User talk:Indubitably/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Indubitably, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! —Zazzer 01:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello Laralove. My name is Zazzer and i am willing to adopt you, if you so wish. Contact me with a yes or no! -- Cheers! :) Zazzer 01:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Per your request

I have adopted you! ... but are you sure you need it? You seem to be okay, but if you do haev any questions, concerns or problems, please do let me know. Happy editing! Neil (not Proto ►) 22:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil! I have formatting down (for the most part... lots of looking at other pages for help... you'd probably be surprised to know how long it takes me to do some edits), but I have a few questions about bringing info in. For example, I'm wanting to vastly expand the articles for Goodfellow Air Force Base and Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, and I want to create a page for Forsyth Medical Center. There's tons of great information on each of their websites, but I'm not sure what's the right way to pull it. I see the notice about Copyrights and I have these flashbacks to elementary school and the plagiarism warnings! I know to cite my sources, but is that enough? Do I have to reword everything or can I just pull paragraphs and bullet lists as long as I give credit to the site? I know I can't just copy a page as it, but how much alteration is necessary? So that's what I most want help with... How to pull information and the best way to organize it. Lara Taylor 05:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. And I have issues with images. Not only do they never show up when I try to add them to an article, but I'm not sure what images are okay to use considering Copyrights. Lara Taylor 19:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. An organisation's own website is suitable for facts. Things like number of employees, date it was founded and by who, the basic history of the place, what it actually does, and so on. For further information, independent sources are best (see Wikipedia:Attribution for the policy in full, and the section WP:ATT#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources in particular) ... it boils down to any facts that are even remotely questionable should be referenced from somwhere other than the organisation's own website. If you are using information from their site in the text, of course it has to be referenced, but it shouldn't be just cut and pasted. The policy (written by cleverer people than me!) says "In order to avoid copyright violation .. articles must consist mostly of original prose. However, the ideas, facts, and arguments must have been published already by a reliable source. So you need to write it in your own words, but you can use quotes (like "John Smith said that " ..... ").

Now, for images, the rules are getting very strict. Basically, images need to be free. This means they cannot be copyrighted by someone else. Certain images, such as those taken more than 100 years ago, or those taken by NASA or the US Government, are free for us to use. It's laid down in fairly easy to read terms at Wikipedia:Image use policy. There is a full list of what tag to put on an image at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All - for example, if you want to use an image you didn;t take yourself for Goodfellow Air Force Base, you will want to look at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All#USA_federal_government_images. It is always best to use images that you have taken yourself however, as these are always free (providing you are happy to freely release them to Wikipedia!). Neil (not Proto ►) 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Well, a little clarification (I'm blonde) just to be sure. Is "original prose" achieved by rewording what's already out there? If so, I'm gold on editing these pages. Also, I read up on public domain and was wondering if "Works of the United States Government ... are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain." means that information on a government site, like that of Goodfellow Air Force Base, would be considered public domain? I'm guessing no, but figured I might as well ask. Lara Taylor 04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, reword (but always reference!) Information on the site on Goodfellow may be public domain, but it is best to reword (we want brilliant prose!) and again, reference reference reference.

I've also had a look at the Emerson Radio article as you asked ... looks very good indeed, well done! I tidied up the products paragraph for you, but only fiddly cosmetic stuff. Neil (not Proto ►) 09:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Business and Economics

Welcome! We need all the help we can get. Very glad you added your name to the list!!

I noticed from your user page you have a background in HR - is this the psych side or the financial side? As I've been going through articles needing assessment I'm beginning to see a number of articles on psych topics that have been tagged as B&E, but have little or no content explaining why they are related - any interest in helping out? I've started a running list of such articles here.

Egfrank 15:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess that is the psych end. Thanks so much for taking an interest. The tagging didn't surprise me. What concerns me is that the article says nothing about attribution theory in business proper. I seem to recall a fairly rich literature using attribution theory to explain things like employee evaluations, who gets credit on a team,corporate learning, how organizations learn from experience, how they percieve their relationship to the market, how they percieve successes and failures, perceptions of senior management responsibility, etc ... Egfrank 16:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "wrong" vandalism revert on MTV Europe Music Awards 2004

This is a reply to your message here.
My vandalism revert reverted this (the right one is the vandalism and the left one is the "non-vandalised copy"). The right edit is clearly an act of vandalism (though it may be accidental). I do not see how I reverted something that wasn't vandalism.
I did not assume the anonymous user's information was incorrect, I just merely corrected some vandalism. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. --LaraLove 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

When fighting vandalism I don't really have time to go research the information on google, to find out whether entered information is correct or not. I generally leave it down to the people who have knowledge on the subject such as yourself. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 08:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and no thanks

Considering your remark, can I say that you look like shit? Just letting you know.

Regards: Painbearer 17:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You can revert the years, but that's the formation I want to follow.

I've replied on your talk page. --LaraLove 18:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You asked for it. I didn't say it, but you asked for it. I never offend other people's edits. Never. Not once. I always, always have a respectable manner to other people's work and other people's feelings. Your remark was outright offensive, repulsive and certainly wasn't what I hold dearest in my work here and what is labeled as good faith. So, you asked for it. I didn't want to say it and I actually didn't say outright that you look like shit. I asked "can I", because I just wanted you to know how it does feel. It isn't good, but I am not your parent, nor your guardian. You are on your own and you can tell shit to whoever you want. I don't give a shit, personally, but if we continue this way and especially if you continue in this manner, well... that's what I really call shit.

Regards: Painbearer 18:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! <sarcasm>Right.</sarcasm> I've replied on your talk page, here. --LaraLove 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I never do edits, without a point. Never. I do what I consider right. Go and see Maroon 5. Go and see it what it was really before. I try my best to put 100% of myself in my work here and that's what I expect of myself everyday I come here and edit. I am not going to appologize me or my work. I am a decent human being and I make mistakes like everyone of this community. You might say that I have no respect to other people's edits and work. That isn't true, because you just have no idea how hard I try to look everything here in it's brightest side, because I hold my work here as one of my best achievements. But... really, I don't want to talk to you anymore. Obviously, you want to battle with me and I really have no time and no nerves to do that. Think whatever you like, but I really respect everyone and every work and efforts here. You and yourself included.

Regards: Painbearer 18:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want a battle. A reply has been added to your page. --LaraLove 19:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I love to hear, really. It is great and I am happy about it. I appologize for deleting your work. You see I started working around late March as you can see on the history. The state of Marron 5 before I got my hands on it was something like this. I made a subsequent template, trimmed this ridiculous first section, about their kindergarden days and trimmed that discography. But, that's not why I am here and I don't like to brag about it. Why I deleted the quotes? Well, because I think there are over the top and that they belong to a fansite or a music site. I think that this is where they should stay. I also want to unite the touring section and the Dusick leaving the band, because I think they are interconnected. I would really like to remove that quote, because I really think it is over the top and I really think the two sections work together the best. Not, because I don't like you and definitely not because I want to spoil your work. It is because I see it this way and I don't mean any offense or disrespect in this.

Regards: Painbearer 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Hi my name is Surferryan88and I was wondering if you could give me some tips on editing and creating pages, I noticed you cleaned up my edits to the Maroon 5 page and I was hoping you could teach me a little bit if you have the time. I tried to create a page for Matt Flynn, the drummer of Maroon 5 and I think I did an okay job with links but the page looks like crap haha. Any tips? Surferryan88 18:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 05:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani

Please don't removed red links such as you did with this edit to Gwen Stefani. Baby clothes would be a legitimate article that should probably be created, so it is best to create a stub rather than removing the link. Red links are often helpful for showing what articles we still need to create. ShadowHalo 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 18:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I replied at Talk:Gwen Stefani before I saw your message on my talk page, so if there's some duplicate stuff there, that's why. (So you know, I wasn't intending to take it to GAR, especially since it's only on hold. That would seem a little premature to me.) ShadowHalo 06:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to hear nice things about my work here. And by the way, thanks for your help with Gwen Stefani and Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song). Your reviews seem to be more thorough than most of the others I've gotten, and the articles look better because of it. ShadowHalo 06:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Leet

Unfortunately, Leet failed a GA review, as can be seen at its talk page. I think the best thing to do at this point would be to go through the notes left by the reviewer and then give GA another shot in the near future. Cliff smith 05:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn. I was about 5 minutes from rating it for GA. I was going to put it on hold. Oh, well. No big deal. We'll work on it and renominate it. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 06:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your Review of Westfield High School (Fairfax County, Virginia)

Even if we fail GA this time, your import and suggestions will greatly help the article. Thanks again. :) Sincerely Zidel333 03:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination review of Joe Dever

"The article Joe Dever you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Joe Dever for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review.
Under Wikipedia standards for Biographies of living persons, you MUST have high quality references. In it's current state, the article may qualify for AfD." --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 17:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your GA decision. I'd also like to point out the following: I nominated an article for deletion on the grounds that it was unreferenced, and it was kept. See Ronald Collé and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Collé (2nd nomination). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It may not be around much longer. Ronald Collé is not notable, really. There may be potential for the article to be improved but I have no interest in doing it. If there aren't some sources within the next few days, per Wikipedia policy, I'll remove ALL unsourced information and renominate it for AfD. Possibly speedy deletion. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 19:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone agrees with me on that article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nicholas sparks.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nicholas sparks.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nicholas sparks.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nicholas sparks.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:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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. ShadowHalo 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

He gave me permission to use it. What is the problem? --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 02:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We can't use copyrighted works to illustrate living people, even if we have permission to use it on Wikipedia. Based on your comment at Image talk:Nicholas sparks.jpg, I'm going to go ahead and delete it as the equivalent of {{db-author}}. If I'm wrong, just let me know. ShadowHalo 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)