This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:5 albert square: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎semi protected: new WikiLove message)
Line 177: Line 177:
:agreed — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 12:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
:agreed — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 12:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
== semi protected ==
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Trophy.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''semi protected'''
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | hi could u put semi protected on gervinho page plz JRegan 13:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:37, 8 July 2011


Admins: If I have erred in one of my admin actions, or my rationale for the action no longer applies, please don't hesitate to reverse it. I have no objection to my actions being reversed, as long you leave me a polite note explaining what you did and why. Thanks.
Today is Saturday, 11 July 2020, and the current time is 13:09 (UTC/GMT). There are currently 6,119,784 articles.
Purge this page for a new update.

Hi everyone

Welcome to my talk page!

If you post a message here then please add this page to your watchlist as I will reply here. If I ask you a question on your talk page then please reply on your talk page as I will be watching it.

Finally please remember to sign your signature using the Button sig.png button.

What is happing god's name

Hi,5 albert square,realy I do not understand what is going all that,the image has bee taken from facebook,and it is not copy right,if it is so,please remove the image immediatly,I am not expertise of wikipedia system,I do not know how to deal all this.I also removed the tags from artcle mainspace,mistakely,I was thinking someone has tagged old tags,I removed those,but Mr. User:Biker Biker become extremely angry,in result he put also deletion tag on article,with other tags,without knowing that the article has already consensus by User:Nolelover User:Jeepday User:Brianhe,and subject's position and explanation is very clear on all talk pages.I understand the wikipedia policies,it should be applied on every subject,I think there are hundred of articles which contradict the wikipedia policy eidtors should pay heed to them too.I do not know what you can help me in this regard.ThanksEhsan Sehgal (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, people are marking your images for deletion because they don't have the correct copyright information on them. The one I tagged, there is no license stating that it's been released into the public domain. That kind of image needs to be in the public domain before it can be used in any articles.
The best way to upload an image to Wikipedia is via Wikimedia Commons. You can create an account at Wikimedia Commons by clicking here. Once you've logged in, click on "Upload File" on the left hand side of the screen (here) and that will give you step-by-step instructions on how to upload a file to Wikimedia Commons and then transfer it to Wikipedia. Once you've done that you will then be able to link it up to the Wikipedia page.
You say that the image is on Facebook. Did you take the image personally? If you did then it should be fine to use on Wikipedia, if not then you will only be able to use it if you've got permission to do so from whoever took the image. If you don't own the image then you may be able to get the person who does own it to release it under another license so it can be used on Wikipedia. I suggest that you look at Wikimedia Commons as that will have more information on the various licenses available.
Like I say, if you look at File:Alanfletcher1-1.jpg that displays all the information there that images being used in a living person article should display. You should give a short summary explaining a little more about the photo and, if you're the copyright holder then you need to display the license showing that as the copyright holder you release the image into the public domain.
You can also ask at the Commons Help Desk if you've got any queries on the images.

Hope this helps!--5 albert square (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Image is my own

hello 5 albert aquare, image belong to me,it is no copy right,it is from web,but I do not know which tag I must chose and how to fix it.Can you help me to do this for me.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So the image was actually taken by yourself?--5 albert square (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No Sir, by my daughter with my cammra. and was upload on facebook. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, well the best bet would be to get your daughter to upload the image to Flickr and then get it released under one of the following licenses:
  • Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0
  • Creative Commons Attribution 2.0
Once you've done that if you then go back to Wikimedia Commons to upload it, just select whichever license is appropriate.
I'm afraid I don't know how to upload to Flickr as it's not a website I'm familiar with. I'll ask User:Raintheone and see if he knows.--5 albert square (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ehsan - if your daighter does not already have Flickr - ask her to try and make you one. Then if you get that far - you can upload any images you like there, that you own. A 5 albert square said - you can then choose either of those options upon image uploading. Or you can access your photostream and change the value of the image so it is not copyrighted to yourself afterward.RaintheOne BAM 21:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks of all helping me,file has been made by help of User:Nolelover. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

EE Newsleter June 2011

Hi just asking if you want this newsletter. If not tell me, if yes tell me! MayhemMario 15:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:EE June 2011 Newsletter

Molly Windsor

I am wondering why you revdelled part of Molly Windsor as a copyvio, as only the image used was a copyvio rather than the actual wikitext added to the article. I won't reverse what you did though as what is there is not really useful. This article has had a bit of a history of non free image addition! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah I revdelled it because of the image being an obvious copyvio, I thought that was the best thing to do and kind of erred on the side of caution. Sorry.--5 albert square (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


Are you kidding? Do you great all new users like this?PumpkinSky (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're making changes like that to a BLP you need to provide a reliable source--5 albert square (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean changes "like that" to a BLP? It wasn't insulting or derogatory or anything. All I did was add a fact from the Duke U website that his specialty was artificial intelligence. And you threaten me with a block? Instead of a welcome, I get attacked and threatened by two people after about 4 edits. And all that other guy does is use some tool he calls Huggle to mindlessly revert other users. He doesn't seem to have added any content at all in ages. This is a great way to drive new users away. Why does anyone stay around?PumpkinSky (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Pfalzweyer edits are not about a person. It was about people per square km. What wiki rule does that violate? I see sentences all over wiki with no refs. Why am I being hounded? PumpkinSky (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I dunno about the edits to Pfalzweyer as I've never even heard of that page before. However the edit I reverted on another page you said that the person specialised in something. If you're making claims like that you need to back them up with a reliable source. I wasn't saying that your edits were insulting or derogatory, I've never said that. I just meant that if you're adding information saying someone specialises in something it needs to be backed up.--5 albert square (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I still don't get what "like that" means. For Pfalzweyer, can you look at the edits? Also, keep Nensnema or whatever his name is off my back. In Loveland, NONE of the three paragraphs has a specific ref. Why aren't they removed too? Why just my edit? The fact I put in is from the same "source" already listed. This makes no sense whatsoever.??????? PumpkinSky (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It was reverted because it's an unreferenced statement, you haven't provided proof of where you got the figure of 130 people from. That's why it was reverted.--5 albert square (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the Loveland issues nor what "like that" means. Nor why there are tons of sentences on wiki with no refs but why a brand new user is being singled out instead of welcomed. Logically by what you and Nansema say EVERY sentence in both articles should be removed but weren't. Why? Am I being hounded and stalked? You both claim every sentence needs a ref but your actions and what is in thousands of other articles don't back that up. PumpkinSky (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
By like that I meant when you make edits to change figures etc. Stuff that can be disputed on Wikipedia needs to be backed up by a reliable source so information can be verified. Please read WP:RS and wp:verifiability as they really do explain everything. You're really not being hounded, personally I've been trying to give you some advice. I'm also not saying that every single sentence in Wikipedia needs to be backed up, just stuff that can be disputed. For example I could edit Lothian Buses and say that they're worth £200 million. If I don't provide a reference and you look at the article without knowing anything about the company, how would you know if I was telling the truth or not?
With your edit to Donald Loveland, I've never even heard of the person before tonight. You edited and said that he specialised in something but didn't back it up with a source. Anything that can be challenged must be backed up with a reliable source. As I don't know of the person I don't know if the edit is true or not as I can't verify it, it got reverted--5 albert square (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
That's better but still doesn't explain why in both articles the rest of them, pre-existing, was not removed. By the statements you and nesnema both made they should be. Loveland is especially A-MAZ-ING because the fact I added is in the SAME SOURCE listed already in the article. This is totally inexplicalbe. Yes, you're at least trying to explain and I appreciate that. PumpkinSky (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times, here's one, entire SECTIONS have no ref. Why is this not being removed? PumpkinSky (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:PumpkinSky on Donald W. Loveland

Since the edit was reverted as being in good faith, I don't think bumping up the warning level of his talk page was appropriate. Yes, there has been a lot of hot words, but I don't think that the edits that he's done have gone up to that level of Vandalism.Naraht (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

agreed — Ched :  ?  12:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

semi protected

Trophy.png semi protected
hi could u put semi protected on gervinho page plz JRegan 13:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)