User talk:Wikiscient

.

Archives

Archive One
Archive Two

Re:Pornstar

Thank you for the pornstar!

To be honest, I had considered nominating that article for deletion becuase it had a lack of content. But I decided that it was legitimate, and now it's on its way. Thank you again, and take care! --Delta1989 (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, np! ;) Wikiscient 18:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Hilary Mantel

The photo (Image:HilaryMantel.jpg) you uploaded for the Hilary Mantel article is clearly a normal photo, taken from a third-party website; but you've described it as a "scan of a newspaper page or article" in the fair-use rationale. Doesn't seem to match up? --VinceBowdren (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I suppose I loosely interpreted the word "scan" when choosing which "licensing" tag to use...

Worse, though, is that that tag also says:

Note: If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image. Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed.

Oops.

So I'm going to nominate the file for deletion and try to find a usuable image somewhere else.

Thanks for pointing this issue out to me, though! :S Wikiscient 18:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:HilaryMantel.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HilaryMantel.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Wikiscient 18:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time for this...

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Awarded for reverting tons and tons of vandalism. Even with that conflict a couple weeks back, you're still a good vandal fighter, even though you've slowed down a small bit. ConCompS (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw, shucks, ConCompS!

Thanks! --Wikiscient 21:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes was Wrong

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sherlock Holmes was Wrong, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Sherlock-Holmes-Was-Wrong/Pierre-Bayard/e/9781596916050. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, bot was wrong... Wikiscient 11:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Isabel (film)

No later than yesterday I was told by another user to remove my comment because it was too POV and now you want to reinstate it, I love Wikipedia but I am getting a bit tired of all these do's and dont's !!! --Marleau (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Referring to these edits to the Isabel (film) article -- yes, I saw that you were removing "unsourced" material from the article, which is usually "justifiable" if there is some good reason to remove it so I did not just revert those edits as "unexplained deletion of content."

Yes, though, "wikipolicy" can be a bit confusing for all involved, especially when trying to apply it on-the-fly doing "vandal patrol"!

But frankly I think the edits you (as "76.67.161.22") removed here -- if they were yours (as "Marleau") to begin with and were "valid" -- ought to be restored!

Wikiscient 16:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits were mine, I must have logged myself out by mistake, but since the comments are available through the link for people interested in knowing more about the film, I think I will just leave it as it is for the moment to avoid further misunderstanding. Thanks ! --Marleau (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Geeza

Easy there, shipmate - you sure you're warning the right person? I'm one of the good guys! --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 18:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies -- meant to hit "the bad guys" lol ;) (though with this page, it looks like it's ALL vandalism...!) Wikiscient 18:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries - in the war on vandalism, blue on blue is inevitable. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 18:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your signature

I'd be grateful if you'd give Wikipedia:SIG#Customizing_your_signature a good hard read, checking out especially injunctions such as "Your signature should ...inconvenience or annoy other editors", or suggestions that signatures should " not give undue prominence to a given user's contribution".

And then take a look at this RD conversation [1] in which your signature appears multiple times, to very great annoyance.

Why do you need to tart up your signature to annoy in this way? Is your ego so fragile that you need this sort of star billing wherever you leave your thoughts? Please, get a grip and tone it down by several notches. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe some of your comments above constitute a clear violation of WP:NPA. As you appear to be quite the experienced editor, I'm sure this one warning should suffice to discourage you from such behavior from now on.

That said: I do, in fact, agree with you about the point you were making re. my signature. The specific RD conversation you refer to is, it turns out, the first time I have made so many comments so close (on the page) to each other, and seeing my signature repeated so densely in that conversation actually annoyed me, too! I had, therefore, decided to give some thought to changing my signature – and would probably be working on that right now had I not become distracted by your rather misplaced and unconstructive edits on my talk page! So, I fear, I must therefore risk further annoying you thus: Wikiscient 17:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you fancy pointing to exacgtly which part of my comment constitutes a personal attack. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, at the moment, no. But I'd be happy to ask an arbitrator to point that out for you if after a bit of effort you still cannot manage to discern it on your own... Wikiscient 17:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As you like. If you're not yourself prepared to back up your rather odd assertion, then do so. It seems to be a fatuous waste of other people's time to me, but it's your call. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No,no. I definitely agree!

Wikiscient (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Catholic Church. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.68.42.27.164 (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)