the geographic UN model is wrong, because it includes Mexico in Central America, so using it won't be helpful, not to mention that the UN clarify that model was divised for statistical purposes only. Thanks. The user is named Corticopia. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right!.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Town, please do not revert the usage section in the North America article. I'm sure you feel it is wrong but again, this has been long discussed before. See, there are two main texts:

1) North America means US and Canada only.

2) North America means US, Canada and Mexico. Sometimes is used to mean "US and Canada".

We are fighting to prove that the second option is the most correct. Your changes are reverting the page to the previous status, in which North America = US Canada. Walterego is an American that also believes that North America includes Mexico. The "bad guy" here is Corticopia, which is now using an anonymous IP (check North America history page) AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Town I do understand what you say. I am also bothered by the word "exclusively", so if you find it wrong change it. "May be" means also "puede ser" pero no en el sentido de "que se permite", sino de "que así pasa, así sucede". Te apoyaría si quitas "exclusively", pues eso no dice la fuente. Tienes razón. Pero decir "mostly used" es falso, pues no es cierto. La gente usa North America para significar o todo el continente, o solo Mex, Can y USA. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rain of Thoughts

User:TownDown/Passage1. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 22:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass moves?

Hi there. I noticed you mass-moved a bunch of articles, however, they don't appear to be because of vandalism. Please help me to understand your actions. --slakr^\ talk / 02:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bad move reverts Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as they are restored, I have no problems. I was hesitant to move them myself for various reasons. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I've been through far worse. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I assume you just had a script misfire? Anyways, if you worry that you might have goofed something, feel free to leave a note at the Wikipedia:Help desk, or if it's quite urgent, WP:AN. I've marked the ANI thread resolved. –xeno^talk 02:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Attention!

Hello again! Now that you're helping us with all the Mexico-related articles, there's something you should know. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/American(Can)] The newest Corticopia account (the anti-Mexican disrupter). It was just a matter of time after Administrator blocked several pages in which he edit-warred anonymously. So, be notified. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 12:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K, but I changed the term warning to attention according to the cognitive process of selectively concentrating on one aspect of the environment while ignoring other things, it examples include listening carefully to what someone is saying.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 18:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)