User talk:Wattssw

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

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1marshill.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:1marshill.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Operation-usa.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Operation-usa.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 01:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? OsamaK 01:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page signatures[edit]

If you are going to edit without logging in, you need to sign the account with the IP address using the standard method. You may add your logged in signature as a second signature. It is far to easy for someone to forge a signature. Dbiel (Talk) 20:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: the best way to add or to replace the signature is to log in and add a comment that you are the original author. Simply adding your user name while not logged in make the signature look like a forgery and there is no way to validate it. So please log in before changing an IP signature. Dbiel (Talk) 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I do not know what this is in reference to. Where did I edit without leaving my signature? Wattssw (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have left the referece Note: it may be that your name was being forged. Edit was done by User: but signed manually with your user name Dbiel (Talk) 22:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not done by me, these kids want to add youtube videos of their class playing the guitar with a teacher and this is what has occurred. Can you clear this up?Wattssw (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I spent some time cleaning up the talk page, repairing the various forged signatures and restoring deleted content. Content from article talk pages should not be deleted but they can be archived to remove them from the active page. As far as dealing with edits for unregisted users, there is not a lot that can be done except to revert those that are not acceptable. Blocking users only happens if they are making multiple bad edits at the current point in time. If it is only a few edits a day, administrators are reluctant to block IP addresses. Dbiel (Talk) 01:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much, it would be great to archive that conversation so this isn't a mountain out of a molehill situation. I will leave the page alone, it is in a pretty finalized state.Wattssw (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Some of the edit are really to new to archive. If there are no more edits to the topic in the next 7 days, then I would say that it would be fine to go ahead and archive it. I will start the archive to make archiving easier by archiving the image warning. Dbiel (Talk) 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the assistance, I am simply trying to maintain the integrity of an article I created and have researched. Wattssw (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Your are welcome. Keep up the good work Dbiel (Talk) 02:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question[edit]

Dbiel, I am working on the article Operation USA and use the ref cite web tag for citations. If multiple citations come from the same source, how do I indicate that without the site multiple times in the reference list? If this is not your specialty, I understand, but thought I would ask since you are helpful. Thanks, Wattssw (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

by using ref name=
I did the first one for you, since I have alway found it easier to follow an example than an explaination. See Help:Footnotes for a detailed explaination Dbiel (Talk) 03:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks so much for the example, which I agree is easier than trying to explain, and for clearing up the image problem. Your the man (or woman)! Wattssw (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


I cleaned up the licensing issues with this logo Image:Operation-usa.jpg Dbiel (Talk) 03:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment request: (Start/low) Mars Hill Bible School[edit]

Mars Hill Bible SchoolWithout getting into the NPOV aspects discussed above, I will address the rest of the article. First off, the citation style is solid, and the number of in-text citations is about right. You could add a few more as appropriate. The one that brings this article down, and must be corrected is the overuse of lists. "Academics," "Athletics," "Administration" and "Trivia" are just lists and should be in prose. Fixing this will go a long way to making this article better. — Calebrw (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the input. Wattssw (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you suggest that I simply remove the lists from these topics? For instance, in Academics, instead of
  • In 2006, 50 out of 50 graduates went to college. [2]
  • Median composite ACT score for 2006 graduates was 25, with 42% scoring over 26.[3]
  • Bible is a daily class for all students and passing this class is required for graduation.
  • Chapel attendance is required daily for all students.

You prefer In 2006, 50 out of 50 graduates went to college. [2]The median composite ACT score for this class was 25, with 42% scoring over 26.[3] Daily chapel services and Bible class are required by all students to graduate.

Is there a discussion of this somewhere else? It seems that Athletics ought to remain as a list. I want to make it as correct as possible to agreed upon standards, but is this an agreed upon standard? I really appreciate the help on making this a better article, regards Wattssw (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation USA - GA review[edit]

Noticed the post you made at User talk:Gimmetrow. There is one point that confuses me. You wrote:

Hi, a coworker (I do not work for OPUSA) reviewed the page and process for GA qualification and felt it qualified and altered the discussion page.

I did the initial review but did not feel qualified to do a formal review. User: edited the GA header. Is this the coworker you are talking about? The problem with his edit is the fact that he failed to document any review of the article and based on only having made 9 edits to Wikipedia would not be qualified to do so anyway. GA reviews should be done by registered users with a history of article reviews. I notice that Gimmetrow fixed some technical syntax problems with his edit to the header but also did not make any review comments, which is why I posted the question on this talk page. After my post, I noticed that he started to review the article and made several edits, but has not take the next step of posting his review of the article. What is need is for someone qualified to post a formal review. I am not sure if the article does not does not meet GA standards; and you did fix the issue I listed in my review. Gimmetrow fixed a bunch of other little problems I did not notice. So the article is definately moving in the right direction. We just need someone else to take the time and actually review it and post the review comments. Until that is done, the article can not be considered to be GA class. Dbiel (Talk) 06:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, based on other GA nominees, I don't think anything else is required in terms of a formal review. The key is that multiple unrelated persons independently reviewed the article and, based on the policies of Wikipedia, found it acceptable. I look forward to additional reviews or suggestions on article improvement, however I don't think you should discount your own ability to determine whether or not a small, well documented article meets certain specific criteria. Also, a page can receive GA status and still be improved at a later date. I really appreciate your help on this (and Gimmetrow, whoever that is). Wattssw (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that only ONE person, me has actually make any indication that they have reviewed the article (except for yourself, an your involvement with the article does not permit you to review it) If the others that have "reviewed" the article with post their findings on the review page, it would make a big difference. Just editing it, does not mean they have reviewed it. Dbiel (Talk) 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will try to get some others to post a review to satisfy this criteria. Thanks for the assistance,Wattssw (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of F.O.S.I.[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated F.O.S.I., an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.O.S.I.. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of F.O.S.I.[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on F.O.S.I., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Pcap ping 05:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Louis Ignarro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Boyer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

File:3letter.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:3letter.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:47, 2 April 2012 (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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Wattssw. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)