The best way to reach me is by leaving a note at the bottom of this page.
I stop by here much more often than I check my WP email.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Re: eMarket Trading Platform

Hey please don't delete this page. I have started "eMarket Trading Platform" in sourceforge.net in 2004. And I have listed the project in ohloh.net. If you have any questions please visit, http://sourceforge.net/projects/emarket or email me snambi at gmail dot com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.124.51 (talk) 01:20, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Ok, ty for the advice. Please sign the petition to save trivia once i create it. Yay Trivia! --Alien joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien joe (talk • contribs) 20:59, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Thomas-Institut Page, deleted copyright "violation"

Hi. You seem to have deleted the page i created yesterday. Certainly there are no copyright violations, as i am the co-author of this text. I hope my page is not gone for good, would you please restore it for me or tell me how i can restore it? Philipp Steinkrueger 13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, further steps

thanks for restoring the page. As i understand the page now being displayed when i try to access the page, it would be enough to "send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication". Would it be enough if the main author, David Wirmer, mentioned on this page (http://www.egsamp.uni-koeln.de/theegsamp/) as responsible person, would send this email? Or do i have to ask the local network administrators to install an account @egsamp.uni-koeln.de ? 81.173.234.114 20:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placed GFDL notice on webpage

i now followed the advice on the copyright page and have put the copyleft icon and the letters "GFDL" on the bottom of the orignial page. GFDL is linked to the wikipedia license page. I hope this to be enough. I will restore the page by tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipp Steinkrueger (talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

You placed a {{pov}} tag on Sada Jan. I replied. Were you aware of my reply?

I am not going to assume that your lack of a reply on Talk:Sada Jan means I convinced you, and that I can remove that tag.

But, now that I have brought it to your attention I hope you will either agree that your concerns have been answered, and the tag can be removed -- or you will return there and offer a reply.

I know we have interacted before. Forgive me. I can't remember where or when.

Cheers! Geo Swan 14:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My memory of our previous interactions are coming back to me.

I left a note on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about a technical problem with your recent placement of the {{npov}} tag.

Note: I tried to be tactful, and not make you sound like a villain.

You placed this tag, without explaining what aspect of the file you think does not comply with policy. IMO this is (1) not responsible; (2) not civil.

I strongly encourage you to make more of an effort to be collegial, and explain yourself. Geo Swan 14:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Name Concern

I have replied to your query on my talk page. Look forward to your reply.--PersonalityPhotos 15:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

I will watch the 3rr. Did I break it by the way? --Alien joe 20:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV

You assert that you can recognize POV when you see it. You assert that when you think you perceive a POV in someone else's contribution, that proves that contribution is written from a biased POV.

I replied that while your perception of a biased POV could mean there actually is a biased POV in the material that raises your concern, it is equally worth considering that the material that triggered your concern complied with WP:NPOV, and your perception that it didn't was due to a bias in your perceptions.

We all have biases. We all have POVs. That shouldn't keep us from contributing to the wikipedia. When we contribute to the wikipedia we have to try to be aware of our POV and make a conscious effort to keep it out of our contributions.

You wrote, that you thought you didn't have to explain yourself because the reason(s) for your concerns were "obvious". That is nonsense.

What this comment signals to me is that you are not recognizing that you too have a POV -- just like the rest of us. If you aren't capable of recognizing that you too have a POV, you aren't going to be able to recognize when your edits are introduing your POV. And you won't be able to recognize when someone else bring instances of your lapses from WP:NPOV to your attention.

Because I recognize that, like everyone, I have a bias, and that I might lapse in my efforts to keep it out of article space, I take expressions of concern over a perceived POV seriously. So, I ask those who express that concern to explain their concern to me.

If you look back at all our exchanges you will see me repeatedly politely asking you to be specific. And, you will see that you blow off my requests for explanation, both of your concerns, and of your editing choices.

The efforts I make to take your concerns seriously should be proportional to the efforts you make to offer serious explanations. Geo Swan 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Slanning

Hi there, My contribution on Sir Nicholas Slanning has fallen foul of a copyright problem. This article is almost entirely derived from material supplied by Alan Wicks, taken from 'The Crucible and the Gun', a work in progress. Alan has given full permission for the material to be used in Wikipedia. Similar material exists on the web site of Sir Nicholas Slannings regiment http://www.slannings.org/CrucibleGun01.html and parts of it also appear on Sealed Knot sites. This is because the original writer, Alan Wicks has given permissions for his work to be used there as well as in my article. Alan is a personal friend, an ex C.O. of Slannings Regiment and a long standing member of the Sealed Knot, hence the material being duplicated / triplicated.Pan narrans 17:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Image:1188676595852.jpg

I'm not sure if Jun Matsubara (the author of the pictures) is eligible to keep that copyright. WhisperToMe 04:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!!

Thanks for your work fixing the URLs. It's always great to meet such kind people. --Victor12 01:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SineBot

SineBot doesn't seem to like your sig for some reason - it's signing posts that you've already signed. I left a note on the bot talk page. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 02:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sign your posts, loser! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That bot is goin down! -- But|seriously|folks 02:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I find this so amusing, but I've been laughing my ass off. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Standard Version

What exactly is wrong with the image of the RSV Title Page, that it has been deleted twice now? Isn't my fair use rationale good enough? Why can't the page have that image?

--JoBrLa 16:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't tell me anything. What is "watermarked"? And how does it violate copyright any more than an image of Darth Vader, for example, violates the copyright to Star Wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoBrLa (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand the problem with the watermark. I won't be doing that again. But how does the image not contribute to the understanding of the article? If it doesn't, then there is no reason for the King James or American Standard versions to have their title pages posted on their respective articles.

--JoBrLa 16:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for your help and explanations. I don't agree with it, but I'll play by the rules. --JoBrLa 16:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ultrastar Deluxe

the image used is entirely my own work as it is a screenshot of a program that was written by my team. we also posted this up on sourceforge as screenshots for the program. may you explain why the article was deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by GgKfc (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was hardly promotional, our users primarily find ultrastar deluxe by word of mouth and online magazines and forums. basically i just illustrates what the features of ultrastar deluxe were and why we branched off from the original ultrastar. could you please let me put the stuff back into the original ultrastar article at least in the ultrastar deluxe paragraph like how there is a ultraNG paragraph. i do not havve a backup of what i wrote i would be very pleased if you could give me a copy. b4 you deleted it GgKfc 02:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)ggKfc[reply]

Pop goes the weasel words...again

As you were the admin who denied my request for an unblock arising from an edit war in Ronald Reagan, I would like to ask for your assistance. The same editor tha tI was accused of edit-warring with (Paul h.) has begin edit-warring in the article since the blocj was lifted.

Since one of the points of contention was one of semantics, I have offered discussion addressing the two points of contention, essentially a problem of peacocking semantics. The editor essentially refuses to consider any of the arguments, and inserts his edits as the consensus from Discussion. While I am not planning on revisting the edit-warring, I am afraid that the other editor is not of the same intention.

I am also struck by the similarities between the edits and editing behavior of this editor and another, User:OperationSpooner. In addition to the similarities in editing choices, one seems completely silent (via edit history) while the other ID is editing, and vice versa. I not sure that this is worth an IP check, but if they are issuing from the same IP, it would be somewhat odd that they would be arguing in concert in the same article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sooner do you delete...

Than they re-create! Hee hee, 14:39, September 16, 2007 Butseriouslyfolks (Talk | contribs) deleted "Gajraj Rao" ‎ (copyvio of http://passionforcinema.com/unlocking-the-mystery-called-gajraj-rao) Well, it has been recreated, and it does not appear to have been significantly changed. Additionally, notability would be in question. I did a quick search prior to deletion of the original page, and found zero WP:RS. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee hee, salt adds flavor! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gardiner Means

Hello, would you please undo your action to delete the pages I put in - yes, I wrote some stuff and copied a bit more from some website - then a notice was put up and I deleted the rest. There was no copyright violation by then, and it should not have been deleted. Please put it back. Wikidea 22:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please save me the trouble of rewriting what was there anywhere. If you'd checked the history before you'd deleted you'd see I had put it in my own words. Please don't be stubborn. You were wrong to delete it. Put it back. Wikidea 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GROAN. Wikidea 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello! I saw you a lot in image copyright pages, so I'm guessing you may answer my question: can I remove a copyright tag that I myself included in an image created by me? And if yes, what happens? Thanks, muriel@pt 23:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]