User talk:Darklight1138

Please stop

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Friday (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You justify your lacking claims which I doubt you can. Until then, I will continue to add what I think is relevant to my town.

The photoshoots undertaken by the group added have brought significant attention to certain historic landmarks and provide a photo essay history of some of the more interesting locations. Darklight1138 19:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has content policies

Asking other editors to "butt out" is unhelpful. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for anyone to write whatever they want. All content is expected to be verifiable. If you continue to add inappropriate content, you could be blocked from editing. Friday (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying something is "nonsense" without justification is just as unhelpful.

The link is verifiable as it contains information relevant to Spartanburg as well as the places described in the article.

You cannot arbitrarily delete informatin without specifying why.

Maybe nonsense isn't the best word. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your website. See Wikipedia:External links for further explanation. Friday (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my website. I do not pay the bandwidth bills nor do I add content or have any control over it. Editors such as yourself should not make false assumptions when you do not have all the information.

Fair enough. Wikipedia is not the place to promote that website, regardless of who owns it. I assumed a conflict of interest since you made the Slobot article and also linked to the site from another article. My apologies for the wrong assumption. Friday (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about promotion. Its there for the same reason the other links are there, to provide more about the subject outside of wikipedia. It goes into detail about the history of Spartanburg while providing photos, alot of them in context with subjects within the article!

If you're going to delete that link, why have any outside links? You still have not justified its deletion.

It is not incumbent upon Friday to prove the link's deletion should be justified. You have added the link repeatedly and it is your job to prove that it is encyclopedic. You have violated the 3-revert rule and could be blocked at any time. Since you seem to be a new user, we are giving you some grace. But you'll have to convince the community that the link is a worthy addition on the talk page BEFORE you add it again, or you'll likely be blocked from editing.Pollinator 05:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS ONE MERE LINK! It serves as an archive to the NEWSPAPER'S ONLINE SITE GoUpstate.com, which posts THESE SAME PICTURES on their site but lacks an archive...not that I expect you people to actually research that before hitting your mighty delete key. The editor has made false assumptions, also made more than three reverts, and has partaken in what Wikipedia considers 'Lamest edit wars'. The pictures on the site are extremely important as they provide photographic and historic information, and it is quite obvious has inspired the new look and content of the Spartanburg page.

The problem is that you people see a link, fail to research it, and delete it arbitrarily. You do not realize the importance of the link in relation to the subject and what the subject is about. Again, it is just ONE MORE link!

Again Pollinator fails to follow up. Typical. Darklight1138 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

With regards to your comments on User talk:Hagerman: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. WODUP 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Walnut grove manor.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Walnut grove manor.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Qtst.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Qtst.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]