User talk:Sf

This user may have left Wikipedia. Sf has not edited Wikipedia since 19 January 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hey! Glad you registered. There's lots of useful info (although I'm sure some of it you already know) at Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers. Most useful thing I found there was that you can sign your posts with three ~ characters, and sign with date/time with four of them. Enjoy! PMcM 16:14, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seat belts

Looks like your seat belt stuff got zapped like you thought it might. At least it wasn't a surprise? I see their point; if you have an entry about seat belts in an encyclopaedia you can't have 75-80% of the article being written with the slight bias of them being a bad thing. Personally I think that having 30% of that, and 30% of the flip-side of the argument would still be too much of the article devoted to one topic. I don't know if this debate is more suited to the risk compensation page?

It's not something I know a lot about, but I tried to salvage what I could of your (and others') additions and squeeze it back in. PMcM 20:41, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you know the reasons for the absence of seatbelts from rail-vehicles, if there have ever been moves/proposals to introduce them, e.g. on trams (in the drivers cab for instance).Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

re Bicycle

Appreciate your well-thought-out objections. I did lots of reading to de-Americanize several sections, but it's a bitch to take what others wrote and figure out what is/isn't accurate on a world view. I will get on to changing what I can, hopefully without just plain deleting stuff about which I know nothing (bicycles in S.E. Asia in WWII, headlights in France). It's a shame because from a No.Amer. POV this had been quite well-written, and minimally altered until it hit the "feature candidate" stage. For example, 90% of bicycles one sees in the U.S. these days look even more bleak than the one in the lead photo. One request: mind if I consolidate your "objections" under one heading while I am working on them?Sfahey 03:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

good additions/changes on "Bicycle", especially on the lead paragraph the gearing section, and the subtle wording changes in the "war" section. The car-bicycle section, which was problematic to begin with, is too long for an article on "Bicycles". I had been trying to cut it down to just a "teaser" to draw people to the other relevant links, and i believe that would work best.Sfahey 22:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, sf. Interestingly, I write a medical Q&A column for the local newspaper. Someone asked about helmets. I replied, as we've discovered, that the stats are all over the place, and actually cited your reports of increased accident rates before ... of course ... recommending wearing one for anything more than a trip to the corner store. Sfahey 15:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from one "sf" to another

Have you SEEN what purports to be "History of the Bicycle"? It's terrible, was considered beyond repair, and got rewritten, and moved to its own page. Objections to "Bicycle" haven't had much to do with this section anyway. I think it would be a shame to put an article like this on the back burner. btw, several of these "objections" have been changed. IF done to your satisfaction, can you please alter the relevant sections you started on the "featured article" page. thanks.Sfahey 04:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, many of your objections have been rectified, and I am working on the political stuff (that others wrote), which appears to be the only outstanding objection. However, the way you wrote up your objections, it looks as if there are still about six of them out there.

Please amend.Sfahey 23:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seatbelt legislation

I don't dispute any of the facts, but I believe only a skewed cross-section of facts are presented. In almost the entire world seatbelt legislation is seen as beneficial yet this article is highly critical. Wikipedia articles should always reflect accepted wisdom (irrespective of its validity), and not be a platform for minority views. - SimonP 14:37, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Segregated cycle facilities

What was the point of the edit at [1]? It seems useful to mention that cycleways and cycle tracks can change into each other very easily; just because something is a cycleway 50 feet back doesn't mean it's a cycleway here. --SPUI 21:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cycle helmets

Don't know where your justification is for reverting the cycle safter edit. I know in the UK helmets are mandatory for children and are very common, along with hi vis vests, amongst commuter cyclists. Where I live (in the Moferato region of Piedmonte), nearly all serious cyclists (reckles and otherwise) wear helmets. Hi viz vests are not common but then round here people are usually on cycling in good light. BTW, hi viz vests are obligatory in Italy for anyone on the highway out of urban streetlit areas at night.

What you "know" is false. In the UK, helmet wearing is not compulsory at any age, and wearing rates are well under 25% (depending on age grouping, if I recall correctly the rate for boys is around 15% and dropping) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stalingrad

Yes, reading the back section in Beevor's book the Hiwis seemed to be a big variable in the calculation of numbers -max rspct 18:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pinwheel

Sf, please have a look at my reply on the Pinwheel subject at User talk:Arpingstone. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 15:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JzG for admin

Moved from [2]: Support Coz he has managed to NPOV some of my pet themes - a rare and laudable skill. --Sf 14:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too late - you'll have to post the praise to JzG's talk page. He made admin with over 100 support votes :-). AvB ÷ talk 18:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais

Hello, An article that I created as a part of Wikiproject Cycling called Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais and linked to the Mount Tamalpais article, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais. Thank you, Bob in Las Vegas - uriel8 (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Private Ryan recent edit

Nicely done!--Lepeu1999 12:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Braveheart Edits

Yeah, referring an entire army as a cast member is not really the purpose of the Cast section, as it names notable individuals who had significant parts in the film. Discussing their input in the Production section is a better place, as it can also be used to discuss how Gibson and co. happened upon tem, and how outfitting and directing such a large group of people took place. I hope you see my point here, but if not, please bring your concerns to the Discussion page. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, you can see how it might be inappropriate to cite yourself as a source, or give yourself credit in the Cast section. You will also have to excuse me if I do not take your claim of having worked on the Braveheart film on its face. Ever since the Essjay nonsense, it has become extraordinarily difficult for a person to retain their perfect anonymity while being able to make extraordinary claims, like you made (claiming to have actually worked on the movie). If this is in fact the case, bravo; the movie was wonderfully entertaining. If it is not, then you might wish to explore the extraordinary penalties placed upon those who falsely claim expertise.

That said, we don't really mention extras - even large groups of professional soldiers - in the Cast section. I've been knocking out the Production section in my guide area (but as work has been kicking my arse something fierce lately, I've not had time to take it from guide to assembly), you are welcome to contribute. I've got references already set up; I just have to assemble them. I certainly meant to include the Irish Army reserves there, speciically as Spielberg also used them for Saving Private Ryan.

If you have pictures made whilst on the set, you might want to consider addign them in on the Discussion page, and since you yourself took them, there's no worry of copyright infringement. As well, if you can speak as to your position in the staff, you can address and clarify such matters (of course, you will need to cite them, as primary sources of information are always less "verifiable" than secondary ones).

And welcome to the article! Cheers! Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Severloh

Please see the discussion on the talk page of Omaha Beach about Severloh. Please also note he has an entire page to himself now. Gillyweed 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galton

Eugenics. Go ahead and remove him, if you like. SolidPlaid 21:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Segregated cyling facilities

Well, I live in Windsor and ride the trails every day. As well my parents and grandparents tell me of when the city built and extended the trails. I also have my records from the signs along the bike trails that tell of the information :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair! i just wish the city of windsor did put its information like this on its website to be sourced. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 17:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i expected it would be a matter of time before someone would ask for sources. I was also wary about using a physical sign on a bike trail as an appropriate source. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AUG optics

Hello, I did not find anything in the Talk page regarding the optics on the AUG. Koalorka (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SVG version of Image:Cycle path collision risks.jpg

Hello, Sf. I see you've removed the {{ShouldBeSVG}} tag from the image description page for Image:Cycle path collision risks.jpg twice now. The second time you claimed it was because SVG is a "non-standard graphics format" and that "the use of SVG on the web is in its infancy." You are misrepresenting the state of SVG on Wikipedia. While it is true that many Web browsers cannot currently natively display SVG files, this is not a problem for SVG diagrams on Wikipedia, because all SVG diagrams are converted to PNG images by the Wikipedia servers before they are displayed in an article. A Web browser surfing Wikipedia will never be given SVG content directly unless it is specifically requested (by clicking on the image in the image description page).

SVG is not, as you claim, a non-standard graphics format (in fact, the standard is freely available); it is a common format for vector graphics. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Commons, already have thousands of images that are in SVG format. These images are used in all kinds of articles (for example, nearly all country flags, like Image:Flag of Ireland.svg; many maps, like Image:Map of USA NE.svg; chemical diagrams, like Image:Methane-2D-stereo.svg and Image:Water molecule 3D.svg; and other illustrations, like Image:Tooth Section.svg).

There are many advantages of SVG, especially when compared to JPEG for an illustration such as Image:Cycle path collision risks.jpg. First, SVG diagrams can be scaled to any size with no loss of clarity; JPEG images (and other raster images, such as PNG or GIF) have a fixed resolution that prevents them from being meaningfully scaled beyond a certain size. Also, SVG images are much easier for other people to edit. For example, changing the text in Image:Hajj1.gif, an image in GIF format, would be needlessly difficult, especially where the text overlaps areas of different colors. One would have to carefully erase the existing text and then superimpose the new text on top. (Why would anyone want to change this text, you ask? Perhaps to translate it to another language, or to change the color of some of the text to emphasize part of the image.) If this image were in SVG format, changing the text would be as simple as changing the contents of a text box in an SVG editor. Additionally, editing and resaving JPEG images results in a definite loss of image quality due to the introduction of more compression artifacts. This "lossy" image compression is not a problem for SVG (or, for that matter, for PNG). Please read Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload for more information, especially the section called "Do not save diagrams as JPEG".

I am going to replace the {{ShouldBeSVG}} tag on Image:Cycle path collision risks.jpg one more time. This tag does not jeopardize the status of the image in any way; it simply calls the image to the attention of editors who may be able to improve it. If you still feel that the tag is inappropriate, I ask that you discuss your concerns here or on the image talk page. Please let me know if you have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification regarding the display and use of SVG images on Wikipedia I have never heard of it in any other context. Provided the tag does not interfere with the copyright information I will leave it where it is. --Sf (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC you might be interested in

Hi. Since you were kind enough to link to my user page from your user page, I wanted to let you know that an RfC has been filed on me. Please feel free to drop by and comment, if you're interested, one way or the other. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling in Melbourne

Hi,

I do not believe that it is valid to use outdated data (2004) to make the claim that cycling only makes up 2% of all trips in Melbourne; especially since there is evidence that cycling in Melbourne has surged in recent years. Also what evidence is there that the temporary ban of bikes on public transport has resulted in a lasting drop in the numbers of cyclists in Melbourne? Finally without recent data it is impossible to know whether cycling in Melbourne has not recovered from the introduction of the helmet legislation.

Regards,

Tristan.buckmaster (talk)

Peculiar use of an image by you

Your image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cycle_path_collision_risks.jpg

Has been altered and posted in a blog here:

http://sociedadsostenible.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/barcelona-imita-los-carriles-bici-de-sevilla-bidireccionales-pero-en-la-calzada/

You will find that the post is, to put it mildly, a baseless diatribe supporting the disgraceful cicyling segregation policies in Barcelona and Sevilla. The data in the image has been erased and replaced by the leyends: "The cyclist slows down, just as the cars" and "If everybody follows the rules, there are no accidents".

Just FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.143.241 (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seat belt legislation

Hi, I noticed you reverted a bunch of deletes by a particular editor who seems to be trying to take over the entire article to reflect his POV and seems to allow no other studies. I just reverted another slew of his deletes. I just wanted to ask you to look in every once in awhile and fix any errors as you see fit. Ill try to keep on top of it but sometimes Im off for a good period of time and can miss things. thanks -Tracer9999 (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Cycle path collision risks.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cycle path collision risks.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 12:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tjunction cycle collisions.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tjunction cycle collisions.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]