User talk:Bhuston
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Image:W don cornwell.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:W don cornwell.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. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
- 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 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 ☠ 05:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed deletion of Absent referent
An article that you created, Absent referent, has been proposed for deletion, for the following reason:
- Subject may not be notable enough to merit an article; see notability guidelines.
Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.
You are welcome to improve the article to meet these standards and remove the deletion notice. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion; note that in this case, the article may be discussed further at Articles for deletion. Thank you – Gurch 00:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
An article that you created, Absent referent, has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absent referent. The reason for the listing is explained there. Discussion will now take place on that page to determine whether the article is deleted. You are welcome to participate in the discussion; however, please do not remove the deletion notice from Absent referent while the discussion is in progress. Thank you – – Gurch 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Absent referent survived the Afd!! Yay!! --Bhuston 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reverts
My revert was self explanatory.-Bharatveer 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contract law
Hi Bhuston, thanks for the warning. You're right about style, etc. But the page was slightly all over the place already. Maybe you agree though that the biggest style problem is the lack of proper referencing and structure? You're right, I did delete some stuff. Was it things you'd written? The validity of contracts is really just renamed 'contractual formation'. I think that's more correct, because validity encompasses the third section of the article, now: 'setting a contract aside'. And so you saw a lot of repetition. What I never would delete are good references, because these make law. I'm basically going straight from a textbook, by Ewan McKendrick (now down the bottom of the page) and I think the first thing to do is get the categories right. User:Wikidea
- Don't you think you need to begin by responding to some, or perhaps at least one of the comments I put on the page? There are quite a few. Or the comment above here? Do you always accuse people of vandalism? You've just reverted, for the third time, a whole host of new and valuable additions. User:Wikidea
-
- Answered on Talk:Contract Bhuston 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Persuasion
Try not to get carried away. Most academics regard techniques of persuasion (such as what I am "doing to you" with this message :-) as distinct from "mind control" techniques such as brainwashing, thought reform and deprogramming.
Readers turn to an encyclopedia both to explore similarites and to learn about distinctions. --Uncle Ed 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Answered on Talk:Mind control --Bhuston 18:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] test
test --Bill Huston | Talk 10:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Bill Huston User talk:Bhuston <--- Why doesn't this work right?
[edit] Image:Imclogo.gif and User:Bhuston/Userbox/indymedia
The image is tagged with {{logo}}. As such, it may not be used on User:Bhuston/Userbox/indymedia. Whether it is in fact in the public domain is, at this point, irrelevant. We do not permit non-free license tagged images outside of the main article namespace. If you want to use this image, then determine what the source of the image is and contact that source to determine if they have released their rights. We can not do this based on assertions of our users; we must have a verifiable means of determining the release of rights from the image. Somebody created the image. Who? How to contact them so we can verify? Did they release their rights and if so where is the proof? I am reverting your reinsertion of the image. Please do not re-insert the image again without doing as suggested above or similar. Using this image on that page, when you know what the policy is, is vandalism. I'm happy to help you work through this, but re-inserting the image in violation of our policies is not an acceptable route to go. Thanks, --Durin 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Durin, you said, "I am reverting your reinsertion of the image. Please do not re-insert the image again". Just to point out, I don't think I reverted your removal, and the edit history does not show this. I've been around here long enough to understand the gravity of copyvios. So unless you used your super-admin-powers to modify the edit history, I would ask you to retract your assertion that I reverted. Accusations of vandalism are quite serious, and I would like you to set the record correct. --Bill Huston (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies. You are absolutely correct. Lost in the shuffle, I removed an instance of the image [1], received your message [2] and then removed another instance of the same image from your userspace [3]. When I first received your message, I did not know to exactly which page you were referring. When I found the second page, I made the (false) presumption that you had reverted the removal of the fair use image. Consider the record set straight, and I apologize for the error. --Durin 13:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Marijuana
I spend a fair amount of my wikipedia time removing the inaccuracy that cannabis is exclusively marijuana; please dont get in the way. Keep in mind that this is not an American but an international encyclopedia (I am not American myself). Also remember that the governments of the world do consider cannabis to be a drug and for the most part an illegal drug. That may not be nice but we are both old enough to know that we have to live with it, SqueakBox 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I can appreciate your hard work, but a couple of points. I never said "cannabis is exclusively marijuana", I said "cannabis is a plant genus". I said that "cannabis (drug)" is quite awkward, and may not be ideal according to Wikipedia naming conventions. I called for a discussion, and am quite astounded by the arrogance and cavallier attitudes of you and others who a) removed the merge tag, b) were hostile to a DISCUSSION of the issue, etc. Much of what Wikipedia is has to do with discussion, persusaion, and consensus building. I was met with "I am opposed to debate", and "please don't get in the way". Thanks for pointing out that "marijuana" is a predominantly American term. If I might point that Wikipedia does not belong to you, and you should be open to a discussion, and not meet other Wikipedia members with overt hostility. --Bill Huston (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I didnt remove the merge tag and I did engage in debate with you, making my reasons very clear, and hopefully persuaded you (a) that cannabis is considered a drug and (b) that marijuana is an exclusively US term for some but not all of what cannabis users consume when they take this plant as a drug. You seem to be the one who is narked not me, SqueakBox 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
