User talk:Metros232

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Metros232 is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Please review my edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/Metros232. It would be much appreciated.

Archive

Archives


1 2 3

Welcome to my talk page! I tend to reply to messages directly on here, so I suggest watching my page if you're looking for a reply. I watch user talk pages I comment on so we can keep conversations organized.

Contents

[edit] You vandalised MY User Page!

Why did you remove the image of Bowser from MY User Page? You said something about copyright but if using the image is a violation of copyright, then why does it appear elsewhere on Wikipedia and if you have problems with anything on MY User Page then tell me rather than just ripping the section clean out! Bowsy 19:46 5 December 2006

Sorry, no, copyright things can not be used on user pages. Since Wikipedia only uses such things under fair use, it can only be used for particular purposes, i.e. to illustrate the thing in an article, not to decorate your user page. Metros232 19:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why do you allow other Wikipedians to keep images on their pages? Surely ALL the images featured on Wikipedia are copyright. You don't rip off everyone's images so why pick on me? Bowsy 19:09 6 December 2006

not necessarily. It depends on the licensing for the images. Some are allowed to be used like that, others aren't. Yours is an example of one that isn't. Metros232 19:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have proof that Nintendo see anything wrong with it being there? Bowsy 19:29 6 December 2006

Please look at WP:USER. It states:

Images on user pages Please do not include non-free images (images uploaded to Wikipedia without the permission of the copyright owner, or under licenses that do not permit commercial use) on your user page or on any subpage thereof (this is official policy and the usual wide user page latitude does not apply, see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria for details). Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) may be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) from that page without warning (and, if not used in a Wikipedia article, deleted entirely).

It is assumed that any likeness of a character of nintendo can be used as fair-use, but not as a free use. Metros232 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you assume. Oh, and why is the link you just made red? Are you making this up? Bowsy 19:27 7 December 2006
It was a redlink because it was a typo. Believe me, I have slightly more important things to do around here than to just make things up like that. Metros232 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say on the image's licence agreement that it can't be used? Also, the policy you gave me stated that it was preferable that you replaced it with a link to the image. Any particular reason why you had to delete it instead? Bowsy 19:05, 8 December 2006
And where does it say on the image's license agreement that it CAN be used? The license says "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material[...]to illustrate the work or product being discussed". That means it can be used to show Bowser in articles about Bowser. "Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." Your user page is part of the "other uses" category. Metros232 19:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it may be, but you have no proof that it is copyright infringement Bowsy 15:36 10 December 2006

Even if it was not a copyright infringement, any drawings of Bowsers cannot be placed in the public domain or under a free license. That will still prevent you from using that photo on your userpage, due to Point 9 of our fair use policy. Since the photo is still off your page, I ask you to keep it that way. If you add it again, it will be removed again by me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia User Page policy states that it is preferable that the person who removes an image from a User Page replaces it with a link to the image. Why has this not happened? Bowsy 09:13 11 December 2006
Look, in the amount of time you've spent here complaning about me removing ONE image for valid reasons, you could have replaced the link yourself 35 times, added it in different font colors each time, and still have plenty of time to focus on important things, like, you know, building the encyclopedia. Metros232 13:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How can it be a valid reason if you have no proof that if Nintendo were to see my User Page with the image on it, they would think I was violating their copyright? Bowsy 09:10 12 December 2006

[edit] University of Mary Washington

Looks like our linkspammer is back and on the job at University of Mary Washington. --Takeel 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you remove my spam link?

Why did you remove the lala.com link from the rest of the External Links on the Death Cab for Cutie page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mxpx775 (talkcontribs).

Because all you are doing is putting these links into dozens of articles. The very textbook definition of spam. Metros232 01:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you stopped removing me edits from the WIKI artist pages i post on. this website is supposed to allow all members to add any pertinent and accurate information to any page. I am simply linking to my website to offer another resource for web-surfers that would like to learn more about the particular artist. You should remove all external links if you wish to keep this information from music fans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mxpx775 (talkcontribs).

[edit] Tags

Just having a bit of fun while going through articles that fit the requirement for speedy deletion : ). Have a great holiday season mate.

Cheers. Charlesblack 11:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1984 Ad

I am an expereinced user like you (not quite as expereinced) however, someone I know has changed my password and I am useing this account temprerily.

Please don't think I am some crazed new member, I am a crazed old member! :P

thanks

Useamac 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the????

What in the world did you do to my page????

And who changed it from "Bloodless Bullfighting" to "Bloodless bullfighting"?????

It's a title, therefore the "b" in Bullfighting should be capitalized.

Also, I said in my discussion page that I was not finished yet.

And the title specifically says "Art of Bloodless Bullfighting.. Portuguese Style! in California

yes, this practice is in California... duh!!!!! Why else would it be bloodless and why else would I separate it from the bullfighting section. You guys need to get a grip on your "need" to change things, when you have no idea what it is talking about.

I worked so hard putting it together... then you want to mess with it. You guys are amazing.... and ridiculous.

At least give me the opportunity to "complete" before you start attacking it.

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Webmistress Diva 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

With what I gather in the article, this is a style of bullfighting, therefore, it's not capitalized. If it were a brand, it'd be capitalized. So what is it? A brand or a style? Yes, the practice is in California...but it originated in Portugal. Therefore, it needs the globalized view. And welcome to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit whenever they please. You're not the only one who has the right to edit it. Metros232 22:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I want it put back the way it was. There's a reason why things are the way they were. You took important stuff out. You don't know what this is, but yet you are moving text around as if you know. The least you could do is put a notation in the "talk page" and "ASK FIRST" before changing it. Discuss it FIRST.... it's like what you guys say.... that's the whole purpose of the "talk page". Otherwise, anyone could write these things and you'll never know if they're just talking out of their a--e-!
We're the experts in this.... leave it to us to write about. If it needs to be "wikified" or whatever it is ... .then do it "after" the article is complete!
Also, when you moved stuff around, you jacked-up the whole format. Things are not where they are suppose to be and it looks very DISORGANIZED!!!!!
And the title "Art of Bloodless Bullfighting .... Portuguese Style! in California" has to be there!!!!!!!!!! That's what defines this article, if that is not included in there, then people will be confused and think that we are talking about bullfighting in general.... and we are not!!!!!
And YES... it is a brand!

--Webmistress Diva 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Yeah.... that's kind of lame, if you think about it. What type of documented facts is allowed to be edited? I suggest that the owner of the article has a say so in that particular article they started. If anyone else has an input, then they need to put their suggestion inside the "talk page" area, and it will be discussed further. Because there are some points that people make that are incorrect.... and incorrectly placed and stated.

If you want to help me with the whole 'wiki' standard of how it should look and sound... then fine. But don't start moving stuff around as if you know better. --Webmistress Diva 23:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, if you didn't yell a lot, people would probably listen to you a lot more. As for the changes I put in...what stuff did I take up that needs to be in there? I moved stuff around as if I know what the hell a format of an article is, not because of knowledge of the subject. There is a format articles go in, which is what I tried to put it in. You don't put entire sentences in headings like you've been doing. You don't have a section that just analyzes everything that was already said. Etc.
I suggest that the owner of the article has a say so in that particular article they started.
Please see WP:OWN. You don't own articles on Wikipedia. Metros232 23:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not yelling. If I was, everything would be written in ALL CAPS. Secondly, if you guys would stop walking around as if you own the place, then maybe we would have more respect for your changes. You guys should practice what you preach. Your wiki policy/procedure advices people to "discuss" things in the "talk page" area. Well, I have done exactly that... and more. But you guys will just go in and change things around.... several times over. I think that you guys need to suggest it first and then implement. That's why I can relate to a LOT of people that are irritated on this site. I was very specific when I had made a notation in the "talk page" about how I was NOT done yet. There's more information that I have to include. Also, you removed the 'conclusion' area. The information in there has not been discussed in the other areas yet. And like I said, I was not finished.... I was getting to that section... but not today. So next time, if you don't want me or anyone else getting frustrated, kindly stop changing and removing stuff.... and all we ask is that you discuss it first.

I'll let you know when I'm done with the article.... and from there, you can critique it all you want.... BUT at least wait for all of the information to get in there.

Please see WP:OWN. You don't own articles on Wikipedia.
Maybe we should. --Webmistress Diva 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I should use the talk page to discuss changes that are being put in to bring this to proper style and to get this article to follow Wikipedia policies? Get real. Those edits are necessary and will continue. I do not need your permission to try to edit this article to something respectable in regards to style guides. Metros232 23:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Congratulations!!!!

You have recieved the Big Boss award for aiding me. This is my special way of thanking those for their help. I am new to wikipedia and I will take all of the help that I can get!!! Thank you!! User: Big Boss 0

This user has been recognized as a
Big Boss Award recipient.












[edit] User page overhaul

What sort of things are we supposed to put on your page to give it an overhaul? Bowsy 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)