User talk:Steeev

Archive

Hi Steeev, I see you've reverted many of my changes to minced oaths. Could you tell me where you've got your etymologies from? fabiform | talk 13:45, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

General knowledge and the internet.

could you tell me where you get yours?

Hi, I missed your reply. I checked them all in the OED, and in a few other places for the more recent ones. I think we need to decide what the page does, are we saying that you might say "shucks" instead of "shit", because that's true enough. But we can't say that shucks is a minced version of shit, because it isn't in according to the dictionaries I've checked. The same goes for several others on the page. Since shucks isn't a minced version of a swear word (it's simply a word meaning something worthless), perhaps it doesn't belong on minced oaths at all? fabiform | talk 05:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I believe that the manual of style is referring to capitalisation of words which occur in prose, or which are debatably capitalised either way; however, for these headings there is a clear standard given by the manual:

Some heading titles have standard wordings:

• See also
• External links
• References
• Footnotes

Please do not vary the wording or capitalisation of these headings. (Some editors prefer to use the singular forms link, reference, and footnote when there is only one item listed.)

(italics mine).

So rather than being a variation of spelling differences, I think in this case there is a clear standard.

Regarding other headings which have been changed, I think it is preferable to have consistent headings, rather than "Early Life" or "International Effects of the Treaty" followed by "External links". —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 06:16, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Image:Avebury-1993.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Avebury-1993.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^(talk) (help)[[]] 15:20, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Unverified image

Thanks for uploading Image:MelancholyAndRavingMadnessByCaiusGabrielCibber.jpg. Do you have any information on the source of the picture? It looks old enough to be public domain, but that's not enough for me to tag it {{PD}}. So I've marked it {{unverified}} for now. Could you review it and replace that with a more appropriate copyright tag, assuming it is legal to use? Thanks! Kbh3rd 02:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:We will rock you.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:We will rock you.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information.

Craigy (talk) 14:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Eisenstein1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eisenstein1.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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:Fair use, 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (Note: the image is also unused.) Lupo 10:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dirty Dick's (London pub) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Eisenstein1.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Eisenstein1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 08:48, 18 April 2008 (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) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The monument for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The monument is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The monument until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Rubbish" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rubbish. Since you had some involvement with the Rubbish redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Home Lander (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Killing Miranda

The article Killing Miranda has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks notability, see WP:NMUSIC

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rusf10 (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]