User talk:Cfortunato

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Cfortunato, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Dominick (TALK) 14:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please make sure you sign your talk page entries, so we can address topics to you. You can experiment with this, and other editing, in the Sandbox!

Looking forward to seeing your work here, we need people knowledgeable about the History of Liturgy. Dominick (TALK) 14:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bill Everett Tribute

That is a very, very touching image. Everett's work in the '50s particularly was amazing. Even in his later years, his stuff had style. -- Tenebrae 03:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BillEverettTribute.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:BillEverettTribute.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 00:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BillEverettTribute.gif

I've tagged the image correctly and added a fair use rational on the image's user page, it should be ok now. In the future you should tag images with something from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags - I think it falls under Comicpanel, you also need to add a fair use rational, see the one I added for an example. Cheers! -- Tawker 18:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation

Hello. It is Wikipedia house style to include exactly what is quoted inside quote marks--no more, no less. Punctuation goes inside if it is part of the quote, but otherwise not. Please see our style manual for more detail. Regards. Jonathunder 20:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Napster

Hello The content at Napster is free content, it is also very extensive and relevant. There are many sites that are commercial in nature and deemed acceptable on the Wiki due to the usefullness of the content, I feel Napster now belongs in this category. This is a lot of content and all that is required is a user name and password.

http://www.napster.com/view/artist/index.html?id=10425111

71 Albums

Its not the old Napster but its as good as its going to get. Waldzazi 09:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Waldzazi

It's officially spam as far as the Admins are concerned. See here. Xinit 21:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that clears that up. Carlo 22:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi It should be judged by its usefulness, not based on the prejudices of a few admins. I pointed out the fact to JKelly that there are many links on Wikipedia that link to commercial sites such as IMDB, All Music Guide, Rotten Tomatoes and these seem not only to be tolerated but perfectly acceptable. He curtly informed me that I should delete them.

)

No I dont think I will be deleting any of those as the content is very useful and entertaining as well. I think Napster belongs in that category and it is free content that no other service is providing, it is not free by the way, it is costing them money for each listen because the artists must be paid, it is only free for the end user.

Eric Clapton 47 Albums worth of free content

http://www.napster.com/view/artist/index.html?id=10456312


Bob Dylan 71 Albums worth of free content

http://www.napster.com/view/artist/index.html?id=10425111

I could post endless examples but I thought these two would give you the gist of it. Waldzazi 01:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Waldzazi

I agree with the admin. It isn't free content: it's pay after you play it five times. Imdb has advertising, but it also has reviews, ALL of the info, message boards and all sort of other stuff. I use imdb all the time and I've never felt the need to give them a cent. That's a totally different thing than Napster. Carlo 02:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Hairsplitting If Amazon.com were to offer access to the all books in their collection with the stipulation that you could only read each book once, would you find that less useful? Would you find a link to any authors entire catalog of work on their Wiki page objectionable because of this limit? The record companies are imposing this limit on Napster for now, but if the site caught on they will probably eliminate the five play rule and possibly increase the bit rate, which is what I hope will happen. Would you object if there were no 5 song limit? Remember thats 5 plays for each song, album or entire collection. I like IMDB also but they are a commercial site and they are making money when you vist, they have to in order to provide the content they have, the same goes for Napster with this free content. You are not going to tell me next that the free content is no good because "you cant download the songs and burn them to cd" are you?

)

Yea Id like that too but its not going to happen! Waldzazi 03:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Waldzazi

[edit] License tagging for Image:Lostchord.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lostchord.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark of Ephesus

Hiho, he appears in the Greek Anthologion published at Rome in the 1950s, if you have access to a copy. InfernoXV 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I believe we have achieved agreement

I am in total agreement with your last edit to the Jesus tomb article. As an atheist and a Buddhist, I wanted to make sure the secular side of the argument was properly represented (the page is heavily controlled by Christians). I feel you edit did it well enough. My last and final revert accidentally removed part of your modification of the Statistics section. If I touch the page Ward will go crazy on me, so i just felt I should inform you, so you can put it back in at your disgression. Apparently, edit wars can occasionally reach agreement Thegreyanomaly 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. BTW, the wikilink to the stats sections needs a fix. It should be "The Lost Tomb of Jesus#Statistical evidence". I would fix it myself except I don't want to be perceived as violating 3RR. Ward3001 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/f/o/User_talk%7ECfortunato_eed6.html"