User talk:Kwertii

I've moved your question from User talk:DanteAlighieri to his talk page which you may have mistyped (User talk:Dante Alighieri, with a space).

Thanks Dysprosia 00:11, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Hey. I've been looking everywhere and I can't find my Mandelbrot book. :( So, I'm going to keep looking. The other thing you could do is try to read reviews online like at [www.amazon.com Amazon] or somewhere. The title is Fractal Geometry of Nature. Good luck! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:14, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Hello. If you want to move a page, please use 'move this page' in the side bar rather than copy and paste. If you copy and paste it looses page history. I'm just about to restore the history by deleting/moving/undeleting... Morwen 22:32, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oil for food allegations

TDC, the user who has a comment about "sucking one's own dick" on his user page, created an article about the alleged Oil for Food Scandal. I put it on vote for deletion: [1] Get-back-world-respect 00:21, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your recent copy-edit of Albert Hofmann. Has been most welcome. Modified your in-text link a little... --Palapala 08:27, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)

Glad to help :) Kwertii 14:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

peacock & weasel terms guidelines

What makes you think that either of these are disputed? Neither have any indication on the article or talk page. older≠wiser 22:21, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I completely overlooked those notices--stuff like that is usually at the top. older≠wiser 21:45, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Hallucinogenic drug

Hi Kwertii: The second sentence doesn't make sense to me, maybe you forgot some words? :-) Cacycle 12:59, 3 Nov 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)

Join RWNB!

Hello, Kwertii! Though you might be interested in the Russian wikipedians' notice board. Come check it out! KNewman 04:36, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Image source

Thanks for uploading Image:Kalinin.jpg. I notice that you claim that it's public domain. If so, it needs to be properly tagged as such. Why would this be PD? Age (pre 1928, I think), or Soviet pre-1973? Please review and add the appropriate tag to replace the "unsure" tag I put on it as part of the Untagged Images project. (Likewise any others that you're resonsible for.) Thanks! Kbh3rd 04:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Likewise, Image:Kamenev.jpg. Kbh3rd 04:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image copyright

Thank you for uploading Image:Berlin.bezirke.png and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you. --Ellmist

Chechen coat of arms

hi kwertii. i've uploaded this coat onto the commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Chechen_coat_of_arms.jpg) . could you please add the source? Schaengel89 @me 11:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Sonny Black.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you.

Blood Sausage

Thanks for adding the reference to blood sausage to taboo meat. It hadn't even occurred to me, which says something about me as I added the info on people drinking blood! Garglebutt 22:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft

Hi - generally we are trying to keep the controversial stuff into common criticisms of Microsoft so that we can try to keep the main MS article clean. There's already a section for that too --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft again

Hi, I made quite a few edits... what do you think? Is there enough in there now do you think, should something else be added? --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft Subheadings

Hi, the reason I changed some of them is because some people will vote against you on FAC if you have too many - so we'd just be changing them back then anyway... --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits BTW. It reads better now ::) --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Skull (symbolism)

Should you detect statements that offend your sense of a neutral, intelligent, mainstream response to any subject, please copy them into the talk page and present your personal opinions. Do not begin with an "NPOV" tag at any article where you have not made a single previous edit. Perhaps you will make some contributions to the encyclopedia report at Skull (symbolism) from your own reading and observations, or provide some quotes that show how a skull is used as a symbol in your cultural background. The "NPOV" tag is a last resort. --Wetman 22:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

File:Mengele.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mengele.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/{{subst:#time:Y F j|-0 days}}#File:Mengele.jpg|discussion]] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Thuresson 00:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:KarlRadek.jpg has been listed as a possibly unfree image

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:KarlRadek.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

In general, many of the images you have uploaded include no source information. Regardless of whether you think an image is in the public domain, you should include precise information (e.g. a URL) about where you got the image and why you think it is public domain or whatever. Images without source information will be deleted. —Steven G. Johnson 04:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Maintained

In your delete rationale, you stated: Use of the template subtly implies ownership, even if it is not explicitly worded as such.

The template now includes the following statement:

Note that this does not connote any form of article ownership, and you do not need any approval to make changes to the article.

The current form may not be perfect, but it's a big improvement. Please consider at least switching to neutral, as the template's biggest opponents have. Thanks. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 00:12

Image copyright problem with Image:JoeMassino.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JoeMassino.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 08:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Shock and Awe

Hello Kwertii, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[2] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link to it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 22:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)