This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
2023; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
May I know the reason why do you remove the proper license that i provided in the pic??? Dey subrata ( talk)
I disagree with your assessment. There is no free alternative image, so the one in the article is better than none. Please also see: WP:DTR. I won't remove the warning template, but I an adult enough to agree to disagree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk · contribs). Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This has been on my mind for a while. So I searched your talk page archive and noticed the question has been asked before here. Has anything changed for the better in the past two years? I think it would help you with your work immensely. Alex Shih ( talk) 00:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advise on the DFRG logo. Everything you said makes sense re copyright versus trademark. I'll attempt to follow your example in the future. I will be uploading several other logos for use in articles. Apologies for any inconvenience I caused by not getting it right the first time. ( Condorman ( talk) 07:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC))
You removed an image from my user page because it was "not free"? I used an image I found that was uploaded to Wikipedia, so shouldn't it be okay to use it? Kingerikthesecond ( talk) 10:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks for the answer. Kingerikthesecond ( talk) 12:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Virginia Tech College of Architecture and Urban Studies logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Whiie the multiple infractions are duly noted regarding stills and screenshots I thought would help illustrate certain articles, I feel I should not stand corrected on anything I did not do. Another user/editor had already uploaded the KTVT morning newscast screenshot prior to any of my recent screenshot additions. That particular warning should go to him, not me. Shaggylawn65 ( talk) 15:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, since you seem to know what you're talking about, I'd like to ask for your advice. My discussion with User:Kwamikagami has stalled due to his WP:Status quo stonewalling. In other words, you chose the version without my Dietrich section as Status Quo (even though it had stood for 1 year), and after initial discussion, he decided it was a 'waste of time' and has become unwilling to participate. I plan to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard in the near future and see where it goes from there. However, I've made some changes to my section in the meantime. Could I tentatively put up my improved section without edit warring? Is it only edit warring if I revert it back after its reverted? Also, I'd be interested in any other thoughts you have to offer on this matter. Thanks in advance, arigatou gozaimasu. Xcalibur ( talk) 06:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
[[User:Kwamikagami]]
to your original post, you were basically
WP:PINGing kwami about the discussion; so, for future reference, you shouldn't do that kind of thing if you don't someone to know you're asking about them. Even it such a case, however, all of your edits (including ones made to talk pages) are visible in your
contibution's history; so, pretty much anyone can see where and what your posting if they want to. Whether the person your discussing responds is up to them, but there's really no way to keep you posts secret from them. My comment about "stick to commenting on the relevant content and refrain from commenting on each other" was just meant as general advice and not really directed at anything you posted in particular. Discussions often get heated, especially when both sides seem quite firm in their resolve that they are the one who's right; so, if you ever feel the urge to slam the other person because they really deserve to be slammed,
WP:DOGGY instead. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 07:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot ( talk) 17:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
well sir maybe you need to tel these people to not try to block my own freedom of expression and then do things that all of a sudden they wanna do because I already did them and APPROPRIATING things that they didn't even bother to do themselves...things I DID and researched and put my time on for hours....so It's unfair for you to give me threats of blocking for someone who is actually CONTRIBUTING...am I putting false info? am i messing up an article on purpose? hmmm? no i'm not but I just personally find my way of doing these tables proper and others before me have done them similarly...so just because he or others do them differently doesn't mean it's wrong ...you people have a big problem with plagiarism, other people take their time to do the hard work and research and others who does things differently take YOUR WORK OR IDEAS and use them for themselves...so if you're going to take that guy's side over the one whose actually done the work of some of these articles then there's a serious problem right there...this is a complain I hear alot from wikipedia....people like to abuse their admin power or go complain about that ACTUALLY do the work and because they're too lazy or stupid to do them properly they gotta bash cause they didn't com up with themselves to do them right? does that seem fair to you? now no one taught me how to do articles here...I had to learn that myself by lots of trial and error..and yes I read some articles in the way to do some edits here..but trial and error is just that...the more mistakes you make the more you learn from them. no ones is perfect but I didn't put my hard work into this for other to go crying to an admin just because they didn't do it right themselves..I think that's the real issue...maybe you should look up peoples contributions to articles and see if we purposely messed up articles...yes I said we cause theres more than one at times...but we, I do the articles I like or care about with the intention to make them better, not ess them up, ok so he does things differently in tables...that's good for him but most people would agree so far the way I do the tables is majority accepted otherwise I'd had people complaining left and right that i'm purposely messing it up...there's a difference with making editing mistakes especially if you're not that experienced or because you type fast etc etc, we all make mistakes in editing and between purposely wanting to mess them up, it seems to me difference of opinion thing to me...so let's not blame the ones doing the hard work putting hours at a time (not getting paid for this mind you) and focus on the ones who purposely wanna mess up articles..I don't troll articles to purposely mess them up and others don't either...some prob do to be immature and stupid, we re not like that but what I won't accept is someone telling me how I should do my editing on tables i'm pretty knowledgeable on and took the time to go looking for articles for some references etc etc...there's even things I found out on my own to make the tables efficient..that guy and others never even took the time to expiriment and not realize that by putting some articles in a certain way, doing spaces between words etc etc that you can save ALOT of space and still be able to put all you need on them...they most of your editors took the time to do that hmmm? I hardly think so...take a look at my GEFORCE 900, 1000, 2000 and volta series contributions...does that look like we're trying to mess up an article or trying to improve it best as possible hmmm? maybe you should listen to both sides of this argument...giving us threats for doing the hard work is not only unfair is one sided, biased even, just because the ones who didn't take the time or effort to do the hard editing work and they wished they would be the ones who came up with it does not mean they can go cry to mama, an admin and complain because they weren't the ones who came up with doing them first, taking my hard editing work and claiming it as their own...yeah no....now I want to inspire people to do them like mine and i inspired many to do so..but not someone taking my way of doing things and then claiming it as their own and then trying to get us blocked ...for what ? for doing a great job that others couldn't do or think of doing first? lol...maybe the higher ups above you don't know you're acting biased when you should act based on merit and hard work....our editing work, cause there's more than one of us speak for themselves, if the only thing some of these editors are complaining about is because they haven't thought of the idea or way of editing first, that's not our problem, I care about the articles here, we put hard work into this, listen to reason, but i'm not gonna be told how to do my own edits that others wanna try to take credit off and tell me not to do them and then STEAL my way of doing things and claim them as their won? lol thats plagiarism, he and others can the editing how they wanna do it, I do it how I wanna do it if we can't agree on something..no harm done, all he and others have to do is just let us do our thing and they either do it their own way or get inspired by us and do them the same way themselves but they haven't some of them, some just wanna steal other peoples hard work and claim them as their own, not cool..how's that for an argument? maybe if he and others wouldn't stop messing articles up we wouldn't need to get rude at times...he should just mind his own business and let us do our work and he can do it his own way if he likes but the thing is majority rules and sure as hell most editors in wikipedia would agree with how we do editing here, i know sure as hell we inspired many to do them the same way and others have done them like i have before we wevn done them, they inspired us to make them better, we re supposed to inspire each other to make them better not hinder the other and then take their hard work and claim them as their own and then go nagging to an admin just because they do the edits differently, some of these people who complain to an admi are taking OUR HARD WORK and claiming them as their? like wth... all that calculation or makin the tables as efficient as possible and conserving as much space as possible ...you think it's fair others like ionpike claim them as their own hmm? did we get any money or gratitude for our hard work? noooope and if we was to go to a competitor website to wikipedia or if we had the manpower to make a competitor to wikipedia well that wouldn't be good cause you'd be losing pretty good editors like us how about focusing on the ones who complain and steal other peoples hard work that come crying to an admin just because they don't like others who do a better job at it, making them because they wished they'd came up with it themselves hmm? how about you focus on that...that's our argument...and i'm being as respectful as possible..just let these editors let US do it our way and they can do it their way if they like ...if we can't find common ground, but the thing is if our edits were bad we d be hearing from admins all the time that we re messing it up...now another thing to point out, i noticed a lot of hypocrasy (i know I spelled it wrong lol), some make mistakes on edits and then when we make mistakes and then we get blamed for the whole thing being messed up? lol what's that all about...people make editing mistakes ..it's called trial and error and if we don't know or have the time to fix it we say if anyone can fix it for us, fix it but not change or alter the article in a big way...we all amde editing mistakes...but it doesn't mean we re trying to purposely harm it lol, our contributions here speak for themselves....just look at the damn geforce articles we contributed on for christ sakes, does that look like people who want to improve it or harm the website hmmm? if we had all the time in the world (cause we have lives and jobs, school and lives too lol) we'd fix all the sections in the nvidia graphics card articles but we don't lol....we wish but we don't have that time and I believe by improving the few articles we have done so far and making it the best we can on them that then we can expand our way of doing these tables on other sections of this article...so you see me we re not the bad guys here but we hate being harassed by some who not only don't appreciate our hard work but want to claim them as their own and go nagging to admin to block them? like seriously come on now, whose the one contributing and whose the one complaining to an admin, tying to get them blocked and then claiming the work that we done for themselves and putting their own little twist on it?...that's "plagiarism" if I'm not mistaken...thank you have an nice day, don't block us...we contribute greatly here (FOR FREE), focus on the haters and the ones who wanna take credit for our work and claim them as their own. 68.193.153.95 ( talk) 13:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm contacting you regarding edits about the File:MCDungeons.svg and its usage on articles. It is intended to be used on the Draft:Minecraft: Dungeons, but since it is a non-free image, it can't be put on the draft at this time. Now, the file has been put up for deletion by Wednesday, October 24, 2018, and I'd like to ask if the file can be retained on this site until the draft for Minecraft: Dungeons becomes an article in the mainspace. Thanks, 101blazertrail ( talk) 23:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
But you really need to work on avoiding information overload. The only thing better than a correct answer, is an answer that is both correct and concise. GMG talk 01:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
All Chico Heat logos were used by the Heat franchise on two separate occasions. All are displayed proudly on the Chico Heat for historical purposes only and may NOT be removed for ANY reason. NostalgiaBuff97501 ( talk) 18:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Just to say thank you for your final discussion of why the page for St Peter School was rejected. Your detailed explanation was helpful for me as I could share it with my Principal and the School Board as a way of explanation. Thanks again. -- ALB ( talk) 14:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)