User talk:Me-123567-Me: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:23, 16 October 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Me-123567-Me, 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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! GreenJoe 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Capital Freenet

I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the National Capital Freenet article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Athabasca University

To put it simply, the article reads like an advertisement. The underlying tone of the article appears to be promotional, which is accompanied by redundant detail and peacock terms. -Reconsider! 12:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read my paragraph in "Discussion"

Read what I wrote on "Discussion", and just go away. Do you seriously think editing the list of the University of Toronto is similar to editing the list of Athabataca university? Wake up. If you want to refer to other university lists, name proper ones. (In Canada, McGill, in the US, Umich, NYU, Illinois etc) Your actions are completely incomprehensible, because alumni lists of other universities like U of T look similar to U of T's generally. Citations for a few, but not all. A few redlinks (especially in business sections). I've said enough. I don't own the list, but you put all the contributions of me and others into vain for no justified reason. All articles need to be verifiable? Yes, but read what I wrote on "Discussion". I've said several times. The list has sufficient citations. If one wants verification, one could just visit the alumnus's wikipedia article. I've said it enough. --Wisdompower (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me, you're violating WP:3RR yourself. Please take a Wikibreak from this and relax. If you insist, I'll go to WP:ANI but why get into Wikilawyering. As my thought on the list page says, Stay mellow. Enjoy spring. Give USer:Wisdompower a chance to put the citations in. Peace. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article disputes

Hello Me-123567-Me. Though Wisdompower has been temporarily blocked, I hope we will not see you continuing to revert any of the disputed articles. Sanctions can go both ways. Wait for consensus on the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hello Me-123567-Me. In the Ryerson University Article, even though you may think that WP:PEACOCK is most applicable, you did not give any opportunity for discussion on the talk page. In addition, the Peacock terms in the article adhered to the following requirement on the WP:PEACOCK page: "When using these terms, make sure you have sources to support them, and that the reader understands why the person or subject is so regarded." Objectivity is Essential (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: AlexRampaul

I already have an account in place. 99.233.133.187 (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rhys Meyers

Hi. I assume you mean well, but that's a good edit and if you've an interest in this issue, please pop by WT:ACTOR#Sortable tables. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate canvassing again, Jack. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What stunning hypocrisy.—Chowbok ☠ 06:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I didn't make 3 reverts on the Jonathan Rhys Meyers ‎article, your 3RR warning was premature and unwarranted. Jack Merridew, yes. Me, no. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I'm sorry about that. Won't happen again.—Chowbok ☠ 20:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment about List of domain name registrars.

The quoting of the top 30 gTLD registrars from the registrarstats.com website is fair use. Dumping 500 of of them into the article is not. This is why I reverted. Also there was a previous attempt at adding registrars that were not even in the list of top registrars. Jmccormac (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:FP President AU.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:FP President AU.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:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 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. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to Dr. Frits Pannekoek, requesting that he release an image of himself under a free license. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me-123567-Me, I think it's important you read and understand WP:NFCC #1. Therein it says "or could be created". The application of this policy across the project is that photographs of living people are considered to be replaceable. Whether free licensed material exists at this moment in time or not has no bearing on this. Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy also covers this where it says that we do not retain non-free content in almost all cases for living people. Simply because no one has uploaded or found a free licensed image of him is not a reason to retain this image. He's alive, he's not imprisoned for life, etc. He is the president of a major university and frequently appears in public. Obtaining free images of him is easy. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Pannekoek appleby.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Pannekoek appleby.jpg. 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. Codf1977 (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalmar Abuzeid and several others

Hi 123567. You've just written "delete per nom" on multiple AfDs but the nom was recommending redirecting, not deleting them. Perhaps you could clarify...? Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in Canada

reverting an edit twice by an IP user trying to make a WP:POINT that has been blocked does not seem like an edit war to me. I have also commented on the talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reversion without reason

In your recent reversion on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, you reverted a change without giving a reason for it (neither WP:AGF nor WP:BOLD explain the reversion). In this case, you were reverting an edit done specifically to match policy in WP:NOTBROKEN, which indicates that wikilinks should not be piped simply to avoid a redirect, and discouraging piped wikilink when a redirect will work. As such, you're not giving me reason not to revert your reversion to return the article to being in line with policy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I violated WP:POINT, you may want to review that policy, because I neither disrupted Wikipedia nor did I do anything to prove a point. I did revert an edit to leave the article in better alignment with WP:NOTBROKEN, which is another policy you may want to review - it indicates not to pipe a wikilink that is working as a redirect not because it's a waste of time, but because Wikipedia works better with the simple wikilinks. (If you have disagreements with that policy, then the policy's page is the best place to raise them.) It is not "biting" anyone to correct their edit, nor to summarize the policy and put a link to the policy in the edit summary - and in general, "biting" on Wikipedia regards a concern of what one does to newcomers, and the editor in question has over a year and hundreds of edits in experience. Assuming good faith does not need assuming good edits (if we assume all edits are good, this place will be even more of a mess quite quickly), and being WP:BOLD does not carry with it the expectation that you will not be reverted; that's what WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is about.

If you take the time to review policies, you may also want to review WP:PA.

Now, do you have any reason why the article is better if we overlook WP:NOTBROKEN in this instance? Because barring that, I will be restoring it to the simpler wikilink. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not wish to be seen as engaging in WP:PA, then you should avoid calling people jerks, even in the past tense. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see here, the editor I was reverting was not offended by my reversion, and was actually befuddled by the reasoning for your revert.

Given that, I really think you should be carefully considering your actions in general during this affair. In particular, you may wish to review WP:AGF; "good faith" is more than just a label one hangs on edit to avoid the appearance of malice, it's an attitude that can serve one well on Wikipedia. In this case, you -- from what I can discern of your comments - read a tone into an edit summary, and on that basis 1) edited an article to be further from guidelines, 2) made a baseless accusation (the WP:POINT claim), and 3) posted a WP:PA (even if, as you suggest, the personal nature comes from some sloppiness in your wording rather than in intent), none of which would have been an appropriate response even if my summary had included a "bite". Had you assumed good faith in my edit and simply had a problem with the tone of the summary, then a simple message on my talk page would have been the appropriate move. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian mobile phone companies

Could you please engage with the conversation at Template talk:Canadian_mobile_phone_companies instead of reverting the template to the version you want? This just looks like a slow edit war and doesn't reflect well on either of you, although kudos for bringing this issue for dispute resolution. Bigger digger (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Bigger digger#Your message's talk page. You replied at my page so we'll keep the conversation there. Bigger digger (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Ping! Bigger digger (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grenfell College Student Union

I am deeply dismayed that the Student Union page for the Grenfell Campus was removed with little notice or reason. This page provided general information regarding the student union which plays an important role at the Grenfell Campus, Memorial University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryrandell (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Me - 123567..

I've just made some edits to add pictures and remove personal political attacks at the Virginia Green Party.

I see that you have identified this as "vandalism". May a respectfully suggest that is not a correct allegation. As I am the person being attacked, and I lived the events addressed first hand. I would appreciate the opportunity to open a dialogue on this subject. Picture's as they say are worth a thousand words. Thus I've posted these pictures to tell a more fair, and just version of events.