User talk:Brian Kendig

Older comments at User talk:Brian Kendig/Archive.

Contents

1 Article Licensing 2 Ipod pictures 3 Mac OS 10.x articles 4 Double quotes in article names 5 Non-commercial images 6 Sin (Final Fantasy) and image alignment 7 Tiger Version 8 Starfleet Insignia FAC 9 FAC 10 Template:Beckett 11 Rubber duck format 12 Disney's Contemporary Resort 13 Contemporary Resort photo

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Ipod pictures

Hi

I wonder if it's okey to use the pictures of different iPod models that you have created and uploaded on the article iPod. I am currently writing an Ipod article on the swedish Wikipedia (sv:Ipod), and need more pictures. I suppose the pictures are public domain or GFDL. My only intention is to use them on Wikipedia.

Jordgubbe 17:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) (swedish)

Mac OS 10.x articles

Why are you renaming those articles? I think names like Mac OS X 10.4 are fine. -- Taku 01:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Double quotes in article names

I saw your Mac OS X naming commentary, and would like to point out that it is indeed allowable to have quotation marks in article names such that the articles can be at e.g. Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger". -- Grunt [[European Union|]] 03:40, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Non-commercial images

Hi Brian. On your user page you wonder why prohibiting commercial use of your images isn't allowed on Wikipedia. The short answer, that I'm sure you've gotten before, is that it isn't allowed under the terms of the GFDL, which prohibits additional restrictions beyond those in the GFDL itself. Specifying the restriction of non-commercial use makes the license you release your images under incompatible with the GFDL, and as such cannot be used on Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has requested that such images not be uploaded to Wikipedia.

I also notice however that several of your more recent uploaded images are released under the GFDL. I was wondering if this indicated a change in your stance on this issue. If so, would you be willing to relicense your earlier images under the terms of the GFDL? Thanks — Miles →☎ 03:46, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sin (Final Fantasy) and image alignment

Am I correct in assuming that you're not using the default Wikipedia UI skin? Because the image alignment bug you're describing, IIRC, affects some of the other available skins, but not the default MonoBook skin, which automatically "stacks" right-aligned images vertically, rather than horizontally. The end result is that the "clear: all" break leaves a very, very large amount of empty space smack dab in the middle of the article for the vast majority of Wikipedia users, equal to the height of all three images. The basic problem, of course, is that there's just not enough text to comfortably align so many pictures, but, in lieu of just getting rid of some of them, I've thrown in a right-floating div that should force vertical arrangement of the images. On the other hand, if that still presents a problem (or if I've misinterpreted your complaint), the best solution would seem to be to move all of the images to the end of the text, in a miniature screenshot gallery or something of the sort, not forcing a clear, which is a very messy, brute-force way of fixing things, and looks, well, really bad on my end of things. – Seancdaug 01:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. It was one of those things I found out by accident: when I first started editing Wikipedia (anonymously) a few years ago, the classic skin was then the default, and when I finally started participating seriously I went to change it since I was the most familiar with it, which led me to notice the difference in rendering. I think the MonoBook default stacking is a better way of doing things, but it creates serious problems when it comes to keeping everything looking consistent. – Seancdaug 16:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Tiger Version

I just wanted to tip my hat to you for the edit you ultimately made to the 10.4 paragraph. It said what I was trying to say, but couldn't quite manage. Well done!

With any luck it will be a done deal in a few hours anyway. :)

--Steven Fisher 06:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Starfleet Insignia FAC

Hello. I was wondering if you were facing this type of problem: . If so, that has been addressed before and I am going to fix it now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

FAC

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia. I'm particularly worried that the article goes into more detail than almost all readers would be interested in reading (not going into so much detail is a FAC criteria). Thus longer sections should be summarized and the detail spun off into daughter articles, allowing readers to zoom to that level of detail if they so choose. --mav 16:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:Beckett

The template bunches up in the sense that it squishes the width without:

From

|aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa|
|aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa|

to

|aaaaaaaaaaaaaa|
|aaaaaaaaaaaaaa|
|aaaaaaaaaaaaaa|

This looks rather bad in terms of formatting, and makes the page unnaturally longer. It might have something to do with the fact on templates, links become bold when put on the page they refer to...but there's no reason why it should make itself so small. There's a similar problem on the Template:Shaw page. If a width isn't set there, it looks like this:

|aa|
|aa|
|aa|
|aa|
|aa|
|aa|
|aa|
|aa|
|aa|
|aa|
|aa|

You can imagine how ridiculous that looks on a template with over thirty plays listed. In other words, I'm not sure what can be done about this. There may be some piece of wiki coding that could resolve this, but it's not known to me yet...I'm sure we can figure this out though. What would you suggest (aside from what you've already suggested)?

Cheers,

--Yossarian 23:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I use Firefox on Win98 and the default Wikipedia skin (the white book thingy). My screen res is 1074*768 (if that helps). I've uploaded an image so you can see what I mean about the Shaw Template:

Missing image
Shaw.jpg
Image:Shaw.jpg

As far as I can tell, that's what it looks like on almost every page when there isn't a forced width (on my screen at least). On other thing: I copied my template designs from Template:Shakespeare, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't do this...you're quite right though. 800 is way too big on smaller screens, but I'm not too sure what to do if it does dumb things (like the above) on larger screens...<ponders> there must be a solution somewhere...

--Yossarian 04:28, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, seems you fixed the Shaw page, and th other templates appear to be behaving (relatviely speaking). Thanks for your help!

--Yossarian

Rubber duck format

There's something amiss with the way you reformatted this page--all the images appear on the right side at the top, and the text doesn't appear until after the end of the images. Elf | Talk 16:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I usually specify. Using Netscape 7.2 on Mac OS X 10.3.9. I've seen floating divs work before, but I couldn't think of any particular example to check. Elf | Talk 18:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disney's Contemporary Resort

Hello from Heidi & Joe. We noticed that we share an interest in WDW and Mac stuff. We were married there and our first computer is a 17" iMac. Anyway the article about the Contemporary is missing an essential image which would show it's iconic A-frame architecture complete with an arriving monorail train. All the images I could find are from advertisements and probably copyright protected. Anything you might find showing the end-view (with monorail) would help flesh out the concept . Thanks. hydnjo talk 21:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And, "... living at Walt Disney World..." boy is Heidi ever jealous about that! hydnjo talk 21:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary Resort photo

That's a terrific idea! I'll go take such a photo for Wikipedia. - Disney's Contemporary Resort

03:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We'll always luv ya for doing that, We've been bothered by the lack of a good picture for some time. Heidi's health has kept us away for a couple of years from a place that we frequented once or twice a year since 1987. Anyways, as the Contemporary is where we were married (1992-before the pavilion), and where we always stayed (after that first time in '87, she wouldn't even consider staying anywhere else). Anyway, we noticed that the pics on the article didn't show the iconic A-frame feature. We have our own pics but the're not on digital format (poor old us), so getting them uploaded to Wikipedia would take some doing. I was gonna do it anyway but then happened across you today and thought what the hell, lets see if Brian can do it for us. Heidi is blind so she thinks up all the ideas and I do all the typing (that's why we're hydnjo. You would delight us more than you could imagine if you were to fluff up the Contemporary article in whatever way you can. Heidi isn't completely blind so that if she puts on her glasses and I enlarge the screenshot she'll be able to see your contribution. Thank you, hydnjo talk 04:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent pictures that you took today. At least now a reader can see why it's called A-frame architecture! Can't believe you found the "Five Legged Goat" that fast; it took me about three days. The overall look of the article is much more ... well... contemporary. Thanks Brian, wait till Heidi sees this. ;-) hydnjo talk 22:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And Image:Disneys-contemporary-resort-mickeywatch.jpg doesn't seem to have been taken from a public space. Do you have a room there? Also, the trees on either side have grown so as to conceal that the watch-stem is on the wrong side! ;-) hydnjo talk 23:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)