Misplaced Pages

User talk:Rdsmith4: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:32, 3 October 2004 editWolfman (talk | contribs)4,714 editsm FOX: fix typo← Previous edit Revision as of 00:59, 3 October 2004 edit undoWolfman (talk | contribs)4,714 edits FOXNext edit →
Line 69: Line 69:
:Thank you for your reply. I think your point perhaps has some merit, though I disagree with point about the blog being minor -- that is linked right now by most of the liberal blogosphere. The verifiable issue is one of journalistic standards; the suspicion is that these lax standards would never happen in an article about Bush. I think a new section on 'criticism of journalistic standards' is in order. The 'communists for kerry' clearly belongs there, as does this and many others. The BGH story would fit better there as well. :Thank you for your reply. I think your point perhaps has some merit, though I disagree with point about the blog being minor -- that is linked right now by most of the liberal blogosphere. The verifiable issue is one of journalistic standards; the suspicion is that these lax standards would never happen in an article about Bush. I think a new section on 'criticism of journalistic standards' is in order. The 'communists for kerry' clearly belongs there, as does this and many others. The BGH story would fit better there as well.
Perhaps a 'journalist standards' section with a criticism subsection would be more NPOV if FOX has any Pulitzers or the like to report. ] 00:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) Perhaps a 'journalist standards' section with a criticism subsection would be more NPOV if FOX has any Pulitzers or the like to report. ] 00:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::I have taken the liberty of posting our conversation & my new proposal to the Fox Talk page, I hope you don't mind. ] 00:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:59, 3 October 2004


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Misplaced Pages:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar None More...Learn how Fix wikilinks More...Learn how Update with new information More...Learn how Expand short articles More...Learn how Check and add references More...Learn how Fix original research issues More...Learn how Improve lead sections More...Learn how Add an image More...Learn how Translate and clean up More...Learn how

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


USGP reports

Hi,

I believe you added the "Report" links to the individual events listed on the USGP page. Do you plan to create these pages? This is my reason for asking: I have reports of each of these races that I wrote and once hosted on my own site. They have been on another site (Formula One Results and Information Explorer) for 3-4 years, but that site now requires a subscription to view. I would be happy to use my reports as the basis for new articles here, but I don't want to step on your toes if that is something you are working on. Thanks. Rdikeman 18:59, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

No, not at all! Feel free to add all you want - I had intended to do them all eventually but this saves me a ton of work. Thanks a lot! Rdsmith4 16:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Ive edited the image placement on Enclave as the image was spilling over into the wiki Standard Skin Toolbar when viewed with Internet Explorer. PMA 10:16, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Jenson Button photos

Are those your images on the Jenson Button page? Are they truly public domain? (It doesn't say.)

If you think it would be preferable to have our own images of him, in and out of the car, I have some to offer.

Thanks. Rdikeman 11:10, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Admin status

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I think it's great you're so interested in helping Misplaced Pages and fighting vandalism. That said, I think it would probably be a good idea for you to remove your request for adminship from WP:RFA. For most people, the minimum requirements for administrator status are 3 months at Misplaced Pages and 1000 edits. Furthermore, the fact that you placed your nomination on Misplaced Pages:Recently created admins suggests you may not be quite up enough on Misplaced Pages policy yet to be an administrator. That said, when you've been around a bit longer, feel free to drop me a note and I'll happily renominate you. And if you have any questions or anything about Misplaced Pages, again, please drop me a note.

Oh, and there's no policy at all against a non-admin reverting vandalism. In fact, everybody is encouraged to revert vandalism, and the fact that you do it is a big plus.

Best, Snowspinner 04:53, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks for your suggestion. Putting my nomination on the wrong page was just a dumb mistake as I had just been reading WP:RFA a moment before, but far be it from me to nominate myself before the requisite time. (I rather wish they could be clear about what they expect in the Requirements section.) Rdsmith4 05:11, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image:Schumacher A1Ring.jpg

What's the copyright status of Image:Schumacher A1Ring.jpg? Is it yours? Is it used by permission? Or is it being used under a Fair use claim? Please let us know by adding the appropriate copyright tag. —Morven 14:44, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Fair use, as best as I can tell. Sorry to take so long; I've been out of town. DannyBoy | Talk 03:19, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Photoshop rotation

Hi Danny! I think it was you who asked how to know the correct rotation of a sloping pic in Photoshop. It's easy, so here's how (for the version I've got, which is 6.0) :

Right Click the EYEDROPPER icon (but it might be called Colour Sampler or Measure Tool) immediately above the Magnifying Glass, and choose the MEASURE TOOL icon (a little ruler). Choose a line on your pic that you want to make horizontal or vertical. Hold down the Left Mouse Button and pull a line out along that piece (how far you pull the line doesn't matter). Then from the top menus choose IMAGE, ROTATE CANVAS, ARBITRARY and you'll see the exact correction angle in a box. Just click on OK and the pic will be rotated automatically for you.

Clip away the black edges by choosing the CROP TOOL (its icon is a square with the edges extended a bit, and a thin diagonal line through it), pull a rectangle around the pic to exclude the black bits, and double click inside your pulled-out rectangle to finish. I then save to a new file name. Any problems just ask.
PS - try to choose a vertical to be corrected, horizontals might quite correctly be sloping due to perspective, but verticals should always be vertical - Adrian Pingstone 08:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the welcome...yeh someone needs to do reports for the races - it is tough remembering, but the FIA Website has a good archive of lap-by-lap notes that can be turned into a proper report.

Albinomonkey - 28 Sep 2004

You're a sysop!

I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | Talk 17:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CSS

I know what problem you're talking about, and it's part of the reason why I'm not using it currently (other part is that I want some change). It got broken by some edit to MediaWiki:Monobook.css, which one I can't remember. I made an attempt to fix it then, but for some reason it wouldn't work. I'm sure it can be solved though... I might give it a try in the near future (unless you want to go for it). Fredrik | talk 19:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ferrari Pictures

Complete. Added two other pictures, put my "credit" on all three, released all to the public domain. When you get a chance, read this:

http://www.gadgetopia.com/2004/10/02/WikipediaImages.html

Deane 19:59, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

FOX

I find your revert rather purposefully naive. No, the site did not spell it out, but they clearly did not think it was an editorial mistake. Do you? I mean, follow the Communists for Kerry link in the FOX article. Click "About Us". That's not an editorial mistake. So, I'll go find some link that explicitly accuses FOX of bias in this case. Or would you revert that too? Wolfman 23:47, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think your point perhaps has some merit, though I disagree with point about the blog being minor -- that is linked right now by most of the liberal blogosphere. The verifiable issue is one of journalistic standards; the suspicion is that these lax standards would never happen in an article about Bush. I think a new section on 'criticism of journalistic standards' is in order. The 'communists for kerry' clearly belongs there, as does this story and many others. The BGH story would fit better there as well.

Perhaps a 'journalist standards' section with a criticism subsection would be more NPOV if FOX has any Pulitzers or the like to report. Wolfman 00:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of posting our conversation & my new proposal to the Fox Talk page, I hope you don't mind. Wolfman 00:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)