User talk:Vincent shooter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Vincent shooter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you will enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You can sign your name on talk and voting pages using four tildes, (~~~~), which produces your username, the time, and the date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page

Hi! Bonjour! I see you have started on your user page! It's off to a good start. Here's a good guide on what you can put on there. By the way, it's a good idea to SUBST your templates, so that the code stays on your page, and to sign your comments on talk pages, using four tildes (~~~~). If you could, please sign your comment on my page, so I know what message is from which person. I also noticed that you have uploaded some images, here is a template message (Template:UploaderHints), which is a good guide. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 23:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for uploading some pictures to Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure you were aware of some of the requirements and good practices for uploaded images.

  • Pick an image name.
When uploading an image, pick a file name that is descriptive, and unique. Remember that many images may be uploaded about the same topic, and remember that names are case sensitive.
  • Source the image.
On the image description page, explain where the image came from. If you created the image yourself, then say so. If it's from the web, give a URL. If it's a screenshot of a movie or game, or a scan from a book, give the title.
  • Provide copyright and license information.
This part is a little bit trickier, but it's very important. The copyright of the image generally belongs to whomever created it.
If it's a photograph you took, or an image you created (modifying an image that already exists doesn't count) in software like Photoshop or GIMP, then you own the copyright. To upload it to Wikipedia, you must agree to license it under the GFDL (which allows anyone to use it, but requires that they give credit to the original author and requires that any further edit to the image be licensed under the GFDL as well) or release it into the public domain (which allows anyone to use it for any purpose without restriction.) Do this by placing an appropriate tag on the image description page, like {{GFDL}} or {{PD}}. Be sure to mention that you created the image. If you're using {{PD}}, you may also want to use {{NoRightsReserved}}, since there is some dispute as to whether one may grant items into the public domain.
If you didn't create the image, or the copyright somehow belongs to another party (like a screenshot, which you might "create", but the copyright belongs to the author of the movie or video game), then you need to find another tag that describes the copyright status of the image. Images used on Wikipedia need to be free for our use and the use of sites which reproduce our content. This means that images cannot have a restriction such as "only for use by Wikipedia", or "for non-commercial use only", or "for educational use". Images without a free license may be usable in certain articles under fair use, but such a use should be justified on the image description page.
  • Describe the image.
To another reader, the image may not be immediately understood. A caption in an article doesn't explain the image to a visitor who sees it on its image page. Put a brief explanation of what is in the image on the image description page, similar to what you might include in a caption on an article.

Some links to Wikipedia pages on this subject:

Copyrights, Copyright tags, Fair use, Image description page, Public domain, Images for deletion, Possibly unfree images, Copyright problems, Uploading images

Thanks again for your contributions. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at my talk page. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 23:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translating articles

I believe it is legal to translate articles from the english Wikipedia to other Wikipedias, because the en-wiki text is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (as it says at the bottom of every page). If you use an en-wiki article as the base for one in another language, that Wikipedia needs to be GFDL also and you need to CITE the sources on the new page, saying that the text was translated from the english Wikipedia. There is more info at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Users.27_rights_and_obligations. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Wikipedians

Hi! I added that category after it was removed here as a "non-user category". I added it again, because it was a user category and it was previously on your page, as you can see here. Looks like I made a mistake, my apologies!-- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

First, sign your posts with four tildes as a courtesy. OK, it is obvious that you would like to label everything as "liberal" that is liberal, that term being used by your kind as an insult the way you all used to use "socialist" and "communist". The article on FAIR states clearly that they are a liberal, progressive group (as opposed to conservative, retrogressive). Labeling them within the O'Reilly article is fair only if you also take the time to label references to organizations like Accuracy In Media as "conservative". If you are focusing only on the liberal label, then you are pushing your own personal agenda. Wahkeenah 10:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You signed it the right way this time. I don't hate O'Reilly, I watch him with interest. He's mostly a muckraker (carrying on his "Inside Edition" tradition); his show is mostly entertaining; and he doesn't always kiss up to the right wing agenda the way guys like Hannity and Limbaugh do. And if you listen closely, those guys DO use "liberal" as a disparaging label, the exact same way their predecessors used to use "communist". Ironically, they wear the badge "conservative" proudly, when it stands for a great deal of negativity and repression if you study it closely. Now, if you search for "Accuracy In Media" and label all of its occurrences as "conservative", also labeling it for what it is so as not to mislead the casual reader, then you're being fair. If not, you're pushing an agenda. Wahkeenah 12:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And if you look at my edits to the O'Reilly page, I think you'll see they are mostly to revert vandalism of stupid comments about him posted by IP addresses. His article deserves some defense here, even if his views don't, necessarily. Wahkeenah 12:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Like I just had to, a few minutes ago. Anyway, Horowitz's online news (or commentary) magazine is just that. You can tell in about 10 seconds, if don't already know Horowitz, what his editorial policy is. I don't see where it's necessary to label it, unless you're going to make a concerted effort to label all references to media watch groups and online commentaries in a like manner. I also don't like the term "watchdog", as it implies the opposite agenda, that FAIR is somehow "better" than O'Reilly. I would like to just call FAIR and AIM "watch" groups, which seems both accurate and neutral. Wahkeenah 13:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply regarding FAIR

Unless there was an edit mistake, I also added "liberal". No disagreement on my part, whatsoever. If I made a mistake that resulted in a revert, my apologies. Dubc0724 15:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I took it away again, and also labeled it a "watch" group rather than a "watchdog" group (a slangy term) and took away the FAIR part since that is reverse POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/n/User_talk%7EVincent_shooter_6f13.html"