User talk:Dd-b

Thanks for coming to my talk page! Please put new stuff at the bottom, that's where I'll look for it.

   Dd-b 16:27, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

-- Hi

can you tell me the parts on the article of "Flower wars", that no make sense?, so i will fix them. I have two problems, English is not my language, and i have a diferent background, so sometines i asume the readers knows some things...

thanks Nanahuatzin 17:29, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

mmmh.. i forgot another problem... i write faster than I should... :( Nanahuatzin 17:30, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

request larger version of RAH image[edit]

Concerning Image:Ddb-371-14-200.jpg---is there any way you can scan a bigger version of that picture? (I assume you're the one who took it.) It can be thumbnailed on the Robert A. Heinlein page, but I'd like to have a better version of it available. Can you scan it at 750 pixels wide or thereabouts? Like I said, it can always be thumbnailed.

(And could you upload it with a slightly more descriptive filename, e.g., Heinlein.autographing.at.WorldCon.750px.ddb.jpg? I get nitpicky about these things, but it helps when I'm scanning the image list looking for obsolete thumbnails and whatnot.)

Thanks again for your contributions! Grendelkhan 17:53, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

I've got a larger version prepared, will upload shortly. Sorry to be so long in noticing the request!

Unfortunately my nitpickiness on file names is colliding with yours; I make a fetish of preserving the same filename for all instances of a given picture that I distribute, so that when I encounter it later or someone asks me about it it's easy to track back to what photo that actually was to begin with, and hence to find my master copies, and, with work this old, the actual negatives.

But thinking about it, I can just make the filename even more unwieldy and accommodate both of our desires about it, I guess. I hate to make other people's work harder when there's a solution!

Dd-b 05:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copy safe?[edit]

Have you released Image:Ddb_392-32.jpg under the GFDL? That little copyright symbol makes me wonder. -Idiotfromia 01:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there's a GFDL release in the "special instructions" field of the IPTC info in the uploaded copy of the photo.

Sorry I took so long to notice this, I must have missed the notification email when you posted it.

Dd-b 05:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

your comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles[edit]

That page is inactive, and discussion has moved on (proposed deletion for unsourced articles was a followup), but I felt I ought to respond. The main problem with trusting expert knowledge is that you don't know who's really an expert and who just says they are, the whole EssJay scandal is case in point. Plus, wikipedia isn't supposed to be the place of first publication for new knowledge, it's just a summary of what's already known. Therefore, you skip both the problem of verifying identities and weeding out false information by sticking to what's been published. Otherwise, we'll spend all our time telling what expert opinion is correct instead of just checking the cited book or paper against the facts in the article and saying 'yup, verified.' It's not an obsession, just a recognition that the knowledge we publish has to come from somewhere, and people who aren't experts need to be able to tell if it's correct. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge comes, in the end, from people. When the experts disagree with a published article, most often the article is wrong (either was always wrong, or expert opinion has changed). I could see getting more interested in requiring citations of sources when there's a war going on between competing claim-to-be-experts; short of that, though, it's a hoop. Articles should IMHO never be deleted for lack of sources. Dd-b 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so do laws, but we cite published decisions when writing briefs, not just knowing so. It's not about preexisting articles, it's about establishing a rule for new articles. Shouldn't people be encouraged to include sources when they create an article? Since you should be taking your information from a source anyway, listing that source is trivial compared to the effort of writing the article. It's a lot more effort to wait until someone disputes it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that rule actively discourages experts from contributing from their expert knowledge. In my near-expert field, science fiction, I will often know something from a source like "I remember Harlan said that on a panel I saw him on; maybe it was at the 1974 Worldcon". There's probably no published source I could find to cite, but if you asked other people with an interest and time in the field, they'd confirm it. And if it's for new articles only, how come suddenly people are tagging all sorts of existing articles? (Yes, if people have sources in mind that they can cite, it's good for them to do so; I do agree to that extent.) Dd-b 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but we're not supposed to be a place of first publication for knowledge. We want to discourage that kind of behavior. Otherwise you get everyone writing about, say, dogs and cats from personal experience. Or everyone's an expert on human behavior, and writes about it from their own mind. So first publish it somewhere else, even if it's just a brief mention on a blog or something, and then cite that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little late, but I just noticed it today[edit]

Please don't add the names of Nate Bucklin's wife and stepson without their permission, they are not public figures and might not wish to have their names on Wikipedia :) Jtrainor 12:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made that edit after communicating with Nate about it, and it's simply putting on Wikipedia information that they've already published on the web themselves. I just added a citation to the existing web source to the page.

   -- Dd-b (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ddb-371-14-200.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ddb-371-14-200.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. The higher-res version cited as the reason for deleting the older version is real, legit, mine, and in fact better in all ways, so this is the correct action. -- Dd-b (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ddb 392-32.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Ddb 392-32.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Ddb 392-32.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Ddb 392-32.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. 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, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I contacted you on your user page (see the message directly above) and placed a message on the image description page and in the caption for each use of the image. This was because you didn't provide any information about where you found the image, its author or its copyright status. The image was subsequently deleted by Runningonbrains 12 days later. If you can show that the image is out of copyright or otherwise freely licensed then I'll happily restore it for you. Papa November (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, obviously; the message above is clearly there :-). I don't spend much time on Wikipedia, and don't mostly think of looking at my talk page; I hate having to poll for possible changes in a million places, it wastes my time, so if it doesn't send me email, mostly it doesn't exist.

The image in question is a photo I took. The file I uploaded clearly says that in the IPTC data. The file I uploaded contained the GFDL release recommended by Wikipedia. And when I uploaded it I checked all the boxes that claimed it was my work (though I don't have screenshots of that to prove it).

I've re-uploaded the photo to commons, and checked all the boxes, and put it in the article again, as that seemed the easiest solution. Dd-b (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks a lot! Papa November (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Scribblies may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

name "Scribblies" is a joke inspired by the [[Industrial Workers of the World]], "the Wobblies"). It also derives from [[Prince William Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh]]'s comment to [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]