Jump to content

User talk:Ernie at Tedium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Stick Fig)
Hi, Stick Fig, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay.

You may want to read about the Five pillars of Wikipedia and simplified ruleset.

If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions.

For help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style.

If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ.

If you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)!

There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library.

Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal.

Feel free to post questions on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.

If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you. You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.

You may want to add yourself to the new user log.

If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

On IRC, check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.

If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing. —Kf4bdy talk contribs

PS: This is not a bot and you did nothing to prompt this message. This is just a friendly welcome by a fellow Wikipedian.

Involvement

[edit]

Here are some ways to get involved in Wikipedia:


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar
None

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

—Kf4bdy talk contribs

Thanks for the advice

[edit]

I usually run my edits through a word program to check the spelling and grammar, I must have forgotten this time. Thanks for the reminder.Dhawk1964 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My Fred Durst "early life" bio

[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to go through and edit the bio. I wrote the entire thing at once, so there were bound to have been errors, I just wanted to get the information down at the time. I don't see any problems with it, and I think you did a good job. --Yayza 22:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limp Bizkit/Fred Durst

[edit]

Citation "Limp Bizkit is not Linkin Park. Limp Bizkit is rapcore and nu metal horever Linkin Park is nu metal and rapcore. Understand?"

No, you're being stupid and nitpicky. Stop it. - Stick Fig 15:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a citation, Mr.IP, you said that yourself, therefor it is OR. Sorry about responding to a message in your talk page Stick Fig --Wildnox 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, man. This edit war is just getting silly. - Stick Fig 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

[edit]

AIV is only for reporting obvious vandalism that is in progress. Try WP:RFI or WP:ANI. Your report has been removed from AIV. alphaChimp laudare 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly problem users

[edit]

Please Stick Fig, find a way to ban Lucpol and his sockpuppets from wiki. He's only disturbing me and admins, and tries to slander us by copying other users' words. He has NO reason, his opinions about rapcore are NOT absolutely confirmed, but he cannot say it by attacking other users. -- Egr (talk), 9/7/2006

Your text

[edit]

Please see: [1]. I, Lucpol and Egr the same user. Egr and Lucpol guide edit war! Two users (Egr, Lucpol) and varied sentence (in regard to... Rapcore, Limp Bizkit). Why catch me? Why not catch Egr? This is your friend? :( LUCPOL 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not anyone's friend here, and I don't even listen to Rapcore on a regular basis. I however am the guy who watches over the Fred Durst article because nobody else was doing it and I wanted an editing challenge, and I know that this whole debate has become extremely annoying and has caused a number of articles to lose their way. I'm an objective third party, and as an objective third party, I feel you're doing much damage to these articles by turning them into arguments about the order of a phrase. So please, I ask of you, let go of this fight. You're harming Wikipedia through your actions. Stick Fig 15:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I let go of this fight nurse compromise is necessary. My compromise (for you and Egr):

Compromise text in arcicle Rapcore:

Text in table Stylistic origins: Rock, Hip hop, Punk, Heavy metal and Funk possibly (I, Lucpol give ground). One text "hip hop, rock metal and one text rock, hip-hop, metal. Fifty-fifty. Comrpomise.

  • Compromise text in arcicle Limp Bizkit:
    • Old text (from all users): Limp Bizkit is a rapcore band from Jacksonville, Florida. ||Text in table: "rapcore"
    • Text from Egr: Limp Bizkit is a nu metal, rapcore band from Jacksonville, Florida. ||Text in table: "nu metal, rapcore".
    • Compromise text: Limp Bizkit is a rapcore and nu metal band from Jacksonville, Florida. ||and text in table (first) "nu metal, rapcore".

One first "rapcore" and one first nu metal. Fifty/fifty. Compromise.

What do you think? What do think Egr? LUCPOL 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a compromise, though? It seems to me like you'd basically get the change you've been foisting onto these articles for the last couple of weeks. I think you should back down completely and admit that not everyone agrees with your definitions of "Rapcore" and "Nu Metal." Cut and run. -- Stick Fig 16:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that so as about beginning thought Egr and therefore we do not know to understand. Ale you should accept compromise. LUCPOL 16:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the compromise I have. I'm going to suggest removing both genres from Limp Bizkit for now, just like I did for Fred Durst. They're getting in the way of producing a good article. - Stick Fig 20:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Stick Fig. I have read your answers, and I would inform you that I completely agree with your attempt to remove both genres from Limp Bizkit. Given the article in question, it seems to be much better to focus on facts than genre positions. -- Egr, 9/9/2006

Lost Highway Records site

[edit]

Regarding the Whiskeytown Lost Highway Records link, being "official" doesn't make a site not linkspam. Every online store out there is "official" from the vendor's point of view.

In this particular case, there is no content at that link about Whiskeytown other than a promotional paragraph (labelled "Biography" but not actually containing any biographical information) and a link to buy the band's product.

Please take a closer look at what's actually on that site, and compare to Wikipedia:External links regarding link spamming. If Whiskeytown have a more useful web site than their label's online sales portal, I trust you to find it and improve the article. --Stellmach 13:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think that it fits the criteria of not being link spam. Yes, their record is being sold there, but however, it is the only official web site they currently have by nature of the band being broken up for seven years, and on top of that, the site also includes free audio samples, which one could argue is quite relevant for people interested in the band. Leave it in. - Stick Fig 13:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the relevance is of it being the only official web site... either it has useful content that could not be provided by a Featured Article (this critereon, again, from Wikipedia:External links), or it doesn't.
The audio samples, however, do seem like such a thing, which I hadn't accounted for. That's a convincing argument to me. It's obviously relevant, and is something that can't be included on Wikipedia since it's surely non-free content.
It's odious that the site starts playing audio samples unbidden as soon as you go to it, but I suppose that's not to be avoided. Well, I suppose the way to avoid it is to make sure that at least the article's link leads one to expect that music is going to start playing music if you follow it, though. -Stellmach 14:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Say, it looks like you even though of that already. Good job. Thank you! -Stellmach 14:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting

[edit]

Sorry, I actually read the content but the mistake was on the wrong revert. Anyhow thanks a lot for correcting me. codetiger 07:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Federline

[edit]

Please accept my apologies for removing your contribution. I left a source cite request ({fact}), but due to the lack of a response I deleted it. Before deletion, I performed a key-word search on Google regarding the Norva concert, and "Link". There were no results. Wikipedia requires reputable sources to back any assertions. Needless to say, this sometimes eliminates some otherwise good contributions from appearing in an article, as the body of information found on the Internet is by no means comprehensive for any given topic. Please accept my apologies, and I hope you understand that a photocopied pdf file from a MySpace page isn't good enough to meet the quality standards for Wikipedia.

On a personal level, I believe you. I've noted that half of his concerts have been cancelled, and that he had problems filling seats at both Webster Hall and Chitown, despite ticket giveaways.EdwardG

Image:Blufftontoday.jpg and Image:Fred durst september 2005.jpg

[edit]

Hello!

Regarding the image Image:Blufftontoday.jpg you removed the tag regarding the lack of a fair use rationale (diff). You have also stated that you created the image, which could very likely be true. However it is a derivative image (one that contains the works of others) which means that you also have to respect their copyright. (For instance if someone were to photograph another persons painting they would have created a new image, but still have to respect the copyright of the person who created the original image.) Therefore you cannot upload it under the Creative Commons license. I have provided a fair use rationale for that image, so there is no need for the {{nrd}} tag.

Regarding the image Image:Fred durst september 2005.jpg it is a replaceable fair use image and has been tagged with the {{rfu}} tag. If you want to learn more about derivative work see the article in Wikipedia: Derivative work. Sincerely, --Oden 12:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you feel offended in that I have reviewed you recent contributions, but please bear in mind that neither you nor I have ownership of the articles. You are perfectly free to examine my contributions, and make any necessary improvements. Sincerely --Oden 12:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use discussion

[edit]

I have to say, I appreciate the level-headededness and maturity you have exhibited in the discourse on the fair use page. Discussion regarding fair use has been extremely heated in the past few days, and it is refreshing to have a conversation about this matter without the intense vitriol that has characterized past debates. And you came up with the goal that you sought- a workable(imho) compromise! I really don't know if the compromise we came up with will garner support, but it's worth a shot. Once again, thank you. Borisblue 10:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I'd like to say the same. I've hit brick walls in the last day or so making my arguments on both user talk pages and on fair use pages, and I can definitely see blood in the water regarding a policy that may perhaps be unpopular with groups of users. But I think working together is going to get the discussion a lot further than simply brute-enforcement. - Stick Fig 10:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bloodshot Records

[edit]

I started a discussion on the discussion page of Whiskeytown. The term "indie" is pretty loosely defined. While I understand your definition (being one of the big four), a perhaps more modern definition is "any label not affiliated with the RIAA (or BPI, etc)". Indeed, it is a difficult label to apply, as evidenced by the wiki article on indie labels:

"Starting with the widespread piracy lawsuits of the early-2000s, non-membership in the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) or its non-American counterparts is increasingly seen as a prerequisite for a label to be truly independent, although this view is not universal."

I just feel that, as "indie" is a fairly subjective label, it would be better to err on the side of caution.

There is a history with that particular page of the RIAA putting non-member labels, such as Matador Records, on there as members. For that reason, I wouldn't trust it. - Stick Fig 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a search on RIAA Radar, linked from the Independent Records article, for "Ryan Adams Heartbreaker," and it came back marked "safe" and non-RIAA affiliated. I think that's enough proof to say that we can keep the phrase in. - Stick Fig 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the RIAA Radar FAQ:
"What if the RIAA Radar result is incorrect?
Since the album data is not ours, and the RIAA member listings are terribly inaccurate and erroneous, it is possible that the Radar may return incorrect results. We do not claim that the data or the Radar results to be 100% correct, but we use alot of user information and double-checking to make sure the application is as accurate as it can be by itself. The application should be used to help your purchasing research, not be it.
The RIAA Radar does not hold or own any of the album data, so we cannot change any of it except the result that comes up based on the record label given by Amazon. If you see a Radar result that you think is incorrect, there is a link next to every result which you can submit an item for review."
I have contacted Bloodshot Records via email regarding their RIAA status. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shardik (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Whatever the case may be, major label distribution, not RIAA affiliation, is the deciding factor here. Also, sign your posts. - Stick Fig 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I respectfully disagree with your major label/RIAA affiliation requirements for "indie label", Bloodshot records has responded to my email and has confirmed that they are not, in fact, members of the RIAA. Therefore, that discussion is moot. Shardik 13:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use debate and Jimmy

[edit]

I must agree with that statement. We need to get the lawyers and/or Mr. Wales involved in this one. The way I see it, anyone is allowed to complain about any fair-use image, and it's being considered legit. That would be fine with me, but I'd like a policy saying "thus sayeth Jimbo Wales (or the lawyers): fair-use images can't be used here and here". Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Durst

[edit]

No Problem --Inhumer 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemianism and Brooks

[edit]

Do you agree that the Brooks mention should remain on the Bohemianism site? If so, can you please revert it? (See the Talk page.) Charles T. Betz 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll revert the edits in this case; it seems clear to me that we can reach an amicable resolution here, but whether our anonymous user will allow us to, that's a different question entirely. - Stick Fig 18:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought I was doing OK in keeping a civil tongue, but your gracious words make me feel like my comments have been surly. Good example setting. Charles T. Betz 22:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fair Use/Publicity Photo Advocacy

[edit]

Hey SF. Please join us at Wikipedia:Fair Use/Publicity Photo Advocacy. I've created it as a place to organize and figure out a way to present the best case to keep publicity photos. Thanks. --Jeff 16:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos/Vote Badagnani 20:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

[edit]

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia talk:Fair use: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Oden 22:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then consider giving slack and working with people instead of bureaucratizing everything down to the thinnest line. I, along with those against these current policies, have tried to work with you guys. You won't work with us. I think you need to reconsider your own approach before you criticize mine.
I mean, when you push another editor to his limit, as many of you have done with those against your policies, what do you expect? I find your way of leaving posts going out of their way to not deal with people and instead hiding behind policy to be much worse than any personal attacks. You've done this before to me, as well, and I didn't appreciate it then, either. You have a problem with something I'm criticizing, work with me, not around me. - Stick Fig 23:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't go along with WP's mission to be a free encyclopedia, and you don't accept our policy against personal attacks etc, why are you still here? You're only making a handful of edits to content, so it's not like you have that much personally invested, and you're about about one nasty remark away from being blocked anyway. Posting on a talk page but not contributing in any other way has no chance of changing anything; if you had a track record of fixing up thousands of images and/or image uses, you'd have a slim chance at least. Stan 15:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm investing a lot into this particular argument right now (and not much else on WP, seeing as I have a full-time job and a life), because I feel it's something that needs to change. I apologize if I come across as harsh, but I'm coming across as harsh because I feel that I've been pushed to my limit here. Look at it this way: I've been following this fight for two whole months and have tried the compromise route. You guys don't want the compromise route. You want things to fit your ideological extreme.
If things that fit into ideological extremes, we'd all have either direct participatory democracy or communism. But we don't, so reason needs to go into the argument.
I don't want to see a site that I really like get screwed up for purposes of a flawed ideal which you'll never reach or will require slashing and burning the good things about WP to reach. - Stick Fig 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, if you're serious, you need to go about things in a different way. First, you need to rack up the edits, sort of the WP version of paying one's dues, ideally in the image area. Much of our image policy is influenced by the need to deal with a thousand or more uploads per day, most of which are problematic in one way or another, and the firsthand experience will help you prune out ideas that don't scale. You'll also cross paths with more of the players in that area, get more of a sense about who's who. It would also be good to spend some time working on images at commons, for comparison. If none of this work modifies your views, then at least you'll have more credibility in the eyes of others, and you'll be able to cite more examples backing up your position. Stan 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm emphasizing to you, due to what I deal with at work every day, it wouldn't. And honestly, it seems questionable to assume that coming from the perspective of being a hardworking editor who isn't deeply involved in the same sort of image editing as yourself. I think, without discounting your suggestion, it would help if some of those in a position of power took into account the needs of the average Wikipedia user when pushing forward with policy.
That's where the problem is coming from in the first place. You're treating this as something that makes your life tougher, almost, whereas many of the average editors I've dealt with consider quality above all else, including free. Let's educate users and figure out a way so that it's a solution that pleases the outside looking in rather than just the other way around.
If you want to question my credibility because I'm not one of you guys, fine. But I'm one of the other guys and I'm directly affected by the policy too, and there's a lot more of us other guys. - Stick Fig 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm normally pretty modest about these sorts of things, so it's probably not clear from my user page, but I have 20+ years of experience working in online collaborations, at every level from noob to big boss, and I'm trying to give you my best advice on how to be effective at changing things in WP. Personally I think WP will be equally fine with or without fair-use images, so it's not that big a deal to me either way - I just want the rules to be clear. Since it's you that wants to make other editors change their views, the burden is going to be on you to come up with the convincing arguments. It doesn't actually work to talk about "being pushed to the edge" - maybe it's true, but we lose editors every day for all kinds of reasons; only a prolific contributor with lots of friends is going to get any attention that way. Expressing frustration is a sign of weakness, shows that you can be outlasted in a contest of wills, and in this chaotic organization, willpower is everything. Attacks on the "ideology" put you in the "enemy of WP" category (perhaps unfairly, but that's how it works), and nobody listens to their enemies, not even if the advice is good. You've chosen a very tough issue to work on; it will require iron will, infinite patience, and no small measure of political deviousness to effect a change. Stan 03:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, essentially, because I'm not in your ideological club, my advice is meaningless to you guys. That's not a particularly fair leg to stand on. But I can understand you're trying to be reasonable here even if it's not exactly the kind of suggestion I want to hear. Ultimately, though, I feel there's something damaging about a fiercely loyal ideological standpoint vs. one with more measured compromise. And I'm simply not on the side that's fiercely loyal to the ideology. I'm an average guy who simply doesn't buy into the FSF arguments as much as many on your side do. And I'm probably closer to the average user than not.
This sort of ideological disagreement is something which you'll eventually face from greater adversaries than myself, you know. It could be the seed of a public backlash.
Think of it this way: The product you're selling doesn't work as advertised. And that's what's frustrating people. - Stick Fig 05:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went to work on FSF projects back when almost everybody dismissed them as nutjobs. Not only did it make me personally wealthy (not quite enough to retire alas), but Linux has become a major force in the marketplace. Was the ideology essential to that success, or a distraction? A very interesting question, hoping to address it in a history of free software that I've been planning for awhile. In WP's case I'm not sure what form a "public backlash" would take; Orlowski for instance is always looking for something to bash about WP, nobody takes him seriously anymore. Stan 15:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil and not a dick. No one will listen to your ideas if you attack them. I agree that these recent policy changes are harmful to the project and I want them repealed, but pissing people off will only make your position look bad. — Omegatron 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be. I'm just frustrated. - Stick Fig 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something here? I'm looking at the diffs, and while a bit tesety, they're not personal attacks. Seriously, what diff am I missing? Allegations of dickishness are very serious indeed. It's not a good idea to template someone you're in a dispute with unless it's patent personal attacks. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being rough with my words, but I just feel like I'm not getting anywhere. I appreciate you at least noticing that I'm not out to just say "fuck you guys" to everyone and go down in a blaze of glory here, Pat. - Stick Fig 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the rant on my user page? — Omegatron 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sarsgaard

[edit]

In which case it was simply a matter of me having originally mixed up what tv series it was. Is it that difficult to simply chnage a name? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying. It was sorta rude and you didn't check your facts. - Stick Fig 05:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made to IStockphoto

[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Stick Fig! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule istockphoto\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 21:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|The IP blocked (64.241.37.140) is a publicly-accessible Wi-fi hotspot (Panera Bread) and legitimate users are trying to use it.}}

{{unblock-auto}} is what you should use here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration re: Abu badali

[edit]

Hi. I am writing you because you were one of the respondants on the RfC about Abu badali that was started back in November. There has been no substantive comment there for over a month and User:Abu badali has never bothered to respond to the RfC. The last comment on the talk page of the RfC was a suggestion to take it to arbitration, which is what I propose we do. Accordingly, I have created a shell/draft listing to add to the list of Arbitration Committee matters here. I've listed your new there, preliminarily, as a complaintant. If you are not interested in participating, please remove your name. If you are, please add your comments as we must prepare a 500 word summary of the case. Thanks for your attention - Jord 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fred Durst image

[edit]

Thanks! I noticed the article was lacking an image, so figured I would fill in the space. Glad you liked it. SMC 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali

[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving Abu badali has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. You have expressed an interest in this before, so please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop.

Thanks, - Jord 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay...

[edit]

Regarding Fred Durst, I commented on why I removed the sentence in the edit summary. Wikipedia policy states that there should not be sentences with weasel words or controversial sentences that are unsourced. The sentence in question failed both policies. Stating that "some people, including media outlets" is analogous to saying "some people (I am too lazy to research which people), including some media outlets (again, I don't feel like finding out which ones)..." And saying he is controversial is, in itself controversial without attributing the word to a source. WIkipedia policy also states that sentences needing a source, but don't yet have one, may and should be deleted. Also, you wrote that this issue has been the subject of "much discussion." Um, no. It has been the subject of very little "discussion" if you even want to call it that. You commented on it in August of last year and nobody commented on it until four days after my deletion. Where is the "much discussion" you are referring to? The one person that commented on your opinion commented 6 days after you had already undid my change. Again, I am very confused about where the discussion is; it seems the only discussion involves yourself. Since you called it "much discussion," I feel like I may be mistaken and accusing you of something that you didn't do. If I am mistaken, could you please provide a link to the discussion you are referring to. Regarding this message's lateness, I somehow only noticed your comment on my talk page today (you must have added it at the same time as someone else and so I incorrectly thought only one person added something; I honestly don't know why) which is why it may seem out of place. I concede that I should have commented on the article's talk page instead of merely referencing it in the edit summary; but I was correct. For your reference, I have copied and pasted a section from WP:Citing Sources:

All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research.

Cheers! I hope this didn't come off as rude, I am just commenting on your comments because I didn't see them there. Again, I apologize for the delay. Cya around! Wikipediarules2221 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the large controversy section, I think it's well-defended. - Stick Fig 22:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Whiskeytown_Adams_Cary.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Whiskeytown_Adams_Cary.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 18:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Whiskeytown Adams Cary.jpg

[edit]
Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Whiskeytown Adams Cary.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program at MSU

[edit]

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian associated with Michigan State University. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at MSU, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone in the East Lansing area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whiskeytown Adams Cary.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Whiskeytown Adams Cary.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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Ernie at Tedium. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Ernie at Tedium. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Ernie at Tedium. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ernie_at_Tedium&oldid=1138939712"