User talk:Mineralè/archive01

hi

Image:Abramoff.JPG[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that you placed a {{copyvio}} tag on this image. If you want to have the image reviewed for copyright problems, make sure you follow the instructions for images at WP:CP#Instructions, including adding the page to the WP:CP list and notifying the uploader.

Also, although I am not the uploader, I would point out that the text in the Summary on this image and also in the article engages in "critical commentary" on the image (the hat which Abramoff was wearing, and what it reflects about him was the subject of a magazine article). Thus its intended use is for a purpose different from the other images you cited, and is not solely for identification. KWH 17:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help[edit]

There are various things wrong with the page. <ref>[http://www.tuttle-ok.gov/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BCC5DEFB6-1B2A-4783-A5F8-A92275C95081%7D "The City of Tuttle is broken since you have the ref tag but then it appears to cut off half way through "The City of Tuttle and there is no close tag for the ref. You also appear to have put line breaks in which aren't needed, so The university which is not appearing as a wikilink is because you have the opening [[ tag on one line and then a line break before the corresponding close... --pgk^(talk) 19:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Wolf[edit]

Just to let you know, the outcome of the deletion debate was delete. I noticed that someone suggested you should put this on [Page|Wikinews], I think that's an excellent idea, firstly because this is a very interesting subject, and secondly because Wikinews is a better place for current events that don't have huge amounts of media coverage. --bainer (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viiv and DRM[edit]

No I don't work for Intel. I just read articles and object to Vivv being slated as DRM in a chip just because you/others are angry at Intel or anti-DRM. The choice of DRM is the content providers not Viiv. Viiv just enables content to remain protected. If you want to download divx via bittorrent on it then you can - I think this should be made clear if we are going to have a balanced article

You sould take note of the article you pointed me to. "In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly." I aim to stop people deleting stuff that doesn't match their angry anti-drm bias. I fully 100% support DRM because I am a musician as feel I should be the one that controls licencing and what I think is fair use of my work 62.3.70.68 22:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alternatives to simply rv[edit]

Sometimes you should not just revert a page. Especially when other people edit in the middle of the edit you want to revert. please check the edit history. If you wanted to remove the POV you could rephrase the section or just edit the section and delete it. But don't just revert. your revert [1] undid my edit. It also appears the user you reverted put a lot of effort into his edits. please remember WP:BITE I haven't actually evaluated his edits so i don't know if he is a newbie or not. When reverting is is best to leave some of the users contributions in the article so they don't feel their voice is not even considered--E-Bod 00:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting Viiv information that has full evidence with stated sources? Do you delete everything that is has positive elements about Apple products and accuse the authors of working for the company? I suggest you read more about Viiv and look at the roadmap for Viiv 1.5 before you rev edits and accuse me of not having NPOV - or edit the DRM section with your own evidence that I am wrong 62.3.70.68 05:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Not Commenting on the issue (Not because of neutrality but because i just don't have time to)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

~~I am giving this warning to both of you in order to be fair~~ even though I do believe only one of you deserve it

--E-Bod 06:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the 3RR rule applies only if 4 or more edits are made within a span of 24 hours. I do not believe more than one edit was made under 24 hours Mineralè 06:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry about the warning. I have ~~striked~~ it out now. I was just annoyed that when I checked the edit history the page was reverted several times. Sometimes it is better for the page to say wrong for a while and to be fixed later when tings cool down than for editors to fix it themselves. When i saw the edit history it looked like the other user spent allot of time editing the article and then you just undid it all with the click of a few buttons. I don't think you were any longer paying attention to what you were reverting because you reverted my edit when you reverted the other editors edit. My AWB white space edit probably make it more difficult to tract the changes. I wasn't expecting it to be caught in the middle of an edit war where it would matter. I Put the warning on your page because i put it on the other user's page because i didn't want to see the article change back and forth so Manny times. I put the waring on your page only so that if the other person objected i can say i warned both people. I guess I shouldn't have warned both of you so I crossed out my waring to you. I just wanted to remind you guys that it is not favorable to redo and and sections of an article repeatedly. sorry.--E-Bod 20:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I actually read the edit. Before I was just commenting that nether of you should have reverted more than once. Both of you actually reverted only once so you haven't Violated the 3RR but the 3RR does not entitle you to 3 reverts its just says don't get into an edit war and if you do we put the cutoff at 3. I had striked your warning because when i quickly glanced it looked like a few people reverted the other user's edits but not I see that only one person reverted your edits. so it isn't as one sided an issue as i though. I will make both your warnings equlual but that's besides the point the message is to each of you individually. just because the other person reverts more than you doesn't mean you can revert an equal amount and be OK. Now and I can't even see the difference between. Mineralè should use the page's talk page.

And Just for the heck of it. My suggestion is to Have one section explaining the POV of why it is good and another section explaining the POV why it is bad. If you want you can make it in the a sub page like Viiv/Sandbox and after you both agree on something include it in the article. regardless of which edit is better nether of you should have reverted more than once. You guess didn't revert several times in one day so my warning was premature. But Just for that reason Don't keep reverting. The better article isnt't the one with the most dedicated revert it is the one that the users compromise one. With lots of Conflicting POV's the articles will balance into a NPOV article. Remember this is just a Silly wikipidia article.--E-Bod 22:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to External References[edit]

Regarding your change to Groklaw, the link you added doesn't work...the infrastructure for resolving <ref> isn't present. Clicking the [1] link doesn't take me to slashdot or to somewhere else in the Groklaw page that does take me to slashdot. DMacks 15:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Beast3.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Beast3.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Zarqawi-large.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Zarqawi-large.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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. 04:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Helpme[edit]

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back on this page so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the Wikipedia Bootcamp IRC channel to get real-time help. (Use the web-based client to get instant access.) --Pilo t|guy 22:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added what should be the appropriate tag to the image. If you need any additional assistance just let me know. --Pilo t|guy 22:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vojvodina[edit]

I would really like to hear what you meant about that Vojvodina. How about you tell me now? :) --HolyRomanEmperor 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing on talk pages.[edit]

Please remember to sign on talk pages (like Talk:Mac OS X) - it helps everybody know your position and will assist when they wish to contact you on Wikipedia matters. Just use four tildes! :)–- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Sorry about not responding promptly, I was looking for an answer to your question.

Also, please only use {{helpme}} on your user page or talk page.

What kind of infobox did you want to create? —D-Rock 04:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Commander Keane has responded on Talk:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Let me know if I can not help you again. ;) —D-Rock 04:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are an IDIOT[edit]

"The picture has been on my web site ... for over 6 years now" (worse) Truth:

http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/1080/1821013604561985755_rs.jpg http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/353/1786056592211859902_rs.jpg (see modify time)

(Worst) Linkspam! Thank you very much, I'll be here all week —Mineralè 2006-07-14 07:21Z

Oh my GOD. Don't BE A DUMB ASS WITH YOUR META INFO! Like that can't be changed. You're a dumb ass, really.

Hey DUMB ASS, why don't you use this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011212050343/www.wbglinks.net/pages/watchmen.shtml

Again, WIKI full of thieves and nothing more. And an idiot with lame meta skillz.

"See modify time", what a jerk you are.

Good job, Sherlock.

Copyright problems with Image:JohnMarkKarr.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded, Image:JohnMarkKarr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

User:Zoe|(talk) 01:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand fair use, I also understand copyright, and an image that has a clear copyright claim on it does not fall under fair use. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples - A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles. . That's pretty clear about what should not be used, as well as what can be used. The images you want deleted are iconic, the image you want kept violates Fair use. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks have gone beyond the pale. I suggest you desist, now. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am an admin. Not saying this to brag or to make threats, but to let you know that I do not come here to "play whackamole". I take Wikipedia very seriously, and feel that copyright violations are very serious, indeed. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm having a hard time following this what with the split discussion but I don't see how the Image:JohnMarkKarr.jpg is either iconic or a good fair use candidate in any other sense. Is the suggestion that there does not ecist a single PD image, because that seems strange. - brenneman ^{L} 03:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a bit of exprerience in fair use questions just wanted to chime in here with User:Aaron Brenneman and say that User:Zoe is absolutely correct about not being able to use this image under "fair use". (→Netscott) 03:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing copyvio tags will get you blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:John Mark Karr1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:John Mark Karr1.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:John Mark Karr1.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded, Image:John Mark Karr1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

User:Zoe|(talk) 00:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand fair use at all, do you? First, it's a copyrighted image and not iconic, second the image doesn't exist on the page you pointed to, and third it was used in the JonBenet Ramsey article, so even if it were acceptable fair use, it would be unacceptable fair use in that image. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]