User talk:Lilac Soul/Archive 2

Image source problem with Image:Petiteblonde.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Petiteblonde.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Hi! I suppose you can help in expanding Danish European Union opt-outs referendum when it's time...? Incidentally, I'd like to start an article on the Next Danish constitutional referendum (on changing the Act of Succession), but I haven't found any suitable source yet (the best I've got is from 2006 and states that a referendum will have to be held after the next, i.e. current, Folketing approves the law again). Thanks! —Nightstallion 01:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nyalliance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nyalliance.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Plakat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Plakat.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nyalliance.jpg

I have tagged Image:Nyalliance.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Rettetast (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: December 2007

Why are you punishing me, as I'm trying to add new content to Wikipedia? The real reverter here is User:Valentinian, as he originally reverted my edit in the start. I cannot accept that he, just because he's a member of the party, tries to propaganda his consensus over mine. I did the same with the Social Democrats (Denmark) article, put their political scale-position in the ideology-field, and this has not yet been reverted. How come the only article where this happens is within the Liberals? Sounds to me like they don't want political neutrality here at Wikipedia. Karmus (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am determining their political position on their current politics and not based on what they claim themselves. Remember that propaganda exists, but hey, if that's the case, I will see if I can find sources on my claims next time. Karmus (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: December 2007

Please see my talk page for a reply to your unexpected message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US centrism ... hey!

You edited my starter page on List of Registered Historic Places at colleges and universities to include "in the United States" in the name. I don't care so much, but i wanna respond anyhow. It happens that Registered Historic Places is a U.S. only term, that refers to the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. There are equivalent systems in some other countries for listing historic sites, but no other country uses the "Registered Historic Places" term. So, the title was specific and fine, IMHO, and the longer title is not better, just longer.... Thanks for noticing, anyhow. :) Cheers, doncram (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your reply. It did prompt me to look at the draft article more carefully, and to clarify better i just capitalized the term Registered Historic Places. It was not clearly a proper noun in the text before. I'll leave it as you have retitled it, that is fine. By the way, i see you self-describe as being in Copenhagen... I was just there about 10 days ago. It would be nice to live there and bicycle around everywhere as it seems many do, I was just noting to a friend who lives in congested Los Angeles. tusen tak.... doncram (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco 7200 Series

Ahh, thanks for making the page and moving the data across. Much appreciated! Thesydneyknowitall (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7200 Series

Will do. Cheers mate! Thesydneyknowitall (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

194.0.130.10 (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC) thanks for the input! i'll follow your advice.. - henginy[reply]

Valentinian gone

Hi! I've noticed that he seems to have left the project in anger. This is rather upsetting to me as he was one of the first here who helped me and he has done so much work on the Denmark related articles. Do you know what happened that caused him to leave like this? EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid I don't know, I didn't even know that he was gone. Do you mean he's left WP:DENMARK or Wikipedia entirely? If the former, I suggest just asking him. But I agree, losing him would be a shame indeed. Lilac Soul ^(talk • contribs • count) 10:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lilac.

Ok, I've received your message. I'm trying to learn how to edit in Wikipedia. Will do the changes you mentioned (not neutrality). I hope it'll get better now. Thanks.

Kontaktejo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontaktejo (talk • contribs) 14:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on Faroese politics

Hi! Regarding the upcoming elections on the Faroe Islands, I've got two questions:

• What's this about a new party contesting the elections? I haven't been able to find any English info on it, but it appears that some party called Miðnámsflokkurin will be contesting the elections...?[1] What's their platform and likely support? Separatist or unionist?
• How strong is separatist sentiment on the islands currently? AFAIK, they tried to split for real around 2001, but when Denmark made it clear that they wouldn't continue to get lots of money and subsidies, they decided to delay it...?

Thanks for your help! —Nightstallion 17:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't know much about politics on the Faroe Islands. Have you tried asking at their Wikiproject? Lilac Soul ^(talk • contribs • count) 17:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have one? —Nightstallion 13:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing: Wikipedia:WikiProject Faroe Islands. Lilac Soul ^(talk • contribs • count) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fyn and Funen

I gave plenty of notice of this move - why didn't you debate it with me then? "Funen" is not the English name for Fyn - it is overwhelmingly known as Fyn. I had never heard of "Funen" till I saw this article. Try googling the two names and see. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to what authority is Funen the "official" English name of Fyn? Does the Danish government decide what things shall be called in English? I don't think so. English usage should be the determinant. I have four English atlases and all call it Fyn. It is not at all analogous to Denmark/Danmark, where Denmark is a common word in English and where the English spelling is established. With all due respect to Fyn, it is not a household word in the English-speaking world. The general tendency is to drop old English versions of less common place names. Just as "Leghorn" redirects to Livorno, so "Funen" should redirect to Fyn. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a Dane I have always seen it referred to as Funen in English. But if you feel so strongly about it, I will go and revert my reversions of your contributions, I don't feel particularly strongly about it. Lilac Soul ^(talk • contribs • count) 09:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm still curious to know the basis of your statement that Funen is the "official" English name of Fyn. There are of course official versions of spellings within each country, but I don't think any country can dictate usage in other languages. If a country asks that another usage be adopted, such as Cote d'Ivoire instead of Ivory Coast, that is another matter, but I can't imagine that Denmark really wants its islands called by archaic English names. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well okay, perhaps not directly "official", but looking at various Fyn/Funen related websites, e.g. municipal websites and those of tourist agencies, etc. But if, as you say, the English speaking world does not themselves favour this anglified word, I'm actually all for using the Fyn spelling. Sorry about the misunderstanding, it just went against my "childhood knowledge", is all :-) Lilac Soul ^(talk • contribs • count) 12:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masterpiece Arms

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Masterpiece Arms, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding removal of an EL

Lilac -- You deemed my www.mikebloomfieldamericanmusic.com EL inappropriate and removed it from the Electric Guitar entry. As Mike Bloomfield played a major role in the popularization of the classic Les Paul guitar and the linked site is non-commercial and one of the best sources of info on Bloomfield, I do not understand why you removed it. Please explain. Thanks -- Bloomsdisco (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia:External links states that Links should be restricted to the most relevant and helpful. Adding Mike Bloomfield's official website to articles of bands he has played in and such is relevant, but it is not "the most relevant" link to add to an electric guitar article. Think about it, if we were to add him, we should add probably hundreds of other artists to that article in order to be consistent. Lilac Soul ^(talk • contribs • count) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop

I will stop. Can you remove the message please? Neptunekh (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone

I'm sorry for what I did. I won't it again. Just leave me alone ok? Neptunekh (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been leaving you alone. I will not remove the message, however. You knew that what you were doing was against the rules, as you have been blocked for the same kind of thing before. A warning is in order, but will have no consequence if, as you say, you intend to not do so again. Lilac Soul ^(talk • contribs • count) 16:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user's removing a warning from his or her talk page, after having reviewed it, is not really considered a policy violation at this point. The template you are using instructing that warnings must not be removed is probably outdated and superseded by now. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and your assistance in dealing with policy violations, however. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I was not aware that this was changed. Lilac Soul ^(talk • contribs • count) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "note"

Please don't template long-standing editors, Lilac. In fact, it's not a good idea to do it to anyone if you can help it. And article comments are better on article talk. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk)(contribs) 21:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my apologies, but I still don't see why you removed the content in question. Lilac Soul ^(talk • contribs • count) 21:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was moving it elsewhere in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk)(contribs) 21:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, I apologise 100 %, and of course you're right about the templating of long-standing editors. I did not assume good faith, and for that I apologise. I'll be happy to leave a note on your talkpage, if you want, in case someone goes through that page's edit history and spots the warning. Just let me know. Lilac Soul ^(talk • contribs • count) 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's fine, and thanks. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk)(contribs) 15:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danish referendum

Any news on the opt-outs referendum? I've just read in a short stub at EUobserver that parties couldn't agree on how to go forward at a recent meeting, and that if there was only the option of having all or none of them, about 40% are against abolishing them and 38% are in favour of abolishing all... —Nightstallion 14:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been decided yet, as I recall the prime minister has stated that no date will be set until the Reform Treaty is ratified. But the Conservative People's Party, one of the two government parties, has said that they particularly want the defense and the justice opt-outs for referendum. My guess is that those two will be the first ones to be sent out. Not much is said about the citizenship bit, but as I understand, the Amsterdam treaty made this opt-out superfluous. The government seems to be in no particular rush to get the Euro opt-out out for a referendum. Note, however, that this is all just as I recall things, I don't have any sourced. I could perhaps find some, of course, but I don't have the time right now. I'll look into it if I get the time, and if you don't get around to it first :-) Lilac Soul ^(talk • contribs • count) 21:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Thanks! —Nightstallion 00:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/January 2008#Lilac Soul. RFRBot (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Request For Rollback

The only reason I was nervous is that with rollback it's not so easy to implement an alternative edit summary. Good faith edits that are just bluntly reverted can put of editors. Having said that, a review of your contributions shows an admirable level of help and dedication to the project. Excellent stuff. I suspect I'm talking to a future sysop here ......... Pedro :  Chat  10:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy to grant this request if you wish. Drop me a note on my talk page indicating you understand the concerns and will be careful only to sue it for obvious vandalism and I'll give you it on trust.--Doc^g - ask me for rollback 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm granting this on trust that you have read an understood the response of other admin, and will only use rollback in cases of clear and unambiguous vandalism, if there is any chance that the edit is good faith, no matter how crap or pov, do not use the tool - and NEVER use it on regular users. Stick with that, and you'll do fine. I'm trusting you here.--Doc^g - ask me for rollback 00:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Hammer Issue

Ok i dont know how to edit the reflist but someone is sticking their nats (sponsor) code in the link. THUS making money off wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megafoo (talk • contribs) 10:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. I have edited the link in question for you now, and removed by report on you. I will remove the warnings as well. Lilac Soul ^(talk • contribs • count) 10:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grotesque Angel (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, lol.