User talk:Quispiam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

All entires prior to May, 2009 belonged to my previous account and were copied alongside my move to this current account.

Archive
Archives

Please don't refer to content disputes as vandalism[edit]

Vandalism is the defacement of a page for the sole purpose of wanton destruction; it is not a content dispute. Please check out WP:NOTVAND and Wikipedia:Not everyone who disagrees with you is a vandal. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean this edit. I didn't see it as a content dispute, as the edit I reverted really was deleting a large portion of text without giving an explanation. I thought it looked like editing for the purpose of, as you say, wanton destruction. Further edits by the same editor seem to imply that he didn't mean to vandalize, and merely made a mistake. - Anton Nordenfur (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. In fact, large deletions of text don't even qualify as vandalism unless they're done for the purpose of destruction; that almost never happens with established editors. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I see, thanks for pointing this out to me. - Anton Nordenfur (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Imaginaerum panorama.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Imaginaerum panorama.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please remove the tag.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. We hope (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Imaginaerum panorama.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Imaginaerum panorama.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Genetic fallacy[edit]

I have responded to your comment on talk:genetic fallacy --58.164.108.6 (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Argumentum ad baculum[edit]

Is it worth pursuing? I am in contact with Austin Cline. Would you like me to wiki-email you his comments? Jim1138 (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. No, I've given up that rat race. My original point was the user deleting information from multiple articles without justifying his reasoning, and so my original point wasn't that he was wrong, but that he should discuss it and seek a consensus before editing further. In this case, his original point was that anything published by an atheist or on an atheist website was by definition POV, and I disagreed and still disagreed. When he changed his move to argue that the author wasn't reliable, my first move was to ask for his arguments for this, seeing as he seemed to just make it up on the spot. After posting, I googled around for a while, but didn't find many reliable sources for the author, and so I gave up, reasoning that he either wasn't reliable, or it was too much work for too little.
tl;dr: I do indeed think it's not POV, but I do think it's possible (after inadequate amounts of googling) that he's not reliable. So unless someone else wants to look for it, I consider it to be case closed.
Any way, thanks for your help.- quispiamtalk [Anton Nordenfur] 09:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Imaginarium teaser.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Imaginarium teaser.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Amberian Dawn (demo)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Amberian Dawn (demo) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Self-released demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rickard Nordstrand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:My Only Star.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:My Only Star.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)