User talk:2ndAmendment

2024|dounreplied=yes|bot=MiszaBot}}

R.E

What is this attack Adster95 day all joking aside it is pretty trivial and all this effort and hardwork your putting into this name thing could be used for a more important thing. Adster95 (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Like what? Would you want your name wrong on Wikipedia? 2ndAmendment (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bonnie Bishop

A tag has been placed on Bonnie Bishop requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bonnie Bishop

I have nominated Bonnie Bishop, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Bishop. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Analogtv-digitaltv.png

Yes, there could be a usable version of such an image, if the material being broadcast is PD or is released under a free license, which in WP would need to be something like CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, GFDL, or some such. Republication and/or rebroadcast doesn't change the freeness of the underlying material.

But the second problem, being OR, is that the picture is used to make an assertion "this is the difference in reception of analog vs. broadcast". This is basically an experiment that you yourself carried out. But you yourself (i.e. most WP editors) are not an RS or V source. Individually the two pictures are not OR (though they still suffer from DFU), but putting them together and making a conclusion from the two is WP:OR.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

First, it is better to keep discussion in one place, instead of fragmenting it between two talk pages, second, you have got to be kidding about finding material that is being broadcast that is PD - I would have uploaded it to commons if the image was PD or CC-BY, etc., but even if the source is PD, the broadcast is not - you should know that. As to the second, you can refine the caption if you wish, the image is not intended to explain what every analog signal looks like, but only what that signal looked like, as an example of what happens in a weak signal area. Another feature that I will try to capture some other time, but is not related to the difference between analog and digital, is that the first thing you lose in a weak signal area is definition, then color, so that can be demonstrated by a side by side image showing three images, a sharp image (but analog, not digital), a grainy color image, and finally, a grainy image that is black and white. The article clearly states that there are a lot of things that can happen when you lose the signal, or when the signal gets weak, but I do not believe that it is possible to find or create a free image, because all broadcasters own the copyrights to their broadcast, even if they are photographing the grand canyon, which is certainly in the public domain. I am not making any conclusion by putting them together, I am simply allowing the viewer to compare them, by putting them together. The example shown is what happens to analog. I can create another comparison, showing a grainy analog signal (but much sharper than that one) and a chopped up (frozen does not show in a photograph!) digital one, for the digital article. I will work on that comparison also, but that once again, is just one of the many things that can happen. File:Analogtv-digitaltv.png is just one sample, but I do agree that it is very surprising that at that time, under those conditions, that there was such a grainy signal, there was even any digital signal. The intention, once again, is not to show what will happen, but what can happen, because it did happen. What the image shows is that the analog signal gets grainy, and the digital signal stays clear, and nothing else. Discussion moved to WP:FFD. By the way, when you put quotes around something ("this is..."), you need to actually quote something. Those words appear no where. 2ndAmendment (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of G-20 Pittsburgh arrests

The article List of G-20 Pittsburgh arrests has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is simply a list of names of little or no encyclopedic value, failing WP: INDISCRIMINATE

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please enlighten me as to why you think this list is remotely appropriate? Grsz¹¹ 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a simple list of names. It is a list of people arrested, where they were arrested, how old they were, where they were from, and what time they were arrested. All of these are very pertinent items. I created it simply so that I could sort the columns, but realized that if I was interested in how old they were or how many there were - there were three that were arrested twice, for example, then many others would have the same or similar questions, and the best way to allow them to get the answer was for me to add them here instead of just keeping the list to myself. It is like when you are in school and you want to raise your hand but you don't because you think it is a dumb question. Well there are no dumb questions. If you have that question, chances are someone else does too, but is too afraid to ask. There is nothing here that did not appear in the reference sources. Wikipedia does not do original research, but it does make information available in a usable manner, which is what this is. Rather than say there were 190 arrests, it is much more valuable to enumerate them, if the information can be obtained from a reliable source. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Recreating the list in other places on Wikipedia is liable to result in your editing privileges being revoked. Please familiarise yourself with our policy on living persons, policy on living persons famous for a single event, and information about notability, or what the threshhold for inclusion is. Please also familiarise yourself with the policy on copyright violations and the policy on original research, not to mention what Wikipedia is and is not. Consider this your final warning against recreating the copyright-, BLP-, and original research-violating material. → ROUX ₪ 03:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll take a look. I deliberately hid it so that anyone not interested in the topic would not see it. You will note that I have no interest in whether it is included or not, as I created the list solely for my own research and had no need whatsoever to create the article, which I only did because I knew that if I was interested in sorting the list others would be as well, and once I had done it, why make anyone go through the work themselves? It's the "there are no dumb quesstions" rule. I can assure you that copyvio is clearly not an issue, since the information was copied but nothing else. You can not be in violation of copyright for public information, or for a list of names etc. The list is obviously from a public source and in the public domain. 2ndAmendment (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a webhost for your personal projects. And the list was copied from a file published by the Pittsburgh Gazette, so yes, there is likely a copyright violation. Please seek your own webspace for such projects. → ROUX ₪ 03:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I have no need to publish it anywhere. I created it for my own personal research but realized that I was not going to be the only person interested in researching the list. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is for - to provide research sources? The Pittsburgh Gazette can not copyright the list because they obtained it from a public source and it is not copyrightable. They did not combine multiple sources to add additional names, I did. I could copyright the list of 192 arrests, but they can't copyright the list they obtained from the court. 2ndAmendment (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Again: Wikipedia is not your webhost for your personal projects. You want stuff for personal use, host it elsewhere. Thanks. → ROUX ₪ 03:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
          • It was not published here for my purpose. It was created as an article because it is an important part of the article, and kind of long for the main article, but that's my assessment. I really can not imagine that no one else is interested in that information. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Please read this page and consider how it applies to your own actions. Beyond that, I am uninterested in continuing to bang my head against this wall. → ROUX ₪ 04:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
              • Thanks, but it isn't up to me whether it is included or not. I really could not care less. What I do care about is seeing that people are encouraged and not discouraged. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)