User talk:24.52.254.62

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your edit to Robert A. Heinlein

Your recent edit to Robert A. Heinlein was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It was all CAPS LETTERS slightly larger than the bots tolerance threshold. While your edit was perefectly legit (and has been restored) many all caps edits are vandalism and hence the bot reverts. Sorry about that and thanks for your message :) -- Tawker 00:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bach

Your removal is fine by me, but someone objected to the fact he didn't touch opera, and thus it was/is an overstatement. Tony 07:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation

Re: Robert A. Heinlein. The choice of spelling (American/British) is set per article, but the punctuation is set throughout wikipedia as per our Manual of Style. violet/riga (t) 18:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laas Gaal Page

"The paintings have strong, vibrant colours and stark outlines"

I reported the copyvio yesterday, and added copyvio tags to the article, but user Abdullah Geelah deleted them without explanation. I've put them back in today.--24.52.254.62 03:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Firstly the line above is not Plagiarism, you are allowed if use a couple of information from website but 98% of the article is genuine and I only used two sources. Also, 24.52.254.62 who ever you are stop putting templates on that is classified as VANDALISM like I said not all the article is copyrighted, 98% of the article is genuine. An adminstrator has reported your childish actions. Plus, I only removed the template once, an adminstrator has removed it the second time. I think you should read Wikipedia Policy first before you add templates on any article.Abdullah Geelah 15:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is copyvio or not. Certainly some of the words and phrases are identical to those in the BBC article, but there's no evidence of an entire text being lifted. A slight amount of re-wording, and identifying all quotes as such, would probably suffice. Maybe Abdullah, or you, could do that? Arcturus 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is sffaudio.com really commercial?

Hiya. I'm wondering if your various removals of links to http://www.sffaudio.com/ are really warranted. I've looked around that site, and I can't find much to indicate that it's more than a well-organized fan site. It doesn't seem to have any affiliation relationship with the various audiobook vendors it links to. How is it commercial?  ◉ ghoti 01:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- Thanks for your message about these links. Well, the site has ads, so I'd consider it commercial. In any case, if you look at all the articles they've been adding links to, IMO it's just completely inappropriate in every case. External links should be to materials that are the best stuff out there, not just some guy's site that he wants to promote.--24.52.254.62 02:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment, I'm just not sure of the analysis. I looked for ads on the site, and I couldn't find any. The closest thing would be the "Online Audio" page, which contains links to sites without regard to their commercial status (and without visible affiliate tags). I would suggest that this site's overall stature is small because of the popularity of audiobooks relative to paper ones. Do you know of a better reference for sci-fi audiobooks?  ◉ ghoti 11:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi -- Just go to http://www.sffaudio.com/ , and you'll see the ads. It's not a question of whether there is a better reference for SF audio books; the issue is that there's simply no reason to have such a link from these articles, because reviews of audio books are themselves only tangentially related to the topic.--24.52.254.62 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
DOH! Heh, I forgot I was browsing with Adblock turned on. I now see the Google Adsense ads. I agree with your assessment of their overall relevance to the original books; should references to these audiobooks be placed elsewhere?  ◉ ghoti 01:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd think of it the other way around: not where can we put a link to this site, but is there anything that a particular article needs. I haven't spent much time looking at the sffaudio site, but actually I don't think they host audio files. I think they mostly just do reviews of audio books.--24.52.254.62 02:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User name

It looks like you've been here for at least a year on that same IP; why not create a user name? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I understand now. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paloma Herrera photo

Sked0 should not have uploaded that photo to the Commons; it is not GFDL, only fair-use. It was also taken by Gene Schiavone. The Commons image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sylherrera.jpg should be deleted.

Concerning its use on Wikipedia, I have updated all of its tags etc. since I uploaded it a long time ago. I also removed it from Ballet, because the fair-use claim isn't valid there, I think. Hope this helps! -- Rmrfstar 13:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Risks of classical ballet

Hello, 24.52.254.62 -- Emmegan here. I just wanted to let you know that I've just finished making a massive rewrite of the Risks of classical ballet article, which you so kindly (and accurately) tagged as being NPOV. I think I've made it pretty neutral, but if you'd like to take a look and let me know your opinions, I'd more than appreciate it. Thanks! Emmegan 16:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content negotiation CopyVio tag

Hello. You have tagged Content negotiation as copyright violation of Apache documentation; yet, Apache documentation is free[1] to redistribute and modify, as per their license. Please see the Talk Page to discuss your motives. Thanks, Nimur 20:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on the article's talk page. If you think the problem is resolved, please post back here to get my attention. Thanks!--24.52.254.62 00:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Space Station

thanks for your grammatical, and clarification edits to International Space Station. good work :) Mlm42 08:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Ballet

Hello, 24.52.254.62! I noticed that you have contributed to several ballet-related articles. Keitei and I have begun a WikiProject for Ballet in my userspace. We hope to recruit enough members to make this a feasible WikiProject, and would appreciate your support! You can join at the WikiProject page or leave any suggestions on the talk page.
Thanks! — Editor at Large(speak) 23:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Grammatical Corrections to Stegosaurus

Yes 24.52.254.62 (?), this article has experience quite a bit of vandalism just now :-( . With the flurry of IP-address only members making somewhat irritating changes to the article I regretfully reverted your edits, for which I whole-heartedly apologise for. The best, Mark t young 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.52.254.62.html"