User talk:Cantus

263rd successor of Saint Peter

You reverted my change on Pope John Paul II, a change I discussed on the talk page, without discussion and without even explaining in the edit summary. I'd prefer we get together and come to consensus rather than engage in an edit war. Jdavidb 20:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I believe he was intent on reverting my correction of the absurd assertion that the Pope was styled simply "His Holiness the Bishop of Rome",a usage I have never seen anywhere.It's either "His Holiness the Pope",one of the other titles on the list I gave,or the full list I gave.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Talk Page of article about wrong number of Popes. Then you guys can come to a consensus on the right language to use. -- KTC 20:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prince Rainier

Just wondering why you uploaded the un-cropped version of Image:Prince Rainier III.jpg - I cropped it to remove the unnecessary and unsightly space above his head. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 02:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Better contrast. Uncrop new version if you want. —Cantus…☎ 02:22, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Britbulletformat.png. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Ellmist 05:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jan Mayen and Svalbard

I can assure you that Jan Mayen and Svalbard are no Norwegian dependencies. Please let's not start an edit war. Jakro64 22:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook disagrees [1] (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/jn.html) [2] (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sv.html). —Cantus…☎ 23:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hiding images

Hi Cantus. I have absolutely no idea whether the image server situation has been resolved. I'll try to find out from Jamesday or Tim Starling, and get back to you. As I understood it, it was just meant to be a very temporary measure, and I am surprised that the changes haven't already been rolled back. - Mark 12:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked. Tim Starling says it should be okay to restore the image code to the template. The best way to do this is (if possible) just revert back to the version immediately before my changes. Keep in mind that this is a extremely frequently used template, and affects a huge number of pages, so an attempt to save it is likely to timeout several times (returning an error screen). You just have to click back and retry until it works. But if it does do this, give it a few minutes between each attempt, because it does take ages to process.

Having said that, I reckon Wikipedia Is A Better Place without the images on templates, but that's just me. - Mark 12:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay dude, it's now unprotected, but I'd very much prefer if you tell me when you've finished changing it, so it can be re-protected. It's very widely used on Wikipedia, and having it unprotected leaves us open to very visible vandalism. - Mark 04:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mac OS X name

Please undo the article moves you just did for the Mac OS X versions. You moved the articles from the correct names as used by Apple (eg. Mac OS X v10.0) back to the incorrect names (eg. Mac OS X 10.0). See discussion at User talk:TakuyaMurata. - Brian Kendig 03:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Population Estimate

List of countries by population references http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl No mention is made on that page about month the estimate is for - and even though a year appears, its meaning is not totally clear. Note also the date of the estimate.

How more reliable can one be than the source I gave & sourced? http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

Why keep unsourced data that seems to have been superseded?

• particularly when it is for some future date - which technically is a projection rather than an estimate

AND -- a population clock is more interesting, no?

Do a search for 295,734,134 US -- mostly all you'll get are mirror sites of wikipedia --JimWae 05:20, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

-HEY Cantus, don't you think it would be appropriate to give reasons for re-reverting this - those figures are based on old data --JimWae 05:58, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

LOOK HERE http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbprint.html --JimWae 06:01, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

By rereverting a 3rd time w/o ever addressing any of my numerous points and by insisting on a foolish consistency, I see --JimWae 21:08, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

• you are determined to prove that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.
• you are not a reasonable person
• you do not want to risk not getting your own way
• it is pointless to try to reason with you

EU GDP

Hi Cantus. Why did you list the EU as having a GDP (PPP) of 12,918,591? The IMF says the EU has an aggeregate GDP of 12329.110 billion in 2005, according to the April 2005 report (see [3] (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/01/data/dbaoutm.cfm?SD=2005&ED=2005&R1=1&R2=1&CS=5&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=998&S=PPPWGT&CMP=0&x=47&y=18). Ronline 07:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Cantus, I see you changed the GDP values from 2006 to 2005. I have no problem with that change but you also made the comment that the values were not sourced. The values came from the IMF which is the same source for the 2003 and 2005 values. It's the same database, I just choose the latest values that they had available. Parmaestro 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that I didn't update the link on the bottom of the page so the source stated was incorrect but that's very different from having values that are not sourced. In any event, it might be less confusing for people to see 2005 values at this time. Parmaestro 23:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it makes more sense to use 2005 values instead of 2006 but why did you change the values to nominal values when this article has been based on PPP ? Parmaestro 23:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing that you had suggested about having two tables, one with nominal values and one with PPP. This could be done for the other GDP list articles as well. It would be best if the tables were side by side rather than one below the other. Do you agree? Parmaestro 23:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question

Why do you delete my inquiry over and over? It apologizes when there is an impoliteness because I am not a native speaker. Please explain plainly. Your copyright information is needed. --っ 14:13, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

You are requesting copyright information for files which have been removed from Wikipedia. Those files were removed because they were copyrighted and can't be used in Wikipedia. I hope this answers your question. —Cantus…☎ 23:08, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I haven't know they have been removed. Now I must remove the copies of them in Japanese version of Wikipedia. Thank you.--っ07:59, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Iraq flag

I think the better version to Iraq flag is Image:Iraq flag 300.png.

Current version of Image:Iraq flag large.png is similar to the Britanncia version

But World Flag Database entry (http://www.flags.net/country.php?country=IRAQ&section=CURR) , vexilla mundi (http://www.vexilla-mundi.com/iraq.htm) and iraqui government (http://www.iraqigovernment.org/images/image002.jpg) versions are similar to Image:Iraq flag 300.png

What are your reasons to defend the Britannica version?

Please, answer me in simple english (or in spanish, of course, :-) )

Saludos. Sanbec ✉ 10:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Template

The template I had there was a stopgap (though yeah, duh, I should have subst'd it). The template I'm trying to put back in is the ORIGINAL template, Template:Infobox pope, the same one on all the popes - But I added a dead/alive switch. So I say we should put it back yes? (And I suddenly feel really stupid but not substing it, but we were in a rush ya know? =p) --Golbez 20:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Sorry for all the problems I caused. First, yes, I should have used subst; second, for some reason, I wasn't using preview. Maybe somewhere in my mind I thought it wouldn't load the template, but that's just stupid. Sigh. Anyway, it's working now. Sorry. --Golbez 21:00, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

And just to be clear, you did everything right. So I'm not complaining about a thing you did, even if I did in an edit summary or two. I didn't realize the error. I should have previewed. Sorry again. --Golbez 21:37, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Template:message box - Comment? -SV|t|add (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevertigo&action=edit&section=new) 22:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Broken" was not the right word, but it did not wrap properly, so I tried to do something about the wrap. You reverted without commenting. Why the revert? -SV|t|add (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevertigo&action=edit&section=new) 22:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Images

This article is innudated with copyvio images, is our position "it's copyright and I want to use it" so it's fair use? I don't think these reasonably qualify as fair use especially when such images can be obtained from the Holy See thus negating our need for these. I have listed them all as copyvios at copyright problems.

• Image:Pope Benedict XVI.jpg from [4] (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050419/ids_photos_wl/r2792186735.jpg)
• Image:Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger 1965.jpg from [5] (http://www.lun.com/galeria_fotos/fotos_mundo/detalle_galeria.asp?cuerpo=707&seccion=701&subseccion=903&idnoticia=384615873409954)
• Image:Joseph Ratzinger and brother in 1951.jpg from [6] (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MTAwMjcmbnI9MTE_3,00.html)
• Image:Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger 1977.jpg from [7] (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050419/ids_photos_wl/r1641188337.jpg)
• Image:Ratzinger mass monday.jpg from [8] (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050419/ids_photos_wl/r1471925689.jpg)
• Image:Pope Benedict XVI elected.jpg from [9] (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050419/481/fp11604191725) --Wgfinley 01:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dont' remove all the tags without discussing them, you think they're fair use, fine, make your case on the copyright problems page, you can't just remove the tags. --Wgfinley 03:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And you can't just add the tags and claim they can't be removed. —Cantus…☎ 03:34, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you flat out changed the image tag on the Pope's photo released by thE vatican which appears to be nothing more than you lieing about the iamge source. That is borderline vandalism and will be reported as such if you change image tags again for no reason -Husnock 03:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I got your note. Report me if you like, but you're in the edit history of an image as changing the image tag to copyvio for no reason [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Popebenedictxvi_firsttimeonthrone.jpg&action=history). This has been reported as vandalism. -Husnock 03:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary, if you are claiming fair use you need to give a reason, you have not and have called the tags "idiotic"[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Pope_Benedict_XVI_elected.jpg&diff=12550271&oldid=12550048) feel free to report it. --Wgfinley 03:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And it clearly states fragments of a work, you've taken the entire photo. That is probably the only photo you have any argument on, the others are blatant infringements on news agency images. --Wgfinley 03:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have a legitimate claim of fair use on images that come out of the Holy See and that has been an established process, see Image:Benedict_intro.jpg for an example. That has been deemed by the community as fair use, taking AP and Reuters photos on breaking news is most definitely not. --Wgfinley 04:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine, you don't think their fair use, make your case, it's established precedent and yes the community does determie what images qualify under fair use, discussions on individual images go on every day, go over to copyright problems or IfD to see it in practice. --Wgfinley 04:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's fair use. You're being vandalish. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images

Cantus, it's been a long day. But this image crusade is a bit much. We already have a specific tag for Vatican images; if there's a problem with all of them, then we can change that tag alone and deal with it on its own merits, rather than changing individual images. The AP images seem to be copyrighted, there's a process for that; however, we have apparently already figured out that Vatican images are fair use. There's no reason for a crusade. Please, let's just calm down a bit and call it a night. --Golbez 04:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

That one looks acceptable to put a notice on; I should have cited a specific example: [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Benedict_intro.jpg&diff=12551500&oldid=12551489) The URL you cite IS from the Vatican. This was the point I figured, it's time to say something and try to cool things down. That's all. --Golbez 04:26, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez but just wanted to let you know you were standing up for what you believe in and cant be faulted for that. Sorry if I got hot with the word vandal. You werent writing the F word all over the article, of course. In any event, next time, just try bringing it up on a talk page. If its a legitimate problem, people will discuss it and reach a compromise. Im going to have a snadwitch and go to bed. Good night! -Husnock 04:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Popebenedictxvi firsttimeonthrone.jpg

I did not upload that image, I already left a note on the uploader's page requesting some more detailed source info which is exactly the same way I treated your stuff. I left you a message and gave you an opportunity to make a fair use claim on them, you removed all the tags, called it "idiotic" and had the equivalent of a tantrum. If you have a case for fair use on those images then that needs to be made on the copyright problems page that I have referred you to several times now. It's not a big deal, follow the process, I've been working very hard with AP to get permission for use of their images and when we blatantly rip off their stuff it makes it difficult to secure permission. --Wgfinley 04:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add a tag because he claimed it was Vatican but didn't have it sourced, it looks like it could be a Vatican image. Your images were ones I commonly knew from AP, Reuters, etc and you had sourced them yourself showing them to be copyvios. I looked for his image to see if it was in fact a Vatican image but I couldn't find it. I'm giving him an opportunity to give the source, if he doesn't I'll list his as possibly copyvio as well. --Wgfinley 04:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Please stop changing the Pope image

1) I did it once (prior to posting this). 2) That picture you insist on having in the infobox looks awful in every respect. - SoM 20:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Commons Tags

Copyright tags on Commons are different than on WP as is the process to remove images. I already had Image:Ratzinger soldierjpg.jpg correctly tagged for Commons and it's on the proper page for removal, please let me handle that, it was tagged correctly. --Wgfinley 04:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II.jpg

Now that is a good image and better than what was there. That's the whole point, to get images that we can use, I'm not looking to bust people's chops for the hell of it, just keep it to things we can legally use. --Wgfinley

Image copyvio tags

Please do not remove copyright-violation teemplates from images until the proper process has been completed. If you believe them to be incorrect, go through the proper procedures as described in the templates. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Afghanistan

I'm pretty sure the Afghanistan figure is incorrect. On the talk page I've shown why. Parmaestro 23:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Template

The version you reverted is the one picked in a vote on the page. Two choices were given. Everyone bar one voted for the new version. One person argued for the alternative you reverted to, but even he didn't actually vote for it. I have reverted to the agreed one. Please do not show such contempt for the version discussed and adopted by the voters. FearÉIREANN 00:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)