User talk:JzG/Archive 75
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:JzG. 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. |
| Archive 70 | ← | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
Your assistance please...
You concluded the {{afd}} for Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam.
Could you confirm my recollection that I was the sole author of the intellectual content of that article?
Could you email me the source text of the article?
If the contribution history is complicated enough that a brief look is not sufficient to determine whether all the edits to the article made by others were merely copy-editing, or adding meta-data, could you also make a listing of the contribution history, and email that to me, so the material can be re-used elsewhere while complying with the obligation to attribute all contributors?
Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. You have mail. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wifey's World (second nomination), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 10:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. As an editor of this article, back in 2008, you may be interested to know I've nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Wade. Robofish (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Revert book removal William Crookes
Hi, I saw you removed a book from a full text library that I and other editors have been using over the last few years. I have re-added it as I do not see any grounds for removal and the books on that website are even listed in the UPenn booklist as resources. Please confer before removing books used as sources. Thanks Gem-fanat (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's a commercial site. If the text is available free then upload it to Wikisource or Project Gutenberg. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- that does not make any sense. There are thousands of references and external links to commercial sites and/or not all information on commercial sites are uploaded to wikisource or Gutenberg. That is a completely arbitrary approach and quite frankly the first time I have heard from an admin (if that is what you are) that that should be the rule. Furthermore it is not my task to start uploading books on any site just to be able to reference to them or list them. Please show me the wikipedia page that points out such rules and I will stick to that. Just added another source on amethyst which is also a commercial organization. Also a reference site. And not worth it to start a whole debate about books or not. If you don't want the book in, fine with me. Gem-fanat (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If the work is out of copyright, upload it to a free site that hosts out of copyright material, not a site t is selling stuff. Wikipedia does not exist to drive traffic to vendors. Guy (Help!) 06:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I"ll check it out. I never said it existed to drive traffic to vendors nor do I participate in that and I'd appreciate a less derogatory tone, one would expect most editors would know that if they'd been doing it for a couple of years. I can add a few more comments but I really just want to move on. It's a serious waste of my time. Gem-fanat (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- You appear to be labouring under a significant number of misconceptions which I won't "waste your time" by pointing out. Suffice it to say, Wikipedia is part of the free content movement, there has always been a preference for sourcing free text from free content sites like Gutenberg or Wikisource. It's obvious enough when you think about it: any commercial organisation could get monster Google ratings by uploading free content and then linking from here, but that would favour the commercial organisation. Free content sites do not have the commercial imperative, they are about sharing not profiting, so that's why we prefer those sites and always have. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, you have a point there. Gem-fanat (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, and I hope you will pardon my notorious abruptness. The orange box always pops up when I am right in the middle of something, and I can never ignore the damn thing. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- At the risk of it happening again ;-)... no problem!. Gem-fanat (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, and I hope you will pardon my notorious abruptness. The orange box always pops up when I am right in the middle of something, and I can never ignore the damn thing. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, you have a point there. Gem-fanat (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- You appear to be labouring under a significant number of misconceptions which I won't "waste your time" by pointing out. Suffice it to say, Wikipedia is part of the free content movement, there has always been a preference for sourcing free text from free content sites like Gutenberg or Wikisource. It's obvious enough when you think about it: any commercial organisation could get monster Google ratings by uploading free content and then linking from here, but that would favour the commercial organisation. Free content sites do not have the commercial imperative, they are about sharing not profiting, so that's why we prefer those sites and always have. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I"ll check it out. I never said it existed to drive traffic to vendors nor do I participate in that and I'd appreciate a less derogatory tone, one would expect most editors would know that if they'd been doing it for a couple of years. I can add a few more comments but I really just want to move on. It's a serious waste of my time. Gem-fanat (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If the work is out of copyright, upload it to a free site that hosts out of copyright material, not a site t is selling stuff. Wikipedia does not exist to drive traffic to vendors. Guy (Help!) 06:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- that does not make any sense. There are thousands of references and external links to commercial sites and/or not all information on commercial sites are uploaded to wikisource or Gutenberg. That is a completely arbitrary approach and quite frankly the first time I have heard from an admin (if that is what you are) that that should be the rule. Furthermore it is not my task to start uploading books on any site just to be able to reference to them or list them. Please show me the wikipedia page that points out such rules and I will stick to that. Just added another source on amethyst which is also a commercial organization. Also a reference site. And not worth it to start a whole debate about books or not. If you don't want the book in, fine with me. Gem-fanat (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)