User talk:T0lk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, T0lk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Allefant 17:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the above is just the W-basic template, and I see you are already editing for some weeks and apparently know about the above stuff, but since your talks page was still empty and you seem to be a fellow games fan, I thought I place it here :) --Allefant 17:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Farzam Arbab[edit]

My source was which agrees with your date. So this has probably been a transcription error from my side. Arsenikk (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Mike.JPG[edit]

Image:Mike.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Michael J. Fox Hand Prints.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Michael J. Fox Hand Prints.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

Hello, I wanted to comment on some of your previous edits. You seem to add content without providing sources, and most of it seems to come from Bahaikipedia. As you know, providing sources is one of Wikipedia's key policies (see WP:V). As well using other wikis is not acceptable as they are not reliable sources (see WP:RS). Also comments like "These are the dates on the headstone on her grave, of which I have no idea how to cite" don't make it acceptable to add material that is not cited. I would suggest you spend a little time finding the material you want to add in a book and then using sources that are acceptable and verifiable by Wikipedia standards. In this case I was able to do so with minimal work. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff, will do. T0lk (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


On another point. I wanted to note on some of the content on Bahaikipedia, as I believe you run that site. A fair amount of it seems to come originally from Wikipedia (such as the main Baha'i Faith page). As you know, the content on Wikipedia is under the GFDL, and thus using that content must meet the GFDL conditions, including attributing all the previous authors (see GFDL#Conditions). You should look at how to make Bahaikipedia follow the conditions by following the rules stated at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#License and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, thank you for bringing up the point, as I've looked into the issue a few times but never had a clear idea on it. I'm looking through the pages you've linked now. Regards, T0lk (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Any update on getting Bahaikipedia to meet the terms of the GFDL? Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe it does. Thank you for the interest Jeff. Regards, T0lk (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your current way of just adding a singular reference abides by the terms of the licence. Look at the bottom of this page. For every page that uses Wikipedia content, you need to have such a disclaimer, to make it obvious that wikipedia was not 1 of many references, but that the content was actually taken from Wikipedia. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I agree, I've never found a great way to inform the reader that the material has come from Wikipedia. What I'm doing now is making sure that "publisher=Wikipedia" is listed in all the references, though this isn't a requirement of the license. The most precise set of requirements I was able to find was actually at Wikibooks here: [1]. Regards, T0lk (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that does it. It still looks like one of many references, when in fact it's not that at all. You need to place a notice that is separate from the content as seen with the copyrights oval on the page. Please do this. I don't want to have to escalate the issue to Wikipedia legal. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Let me also note that there are two separate issues; one is references, one is copyright. While Wikipedia may be one of the references of the Bahaikipedia page (which I don't think is actually the case), it's really that the content is taken from Wikipedia which is a copyright issue, which is fundamentally a different issue. For example, could one replicate a book, call it by a different name, and then place the original book as part the references; definitely no. There needs to be a separate and quite visible note stating that the content was taken from the Wikipedia page, and linked to the Wikipedia page. It must not be combined with anything else. The page is the right way to go. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, do what you feel is right but I believe I am following the terms of the GNU license. I would however appreciate a 3rd opinion on the matter. I am open to suggestions from other editors about how to improve the situation. I, and the other editors here appreciate greatly your hard work and I understand if you feel like I'm undermining your work or not accrediting you properly for it, but please don't toss legal threats in so casually especially considering the fact that I am talking with you about the situation, presenting my view, and so-on. Warm regards, T0lk (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, one more thing. What I mean when I say I am open to suggestions is to look for a practical way to do what you are proposing. For example, is there an existing template on Wikipedia or any sister project for this purpose? Would it satisfy you if I moved the links from "references" to "external links"? The only reason I am hesitant to put up a big bold box that says "This is from Wikipedia" is because the whole point of Bahaikipedia is to explain the Baha'i perspective. So the Wikipedia article is the base and then the perspective is changed according to the Baha'i view on the subject. While that has not happened as much as I would have liked, it is very different from just maintaining a copy of the Wikipedia article, like does. Best, T0lk (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's beside the point. A copyright is a copyright. You're using Wikipedia not as a reference, or an external link, you are using it as a copyright, and it deserves to be treated differently. Changing the material somewhat doesn't mean that the copyright is gone. In fact, all changes still have to abide by the copyright. I've asked a Wikipedia admin to comment here. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the initiative on that Jeff. I will wait for his reply. Best, T0lk (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I've placed an example template at User:T0lk/Bahaikipedia. If you place this type of template at the bottom of the pages that were copied from Wikipedia, then that would solve all the problems. It looks like:

Hello, my name is David and I am involved with several collaborative projects about the Bahá'í Faith:

An encyclopedia on the Bahá'í Faith -
News and current events relating to the Bahá'í Faith -
Full text of letters, messages and other miscellaneous items -
Images and media -

My pictures[edit]

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, thank you for creating those. I am now at work but will begin to implement them on all the articles taken from Wikipedia in about 8 hours. Best, T0lk (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, I have begun to implement that here: [2], please tell me what you think. Also, can you please clarify why it is necessary to state the part about the document being licensed under the GNU when in the footer of every page it already says "All text is available... etc". Best, T0lk (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. If you could combine the two statements such that the copyright notice would be at the bottom of the page, that would be great. I'm not sure the Wikimedia software allows such a programmable text in that location of the page. The reason why the GFDL link should be with the link to the page is that it should be clear that the using of the Wikipedia content is a copyright issue. As it is now, the statement is pretty clear, and doesn't really take away notice from anything else, and I think it works well. Thanks, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sure, makes sense. I'll continue to add that notice whenever I have time to edit Bahaikipedia. Best, T0lk (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


It doesn't really matter how a few people voted. The articles I redirected were either completely absent of sources, or used only one unpublished source. Especially for living persons, this is against numerous WP policies. Please return my comment so I can either redirect them again or pursue help from an administrator. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Read over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In particular,

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

The articles I redirected were either poorly sourced, or unsourced. The only source used throughout most of the biographies was a single article that doesn't meet reliability standards. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Henrik's google search[edit]

You appear to have User:Henrik/sandbox/google-search in your monobook.js. It now seems to work in the new Vector skin, should that be of use to you. If so, load the updated code from Henrik's page into your vector.js page, clear the cache, and you should be away. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)