User talk:Chmod007/Archive

Oh really? They are more factual correct than you know. You have no clue what MP3 is, obviously. I'm using it professionally, and codewise as well so I'm afraid I will revert that back to what it should be. ~ Julius

Umm, i removed the line spacings because i have my own reasons. If it bothers you, well sry. I am sorry if you felt like Defenestrating me from you swedish villa. 01:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)~ The guy whom u wanted to defenstrate.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Learning Project

Hej David, I notice you when I saw you reverted vandalism at an image I created and which I thought probably no one else would watch. Since I see you are Swedish and therefore work in your second language and since you are into software engineering I thought you might be interested in a project I started for learning, especially vocabulary. It is described and discussed at my user page, if you are interested please let me know there. Get-back-world-respect 23:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Double words

Sure thing, an easy one to do. There a list showing just repeated the's, of's and and's (eek, there's another one!) at User:Topbanana/Reports/This_article_contains_a_repeated_word. Other than picked three rnadom articles to check they do contain the problem being searched for, I've not tested the accuracy or usefulness of the list, so all feedback welcome. - TB 08:51, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for writing Pie chart, it was on my todo list. Edward 11:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I put it in the public domain. Tims 12:12, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agent 212

I wasn't accusing you of being malicious, it's just a personal annoyance of mine. Next time, rewrite it at Article/Temp, and post a note in the VfD discussion, and probably on the talk page as well. It's more or less the same as handling a known copyvio listed on Wikipedia:copyright problems. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hitler painting

Hi, i've seen you posted this on copyvio...

File:Hi painting 0341.jpg No source, no declaration of either fair use claims or public domain. David Remahl 22:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I dont see how the Hitler painting was a copyright violation since it was one of the official propaganda items in Nazi Germany. The color photo is far more problematic. The Hitler photo that is displayed now instead was taken by Walter Frentz, Hitlers personal photographer and is copyright, his son, who works for a major german media company is famous for going after people who use it as you can see here. This image looks like a bad scan from Hitlers Berghof 1928-1945 in color book *[1]

I actually posted the painting because of the dubious copy-status the photo has. Next time please message me before listing any of my contrubutions for deletion. --GeneralPatton 02:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Logic Bomb

Good job expanding my stub, I learned something new myself. Ld 19:41, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unicron1.jpg

Sorry, I was copying and pasting and didnt realize i had the wrong thing in the clipboard...dammit..time to redo. Thanks for pointing out.

   - I think I got them all, again sorry stupid cut and paste that just wasted time for me :/

WikiReader Crypto suggestions

Thanks for your suggestions at WikiReader Cryptography! I agree especially with SSL / TLS as an application that many Internet users will have used at some point, to a greater extent tham SSH or VPN anyway. — Matt 01:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Absolute Zero image

Hi! I got it from the website of the European Space Agency, but I am not sure whether it is public domain. You can click on the link to I-wear Fashion Show in Paris on the article page for i-wear and dig to see if it is. Loremaster 14:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How does one retag an image as fair use? Loremaster 15:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ICA Maxi

Howdy. I've been going through the 'redirects to nowhere' list. You changed ICA Maxi into a redirect to the non-existant ICA (supermarket)) on the 17th July. I wanted to check if you have plans to create the target article, please. - TB 20:01, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I totally forgot about it. The page has now been created. David Remahl 21:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ezhiki

Dear David,

sorry, did you really intended to oppose Ezhiki or there's just a kind of error? Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 18:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oops, of course I didn't intend to oppose (as my comment showed). Don't know how that happened. :-). I moved my vote. David Remahl 18:18, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great! I'm happy, because I started to feel myself a bit stubby, trying to find any consistency between your comment and your vote :-). (And I don't think anyone has any reasons to oppose Ezhiki either.) Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 18:28, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image in signature

OK, I understand what you mean. I have removed the image - I really do hope there wasn't any political reason though because other people have images in their signatures too. Rronline 08:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! There was absolutely no political motive behind my request. I sent the same request to another user with a picture in the signature (not a flag). Though I don't believe Wikipedia benefits from nationalism in any way shape or form (as I said, not related to my request. I also understand that the EU flag can be interpreted as an expression of internationalism.) — David Remahl 09:18, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi David

I noticed you were in the history too - I have been looking at your image contributions, then started reading about Dark Chess. I had been intending to say hi, but got distracted :-D

I have a look at my user page over the next day or two - I'll expand it with articles I've contributed to in a minor way too (like HFS+). If you could also let me know how i can automatically append my user name and the time to comments such as this one, please let me know.

p.s. why aren't you on AIM at the moment?

I haven't really "left" - I'm just editing anonymously now. I realised it's not worth the stress of trying to argue what I believe about Wikipedia, and hopefully by being an IP I can avoid that. 66.0.156.20 22:36, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, David: Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. And I'm humbled and impressed that David Cannon's endorsement of me is sufficient for you to vote in my favour. --Sewing 01:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glad to support your nomination. But I don't want you — or anyone else — to think that I take lightly on RfA votes. I carefully reviewed your contributions and found you quite deserving. Cheers, and good luck with the last few days of the nom. period. David Remahl 01:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. And far from it! I don't take the idea of being a sysop lightly either, although I wouldn't let the position go to my head. Although some admins try to emphaize that being an admin is nothing special, I think that having the power to block pages, delete pages quickly, etc., is a huge privilege, and one that could be easily abused. I have no intention of abusing it—or hopefully even exercising such privileges, and certainly never on something that I am editing as an everyday user! --Sewing 01:27, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi again, David: Well, I am now officially an admin. Thanks again for your support, and especially for your many comments. And please be the first to nominate me for de-adminship if I don't live up to your expectations. Yours, 山道子 (Sewing) - talk 13:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image license change

Please refrain from adding license information to images produced by other Wikipedians, such as you did on Image:Trie example.png. Only the copyright holder can place an image under a specific license, and I for one disagree with some of the principles of the GFDL. I have changed the tag to public domain — I will add tags to my other images as well. Thanks. Derrick Coetzee 17:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Presumably you agreed that the image could be distributed under the GFDL when you submitted it to Wikipedia. That said, yours was one of the images I was slightly unsure about. I apologize that my change was contrary to your wishes. It is great that you add tags to all your images, since that will allow them to be distributed as part of the Mandrake distribution of Wikipedia! David Remahl 17:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I apologize; I did check the box, and since I'm the copyright holder I really did place it under the GFDL. I should pay more attention — I assume my later act of placing it under a less restrictive license (public domain) is permissible. Derrick Coetzee 01:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course it is! And the wording on the upload page should really be fixed..Not only can it be difficult to interpret for those uploading their own files, but people uploading fair use images (which are permissible according to current policy) have to outright lie about "their copyright holder" accepting their incorporation in Wikipedia as GFDL...It's problematic, to say the least. David Remahl 02:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vandals of Sandviken

Hi, David, I don't know if you're watching those anon Sandviken kids' talk pages, so this is just to let you know that I've left a message for both 81.227.148.223 (talk) and 164.4.31.79 (talk). Best regards, Bishonen 13:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I bet you're right that a ban would do little good...I just hope they'll listen to reason. I'm considering calling them up by phone. They've made it pretty obvious who they are, and it wasn't a problem to find likely suspects in the white pages. Perhaps a talk in real life would make them understand... David Remahl 16:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe ... though I suppose any one individual among those names could just claim that that was his enemies writing about him. It might even be true. But I'm certainly in favor of your making phonecalls, that's a great idea. Better than mine, which is so far to send a pompous e-mail to the school's principal and to their IT director, and to Sandvik with their "globala datanät" (?) servicing the school. I've got it all composed, but I'd really rather not send it. If the little buggers get in hot water, they'll only swear revenge on Wikipedia, and I bet they could find other means of prosecuting that revenge than those workstations, if they were cut off from them (not that that's even remotely likely to happen). PS, I've listed 164.4.31.80 too on ViP, I think he's the third guy. Bishonen 17:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- Hey! Don't make any phonecalls yet, David, take a look at the new message on my Talk page. :-) I hope they mean it. Bishonen 17:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- hej! vi slutar vandalisera wikipedia nu. Intresset svalnade faktiskt ganska snabbt när vi märkte att ni kollade upp oss. annars var det ju faktiskt ganska roligt:). Men en fråga. hur lyckades ni få tag på tele. nummer? Nåja, lycka till i framtiden!

MVH

Martin

Jag fick tag i Niklas Modighs telefonnummer på hitta.se. Jag är misstänker att Niklas eller hans föräldrar hade kunnat ge mig resten av numrena. Men jag är glad att det inte behövdes, och hoppas att ni kommer bidra med meningsfullt material till Wikipedia. Jag antar att ni faktiskt vet en del om ishockey, förmodligen speciellt svenska spelare i NHL. Varför inte försöka förbättra Wikipedias artiklar om dessa? — David Remahl 19:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- (Gee, I wonder what language that is.) So you did talk with the rapscallions? Excellent work, David. Bishonen 18:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi again, David, I don't know if you ever look in on Swedish wiki? I gave them some info about Göranssonska on Bybrunnen, Pågående vandalisering?, and got some interesting stuff in return, see the last comment (as of this time) of OlofE. :-) I don't want to use it, and I hope they don't, but it's not a bad thing to have in reserve for eventualities, along with that phone number you've got. Bishonen 23:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Robert Brooks

I've put this on the VP but just in case, I'm asking you here as well. I've started a rfc. It needs to be certified by someone else though. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert Brookes Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 18:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vandaler?

Jag såg mitt namn omtalat i en diskussion om vandalism. Ring mig David, det är enklast.

Ring 073-9514933 och be om Viktor Johanson. Niklas Modigh finns inom räckhåll.

Re: Opposition of Kate

Is it a problem that I didn't explain my actions? I see several in the "support" list that don't have any comments, just a name. Why isn't it appropriate for me to do the same thing with an opposition? — i386 | Talk 21:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but when support otherwise is so strong, it is odd not to elaborate on one's opposition. I think it is especially important to provide some kind of comment for opposition votes, considering that most think that adminship shouldn't be that much of a deal...Furthermore, I talked to Kate, and she said that she had never, to her knowledge, interacted with you on Wikipedia, so I'm also questioning what basis you have to vote on her adminship. But it is up to you. — David Remahl 21:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What basis do I need' to vote on her adminship? Several of the people who voted against my adminship are people with whom I had never interacted. I think Kate would make a good admin, but I'm afraid that there's no change of vote. Also, please don't use gender-neutral pronouns on my talk page. — i386 | Talk 14:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At least now I can say that I have interacted with you, and with good conscience vote against you next time you stand for admin election... — David Remahl 17:23, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Why? What can I do to change your mind? — i386 | Talk 17:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seriously, please respond to that. If I've done something wrong by voting against her, I'd like you to let me know so I can correct it and win as much support as possible. — i386 | Talk 17:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Sorry David for butting in on you user page, but I feel it best for conversations to stay in one place)

33451 I also intend to vote against you if you ever stand for admin again. Voting against someone who you feel "would make a good admin" is IMO trolling. I feel that people who troll will not make a good admins. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 17:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I just noticed a typo I'd made earlier. I meant to say that Kate "wouldn't make a good admin", which I decided after going through her contributions. Sorry and I hope you consider that if I'm ever up for admin. — i386 | Talk 17:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why then the "but" before "I'm afraid that there's no change of vote."? Playing games like this will win you no friends. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 18:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(got an edit conflict, I realize Theresa said some of this already.)Sorry, but I don't believe you..."kate wouldn't make a good admin, but I'm afraid there is no change of vote" doesn't make sense. If you want me to change my mind, please point to a single thing in Kate's contributions that you find objectionable. Anyway, the two things I've found out about you are: 1) willing to vote against someone you don't know, because others did that to you. 2) very eager to please once you realize you could lose support. — David Remahl 18:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say that I found anything in Kate's contribs objectionable, I simply don't think she contributes a lot to Wikipedia. Looking through the first few pages of her contribs shows more username changes than articles. Plus, she's already a developer, she doesn't need to be an admin, also. — i386 | Talk 18:17, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we'll get much more from this discussion, so we should wrap it up. But you've had your fair share of username changes too, no? — David Remahl 18:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I've never changed my username once. I've always been 33451. But please tell me how I can win back support from you guys. — i386 | Talk 18:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nothing is set in stone. Should you impress me a lot in another situation, I probably would reconsider. But don't expect me to give you some kind of magic formula to win back my support. Ok? :-). — David Remahl 18:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's a poorly worded sentence. What do you want from me? And if I did think she would make a good admin, how would it be trolling to oppose her? Everyone wants to please once they've lost support: How can I gain your support back? — i386 | Talk 18:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'm pretty much done with this discussion, but before I go, could you please stop by my talk page and explain why you'll be voting against me when I'm up for admin, so I can see exactly what not to do? I would greatly appreciate it. — i386 | Talk 19:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, you obiously didn't read the explanation at the top of my talk page. This is the kind of thing you should email me for. Please follow this next time. — i386 | Talk 19:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ehm, I didn't consider it very urgent. Besides, you asked me to stop by your talk page. Whatever. — David Remahl 19:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changing somebody else's image copyright

Could you please explain me your motivation to changing my Troglitazone image copyright from PD to GFDL? Thanks, Mykhal 08:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Honest mistake. I must have had too many tabs open and mistaken your's for some other page. Sorry! I have reverted it to your version. — David Remahl 08:55, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, sometimes it happens.. Mykhal 09:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry

Accidential, sorry. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SSBM-Mario2.jpg

OK. The image tag has been updated to use {{screenshot}} instead of {{GFDL}} as before. Thank you for informing me of this, as I was unaware of the {{screenshot}} tag. Also, I assumed that the preferred image format would be PNG, but I was able to make a JPEG version of this screenshot at around 1/10th of the size, and did so for bandwidth purposes.

HonkeyKong 09:55, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not me

Hey David, i am not vandeling, i have revered the page to its pervious state before that 2 ID107 farked with the page. see the page history.

Sorry, my mistake. I struck out the {{test2}} notice from your anonymous page. I hope you'll decide to join us as a logged-in user. — David Remahl 11:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No worries

Don't worry about it. :-)
Is there any way to block those IPs who deliberately mess with the pages btw?
(221.127.103.152)

Yes, if done repeatedly, they can be blocked by an admin for a limited time. — David Remahl 11:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Repost of General Mayhem

Talk:General Mayhem#Repost

Thank you, a very kind comment. -- Netoholic @ 01:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About my opposition of User:Kate on RfA

Okay, I gave up on this a while ago, but I think that the time is right for one last explanation. So, here it is.

I think Kate would make a good admin, yet at the same time, I don't think she's ready to become an admin quite yet, I think she needs a bit more experience. Look at it this way: Someone once told me I would make a good lawyer, but becuase I'm not even a sophomore in high school yet, I'm not ready to become a lawyer. I think the same thing applies to Wikipedia administrators. If Kate had had more experience, I would have supported her.

By the way, I'm also posting this on Theresa's talk page. — i386 | Talk 13:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About the WikiWatch Thread...

No, I didn't post as the wrong user, because 33451 and Shquid are my only accounts. I support User:WikiWatch's efforts to try to bring the Wikipedia up to standards, because the WikiWatch foundation will donate a great deal of money to compliant wikis—usually $10,000 to $100,000. — i386 | Talk 14:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh. Of course you are. — David Remahl 14:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please don't link to my talk archive. If you do not remove the link I will move the archive.

Also, I did not post as the wrong user, I simply reasoned that if another user backed up WikiWatch, he would gain more support. Can we call this issue resolved yet? — i386 | Talk 17:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please stop, you're not fooling anyone. Also, talk page archiving should _not_ be a way to try and hide away uncomfortable information! Why shouldn't I link to it? — David Remahl 17:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, no, you misunderstood. WikiWatch was my sockpuppet, but I used my main account to try to make it seem like there was more that one person who'd heard of the WikiWatch account.

As for my talk archive, I do not let other users link to my user subpages without asking my permission. Feel free to link to my main talk page, but not the archive unless you care to ask on my talk page.

And my reasoning to move the entire thing to BJAODN is to clear Theresa's talk page so that I can have a serious discussion. Is the matter resolved yet? — i386 | Talk 17:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, so you admit to having listed sock-puppets on RfA, to using your "main" account to create the appearance that your sock-puppet has community support, to lying about the whole matter twice. And then you want to move the evidence to BJAODN. Makes perfect sense, and I understand completely that you want to oppose my RfA. Btw, the link stays. Just like WikiWatch is not allowed to dictate spelling policy, I do not let you dictate what links I can and cannot create... — David Remahl 17:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not trying to delete evidence, the evidence is listed on RfA. However, your accusation was completely inappropriate, and I've removed the archive link. If you put it back I will have the archive deleted and repost it later from the backup on my Mac. — i386 | Talk 17:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, your comment on my talk page was totally inappropriate. I do not object to the content of the post, but to the fact that you did not use your proper signature, with the skin you use after it. I consider that vandalism and your comments, with their improper signatures, are being archived with anonymous posts. — i386 | Talk 17:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you lost me...What comment are you referring to? I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent anything. — David Remahl 18:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The comment about "did you log in wrong". I don't object to the comment itself, merely the fact that you did not sign it properly. I ask at the top of my talk page that you not only sign, but type the skin you use to view wikipedia. You are welcome, however, to correct it. — i386 | Talk 18:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to share the information of what skin I use to view Wikipedia with you. I assure you that the community will not agree that failing to do so constitutes vandalism...My message was properly signend, and I will object loudly if you try to move it to the "anonymous archive". You are marching towards RFC, message by message. — David Remahl 18:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why do you object to the anonymous archive? It will still have your improper signature on it, and I don't think it's a valid RFC if I archive my own talk page how I want. Are you going to fix it or not? — i386 | Talk 18:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Making up arbitrary rules for the sole purpose of causing confusion may not be prohibited by policy (just considered very bad style). However, you've violated huge amounts of policy already, I'm sure it won't be a problem accumulating enough. No, I won't tell you what style I use (though User:Chmod007/monobook.css may be a clue.) — David Remahl 18:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What policy have I violated by creating multiple accounts? — i386 | Talk 18:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for not linking to my subpage. While I don't have a problem with people reading the content, I certainly don't want other trolls linking to it to damage my reputation. — i386 | Talk 18:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your improperly signed comments have been anonymously archived.

Okay, can you please tell me what you want me to do before you'll let this whole issue go? I'm getting tired of it and I just want to go on working on articles, but you are making that difficult. What do you want from me? — i386 | Talk 18:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you don't do anything more, I won't do anything more..You're the only one still pushing it. — David Remahl 18:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So if I just stop, this matter will be resolved? Can you please remove your comments from RfA if I withdraw my objection? — i386 | Talk 18:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, comments should not be removed from RFA, neither should votes. They should only be ~~stricken~~. Furthermore, I still stand by everything I have done, so I won't strike anything out either. — David Remahl 18:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In that case, I stand by my vote, though I will modify it slightly. Are you okay with what I've done with the comments on my talk page? If not, tell me, and when this issue is resolved, would you please post a comment on my talk page saying so? — i386 | Talk 18:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not OK with what you've done to the comments and I thought I made that clear above... They were properly signed, and not by any stretch of the term anonymous. I'm tempted to start a RFC, but I too want to get back to writing articles and would like to avoid wasting a week on pointless debates with you on RFC. The "issue" can't be resolved, since you've already done so many things wrongly. The best I can do for you is to drop it, for now. — David Remahl 18:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please just tell me what I've done wrongly on my talk page—I will accept any signature this time—so that I can have a good idea of what not to do. If you prefer, I will remove your comments from the anonymous archive and place them in a “improperly signed” archive or a &lqduo;trolling” archive, or I'll keep them with signed posts. Tell me your preference on my talk page, please. — i386 | Talk 18:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My policy on my talk page is designed as a kind of survey—I want to know how people see it, so I can design my user page for the majority. If you don't want to, you can always opt out, I suppose, and I won't move them anymore. I have a few things to do before I can put your comments back though (I need to move some subpages and delete others). — i386 | Talk 18:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To prevent your frivolous RFC, I've put your comments back on my talk page, and I'm deleting the anonymous archive. I ask, however, that you do tell me what I did wrong (on my talk page) and what policies I violated, and we can consider this done.

Excellent, I thanked you on your talk page. You didn't out-right violate any policies, only ones implicit and unwritten (it is controversial wether non-written policies can be used as arguments in RFAr and RFC discussions). However, as I said, you've violated many other policies, for example abused the RFA facility. — David Remahl 19:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out that one about the RFA—How is my self-nom abuse but yours isn't? Either way, I think I'm done with this whole mess and I'll move on. — i386 | Talk 19:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, do you still object to Theresa's talk page BJAODN? — i386 | Talk 19:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can copy it to BJAODN, and let Theresa decide what she wants to do with it. You seem to be all for people doing what they like with their talk pages. — David Remahl 19:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's a great BJAODN candidate. — i386 | Talk 19:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

David I've taken the liberty of adding his other sockpuppet user talk pages to the archive. I want evidence all in one place for when the time comes. It's sad but the time will probably come very soon if he doesn't change his ways.

To 33451, you have admitted to having sockpuppet accounts. These accounts have vandalised Wikipedia. Therefore I can block you. If I see any more sockpuppet accounts of yours vandalising the logo or anything else i will block them and you from editing. The block will be indefinite. When you troll user pages you are funny because you are so inept. When you vandalise you are not funny. Please also note that many other admins are not so tolerant of trolls as I am. They may block you simply for trolling. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 22:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rondane

Hej. Var det av någon speciell anledning som du ställde tillbaka flera språkändringar i artikeln Rondane National Park? Diff-länken är just nu denna. Det ser ut som ett misstag, men jag är inte säker. ✏ Sverdrup 09:45, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oj! Vad konstigt, jag fick ingen edit conflict! Jag ändrade bara "Act 2, scene fourth" till "Act 2, scene 4" för att vara konsekvent. Av någon anledning måste jag varit på en gammal revision. Mea culpa. — David Remahl 09:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

GFDL

Thnaks for your comment. The picture was by me (as I noted within seconds of uploading). Funnily enough, alhtough I inteded to put a version of that pic up anyway, I was doing it now to confirm the process, in order to help with "tagging" of pix. (Which I had not fully understood, so it was a worthwhile exercise!) Can you point me to the list of tags for licenseing pix? Rgds Rich Farmbrough 12:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikification

David, you're stalking me! No, I appreciate the date wikifications, actually, at least in the sense that I know they must be, while I don't like to do them myself, because I hate the policy that dictates them. On the other hand, I agree that such things should be uniform, so thanks for fixing them. Bishonen 22:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the policy could be better...It seems like the main reason for linking dates, is for the software to be able to identify and localize them more easily. However, many articles are overwhelmed by lots and lots of links to years, to the point that it becomes difficult to find the "real" relevant links. There are some other issues with the policy too, that I brought up on Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

The good thing about the fact that the software now easily can identify dates, is that it will be relatively simple to migrate to another date link policy in the future, in a highly-automated fashion.

Oh, and sorry for the stalking. That's the price you pay, once you get on my watchlist :-P. — David Remahl 22:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes you see an article with lots of relevant and vital links missing, but all the dates religiously wikified. I really hate that.

Another thing I hate is that sponsor principle on RfA, as if adminship was some socially exclusive country club, so I was proud (speaking as a Swede) to see your self-nomination. Later, when Blankfaze made that comment about how it was just "as if" he had nominated you himself, I thought of noisily removing my support vote, just for a few hours, just to make a point. But I realized he meant well. Anyway, congratulations on the vote going so well, you really deserve it. --Bishonen 15:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Treason message

Hi, Dave.

Got a message from you about the lovely and talented "Mr. Treason" via an anonymous proxy that I was using here at work. If it's any help, the proxy in question isn't AOL but Time Warner Road Runner cable internet. Same company, of course. Hope this helps. - Lucky 6.9 18:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit links in RfA

You said However, I have disabled it, because it inhibits my ability to type "edit" to select the edit link at the top of the page in my browser.. I'm guessing this means you're using Firefox? Since IE (at least in vanilla form) doesn't let you type links like that. However, if you're using monobook, in either IE or Firefox you can just hit Alt-E to get to the main edit link. In IE, you have to hit enter afterwards, but in Firefox, hitting Alt-E directly takes you to the edit page. Incredibly convenient. Should work in any other modern browser too. (Also because I don't have the typing-a-link thing turned on. ;)) Hope this helps! --Golbez 16:14, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC) (ps vote golbez!@)

Thanks for the tip. However, my browser-of-choice: OmniWeb doesn't support accessibility keys, and I don't think Apple Safari does either. Sadly. But since that is just about my only complaint about OW, I won't switch browser because of it :-). — David Remahl 16:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Safari supports accessibility keys. use control+key [2]

Return "talk"

Kloy, I strongly suggest that you remove your nomination from RfA. I believe your intentions were good, but I can say with 100 % certainty that your candidacy will never pass at this point. Please try again in a few months. Oh, btw, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on Hallerman Streiff syndrome. Perhaps you'd be interested in writing it? — David Remahl 22:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I just created Hallermann-Streiff syndrome page as a stub, kinda. You just told me to withdrawl because you've never met me. Ok? Admit it!

(Answer to message on my talk)Yes, it is quite possible that I would have supported your nomination if I had met you and interacted with you. Because then I would have known more about you. Now, the only thing we have to go by is what you've done here on Wikipedia in terms of edits, and unfortunately that material is not sufficient yet. It is for your sake that I suggest that you remove the nomination. If you know you may get upset when opposed, why subject yourself to it unnecessarily? If you continue working like you have so far for a few months I am certain you'll pass RfA in flying colours. — David Remahl 22:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You must understand that someone is bound to love me :-D Now, how do I edit the wikilinks on the main page? --Kloy1334 22:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

           RfA is not about love (only wikilove ;-)). And while you may get a few votes, RfA requires approximately 80% support. That means, that for you to pass at this point (with three oppose votes) you will need no less than fifteen support votes...BTW, I copyedited the stub you created. Great addition!
           What you you want to edit on the main page? While some of the components on the main page are protected and only editable by admins, most of them can be changed by anyone. — David Remahl 22:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh well. Hmm... Thanks for the copyedit. I say that we should put the sister projects in the wiki menu on the left for easier navigation as it doesn't link to them at the bottom on most pages.

I am also thinking of creating WikiEd - a school homework/classwork help centre... would that be able to gain any visitors and maybe even get taken over by Wikimedia?

You're a sysop!

I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | Talk 16:49, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let me be the first to congratulate you! Use your new 'powers' wisely. Most things you do can be reverted, so don't worry too much. The only exception is deleting images. If you delete an image it's gone and can't be undeleted by anyone else. What's more the link table is broken, so do not trust the "what links here". Many images are linked to yet appear as if they are orphans :-( Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 18:12, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Duplicate interlang links

Some articles may contain a duplicate interlang link, potentially making it appear twice in the "other languages" box. Could you create a report that finds pages with more than one interlang link to the same language? — David Remahl 16:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure thing - I'll put it on my todo list. - TB 08:00, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that one proved to be a bit of a challenge. Results at User:Topbanana/Reports/This article links more than once to another wikipedia. - TB 11:26, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

User:El Chico

Note that User:El Chico is User:33451 under a new name. — David Remahl 12:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why was it neccessary to put this after all my RfD votes? I'm trying to downplay my past, so that I will not automatically be accused of trolling. Is it that you don't trust me, despite the blank slate? — El Chico! ^Talk 19:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do understand that you want to downplay your past, and that is good. The best way to do that, is to stay out of discussions where your old user has participated before or to be clear that El Chico is your new name. Otherwise, one may construe that you are using El Chico as a sock-puppet for 33451. Agreeing with what 33451 said, looks a lot like the way you decided to use 33451 to lend credence to "WikiWatch". I don't think that was your intention, but it had that effect. As I said, the best way to avoid 33451 and El Chico from getting mixed up, is to stay out of the exact issues 33451 was involved in. — David Remahl 21:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. — El Chico! ^Talk 21:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pixel art images

Hehe, true about the fair use thing I didn't quite knew much about licenses and such back there, and never botherer to fix it later Thanks for making me :P — Kieff | Talk 17:46, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Email

Please check your email. Thanks. --Lst 27 18:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why R U attacking me?

What did I ever do to ypou???? GNAAdar 21:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) http://www.gnaa.us

I am not attacking you, I am stating facts. I also speculated on the dubious nature of many of the delete votes, but that wasn't directed only to you. — David Remahl 21:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is thsi some kind of twisted wikipedia cabal exscuse?!!! GNAAdar 21:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) http://www.gnaa.us

Speedies

Hi, Dave. Thought the "Mogenic" was spam. I didn't see the second line on the "Skegness" and I thought it was a one-sentence substub. :^) Thanks for the heads-up. I've listed "Mogenic" on VfD. - Lucky 6.9 23:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Israeli Terrorism page

Hi David, could you please respond to the latest question on the Talk:Israeli terrorism page? Jayjg 04:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Untagged GFDL images

Hi! Thanks for setting up the multiple interlang links report, very helpful! I'm going to use it as a basis for discussion on meta: too.

Now I've got a new idea. What about a report that finds Image: pages that do not have the {{GFDL}} template (or are otherwise members of Category:GFDL images), but either link to GNU Free Documentation License (or something that redirects there) and/or contain the phrase "GFDL", "GNU FDL" or something to that effect? It would be tremendously useful to hunt down and tag images uploaded before the tagging system was put to use. — David Remahl 00:33, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure thing. Have a look at User:Topbanana/Reports/This image may be GFDL but not properly marked as such and let me know if it meets your needs. I can list the 14472 images in category 5 (see the report for details) but would need to spread them over several pages to avouid breaking Wikimedia. - TB 10:27, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion vs. Speedy Deletion

Sorry about that, I thought I was putting that post Southern Independence Party up for Votes for Deletion, not speedy deletion. What's the code to put up VfD instead? Obviously not msg:delete... Alba 21:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The template is {{vfd}}. Also, note that "msg:" is not necessary (it used to be required but isn't in the current version of the software). Note that you have to list the page manually at WP:VFD too. Just including the template is not enough. There are detailed instructions @ WP:VFD. — David Remahl 21:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Crimson crush

Under the heading "unrecorded amateur high-school bands" Wetman 01:46, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Marking kanji

We don't typically italicize kanji (as you did in Manga); it just makes them hard to read. Just so you know. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:02, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

The discussion is occurring at User talk:Rmhermen - I am just mirroring it to my own talk page. Please echo your comment on his talk page too

In the News

Oh... okay then... I'll just hide over here and attempt to appear humble. :/ Sorry. I'd never seen such notations until this week, and I didn't recall any discussion on them, so. Sorry :) --Golbez 20:50, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hehe, ok. I studied the ITN policies earlier today, prior to my first-ever addition to the page, so I had the (pictured right) instruction fresh in my mind :-). If it really isn't used, then we should just remove it from the talk page instructions. — David Remahl 20:54, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

URGENT: Opposition to "Sam Spade": See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade

See a critic's tracking of SamSpade's activities on Wikipedia at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade Vote "NO", or reverse your vote, even at this late hour. This is criticle (and critical) information! IZAK 09:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

About the candidates

Hi David, Reasons:

The two mentioned persons have zero chance of being the next prez of the US.
- Since they're not even allowed to participate in the presidential debates, I'd say your guess is pretty accurate...
mentioning that non-entities are 'arrested' for mere "protesting" should be kept of the main mage.
- People getting arrested for protesting is from my POV a serious violation of democratic rights.
Why is it not mentioned Afghanistan's presidential candidates boycotted the elections which is a much more relavent topic?

[[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:51, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Because noone added it? Add it! That is obviously more important news than what we're discussing right now. — David Remahl 19:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sigh

Hey. What's up with this? You do know you can edit the article, don't you? :-/. Fact of the matter is, I did edit the article to correct the problem I addressed. If you're going to be smarmy, make sure it is relevent. Also, it would seem that what has happened to the Badnarak page lately proves my point in that people have to get off their soap boxes and edit like encyclopedists.Jordan Langelier

"POV" on Penis

You should not confuse the activity of a few on Wikipedia as a reflection of the views of the greater world out there. Dangerous mistake, in my opinion. The insertion of that sentence in the article is plain POV pushing. Try to see it in the context of the article. It does not belong. - Robert the Bruce 02:51, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Further, why do you oppose a "sex" warning on the penis article where an erect penis is depicted? There are people who may be sensitive about such matters. To those who have no concern it should not matter to them. I don't believe that Wikipedia should allow children to be exposed to explicit pics without warning ... do you? - Robert the Bruce 02:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The sex template is being discussed in three places right now: Talk:Clitoris, Talk:Penis, Template talk:Sex. Please let these discussions have their course before using the template, to avoid edit wars. — David Remahl 02:51, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

thanks david

thanks for helping out on the "Saint-Gaudens" thing, David. I SWEAR tht you were the next administrator that i was going to. Carptrash 04:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chicago

I forget exactly when the TrueType version of Chicago shipped, although it may have been for TrueType's coming out with System 7. The Chicago system font has definitely changed several times since 1984; the original bitmap had an empty zero, for instance, while the last versions had a slashed zero (see http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/apple/chicago/). The iPod appears to honor the original bitmap where it can, but I haven't studied it to be certain.

I will study this closer, and document my findings on Chicago (font) too. Another thing...The Chicago font didn't include any non MacRoman characters, did it? Not even the TrueType version. Are the cyrillic characters new designs, then? — David Remahl 22:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I have to be so vague on the subject (which includes not logging in for the time being). You're right in noting that the version of Chicago on myfonts.com doesn't seem to support many non-Latin codepages, but I don't know that it represents the final version of Chicago. Perhaps 9.2.2 and a WorldScript-aware word processor will settle the issue.

I got Chicago 3.5 (2000) from a Japanese Mac OS 9.2.1 installation CD, and it contains 431 glyphs. Mostly latin. No cyrillic. It is larger than the MyFonts version, though, and I haven't been able to inspect the bitmap characters. — David Remahl 02:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tjena, läget?

Hi, David, I've only a matter of hours ago learned how to upload images and stick them in articles, and am puffed up with pride. :-) I stuck some of them in John Vanbrugh, and to my great surprise, the four little images of actors lined up neatly in a row to the right of the paragraphs about plays, just where I wanted them, after only 5-6 tries. But I'm wondering about some stuff, if you have the time to explain in words of one syllable:

1. What's with all that ugly waste of space around them? Is it because I put the names into the image links? I see that you, for instance, have titles under your images, on your neat image subpage, and I see in the markup field that you don't have any titles mashed in with the actual image link, the way I do. But I don't understand how to achieve that.
2. Also, supposing I did want a name, as it might be "Elizabeth Barry", set into a kind of frame the way it is on John Vanbrugh, there would obviously be room for the whole of it in one line, if only it wasn't for the small-box-into-big-box button that shoulders Barry aside the way it does. Is it possible to get rid of that button, while keeping the frame? (It only has the same function as clicking on the thumbnail itself anyway, doesn't it? What use is that?)
3. (Sorry, I'd no idea they'd keep on coming like this.) Is there a better principle for lining pictures up in a vertical row than pushing them around at random and previewing till it looks right?

Don't let me bug you if you're busy, appreciate a reply if you're not. Best regards,--Bishonen 23:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll help you as soon as I've finished watching the 5^th to last episode of Prisoner on TV4. In half an hour or so, that is. :-). In the mean time, may I ask what browser and operating system you're using? — David Remahl 23:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jaguar (I believe you speak mac :-), correct me if I got that wrong ) and Mozilla 1.6.--Bishonen 00:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yep, you got it right :-).

The extra space is added by the frame. The frame is displayed when either "thumb" or "frame" is used. They're equivalent, except that "frame" will never scale the image, while thumb will. If no image size is given to "thumb", the image will be scaled to a default size. If "right" is added to the image tag, the image will be adjusted to the right, and text will flow past it. The nice thing is that if more than one image is aligned to the right (or the left, for that matter), they will end up in a horizontal line.

Therefore (answering Q. 3), in your example John Vanbrugh, you can choose where to put the images in the markup. You could put them all in the beginning of the Plays section, or you could put them where they fit in the text.

If you want to avoid the frame, you can't use the "thumb" or "frame" keywords. [[Image:Blah.png|200px|An image]] will scale Blah.png to a width of 200 pixels. "An image" will be the "alt" text for the image (displayed if the image cannot load for some reason, or if the user is blind). The problem with this approach, is that the caption is not visible. To still include the caption, but not the frame, is a bit more complicated, since the regular image markup cannot do it. Instead, it has to be done with <div> and/or <table> tags. Doing this is discouraged, since makes the wiki markup more complex. A better solution would be to add a keyword to the image markup. Something like "frameless", which would include the caption but hide the frame.

Here is an example of using div markup to right-align an image with a caption:

<div class="floatright">[[Image:Elizabeth_Barry.png|Etching of Elizabeth Barry|120px]]<br /> ''Elizabeth Barry''</div>

This is what it looks like laid out:

Elizabeth Barry

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Ut odio. Nam sed est. Nam a risus et est iaculis adipiscing. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Integer ut justo. In tincidunt viverra nisl. Donec dictum malesuada magna. Curabitur id nibh auctor tellus adipiscing pharetra. Fusce vel justo non orci semper feugiat. Cras eu leo at purus ultrices tristique.

Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.

You can find details about using divs to position images at Wikipedia:Image markup with HTML. This practice is deprecated.

For efficiently lining up images vertically, however, there is another technique that can be used. Though I think using the standard image markup is recommended, despite the lost space. Anyway, using tables (view the page source to see how it is done):

Colley Cibber

Elizabeth Barry

Colley Cibber

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Ut odio. Nam sed est. Nam a risus et est iaculis adipiscing. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Integer ut justo. In tincidunt viverra nisl. Donec dictum malesuada magna. Curabitur id nibh auctor tellus adipiscing pharetra. Fusce vel justo non orci semper feugiat. Cras eu leo at purus ultrices tristique.

Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.

Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Cras consequat magna ac tellus. Duis sed metus sit amet nunc faucibus blandit. Fusce tempus cursus urna. Sed bibendum, dolor et volutpat nonummy, wisi justo convallis neque, eu feugiat leo ligula nec quam. Nulla in mi. Integer ac mauris vel ligula laoreet tristique. Nunc eget tortor in diam rhoncus vehicula. Nulla quis mi. Fusce porta fringilla mauris. Vestibulum sed dolor. Aliquam tincidunt interdum arcu. Vestibulum eget lacus. Curabitur pellentesque egestas lectus. Duis dolor. Aliquam erat volutpat. Aliquam erat volutpat. Duis egestas rhoncus dui. Sed iaculis, metus et mollis tincidunt, mauris dolor ornare odio, in cursus justo felis sit amet arcu. Aenean sollicitudin. Duis lectus leo, eleifend mollis, consequat ut, venenatis at, ante.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Ut odio. Nam sed est. Nam a risus et est iaculis adipiscing. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Integer ut justo. In tincidunt viverra nisl. Donec dictum malesuada magna. Curabitur id nibh auctor tellus adipiscing pharetra. Fusce vel justo non orci semper feugiat. Cras eu leo at purus ultrices tristique.

So, while it is possible to get fancy with advanced markup, it is better to stay with the so-called "extended image syntax": Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. Hope this helps. — David Remahl 01:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to answer Q. 2. Well, it is possible to get rid of the magnification box, but then you have to display the image at full size. Using [[Image:Elizabeth_Barry.png|frame|Elizabeth Barry]] will get rid of it, but the image will be huge. Again, I think you should stick to the extended image markup. In the future, the software may be upgraded to deal with the problem you describe. — David Remahl 01:11, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, David, I do appreciate it. I think the oval pictures especially will be improved by getting rid of the stupid square frame round them, and I want to try all the things you describe, and improve my skills. It doesn't sound so hard, after all (meaning you must be a good teacher :-)). Can't reach the server, need I say. :-( The logging-out runaround and the slowness seem worse than ever (this was for hours before the read-only thing), and here am I having actually set aside some editing time this morning, I'm totally frustrated. But, if the servers ever work normally again, I'm looking forward to overdecorating all my articles severely. :-) Now to try (forlornly) to save this message. This is Bishonen, anonymized by whatever piece of machinery it is that keeps logging me out.--213.238.211.112 08:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the servers have been locked for a few hours...Hope they'll stay up now.

I think I should make reasoning behind the advise to stick with the extended image syntax a bit clearer. There are definite problems with resorting to tables. For example, web browsers will not be able to split an array of images gracefully onto several pages, when printing. Likewise, using tables may create trouble if / when creating a print or CD-ROM edition of Wikipedia. And while future layout changes will globally affect images laid out using the standard syntax, images that are positioned using divs and tables will not automatically change. Still, in exceptional cases it is OK to use it, so if you think your case is exceptional, feel free :-). Good luck with your future experiments. Just ask if you run into problems. — David Remahl 08:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, I thought it exceptional only in the sense that I couldn't find any extended-image-syntax way of achieving the frameless effect I was after. It worked out fine, and I thought it really improved the ovals, but it immediately got changed back to frames by an admin who silently removed my inuse tag and started editing while I was. :-( Not in malice, of course, I had left the tag on much longer than proper (I didn't know, and I work slowly), and he thought I'd just forgotten about it. He didn't mean any harm, but what I meant to tell you was that the net result is that now the images have frames and are done in tables, so, if I understand what you say above, in as bad shape for future layout changes as my version was, with less reason. But I'm not getting into any revert war about it, life's too short, and it looks quite good now, with some fine extra caption text added inside the frames. Anyway, it is also a net gain from your instructions yesterday that I learned something, and what I basically came over for was to ask: can the article text be made to "flow" around an oval? (By some reasonably simple trick?) I don't mean those little guys, but I'm planning to put in a much bigger Elizabeth Barry at, you guessed it, Elizabeth Barry. The original is, oh, well, it's a lot of pixels. I took to heart your advice to Geogre and uploaded the best and biggest I could. And I'm quite likely to be coming up against more oval portraits, since I do a good deal of 17th and 18th century stuff. There is absolutely no hurry about this short article, it's not fraying everybody's nerves and being put up for Featured Article like John Vanbrugh. So any time the spirit moves you. Thanks,--Bishonen 20:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, unfortunately there is no way to have text flow around an oval in Wikipedia, and even on a regular web site with full web design capabilities it is tremendously difficult to make it work completely (without resorting to ugly tricks that may or may not work in a particular browser). You'll have to settle for functionality before form in this case. By the way, the Barry image was very nice, and you did the right thing choosing PNG instead of JPEG! — David Remahl 21:53, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)