User talk:Alight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. You can sign your name with ~~~~. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:

Have fun! --Jiang 22:11, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Woa, great photo (Image:ChessSet.jpg) that you took. --Menchi 03:01, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Unverified images

Hi. You uploaded Image:Cribbage.jpg but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags for more info. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 20:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FPC#Bee Wings

I still don't agree with you, but I'd still like to thank you for replying to my request. :) Mgm|(talk) 20:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Commons?

Hello! Can we upload these (C) images to commons? --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 14:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Brandeisians

In your edit to the list of notable Brandeisians, you removed two people with the comment "... not notable, else would have own Wikipedia articles." I don't have an opinion about whether these two people are notable, but I did want to point out that many Wikipedia articles start as red links from elsewhere; in fact, many of the articles I've created started as this kind of link. In other words, your argument about notability doesn't follow how the Wikipedia works, and you ought to have other reasons for feeling that something is not notable before you remove it. --Zippy 04:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this happen again. It seems to me, on the face of it, ridiculous to remove people solely on the grounds that they don't have wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is a work in progress and many things are missing. People sometimes find out what's missing, and contribute, due to redlinks. What sense does it possibly make to circularly claim that because they're not in wikipedia already, they're not notable?Cos 05:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that one of the notables removed was quite notable (most economists would agree): http://www.iie.com/publications/author_bio.cfm?author_id=47

[edit] Incongruous reference

The quotation from the reference, "Brandeis, a nonsectarian institution, was founded in 1948, by American Jews seeking to establish a university free from the quotas that Jews faced at elite colleges," is highly relevant and is needed to support the statement in the article. I agree that the article itself has a title that's irrelevant and might lead one to question my motives in citing it... but I couldn't figure out an appropriate or honest way to cite it without mentioning the title.

I'm going to try abbreviating the title to "Brandeis pulls artwork..."

I do plan to look for a less "incongruous" reference. But Brandeis' origins as a response to discrimination are important to mention, just as are Boston College's origins as a response to anti-Catholic discrimination, and the Brandeis website tap-dances around this and, it seems, a number of other circumstances connected with Brandeis' founding (its connection with Albert Einstein, for example).

I am not a pro-Palestinian NPOV warrior, if that's what you were thinking. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: spam

[edit] Regarding edits made during October 30, 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

BattlestarWiki is a wiki and covers stull Wikipedia cannot, a.k.a relevance. Scifipedia is ran by the official Sci Fi channel and hence is official as official can be, a.k.a relevance. The commercial link I obviously missed, but of course im only human.. - Your link is just a non notable podcast that maybe gets 1 listner a week and hence does not meet wiki link gudielinks. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If you can't contribute positively without trying to censor everything that you yourself did not originate, please mind your own business, Matthew. Thx. 24.242.148.169 03:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BSG link

  1. Your neutrality is effected, and asking somebody to do it is just meat puppetry.
  2. Your link is non-notable and non relevant to the article, if it was official then maybeeeee it would have a tincy bit of relevance.
  3. Your link has been removed before.
  4. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Be advised, Matthew Fenton apparently has delusions of ownership of several Wikipedia articles. For some reason, he thinks he is the Be All and End All of any dispute over articles and entry editing, and has no problem trying to force his views down everyone's throat. If anyone's guilty of disrupting actions, it's Matthew. Stick to your guns, reverse any unwarranted, wanton edits he makes at least once a day, and eventually he'll get it through his head that he doesn't own Wikipedia. Not by a long shot. 66.90.151.114 07:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Matthew Fenton

Does Matthew have some sort of godhood delusion? 24.242.148.169 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service

Thought you might want to know about this, it has the same goals as Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but is better organized. --Gphototalk 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Brandeis gosman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brandeis gosman.jpg. I notice 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 {{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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Chowbok ☠ 20:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More replaceable fair use images

—Chowbok ☠ 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Images

I believe you have me confused with someone else. However, you should post the information you told me on the image page itself. If it is already there, I apologize for missing it while going through the images. You can restore the images into the articles by reverting my edits. Sorry for the error, if any. --MECU≈talk 22:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandeis images

Hi, can you elaborate on the permission you received from Brandeis? Ideal would be if you could post the e-mail(s?) on the image talk pages. If they've released these images under a free license, I would be happy to remove the RFU notices and get these off the chopping block. —Chowbok ☠ 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/i/User_talk%7EAlight_2e32.html"