User talk:Daveat168

Where did you Go?

December 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page List of impact craters on Earth has been reverted.
Your edit here to List of impact craters on Earth was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed email address removed) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in List of impact craters on Earth. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Orphan Wiki 23:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I have offended anyone. I did check to see if my idea was new. There is a search on for the impact crater responsible for the birth of the Atlantic Ocean. It does seem as if there was a major extinction circa -200Ma., and the proposed centre I seem to have found is very close to the edge of the continental shelf. -200Ma is about right for the birth of the Atlantic Ocean, and the centre maps, pre-split to a point near the South of Greenland. The unscientific style was used, not to be offensive, or difficult, but to convey an air of uncertainty, that the reader might use his/her own judgment. I thought the place and style were appropriate to this aim, as was the position where I inserted it.

I will place the insertion here then, having, I hope corrected any typos, so that someone else might refer to it, and make a more kosher insertion in a more appropriate place.

Here, then follows:

Can this be the impact crater which tore open the Atlantic ocean?

Get a map of the British isles in relief. Step a few paces back, and let your eyes dim.

Imagine a line from Dublin in Ireland, on a heading of about 285 degrees, passing through Westport, and about 20 mile out to sea, and focus on this point.

Notice how the major lakes and mountain ranges in Ireland seem to form arcs of circles about this point.

Notice also, with a little imagination, how Hills and lesser mountains in England, Wales and Scotland also have a tendency to lie on arcs centred on this point, and also, how Scotland's great glen points at this point.

Are we not looking at about a 120 degree sector of a huge crater, from about 1 o'clock to 5 o'clock? We are talking a main crater about 500 miles across, with ripples out to 2000 miles diameter, and radial rays out to 5,000 miles. Apart from the ray forming the great glen, you might see the coast of Portugal, The Biscay coast of France, and the Swedish coast as fossils of these rays.

This is huge, but not Earth-shattering. There are similar sized craters on the Moon, and the Moon is far more fragile than the Earth.

Incidentally, the geology in the Westport area is highly complex, typical of an impact zone.

Daveat168.

Recent edit to Triassic–Jurassic extinction event

Hello, and thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! Orphan Wiki 14:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:ImpactCrater0.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ImpactCrater0.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Coevolution.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:Coevolution.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Coevolution.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coevolution.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Euroblk2Modified.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Euroblk2Modified.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Coevolution.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coevolution.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not give place to reply, so I must reply here.

The image I uploaded is a LOW DEFINITION of the front page of the referenced publication. This is logically equivalent to a magazine cover. As such, it complies with accepted reasonable use, as it is an illustration only, and not fully readable. It is used as an illustration of the publication which is freely available on line, and is in no way an alternative to that publication. I though I had used the correct tags. I am a newby to this, and accept that the tags might need correcting. The instructions are not as clear as they might be. I tried very hard to get it right. I would appreciate help here. Silicon intelligence can be unhelpful.Dave at 168 00:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Odele-CRATER-CHAIN.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Odele-CRATER-CHAIN.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC) I will produce my own artwork based on the information given on the said site. This might take a couple of days.Dave at 168 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:ImpactCrater0.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:ImpactCrater0.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. I had removed it from display already.Dave at 168 18:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Your addition to File:Odele-CRATER-CHAIN.jpg has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Based on http://ottawa-rasc.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Copyright_Ottawa_RASC the image you uploaded is copyrighted and cannot be uploaded here. w^L^{<speak·check>} 23:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I would have removed it myself, but did not know how. I had already removed the link to it, and replaced with a link to my own artwork.86.152.5.169 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:BeforeTheAtlantic600.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:BeforeTheAtlantic600.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did as you said, but you totally ignored my response. I have opened a blogspot on Google, with the script copied from what I posted on Wiki, including the map mosaioc which you found objectionable, and there has been no official response from Google rebuking me for using their copyright material in this way. I think you have been overzealous, but that is your problem. Below is a copy of the Google hits for a search, entered with quotes, thus: "Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean"

Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean tjimpacter.blogspot.com/ 1 day ago - It has not been recognised officially yet, but there are what might be fossil remains of an enormous impact crater centred on a point a few miles ...

Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean: Introduction tjimpacter.blogspot.com/2015/02/introduction.html 1 day ago - It has not been recognised officially yet, but there are what might be fossil remains of an enormous impact crater centred on a point a few miles ...

Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean: February 2015 tjimpacter.blogspot.com/2015_02_01_archive.html 1 day ago - It has not been recognised officially yet, but there are what might be fossil remains of an enormous impact crater centred on a point a few miles ...

It has clearly gone through Google's copyright scanner, so I guess it must be ok by Google.

Dave at 168 11:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright, why we're so anal about it

Hi Dave. I saw your notes at the helpdesk, and I wanted to drop you a note about why Wikipedia deals the way with copyright the way it does. I know it is frustrating and complex.

Wikipedia claims to be the free encyclopedia. With free, we mean not only that it is available at no cost, but also that you are free to copy all our content, and re-distribute it at will, as long as you meet some conditions like attribution, and offer the same deal we do. That's why we're so anal about fair use. If we tell people they can freely re-use our content, we should stick with that, and not create problems for anyone who makes use of that right we explicitly offer them.

Fair use provisions are dependent on the context in which something is used. If Wikipedia is legally allowed to use something as fair use, that doesn't mean that our re-users can also use the same file as fair use. That means that with every fair use file we put up, we put our re-users at risk of breaking the law. That's why our rules for fair use are so strict. Sometimes, using an image under fair use provisions makes the encyclopedia so much better that we decide to screw over our re-users, and use the image anyway. But we have to be really confident it's worth it.

It's a perennial discussion here on Wikipedia what is and isn't reasonable when it comes to that issue, and it makes things extremely complex for people who try to do the right thing like you. But we do it for a reason, and we think that reason is worth it - doing what is right, and allowing our content to be truly free to use for whatever you want, not just for looking at it on this website. I hope you can see that perspective as well. Kind regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept that. But what is really needed is a sort of ombudsman to sort out sticky cases, such as Google earth projections, where the normal 'Fair Use' flags are not quite right, or easy to apply. Also, as I said, Google does not seem prepared to talk to plebs, like ordinary folks. We need an 'attorney', to get sticky questions and particular cases accepted. I believe, with the appropriate sugary words, Google might listen to Wiki.

Best regards, Dave at 168 16:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not very likely though. While it might be possible that we could get Google to allow use on Wikipedia, there is very little chance we could get them to allow the third party use that we allow. That's exactly why our rules on fair use are so strict, and are far more strict than mandated by law if it were only us using it. This is especially important if there is the possibility of a free to reuse file that fulfills the same goal. In the case of (I took one of the images you uploaded at random) ImpactCrater0, a similar map could be made from open street map, a project that operates under a compatible license as we do. It wouldn't have the nice satellite image, but it would be able to fulfill the same encyclopedic value, and it would allow for others to freely copy paste our content including the images. If that option is available to us, we'll always reject the non-free option. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Euroblk2Modified.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Euroblk2Modified.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave all the information I could find concerning this artwork. The source material is presented as public domain, my work, I dedicate to public domain.

I could not understand how to correctly fill in your boxes, and asked for help, but received none.

BTW the source material, for which Google claims copyright is available from Blue Marble Public Domain. Thus Google's claim to copyright may be spurious.