User talk:Retro00064/Archive 1

Archive 1

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AT&T1964Logo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AT&T1964Logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason the image was orphaned was because User:KansasCity (talk) continued the edit war on American Telephone & Telegraph by undoing my edits, which also undid my updating the image. Fixed it now. Regards. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 05:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

AT&T Corporation

I have examined these sources many times, and I have acknowledged it is a subsidiary of AT&T Inc. But so is Ameritech, Pacific Telesis, and BellSouth, just as NYNEX, GTE, and MCI Inc. are all subsidiaries of Verizon. The Missouri Pacific legally remained a subsidiary of Union Pacific from 1982 until it was finally legally dissolved in 1997, even though it is considered on Wikipedia as having gone defunct in 1982 when it was acquired and rebranded by Union Pacific. I was trying to provide a sense of continuity among the pages and unfortunately it turned into a massive disagreement over just the AT&T Corporation page, even though there are many others out there with the same type of logistical technicalities. I think we should try to keep a standard among all of these corporate pages; the American Telephone & Telegraph page shouldn't be an exception when all of these other pages feature the same type of technical issues. (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well if there's an issue like that on those other pages then I'd be happy to go there and fix them. Wikipedia's goal is to be an accurate and professional encyclopedia and inaccuracies like on those pages are not good for Wikipedia. I'll go to all those pages and fix them right away, hopefully it won't turn into a huge edit war. Regards. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 07:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed all of the pages you mentioned above. I'll have to go and fix all the other pages out there that have the same problem sometime. Regards. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 09:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reversed your edits to a number of these pages. Without a valid reliable source that would support your rather unconventional claims that these companies are somehow not defunct and are still notable as currently functioning enterprises, this material is not verifiable, thus your edits are simply not appropriate. You're making an issue of things that might lie deep in paperwork in the bowels of a large public corporation, but that does not make them notable independent companies in any practical sense. Mike Doughney (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you were right with NYNEX and GTE, but the others have clear evidence that they still exist and still do business, usually under a d/b/a name, except with MCI, which in that case the article itself shows that they do business as Verizon Business and they have a website. Think about it: the original Ameritech page said in the infobox that it was defunct (dissolved) but further down it said they still exist as AT&T Teleholdings, Inc. Makes no sense, does it? I changed those articles (excluding NYNEX and GTE) to reflect that they still exist and there are sources to prove it (except MCI as described above). Wikipedia's goal is to be accurate and professional and stating that a company is defunct when they still exist is wrong, inaccurate, and unprofessional. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 06:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that the IP user (Contribs:68.125.216.228) that made the comment on the discussion of whether to keep the new AT&T Inc. logo in the AT&T Corporation infobox was also using Tymur3 as a sock puppet account. The IP address used by this user is never the same, and the Tymur3 talk page for this user has very similar mannerisms/spellings/abbreviations when referring to AT&T Inc. This account all of a sudden became active when the IP user in question was blocked from editing the AT&T Corporation page, and had to register to gain access to edit the page. KansasCity (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I have noticed in the past how the IP user had a different IP address each time he made an edit (it did seem suspicious). I had no idea that Tymur3 was a sock puppet account for the IP user, however, but it does make a lot of sense. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 01:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Big Ben

Hi Retro and thanks for the supporting comments. I made a couple of attempts to get PBS's decision reversed in December, but I've now got so much on in real life that I've been unable to spend any further time on it. It would be a big shame if this matter were not properly resolved, so if you've got time perhaps you could take up the mantle? Cheers! Chillysnow (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The evidence that I see makes me think that a good course of action is probably to do the move back: I mean, look at the article's talk sections below the old requested move and you will see comments made by several people (me, you, and others, including several anonymous users) who have shown great disgust at the article's move from correct name to Big Ben. I am planning to do something, and if that naughty admin PBS closes the move again without consensus then there is reason to put a notice out for that. No one should ever try to make a article look just right to them when the consensus for the matter is for the opposite: it constitutes WP:Ownership of articles. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 02:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to confess. It is customary after the outcome of a WP:RM move that a move back to the same name is not requested for six months -- it saves all editors time being wasted in an endless debate. In this case after a WP:RM move on 26 October, the page was unilaterally moved to Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster on 2 December by Chillysnow, after Pmanderson moved it back, I had three choices. One leave it alone, but as there was already a move war over it that was not acceptable. Two use admin powers to prevent moves, or three simply leave a message in the history to explain to anyone who looked that a WP:RM move should be used, as the closing admin of a future WP:RM can easily move the page to CT,PoW if that is the outcome of another debate, this was the action I decided to take. --PBS (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The point of a requested move, is not a vote that establishes a consensus, the opinions expressed are meant to be ones that weigh the advice in the naming conventions policy and associated guidelines and come to a consensus on the name of the article that best fits the naming conventions. Are you familiar with the naming conventions? If so what is your evidence that Big Ben is not the "the most easily recognized name" and that Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster is? Consensus does not mean a local consensus it means a consensus built on Wikipedia policies (as explained in WP:CONSENSUS#Purpose of consensus). I looked carefully at the opinions expressed in the poll and the comments made during the requested move, and using the naming conventions as my guide made a decision, which I detailed at the time and is available to read at the bottom of the requested move.

Now sometimes there are genuine naming problems where the naming conventions do not give clear guidance or conflicting guidance, in which case it is much more complicated to decide the name and the local consensus carries more weight. For example see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Final decision and Talk:Ireland. (Note that the ArbCom emphasises and quotes "Use the most easily recognized name--PBS (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

These postings to your talk page is not ignoring you. You have not come up with any form of evidence that the former name better meets the requirements of the naming convention than the current name and you seem to be totally ignoring the arbcom decision on Ireland. --PBS (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Purpose of consensus --PBS (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Purpose of consensus is a new section which explicitly explains what has been implicit in consensus for a number of years. I did give details of my reasoning when I closed the WP:RM ( see the bottom of the page) which says the same thing in so many words. --PBS (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of disputes that come to WP:RM for which the policies and guidelines are of little use in which case the local consensus carries more weight. One seemingly intractable one is what to call the Irish state and country. Google hits don't work because of National variations and unlike other problems that involve National variations it involves two English speaking nations. It has recently been subject to an Arbcom decision. The thing with policies and guidelines is that if you really feel strongly about something you can always try to change the policy or guideline, but remember the lines from A Man for All Seasons "What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ... And when the law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?" --PBS (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mountain Dew

Hi, Retro00064. This is Bob.

I don't understand why Pepsi Cola wants to make Mountain Dew say Mtn Dew, or why Gatorade would want to focus on the letter G. And the last time Pepsi redesigned their cans was in January 2007, so doing it in November 2008, is way, way way too early. Also, I noticed that Pepsi-Cola's products don't have the R in a circle next to the logo for trademark registered. Can you please respond immediately when you can and help me get these questions answered. Thanks. Bob.--99.145.224.64 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

Hi, Retro00064.

No offense, but I like the new logos. Besides as I mentioned, didn't you know that I thought it was too early for the previous logo for Pepsi to be changed? Besides, these are all new designs that I hope are kept for a few years. I also noticed that it wasn't just Pepsi, but some other products like Kar's peanuts and Nabisco products also failed to have the trademark registered symbol, although all these products still do mention that they are registered on the back.

One more question. Can you find out why Pepsi made a blue background? I miss the white one and I barely remember it. It'd be nice to take a walk down memory lane. Please respond when you can. Bob.--76.224.126.22 (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Coach, Inc.

Hello Retro. I moved this page as you requested. Can you check if the move left any double redirects behind, and fix them if so? Use Special:WhatLinksHere/Coach_Inc.. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No double redirects. Thanks! [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 09:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism of" articles

Since your comment on WP:FORK was more in regards to what template to use and my comment is more of a "How to", I figured I'd bring it here. While dismantling other "Criticism(s) of" articles, I've always found it best to incorporate the criticisms into the sections of the main article that they are most appropriate. As an example Criticism of Java#Generics could easily be incorporated into Java (programming language)#Generics. However, before you start a dismantling, it is always good to discuss the move on the talk page for the main article and for the "Criticism of" article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the MTN Dew logo comments! With a few rare exceptions, most of the logos I contribute to Wikipedia aren't traces—they come from accurate sources, like PDF files. I generally don't use Brands of the World because almost all of their logos are inaccurate (from what I've seen) and have been traced. Here is a link to a bunch of my contributions, (note that they aren't ALL logos) http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&since=&until=&img_user_text=Tkgd2007&order=-img_timestamp&max=250&order=-img_timestamp&format=html I don't really know why I hunt for and upload these logos... it's a strange hobby of mine ;) Nor do I really know why I'm telling you all of this, hahaha... cheers! NOTE: none of this message was an April Fools joke... I feel like I have to clarify everything with this today~~

Mata Nui

I declined these speedies as I think they need discussion as they're not clear A7. Suggest AfD if you reallt think they need to go. StarM 03:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Bell System hires 1939 logo.svg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bell System hires 1939 logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 03:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. As I mentioned your appeals to BsBsBs to stop his personal attacks, I guess it means that you are also "involved" and should be notified. Jeppiz (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Hello, Retro00064. You have new messages at Steven J. Anderson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BellSouth 1984 logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BellSouth 1984 logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Inspired word of God

I saw your posts on ANI. I am curious, how do you know the Bible is the "inspired word of God"? Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. There are people who put down the Bible as just a work of man. How do we know that it is God's Word? Think about something. Human nature is selfish and evil. If you just read the Bible and see the sense that it makes, you should think: How could man and his human nature alone ever come up with such kindness and grace as God has and has expressed in His Holy Word? Indeed, it was man who wrote the Bible. But these people were dedicated followers of God, and they recorded not only God's law, but His grace, kindness and love. The Bible has many stories of how God has worked in the lives of those who love and follow Him. Much of the Gospel is directly quoted from Jesus Himself, during when He was preaching, and during His life. God spoke through those men who followed Him, and he still does today through dedicated believers and preachers.

Before Jesus came (i.e. in the Old Testament days), God punished those who did not obey Him. But then, God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross to pay our sin debt in full, that if we accept Him as our Savior, and repent of our sins, He will forgive us of our sins (and He will then not remember them, as when we truely and honestly repent/ask forgiveness to Him for our sins, they are as distant from Him as "the east is from the west" (to quote what one Bible verse says)), and He will give us eternal life with Him in Heaven. The Bible says in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The whole Bible is worth reading, but even just John 3 is a good part to read. Once you have read enough of God's Holy Bible, you should wonder: How could man and his selfish human nature alone ever come up with such kindness and grace as God has and has expressed in His Holy Word?

There are some groups who believe that you can lose your salvation, that you must work to continue to be saved. That is all nonsense. God is the God of love, the God of kindness, the God of grace, the God of peace, the God of all things that are good. He wants all the best for us, so why would He want to make it hard for us to follow Him? He does want us to worship Him and follow Him, to have a deep relationship with Him, but if we come to Him, and honestly and truthfully believe in His Son Jesus and accept Him as our Savior, by accepting Him and the Holy Spirit into our hearts, then He will save us from our sins. He still wants us to worship Him, to follow Him, to repent of our sins and ask for forgiveness from Him, and to witness and spread the Good News to the world, but once you are saved, you are saved for good. You can never lose your salvation.

When we preach His Word to others, whether as a preacher in a church or by just witnessing to others as normal people, we are not the ones who are doing the work to spread the Good News. Instead, it is He who is working through us to spread the Good News. But we must allow Him to work through us.

If you are a believer and follower of the Lord, and follow His commandments and His Word in the Bible, He will work in your life and bless you with His peace which surpasses all understanding.

Another thing, the evidence of God's existence is all around us. Just think about something. Look at the beauty and the genius of His creation all around us. Look at His creation: Such intricate details, such fine workings of the animals, the plants, even us humans, just the way that such things are shaped, the fact that we even have color in the world, the fact that we can even see such color, the fact that our entire universe even exists. The fact that anything exists at all. Just think: How could all that be just a coincidence? Many scientist claim that the universe began with "the Big Bang". Well, how ever the universe began, just think about something: Why do we even exist? Why does the world around us even exist? Why does the entire universe even exist? How ever it began, why was the universe even formed or created in the first place? All of these questions may seem unanswerable, but they are not so. There is just One Answer which answers absolutely all of those questions, and answers them very plainly, simply and understandably: Because the Almighty Creator, the Lord our God, chose to. He chose to create the entire universe. He chose to create our world and earth, our solar system, our galaxy, and our universe. He chose to create us humans. He chose to create the animals, the plants, even us humans. He chose to create all of the intricate details, the fine workings of the animals, the plants, even us humans. He chose to create color, and to create the ability for us to see such color. The fact that anything and everything even exists at all is plainly and simply explained by this: Because He chose to. And one more thing. He gave us his highest honor by creating us in his own image (as told in the Book of Genesis). No other creation of His is more special to Him than we are.

The fact that we even exist proves His existence.

Regards.

Just me

I suggest WP:DNFTT. "Nuts" is apparent. "Wanting to pick a fight," probably not so. I'm not sure if silence will be a solution, but it will at least force him to come up with something new to say, rather than giving him something to reply to. Perhaps you should just say "you are being shunned," and keep your promise (IMO). I'm sure you're aware that an admin has already acted with several blocks, but escalating the issue to a range block over this user's IP would probably be more trouble than its worth. Regardless, it's neither yours or my decision to make. 174.52.224.148 (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Besides, it is already too obvious that he has some block-worthy issues, so I think that any good user would be able to see sense out of it all anyway. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we share the same views. If you don't have anything new, I suggest you archive this discussion for your own sake. I wouldn't want to give this guy any fuel. That or we could care less. 174.52.224.148 (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nuts, crazy, nonsense, insane...

Are violations of Wikipedia's policy forbidding personal attacks. Even if the IP is wrong, that does not justify you calling them nuts, or describing any of their edits as nonsense.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Daedalus, thanks for the information. I will take that into account in the future. I will go and give myself a good trout-whack now. :-) Regards. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Trout}} :-) __meco (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the trout. ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop

Hello Retro00064! You took a "top 4" request a while ago on the Illustration workshop but haven't fulfilled it yet. If you don't want or don't have the time to work on it anymore, I'll step in and do it, no problem :-). Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 18:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have it partially done. It is something that requires a manual trace/re-draw, so I got a couple parts of it done. I did the work on the night I took the request, but since then I just really have not gotten back to it. If you want, and if you use Inkscape, then I could upload the Inkscape SVG file with the current progress, and then you could finish it. But I could still finish it now if you want. Regards. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's up to you. All I want is just see it done, so we can carry on with the top 4 requests. If done by you or by me, the outcome is the same. And if you enjoy taking requests at the Graphic Lab, I hope to see more of your contributions there. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 12:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The extensive editions I made in the Ankara page are erased for no apparent logical reasons.

The extensive editions I made in the Ankara page are erased for no apparent logical reasons.

For the mean elevation for Ankara, 938 meters is cited according to its source. I looked at other Wikipedia articles about Ankara which use this source too. The previous elevation of 900 was rounded up and most importantly was not sourced. That is why added it.

I added the years of completion to each public building acording to each relevant article and rearranged some pictures according to its topics.

I also added some history of the urban growth and accomodation of Ankara in the “Demographics” section and added a shanty town picture and tower block picture, both especially the latter are typical features of Ankara and all Turkish cities.

I never was a suckpuppet although I was accused but the editions I did were reverted by anonymous "users" Special:Contributions/78.176.97.79 and Special:Contributions/78.176.115.134 and the latter using insults in Turkish likely directed at me (Which I figured out thanks to machine translators) which I suspect are the same "user" (the I.P. numbers constantly change) and the logged in User:Omulazimoglu who led an edit war about a shanty town picture and the subsequent protection of the Ankara page.

There is already a big shanty town picture of Ankara I put in that section, but I do not understand why the particular user insist on more shanty town pictures. I am not glossing over, on the contrary I described the actual sitation of Ankara and of Turkish cities in general. I believe one is enough to explain the sitation of this city. It sounds trivial itself but the gallery is usually reserved for public buildings, parks etc. I have not seen a single shanty town picture of such articles like Rio de Janeiro, Cairo or Cape Town for example which I do not defend but I do not think that articles are dotted with many shanty town pictures. I reverted back to your last edition.

Could you check it out?

Saguamundi

Could you put a protection page on the Ankara article or establish a policy on putting or not putting certain types of pictures, by also taking other city articles as an example to end the constant and trivial edit wars that are still going on? As I stated above I do not support putting more slum pictures on a city article even though they me be an undeniable feature of certain cities. But is it a better idea that there should be a limit or if this edit war persits to remove the city gallery altogether, since there is Wikimedia Commons album of each major city anyway? Saguamundi

I do not really have a definite opinion on the image, but all I do know is that an administrator has protected the article, so it is time to take it back to the talk page. ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)