|
User talk:Anetode/archive 5
QuestionSorry to mess up the new...but I have a question for you....says on rule 1 of WP:FUC "if unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense."...my question is, is there anyway to turn any of the old radio and TV logos/images that are being deleted into free material? If so, how? Thanks...SVRTVDude 10:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Random Smiley Award originated by Pedia-I (Explanation and Disclaimer) --TomasBat (Talk) 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC) My birthdayActually, I turned 20 back in November, but I forgot to update my userpage. Thanks for the thought, though! :) Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Image:JuanesCollage-1000.jpgWas able to restore. - Regards Nv8200p talk 11:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 2007 Boston security scare picsThanks for getting a release for those closeups. Would it be all right with you if these were uploaded to commons under a dual license (gfdl/cc-sa, as per e-mail)? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kameoscreenshot.jpg)Thanks for uploading Image:Kameoscreenshot.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC) TranswikiHi, An anonymous user incorrectly completed a transwiki it looks like you started on en.wiktionary. For simplicity, I've assumed that is you. Can you please tell me where you got the notion that doing a transwiki like that was OK? I'd like to close off remaining points of ambiguity, by correcting the instructions wherever they are wrong. Thanks in advance, --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 13:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Porn spamJust wondering why you didn't feel it was spam, the last sentence of the article classed it pure spam in my mind. I don't care because it is getting deleted both ways just trying to improve my CSD detector. BJTalk 21:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Why did you take out my linkMy link was to a website I have no affiliation with and was an article about Atheism no different from the ones above it. So why did you take it out?Cynicalreviewer 22:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Godzamba coat of armsThe coat of arms Godzamba is with gold tree. You added picture with "natural color" tree. It is not the same coat of arms! The proper version Godzamba coat of arms: http://www.akromer.republika.pl/godziemba.gif Even if it belongs to the same clan. Members of a clan can differ with their coats of arms from other coats of armes of other members of the clan. To use an unproper version of coat of arms by noble family is a violation according to paper by Artur Ornatowski [[1]]. with regards, Pan Piotr Glownia 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Proper Godziemba coat of arms is the natural brown color pine tree. Picture: commons:Image:Herb Godziemba.PNG Proper Godzyamba coat of arms is the gold color pine tree. Picture: http://www.akromer.republika.pl/godziemba.gif In the Western Europe the same coat of arms could differ amongst members of the same noble family. In Poland the same (or almost the same) coat of arms could differ amongst families of the same noble clan. Also in the Western Europe special marks and signs were used on coats of arms to precise the type of individual owner. In Poland however these differences adress issues of how the particular Polish noble family came into ownership of their clan's coat of arms and terms on which they are entitled to it. As it apears using unproper version of the coat of arms by a family is seen as violation (a false claim, which is done by a pretender). If it is done by other peoples, then it is usually judged as lack of knowledge on the subject, as it is stated in Polish language at: [[2]]. Artur Ornatowski is some kind of expert in this area of knowledge in Poland and you can contact him [[3]] for the medieval source materials he used to come to this conclusion. If one would add Godzyamba coat of arms to Godziemba coat of arms (as I did already in Polish version), then one had to put references that this version called Godzamba/Godzyamba specifically belongs to Glownia family. The already listed definition of the pine in Godziemba coat of arms refers to brown/natural pine and it is not description for Godzyamba coat of arms, in which version the pine is actually gold. Also worth of notice is that Godziemba coat of arms is coat of arms of Polish nobility pl:herb szlachecki, when Godzyamba coat of arms before becaming Polish nobility's coat of arms was also knightly "ARMA BARONUM REGNI POLONIE" [[4]] coat of arms. regards,Pan Piotr Glownia 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lada.gif)Thanks for uploading Image:Lada.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Adminship
Thank you, I will give it a go, sorry a bit new to all this I hope I am following correct protocol. GarethRees 22:26, 16 February 2007 (GMT) blink-182 Pop Punk vs Punk Rock voteAs you have recently contributed to the blink-182 article you might be interested in casting your vote towards reaching a final consensus on the bands genre, Pop Punk or Punk Rock, votes can be cast here. cheers mate --Dan027 07:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Davidbrock.jpgImage:Davidbrock.jpgThanks for uploading Image:Davidbrock.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Image:Adam SesslerThanks for your notification on the image I uploaded of Adam Sessler. I uploaded the image on the best interest of finding a better image that reflects the subject at discussion. It seems it does not satisfy the needs of Wikipedia, so it can be erased. Punkalicious 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) CongratulationsYou're now an admin after unanimous support on your request for adminship. Spend some time on the administrator's reading list, and don't hesitate to ask questions if you're unsure. Keep up the good work. Again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 02:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk PageAnd of course you miss the entire point which deals mainly with having no rules about usertalk pages owned by IP addresses. Thanks a lot for being so kind and considerate. I'm sure you're just flowing with wiki love and compassion. BTW might I suggest that you read this --Socko123 06:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Once again I would suggest that Wikipedia make a page that deals with issues pertaining to talkpages and also a better policy on IP addresses that wish to remain only IP addresses.--Socko123 06:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Also it needs to be pointed out that the IP Address is used by multiple users and you blocked the ability to create accounts, perhaps someone from the IP would want to create an account and contribute to Wikipedia in a positive fashion. --Socko123 13:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC) This account had been made before the IP had been blocked and yes I in fact have been blanking the talk page, I find there to be no reason to continue to keep past warnings on the page. If you would look at the edit history of the IP the warnings have all come from editing the user talk page which, I do not believe is strictly prohibited, especially after the sentence of blocking has been served and there is no reason to keep that clutter around. To repeatedly get warned and blocked for deleting past warnings and blocking simply shows the reckless abandonment of due process for blocking. This only demonstrates to me that Wikipedia is less like a community of intellectual writers and editors and is more like the Wild West. Anyone with a "gun" (if you will) has the power to eliminate whatever he deems necessary without have to go through any due process and/or put any thought into the matter. Soon editors become heartless automaton that take no time to read edits or even involve themselves in the subject matter because the only thing that they feel they can do is fight the unrelenting fake edits. I believe sometimes that if an administrator was slapped in the face with a good and legitimate edit he would only revert it because of response conditioning. Point: If the edit history of this institutional IP where checked you would find (though it is a long way down the list because I've been trying to clear the usertalk page for about a month) that there have been edits that have in fact benefited Wikipedia. I spent a good couple of hours putting united warnings at the top of pages without citations. You do whatever you feel is necessary, but know that I have lost much faith in the project because of the manner in which I have been treated by these bot like administrators. Have a good wiki day.--Socko123 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC) So not to kick a dead horse but would it still be "vandalizing" now if I removed the talk page jargon now? Thanks for being civil by the way.--209.137.175.59 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you, you have finally made me stop stressing out about this dumb talk page thing.--209.137.175.59 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Thank youCongratulations on the adminship and thank you for the barnstar. It is really appreciated. Rettetast 12:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ThanksThanks for this. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 13:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Hello, Why was this image removed?Charleenmerced Talk 13:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced Hi. Please note that this IP has vandalized at least 5 pages in the past 5 days. It's a school IP - how much has it contributed content-wise? None, so collateral damage isn't a concern, and can be solved easily through a soft block. Kids in school don't vandalize all day - does this mean they can do it once a day and get away with it? Please also note that they vandalized after my v4 warning - the last warning is not a real one. Xiner (talk, email) 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you take a look at this please? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 19:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
HiMy bad but if you are an admin shoulnt you add the image on the front saying you are? :) Also, My name is Jon, I have a wiki pedia account, just forgot to log into it lol 66.14.16.160Can you help me out here? This account was given a last warning on Jan 5th. On March 1st they re-appeared and vandalised the Scotland page. (Their only other three edits in the intervening period were also vandalism). I reported them at WP:AIV, and your note says: 'only edit was several hours ago, before warning'. Was I supposed to give them another 'last warning'? Yours, perplexed. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks, and understood. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thanks!My first purple heart. :) It is much appreciated. Corvus cornix 22:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Re: Vandal revertGlad to be of any service. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Re:The H. P. Lovecraft photo I uploaded was an actual author photo, but the author died in 1936. I thought that means the 70 year US copyright rule applies, and it's now in the public domain. Can you amend the rationale accordingly for me? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Greater Internet Fuckwad TheoryWhen I saw this, I laughed hysterically. Thanks for blocking User:Yafnir, because he was making some weird pages. Cheers! Real96 05:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Constant (and somewhat unaware but annoying) vandalismHello. I'm in help for dealing with constant vandalism on page: MTV Unplugged: Korn. The case is someone constantly replaces b-side song which I made two footnotes for to make it fact with other song unrelated to this album, and I think it happens because these two songs contains the same line (No One's There) and that person presumably thinks I'm making mistake by putting "No One's There" and replaces it with title "I'm The One" (which is unrelated to this album, so it can't be a b-side, nor it was ever mentioned as a b-side, while these 2 footnoted songs are b-sides, and I put a lot of effort to make these footnotes). I'd like to get some help with dealing in this problem. I'll be very grateful. Thank you in advance. Broken soul 10:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Alcarillo/browncoatWhy are you reverted edits that I made to my own Talk page? Alcarillo 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Image:Empanadas.jpg listed for deletionDear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Empanadas.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.
If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license. If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Possibly unfree Image:Bassguitarpickups.jpg An image that you uploaded from stock.xchng or altered, Image:Bassguitarpickups.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#SXC_images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OrphanBot 03:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 03:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
