I am a member of the Armed Forces of The Crown and may be away from Wikipedia for long periods of time, but will most probably return. Emails sent to me, and messages left on my talk page may not be replied to for a while.
Please see my talk page--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no fair-use pictures of the actors available.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into the circumstances of the episode... I already went round and round way back when. Suffice to say the administrators in the middle of it were satisfied with the results. Why are you changing the results at this time? It seems very unfair, so no, it should not be there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The circumstances were clear. After being disruptive and repeatedly denying that he had sockpuppets, a checkuser found four months ago that Fyunck(click) and FreepRipper were the same person. Because of the disruption and the dishonesty, I really do not understand why the confirmed sockpuppetry notice should be either deleted from either his user page or placed in a discussion page archive. See this request. Tennis expert (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed your comments at User talk:Cory Malik and I was wondering if you could have a quick look at Image:DebbyRyan.jpg for me. I tagged this because the uploader had said it was PD but there was no evidence of permission. (The image appeared to be straight from debbyryan.com) The uploader added fair use information and a rational but, after initially deleting it, restored the PD copyright. I tagged it again but I was wondering if {{Non-free promotional} was the appropriate tag to use. The source of the image wassn't actually specified when I tagged it, it was listed as {{#if:Debby Ryan|Debby Ryan}} and I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. I notice that it has changed now, with attribution to Flickr, using a license that seems inappropriate based on Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. I was going to tag it again but at this point I'm not sure how to tag it. There seem to be multiple issues. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The user in question has a bit of trouble understanding copyright law. As a rule, it doesn't come under fair use, the tag states: "Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. ". I'd put it up foor WP:IFD. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. The images has now been listed at IFD. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged a series title card. how is it replaceable. This image is just an image of the entire cast.Which dispicts the show. if these are replaceable, you need to go to every tv show and delete the title card.All you are doing are tagging every image i uploaded and assume they are not fair-use.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll go to DRV as you suggested. I don't like to do that without first checking with the delting admin first--I'm sure that you acted in good faith! Courteously yours! --Paul McDonald (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries! Thanks for being civil about it :) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you are tagging some of these images as not meeting our fair-use requirements. Since no free-use image of a character in a copyrighted TV series can exist, they are not replaceable by a free use image and the fair use justifications note this. Most TV show character articles generally permit exactly one image in the infobox to illustrate the appearance of the character, something difficult to do with text. Your tagging of these images, a valid policy judgment call, seems to be going against an established precedent. --NrDg 03:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was my understanding that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. I was further under the impression that having a picture of the actor or actress concerned is suitable. I've been looking for the relevant policy which states the 'one image' clause, but can't find it - if you can point me in the right direction, I'd be much obliged! When the user who uploaded them, however, is uploading images like Image:PorkersPickett.png and Image:IvanaTipton.png under fair use, one wonders if fair use does actually apply to a picture of a pig and a small white dog! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A fictional character is not a living person (or animal for that matter). The illustration of a character in a character article is (and must be) of the fictional character, not the portrayer. No question that a picture of a real person, living or dead, with very few exceptions, in an article about that person specifically, must be a free-use image. The policy is WP:FUC but, like most policies, has interpretations that have evolved to practical usage. Check the character pages of most TV shows to see the practical implementation of the policy. Illustration of the appearance of a character has been generally permitted as fair use as they are judged to serve an encyclopedic purpose and are never available as free use images. The character exists only in the context of the performance which is always copyrighted. Outside of the performance it would just be a picture of the actor in costume. One illustration in the character article is sufficient for the encyclopedic purpose so more is no longer fair use and is just decoration.
- I do question the validity of animal pictures by themselves as being of the character they portray in a show without some show context in the picture. The pig picture specifically just looks to be a generic pig picture and I don't see any encyclopedic purpose here. The dog picture does show some in-show context so has a stronger claim to be of the character portrayed. In both cases, there is already a fair use image being used in the info box of the article so subsequent pictures look more like decorations than necessity. --NrDg 15:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm struggling to understand the difference between a picture of the actor dressed as a character, and of the character himself. I understand WP:FUC, but it has as many arguments for inclusion, as against - for example, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." - Does a picture of Corin Nemec playing Jonas in Stargate:SG-1 significantly increase understanding? I'm not entirely sure if it does. I think we need clarification from other people here. MBisanz (talk · contribs) is quite knowledgeable, would you have an objection if I asked him to weigh in? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is more a picture of the actor PERFORMING as the character that is being illustrated. The fact that it is also a picture of the actor in costume and makeup is incidental and somewhat separable - we cant use that same picture in an article about the actor. So far, judgment of most editors seems to be that illustrations of a character does "significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic". Likewise illustrations of any real person in that person's article also would be justified for the same reason but since free-use images are always possible cant justify the fair-use exemption. My thoughts on this subject are my considered opinions after analyzing the policy and the policy as implemented by the editing community at large up to now. Actor in costume looking pictures are marginal under the policy but I still think they serve an encyclopedic purpose. It would be interesting to see what other editors articulate about how they interpret the policy so I encourage you to get the opinions of other you trust. --NrDg 18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes NrDg is right, as far as it isn't being used on a living bio, rather on some television character it should be just fine as free images of that isn't possible unless we get permission by the author & that's not very likely. We shouldn't be showing the "real actor", we should be showing the "fictional character" which again, we can't get under a free license if it's some televion screenshot without some permission through OTRS and that's why the picture(s) are under fair use when it comes to fictional characters on some televion show. --Kanonkas : Talk 21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would generally say that in certain limited circumstances, it would be permissible under NFCC to use an image of a "character". There is no rule-set, but I think I can summarize my feelings as:
- It is used minimally, a single image or for a group of characters a single composite image on an article directly addressing the character (not a list or just in an episode article).
- Unlikely to be replaceable, I can probably find a free image of Patrick Stewart in his Startrek uniform (from say a fan-convention), so unless it is illustrating a particular oddity of the character, we should strive for more free image
- Is not used for simple identification, a headshot of Dr. Who in an article on Dr. Who should be free, since I can realistically find a free image just showing the head of the actor who plays Dr. Who. To be non-free it should at least show specific attachments (star-trek borg) or a styled costume (Tom Hanks in a space suit).
- I hope that makes it a bit more clear what my personal take is on the situation. MBisanz talk 21:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to accept MBisanz's stance on this. If there's a big difference between a character and an actor - such as Seven of Nine and Jeri Ryan], then I can see the need to include a picture of the character. When we're looking at a picture of Miley Cyrus playing a character who is very much like her, I can't see a fair use image standing up to scrutiny. Where the actor and character look the same, we should have a fair-use picture of the actor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your judgment call. Note that the examples MBisanz used all currently have fair-use pictures in the character articles even though pictures of the actors are available as free-use. You might consider using Ifd procedures on individual images that have reasonably thought out fair-use justifications instead of CSD as this issue is one of whether or not a particular image "significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic" and wider consensus about that issue on the specific image would be good to have. CSD just involves the judgment of the closing admin. I am content to let that admin decide. It won't be me. In general you have a supportable position - I just believe it is going against current established consensus. --NrDg 00:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!
I came across a page today that I do not think looks correct. The page is Boulder,Colorado, Take a look at the notable people. I think it should be in list format like every other notable person page. If you agree, could you please tag it for me for others to edit? Thanks..Keystoneridin (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I don't mean to try to bite you :) but please try to remember to subst all of the sockblock templates that you use. Thanks and if you would like to reply to this please use my talk page. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 15:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me?[1] Shall I go around agreeing with your detractors? --Elonka 20:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No offence was meant! My comment was meant as a quote from him - I should have said, "just because you think she's incompetent, being rude will not solve things". I'll tweak my comment; I meant nothing bad from it, and I don't for a second think you're incompetent! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, sorry for being a little quick on the draw. Generally the way I deal with those, if I really had to repeat the insult, would be to phrase it like, "CMLITC may or may not be incompetent, but using that term about him is still a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA." Make sense? Anyway, feel free to blank this thread, I think the point's made. :) --Elonka 22:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries:-) people call me Cav/Cavalry, BTW :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this user seems to be a troubled teen, my VOA-indef might be a bit hasty. I've left a bit of a friendlier note and will see if she/he will promise to stop with the attacks and try to work more constructively. Worth a shot. :) henrik•talk 21:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ooh... Good luck - 15 year old extremist Christians aren't normally the most receptive of people. Still, if you can salvage a user out of it, let me know, and I'll give you a barnstar and buy you a beer :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh. I'm not doing very well so far. Unfortunately it seems like you'll be keeping your beer, which I would happily have liberated you from :-) henrik•talk 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aw.. At least you tried! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
In case you're interested where you more of those userboxes are located, I've found them on User:The Cat and the Owl and User:Alexikoua's pages. You're probably right that it's not a template, though, so they'd need to be deleted off of each userpage.
Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry!
The above user, who has repeatedly lied about his COI, claiming that he is not a member but a mere advocate of the religious organization that we are, by now, both familiar to, is proving to be a nuisance and has ignored my vandal warning regarding his repeated insertion of URL references ran by the person (or his organization) in question that don't fall under the reliable, third-party, published sources guideline of WP:RL.
As you may have probably observed, all the references used in the articles (the founder, the church, and apendant organizations and programs) in question are broadsheet newspapers (apart from the non-promotional portions of the basic info in the beginning of each article). I believe that statements like For almost two decades Soriano has maintained the ADD Foundation key charities for the widowed, disabled, neglected and fatherless and He established a charitable organization named "Bro. Eli and Bro. Daniel Foundation" to help the poor people in his country need reliable, third-party, published sources and not just claims from their own websites, for anyone can claim anything on their own website.
To add to that, this editor, Dar book, cannot even write proper English and almost all of his edits, even in unrelated articles, have been reverted because his English is messing them up. Since he is now completely gung ho in his editing and would not even consider my warning tag, would you kindly assist myself and other registered editors in keeping an eye on the following articles: Eli Soriano, Members Church of God International, Ang Dating Daan?
Thank you!
– Shannon Rose (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's quite obviously got a conflict of interest, I'll keep an eye on him. I would ask though: What's your connection? You do tend to call them a cult an awful lot, which might be equally COI-ish (no offence intended!).
- Secondly, self-published sources aren't usually allowed; the policy is at WP:SELFPUB. This hasn't been explained to him, which is why he's a bit angry. He needs it explaining calmyly, without references to 'cult' - his family might be heavily involved, and I'd rather not get a topic-ban on him. We can salvage an editor out of this, I think! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, it does appear like that. I am neither a member of an opposing religious group or an anti-cult activist. Actually, I learned mostly what I know about this group from WP and from the reliable references provided in the articles. I have an interest in alternative religious groups, philosophies, and healing modalities. Anything that is not mainstream and claims to do much good to society is an attraction to me. I would then begin probing on them, and almost always there will be some sort of scam involve therein. This group is one example. But to be completely civil, reflecting on your kind notice, I will now try to refrain from using the word "cult," though they really are one by every known definition of the word. This person Eli Soriano is basically a fugitive religious criminal a la Warren Jeffs but not (yet) like Shoko Asahara. By the way, this boy, as he claims to be, seems to be a natural liar. When he was using his sock "they" were projecting "themselves" as two persons and even defending each other in talk pages (there has been recent attempts to make it look like the sock was just a duly-declared alternate account, that is how crafty this boy is), now the boy is saying (again) that he is not a member of the group when he clearly referred to Eli Soriano as "our leader" in one of his edits. To be perfectly honest, this Dar book is beginning to get on my nerves, due to his repeated attempts to idiotize the editors here. By the way, thank you for patiently explaining everything to him. You really deserve your admin slot. – Shannon Rose (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, about what Shannon Rose said, I was very confused by what she keeps telling on my talk page reliable, third-party, published sources. I finally understand why my other account was blocked, because I tried to keep adding references of websites run by the Members Church of God International, which she won't even believe! First of all, she won't even believe that I am not a member of the said org. Well, the proof is, she already saw the unrelated articles, which have been reverted because his English is messing them up. I am not English and I'm only 14 years old, a sophomore of Marikina Science High School (she already found the first article I created). How can I join an org which I am still too young? Second, when references to negative sections are added by Conrad940 she doesn't even mind it. Also, why would an org buy a domain (website) just to lie; the same reason why I once asked her about her connection to the group. The reference is only mentioning of a famous newspaper, which to me is unverifiable. Unlike my references which can be accessed with just one click of a mouse. I think it's really a COI. At first she was very kind to me, but all other users' edits who are confirmed members of the org are reverted. I don't understand very well the RFC you mentioned to me. Do you mean that I'll just add the template? Thanks. Dar book (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with using websites that are run by the church, is that they're run by the church. That's why we can't use them: they'll never be neutral, no matter what happens, sadly. Secondly, if you want to join the org, but are too young, then that's just as problematic as being in the org. The problem with both cases is that you like them, therefore you can't be neutral. You need to know about them, but not want anything to do with them - not like or dislike them. If you believe in any god at all, you'll find this very hard to do.
- Thirdly, the newspaper article is a perfect source. It's a reliable, third-party source. It's not published by anyone who likes or dislikes the church, only by a newspaper - a famous one - which states the facts. An RFC is a request for comment: You'll get a range of views from several editors about the article. This link gives you an example of how it can be used! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll try it. Also, I'm not sure if the other users, who also tried adding references and positive info about the org will comment about the RFC. Yet, I'll still try. Thanks for your help. Dar book (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Cav. Currently, there is a problem with my RFC. Can you check it here? Dar book (Complains?) 11:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chase,
This article, That Guy with the Glasses was up at AFD before you submitted it for an A7. I suspect someone dropped the AFD notice. TexasAndroid deleted it. I was going to relist the discussion as there is presently no consensus. I'm asking Android if what he wants to do since it shouldn't have been speedied under these circumstance. What do you think? The AFD is [2].JodyB talk 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's up for AfD, then sure! Undo the speedy deletion - I didn't realise :) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought you'd feel that way but I wanted to ask first. Have a great day! JodyB talk 21:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chase: You had deleted the page "Caliper Corporation" and in this talk section, had indicated that you would review this decision. Please do so as we feel the page was not blatant advertising. It was a company history, as is extremely common on Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact us to request edits to the page as we would be happy to make them. In addition can we have a copy of the deleted page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecographer (talk • contribs) 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes :-) Sorry, I got sidetracked! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cav! Cool name.
I wonder if you could tell me why you removed the image of the screen shot of the BBC page from the Poppers article?
Respectfully,
Munatobe7 (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, why would you delete a record of something that exists and has done for sometime? it's historic information that is correctly cited, and if not can be re-cited if you reinstate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris gornall (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replied on your talk page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly on my talk page? because it's not there, all I can see at the moment is that you are enjoying deleting my content. (Chris gornall (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Why are you deleting my content?
This isn't a copyright infringement, it's data on a company, you wouldn't delete a page on amnesty or b&q.
Why organisations I choose to write about?
(Chris gornall (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Thankyou for the comment on my talk page, I understand your concerns about TygerStyle. I shouldn't of posted about this.
However it's not that that I dispute.
I have consent from Employers' Forum on Disability, who already had a stub article that I expanded. Why would they not want to have information on them? I did lift some content, but it was cited. If you re-instate the page with the copyright concerns deleted I will expand upon it in my own words. Please, I want to write about this and Disability Standard as they are in my interest, and I want to get it right.
Also, with Band Society, this is something I used to be involved in, I am no more but it's something dear to me that is definitely note worthy, the article I wrote originally had stood for a few years before I edited it recently, could you not just revert to an older version?
Please help me to get these right!
(Chris gornall (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
What exactly can you do about logo's if they are already in the public domain?
I would like to create some information on EFD like a proper company page with official incorporation date etc...
(Chris gornall (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- If a logo is in the public domain - and not copyrighted at all - then you can upload it by clicking the appropriate option in the upload dialogue. Don't worry about the pictures you've already uploaded though - I'm putting those back in. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Thanks for uploading the stuff on EFD, could you upload the stuff on disability standard too? also, where are the images?
(Chris gornall (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Before you protected the article, the text still includes a spam link disguised as a reference to that copyrighted material, as shown in this diff.. Thanks. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 02:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Beat me too it. He snuck it back in just before the protection was added. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We were only adding information that was true. However, you guys kept reverting the edits and we were trying to link to proof, but were removed for a number of reasons. We were talking about this over at an unspecified one piece fan forum (since, apparently I can't say where here) about this, and we think you guys are overeacting on this. The information is true and there is no real way to source it without somehow linking to visual proof, such as that file that was posted. I apologize if that came off as spamming, but we were not trying to vandalise the wiki. Mendinso (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ILLEGAL and violates Wikipedia policies to link to copyright violating materials. You were BOTH warned not to link to it, but continued reverting it. Having others from those forums come and try to push your case does not help support your claim that you were are not attempting to cause a disruption here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is true, then you should have just removed the offending link and changed it to unsourced. The information is indeed true, but we cannot varify it without showing images and videos. I don't know how else we would go by varifying said information on the wiki, especially since there is no official source stating such. We only found out when the episode had broadcasted as such on TV. I also was not trying to cause a dispute, as I only was trying to get other people involved in this to try and settle the whole situation. I apologize if it does come off as such... Mendinso (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without an official source, as far as Wikipedia is concerned it is NOT true. Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy, and simply claiming that it will always be uncut because one episode may have aired uncut doesn't meet our requirements. Unless/until a reliable source states this is the case, it doesn't belong here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In no way did I say it would be always uncut. I specifically said, as follows "When episode 175 aired, the network aired an uncut version of the episode, complete with all the original names, swearing, and blood.", and I mentioned, as well: "At this time, it is unknown if this will be a permanent change or the uncut airing of the episode was just an accident.", indicating that it was unknown whether or not the rest of the episodes would be uncut or not. The information would have been updated once we could confirm whether it was a fluke or not. The link that we gave to also was a sample from the episode, to indicate proof of such information. We did not link to a full episode (which is a clear copyright violation and completely illegal) and were simply a couple clips to just show the fact it was uncut. Mendinso (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without knowing why or how, that's pretty much unsubstantiated rumor. Again, video clips on a fansite also fail our guidelines and are not appropriate links at all, nor do they constitute reliable sources. In either case, Chase me ladies might appreciate it if this entire discussion went back to the article, though the result will be the same. Per WP:COPYRIGHT (you have no legal authority to post any video clips, regardless of the actual intentions behind your doing so) and WP:EL - we don't link to video clips that are not authorized by the copyright holder nor do we link to fansites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys.. I didn't want that video to be linked to. Please remove it. I only uploaded it temporary. Just link to funpiece.com's main page. Or here: http://forums.funpiece.com/index.php?showtopic=2148&st=0& use that. It also talks about how all airings will be uncut from now on. Please do this instead. Thanks. Quexinos —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- There will be no links to funpiece's website at all. We do not link to fansites, but thank you for asking them not to link to those videos. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank YOU for removing the link. Yeah I get what you're saying but the episodes DID air uncut =P Just FYI Quexinos —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
 Thanks for uploading Image:Lebanese navy logo.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I refer to your neutrality of this article is disputed banner on the article and comment on the talk page .
Although I do agree that the portion you have mentioned in your comments on the discussion page is inane and this along with other frivolous content should be removed.
I think your comments about this entire article being complete and utter tosh. Is sweeping and unqualified .
Please specifically inform sections that need improvement, pruning or deletion , for the tag to be removed .
I have been working to improve this article for a long time by providing edits with citations from verifiable sources, as a matter of fact a large number of these citations have been provided by me.
On the other hand this article has been aggressively vandaled by several anonymous ips , and to counter this I created a vandal list which is available on the discussion page . I have avoided removing any content as my experience on wikipedia tells me this invariably ends in an edit war unless an editor is involved .
I hope that you are an editor and will now assist with improving the article and protecting from vandals .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "And it is a slog of destiny that they had to leave their ancestral home of Punjab upon the partition of India. It is a huge loss of culture, heredity and traditions for Punjabi people." Really, it's just... full of peacock terms, which I don't think I need to point out, because they're readily apparent. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shifting this dialogue to the Khatri discussion page for ref . I have made some deletions and edits . Would appreciate removal of this tag . If there are other specific instances of content you have an issue with please elucidate . I also hope that you have a deep knowledge of the subject .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replied to your post on my talk page . Please carry forward this dialogue with regard to the Khatri article on the Khatri discussion page .
Intothefire (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it happens a time or two! Eric Wester (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KUSW. I think that merging the article into a table would cost information about the older station with the same callsign to be lost. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use doctrine under copyright law
Re: stop hassling me
- Sadly not! Completely unrelated - note that he is in the Cavalry, whereas I am the Cavalry itself! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropped by to say thanks for deleting "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Metal (Possessed demo) (2nd nomination" quickly before too many people noticed my mistake! Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't mention it to anyone, don't worry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Phew! Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The links that were commented , have been reverted by another user.
I am pleased that it's only taken 10 mins for a response on this, as I was about to revert my own edits :)
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries! You meant well :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the Proposal discussion from the AfD page to the "talk page for that AfD. No slight is intended... only a wish to keep the issues seperated. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem - best place for it. I'm trying to clean up the article at present without deleting it - removing weasel words and primary sources, rather than deletion :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know where these guys came from, but between List of bow tie wearers and Handedness of Presidents of the United States they seem to be getting stronger for... some reason. If I was a more pointy man I'd create a list of presidential eye colour which would have the same amount of merit but alas when you make this connection the keeps tend to ignore it calling you some sort of wikipedia destroyer who is harming their long spent work on an entirely trivial craft. –– Lid(Talk) 00:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I was a bolder admin, this would be a straight WP:IAR delete, then a fight to the death at WP:DRV. All of the other admins I've spoken to - about 15 - are well behind deleting the article, with some even favouring IAR to prevent this project from becoming a laughing stock. But I'm nice like that, and I follow rules! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
){kind=link}