User talk:Wikiacc/Archive07
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archives [] |
| /Archive01 (2004-07-11 to 2005-06-22) |
| /Archive02 (2005-06-23 to 2005-10-12) |
| /Archive03 (2005-10-13 to 2005-11-09) |
| /Archive04 (2005-11-10 to 2005-12-12) |
| /Archive05 (2005-12-10 to 2005-12-26) |
| /Archive06 (2005-12-27 to 2006-01-16) |
| /Archive07 (2006-01-17 to 2006-01-28) |
| /Archive08 (2006-01-29 to 2006-02-10) |
| /Archive09 (2006-02-11 to 2006-03-13) |
| /Archive10 (2006-03-14 to 2006-04-24) |
| /Archive11 (2006-04-25 to 2006-07-23) |
|
Contents |
Questions about Wiki Experience from a Newbie
Hi, In December I tried my first minor edits to Wikipedia articles and checking back now, I don't see them. I thought these were bits of information that were commonly known, but the page history indicates maybe they weren't accepted. Is this likely, and why? Should I provide references to verify what I add? Also, I've got a snotty message from some guy about adding a fan forum link, when I see these on plenty of other celebrity articles. What should I think about this? Thanks for the help. Pkeets 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Pkeets,
- It's recommended that you always cite your sources, even if it seems to be common knowledge. (Some users may think it unverifiable and remove it.)
- On the fan forum link: if you see the fan forum links on numerous other articles, mention that in a message on the talk page. If the subject of that article indeed has a large fan forum, and it's relevant to the article, it would probably be useful; however, if you are getting warnings about it, it may be best to first discuss. --Wikiacc 20:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete my changes/article?
Hi, I signed up for Wikipedia and have made very few changes or additions to any of the articles. However, the one article I actually spent a lot of time writing and adding to was the Heidelberg College article. I see it no longer exists thanks to you. Well, I have tried to follow the tons and tons of rules and guidelines for Wiki, and if you don't think it's good enough, then that's up to you. You should know, though, that your evil-handed and aggressive ways of deleting perfecting good articles will drive away users who only want to help. Also, no one ever emailed me and explained anything or asked me to change anything. What a joke. In fact, you can consider this my last attempt at Wiki as it is too complicated and strict for a casual user like myself. The community-driven, user-friendly farce of Wiki is out of my life! Thanks for nothing! You suck! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donovanb62 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC).
- Heidelberg College spent over two weeks at WP:CP as copyright infringement. A very conspicuous notice to that effect was put on the article on January 1 by User:JLaTondre, giving you 15 days to appeal. I was not deleting out of process.
- Also, email is a rarely used communication method on Wikipedia. It is only used to appeal a block or ban and other communication that cannot happen with talk pages.
- Please see the civility policy and No personal attacks. (If the policies seem overwhelming, just see the list of all policies and guidelines.) --Wikiacc 20:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Deleted Articles?
After reading this other comment, I did notice that some articles linked to the ones I worked on are now missing, which leaves a link hanging. If you're going to delete articles, shouldn't someone clean up these broken links? Pkeets 02:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- It depends on the article. If the subject of the article deleted is non-notable or otherwise not deserving of an article, the links to it are usually removed. If the subject is notable, we usually keep the links so people can find them later and create a good article. (Redirects to the deleted page are always deleted.) --Wikiacc 20:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
image tag
Greetings,
I just uploaded the Image:Damadian invention.jpg which is quite useful for two articles that I used it on. However I am not sure if the tag is proper or not, considering the information I have given about the image and its source. Would you please double check that there is no other better tag that I have missed? Thanks.--Zereshk 21:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I changed the tag to {{PD-US-patent}}, which seems more accurate. --Wikiacc 21:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history:
 |
The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here.
|
--Loopy e 04:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
the box template thingy
Greetings,
1. About the Univ. of Tehran template, I was wondering that why is it then OK for other schools to be using their school logos on their user boxes? See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United_States
2. If they are all wrong as well, then at least can I use this image in the box template? :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UT1.jpg
and btw, I dont know if it is appropriate to put a fairuse tag on this one, since the emblem is over 1000 years old. No one has a copyright on it, even if it is claimed by Tehran University as a logo.--Zereshk 01:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- According to policy, no fair use images are allowed in userboxes. This is violated by quite a few, and ugly things (RFC's, among others) have sprung out of it. The second image should be OK there, as it isn't really copyrighted (old image, reproduction is still PD according to Template:Pd-art). --Wikiacc (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Then I'll go ahead and use the second one. (It's actually more classy). :) --Zereshk 01:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Law section
Hi. I noticed that you deleted the Law section from Iran. There is also a Law section at Papua New Guinea, it was recently added. Do you have any suggestions what to do with it? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 00:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- The law section there could probably be removed, with the main article linked to from the Politics box or section, as law and government usually fall under Politics. --Wikiacc (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. --Khoikhoi 01:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect, or not?
Hi, I've noticed that you removed the redirect on the Image:TV-14-V.gif page. the reason why I had it set up that way, is so that it could link to the appropriate article, similar to here. Not only so, but it is used in templates, in a few pages. in the meantime, I'll make a note on the page, while restoring the redirect, and we could work out a soloution. Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25)
Iran
Thanks for making me aware of that. I've left a comment over at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Copyrighted in Iran, and I'd appreciate your input. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 23:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: your oppose on RfR
Quote: Why can't potential rollback-ees just become admins? Adminship is no big deal, is it?
My response: Yes, I am afraid it is. I once asked in the IRC Channel about going for an RfA, someone checked how many edits I had, and I was then told that if I completed an RfA at this point, most people would laugh me off the shelf. I have about 450 or so edits, and I have been told that in order to go for an RfA, I should ideally have about 1000 to 1500. The waiting time more than anything else is the obstacle to adminship, we need something to bridge the gap in the meantime. Rollback is just what we are looking for in my opinion. Thor Malmjursson 13:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Talk
- Yes. That's part of the problem with RFA as it is now: everyone says adminship is "no big deal", but it is treated as if it were, especially when it comes to editcount and amount of time. I am afraid that RfR is not the solution to that problem; only an overhaul of RfA is. —Wikiacc • ◊ 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
