User talk:Mrnitpicker

Your actions on St. John Publications page

I've posted explanations and warnings, which you've chosen to ignore, on the St. John Publications talk page.

Your edits are inappropriate, inaccurate, and contrary to Wikipedia policy.

I am reposting my comments here:

Deleted inappropriate self-aggrandisement
[edit]

An unregistered [sic] person added, to the head of the article, "Most of the information contained in this article was taken directly from Ken Quattro's extensive and far more detailed article, Archer St. John and the Little Company That Could [1]."
First, that source was duly and properly credited under References right from the very beginning. Second, having created this page and going to great lengths to find other, confirming sources — as well as independently and solely creating a bibliography from scratch using often-contradictory sources — that statement is not only self-aggrandizing, it is inaccurate. -- Tenebrae 21:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding inappropriate comments
[edit]

It Rhymes with Lust is not copyrighted by Ken Quattro. Its image is not exclusive to him, and if you want to get technical, what right did he have to put it on a commercial website himself?
If this behavior, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy, continues, I'm going to report you to the Admin and have you blocked. -- Tenebrae 21:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

All information on Wikipedia comes from other sources; that makes the St. John Pubs. article no different from any other, and all the sources, not just yours, were linked-to in the References section from the start.

Every word in this entry is my original writing; you imply plagiarism by putting your notice at the head of the article, yet the article contains no phrases from any other work.
It distills a long and highly detailed history of the company into a few concise paragraphs of original writing.
It draws from a variety of listed sources as well as other Wikipedia artricles (such as Matt Baker) to, in the intro, encapsulate the company's firsts in a way the comicvilleart piece does not, and, in the history, adds many details the comicartville piece does not.
And finally, it includes a bibliograpy constructed from various contradictory sources, a bibliography constructed with my own sweat and hours — all of this, working anonymously, done not for credit or self-aggrandizement, but as an unnamed volunteer to help write an enyclopedia. If you'd wanted to write a St. John article from scratch as I did, nothing was stopping you.

I will now explain all this to an Admin for appropriate action. -- Tenebrae 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did not realize you were newcomer

In which case, let me welcome you, and offer a few good links:

If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Simplified Ruleset
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Wikipedia Glossary
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Good luck and good Wiki-ing -- Tenebrae 15:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CC of comments just posted on St. John Publications article

No misappropriation

I guess I did not realize, User:Mrnitpicker, that you're new to Wikipedia. I urge you to read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, in particular [No Original Research].

Also, I not only list Mr. Quattro's article, but if you had actually gone to the reference, you would have seen that it does link to the article.

Additionally, the entire section is NOT "taken from his article and nowhere else". Information came from there highly edited, condensed and in my own words; a huge section on Archer St. John's early life got condensed to four sentences. And if you want to look closely and compare, you'll note that in addition to the Quattro piece, I either listed or linked to Alter Ego magazine, the Grand Comics Database, a Joe Kubert site, and more. Finally, I'd like to ask what you mean by "misappropriation": Did I plagiarize? Did I not credit my sources? Did I try to claim something as my original research? The answer is no.

I have added a welcome note to your Talk page, which has useful links to Wikipedia policies and other important information. I hope you have a chance to look at them, and that they inspire you to become a productive, working member of our community. Thanks -- Tenebrae 15:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Lustwiki.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lustwiki.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 02:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 02:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]