User talk:Only/Archive4

Please review my edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/Metros232. It would be much appreciated.

Archives
1 2 3

Welcome to my talk page! I tend to reply to messages directly on here, so I suggest watching my page if you're looking for a reply. I watch user talk pages I comment on so we can keep conversations organized.

You vandalised MY User Page!

Why did you remove the image of Bowser from MY User Page? You said something about copyright but if using the image is a violation of copyright, then why does it appear elsewhere on Wikipedia and if you have problems with anything on MY User Page then tell me rather than just ripping the section clean out! Bowsy 19:46 5 December 2006

Sorry, no, copyright things can not be used on user pages. Since Wikipedia only uses such things under fair use, it can only be used for particular purposes, i.e. to illustrate the thing in an article, not to decorate your user page. Metros232 19:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why do you allow other Wikipedians to keep images on their pages? Surely ALL the images featured on Wikipedia are copyright. You don't rip off everyone's images so why pick on me? Bowsy 19:09 6 December 2006

not necessarily. It depends on the licensing for the images. Some are allowed to be used like that, others aren't. Yours is an example of one that isn't. Metros232 19:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have proof that Nintendo see anything wrong with it being there? Bowsy 19:29 6 December 2006

Please look at WP:USER. It states:

Images on user pages

Please do not include non-free images (images uploaded to Wikipedia without the permission of the copyright owner, or under licenses that do not permit commercial use) on your user page or on any subpage thereof (this is official policy and the usual wide user page latitude does not apply, see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria for details). Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) may be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) from that page without warning (and, if not used in a Wikipedia article, deleted entirely).

It is assumed that any likeness of a character of nintendo can be used as fair-use, but not as a free use. Metros232 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you assume. Oh, and why is the link you just made red? Are you making this up? Bowsy 19:27 7 December 2006

It was a redlink because it was a typo. Believe me, I have slightly more important things to do around here than to just make things up like that. Metros232 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say on the image's licence agreement that it can't be used? Also, the policy you gave me stated that it was preferable that you replaced it with a link to the image. Any particular reason why you had to delete it instead? Bowsy 19:05, 8 December 2006

And where does it say on the image's license agreement that it CAN be used? The license says "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material[...]to illustrate the work or product being discussed". That means it can be used to show Bowser in articles about Bowser. "Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." Your user page is part of the "other uses" category. Metros232 19:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it may be, but you have no proof that it is copyright infringement Bowsy 15:36 10 December 2006

Even if it was not a copyright infringement, any drawings of Bowsers cannot be placed in the public domain or under a free license. That will still prevent you from using that photo on your userpage, due to Point 9 of our fair use policy. Since the photo is still off your page, I ask you to keep it that way. If you add it again, it will be removed again by me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia User Page policy states that it is preferable that the person who removes an image from a User Page replaces it with a link to the image. Why has this not happened? Bowsy 09:13 11 December 2006

Look, in the amount of time you've spent here complaning about me removing ONE image for valid reasons, you could have replaced the link yourself 35 times, added it in different font colors each time, and still have plenty of time to focus on important things, like, you know, building the encyclopedia. Metros232 13:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How can it be a valid reason if you have no proof that if Nintendo were to see my User Page with the image on it, they would think I was violating their copyright? Bowsy 09:10 12 December 2006

University of Mary Washington

Looks like our linkspammer is back and on the job at University of Mary Washington. --Takeel 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove my spam link?

Why did you remove the lala.com link from the rest of the External Links on the Death Cab for Cutie page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxpx775 (talk • contribs)

Because all you are doing is putting these links into dozens of articles. The very textbook definition of spam. Metros232 01:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you stopped removing me edits from the WIKI artist pages i post on. this website is supposed to allow all members to add any pertinent and accurate information to any page. I am simply linking to my website to offer another resource for web-surfers that would like to learn more about the particular artist. You should remove all external links if you wish to keep this information from music fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxpx775 (talk • contribs)

Tags

Just having a bit of fun while going through articles that fit the requirement for speedy deletion : ). Have a great holiday season mate.

Cheers. Charlesblack 11:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

1984 Ad

I am an expereinced user like you (not quite as expereinced) however, someone I know has changed my password and I am useing this account temprerily.

Please don't think I am some crazed new member, I am a crazed old member! :P

thanks

Useamac 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What the????

What in the world did you do to my page????

And who changed it from "Bloodless Bullfighting" to "Bloodless bullfighting"?????

It's a title, therefore the "b" in Bullfighting should be capitalized.

Also, I said in my discussion page that I was not finished yet.

And the title specifically says "Art of Bloodless Bullfighting.. Portuguese Style! in California

yes, this practice is in California... duh!!!!! Why else would it be bloodless and why else would I separate it from the bullfighting section. You guys need to get a grip on your "need" to change things, when you have no idea what it is talking about.

I worked so hard putting it together... then you want to mess with it. You guys are amazing.... and ridiculous.

At least give me the opportunity to "complete" before you start attacking it.

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Webmistress Diva 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

With what I gather in the article, this is a style of bullfighting, therefore, it's not capitalized. If it were a brand, it'd be capitalized. So what is it? A brand or a style? Yes, the practice is in California...but it originated in Portugal. Therefore, it needs the globalized view. And welcome to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit whenever they please. You're not the only one who has the right to edit it. Metros232 22:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I want it put back the way it was. There's a reason why things are the way they were. You took important stuff out. You don't know what this is, but yet you are moving text around as if you know. The least you could do is put a notation in the "talk page" and "ASK FIRST" before changing it. Discuss it FIRST.... it's like what you guys say.... that's the whole purpose of the "talk page". Otherwise, anyone could write these things and you'll never know if they're just talking out of their a--e-!

We're the experts in this.... leave it to us to write about. If it needs to be "wikified" or whatever it is ... .then do it "after" the article is complete!

Also, when you moved stuff around, you jacked-up the whole format. Things are not where they are suppose to be and it looks very DISORGANIZED!!!!!

And the title "Art of Bloodless Bullfighting .... Portuguese Style! in California" has to be there!!!!!!!!!! That's what defines this article, if that is not included in there, then people will be confused and think that we are talking about bullfighting in general.... and we are not!!!!!

And YES... it is a brand!

--Webmistress Diva 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.... that's kind of lame, if you think about it. What type of documented facts is allowed to be edited? I suggest that the owner of the article has a say so in that particular article they started. If anyone else has an input, then they need to put their suggestion inside the "talk page" area, and it will be discussed further. Because there are some points that people make that are incorrect.... and incorrectly placed and stated.

If you want to help me with the whole 'wiki' standard of how it should look and sound... then fine. But don't start moving stuff around as if you know better. --Webmistress Diva 23:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, if you didn't yell a lot, people would probably listen to you a lot more. As for the changes I put in...what stuff did I take up that needs to be in there? I moved stuff around as if I know what the hell a format of an article is, not because of knowledge of the subject. There is a format articles go in, which is what I tried to put it in. You don't put entire sentences in headings like you've been doing. You don't have a section that just analyzes everything that was already said. Etc.

I suggest that the owner of the article has a say so in that particular article they started.

Please see WP:OWN. You don't own articles on Wikipedia. Metros232 23:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not yelling. If I was, everything would be written in ALL CAPS. Secondly, if you guys would stop walking around as if you own the place, then maybe we would have more respect for your changes. You guys should practice what you preach. Your wiki policy/procedure advices people to "discuss" things in the "talk page" area. Well, I have done exactly that... and more. But you guys will just go in and change things around.... several times over. I think that you guys need to suggest it first and then implement. That's why I can relate to a LOT of people that are irritated on this site. I was very specific when I had made a notation in the "talk page" about how I was NOT done yet. There's more information that I have to include. Also, you removed the 'conclusion' area. The information in there has not been discussed in the other areas yet. And like I said, I was not finished.... I was getting to that section... but not today. So next time, if you don't want me or anyone else getting frustrated, kindly stop changing and removing stuff.... and all we ask is that you discuss it first.

I'll let you know when I'm done with the article.... and from there, you can critique it all you want.... BUT at least wait for all of the information to get in there.

Please see WP:OWN. You don't own articles on Wikipedia.

Maybe we should. --Webmistress Diva 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I should use the talk page to discuss changes that are being put in to bring this to proper style and to get this article to follow Wikipedia policies? Get real. Those edits are necessary and will continue. I do not need your permission to try to edit this article to something respectable in regards to style guides. Metros232 23:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!!

You have recieved the Big Boss award for aiding me. This is my special way of thanking those for their help. I am new to wikipedia and I will take all of the help that I can get!!! Thank you!! User: Big Boss 0

This user has been recognized as a Big Boss Award recipient.

What am I doing wrong? My material is totally legit.

Hi. A WikiNewbie here. I don't understand why you pulled my newly edited, resubmitted piece regarding Cragar Industries, Inc. I read the suggestions on what to do to and think I have followed the rules. I am a representative of the company, but did all I could to keep it factual, not self-serving. There are no copyright violations anywhere, even with the photos used yesterday, which I did not post this time. Can you tell me what is needed for it to stick? Thanks! Autoworld 22:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing is pulling the article basically directly from this site without asserting formally any claim to permission to use it. Take a look at the first few paragraphs of WP:CP this page. It explains how you can use copyrighted information. Hope that helps, Metros232 22:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you have it backwards, they have legally borrowed the material from us. What am I supposed to do about that? Thanks. Autoworld 22:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, read the first paragraphs of WP:CP and act from there. It should give you an idea of how you can state that you own the copyright or permission to use that text or those images. Metros232 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best. The last time I posted it, you pulled it within 5 minutes, and warned me I'd be blocked. Can you please cut me some slack this time as I try to get it sorted. I assure you, I represent the actual company and we have usage rights to all this material. Thanks again. Autoworld 23:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling

SeanMWA: What is the definition of a notable person? shouldn't a person with recognition at a state level considered to be a notable person? Your deletion of my article would be akin to you deleting an article about the Maine Womens championship basketball teams history. Is that not notable? Alot of independant wrestlers would and should be cut off of wikipedia by your standards, as they have only achieved state, or regional fame.

i feel you are a little quick to advocate deletion. no disscussion, warnings, advice, just cold deletion. even if you feel a lowly state level backyard wrestling fed is not notable it becomes notable if you were to include it in the context of backyard wrestling which was a cultural movement. just because it is not important to you, or it seems lowly does not mean that it is any less valuable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmwa (talk • contribs)

"Maine Wrestling Association" gets 0 Google hits. "Sean Little" + Maine gets 210 but I don't see many that also relate to wrestling. If these two things were notable, why isn't there any outside coverage of them? For our notability standards, see WP:ORG and WP:BIO. Metros232 01:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Seanmwa:ok, thank you.

Quiver (Lusitano horse) tagged with db-spam

This article was submitted by the horse's owner. I have tagged it for CSD. --A. B. ^(talk) 05:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that (I watchlisted it a few minutes ago). I'm going to leave it for another administrator to handle though so I don't get accused of bad faith deletions. Metros232 05:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And who else will post it here? Geez.... you are too much... petty is what you are! I had to include an article for Quiver to back up the image I uploaded of him, because the copyright states that it is used for that purpose.--Webmistress Diva 05:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No one else would post it here because it's not a notable horse. You had to make an article just so you can upload a photo? What?? Metros232 05:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Who says it's not a "notable" horse? Does any person, place, or a thing have to die before it becomes ackowledgeable and worthy of writing?--Webmistress Diva 05:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hi my friend! How are you... I am back to Wikipedia to have some fun! Feel free to be "Asher Watchdog". Happy Holidays!

Asher Heimermann 00:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

On December 26, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andrew Truxal, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions!! Nishkid64 01:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Your block of Asher, Jr.

Asher, Jr., who you blocked, has made an {{unblock}} request on his talk page. Please respond to it.Eli Falk 07:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I had already responded to it with a note to the reviewing admin a few hours before you left this message [1]. The block has now been reviewed by another admin. Metros232 13:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Accounting period

You have put in a request for this article, which is discussing a technical area of United Kingdom corporation tax, to be wikified. At present, there is just one link, namely to United Kingdom corporation tax (which, incidentally is a featured article). I'd be interested to know what items you believe should be linked to. I'm quite happy to add links if doing so is appropriate, but, largely because most words that could be wikified actually have a specific meaning in UK tax law that is not dealt with by the underlying articles on company or life assurance, I don't see any others that could usefully be linked to. If, however, you can point towards something I have missed, please do; otherwise I'd be grateful if you'd remove your notice. Kind regards jguk 17:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Things like "transferor company" "Taxes Act" "Finance Act" etc. would be useful to add links to. I'll leave it up to your discretion as to how those things become linked as I don't know much at all about UK tax law. Metros232 17:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no article to link to on transferor company or Taxes Acts. "Transferor company" in the sense used in the article has a rather technical meaning, such that it is unlikely ever to have a Wikipedia article. "Taxes Acts" might be a useful article to have in the future, so I've linked that, and "Finance Act". As I don't believe anything else can usefully be linked, I've removed the message you added. As before, if you identify words that could still be linked, I'm happy to consider them. jguk 19:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)