User talk:Janos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop removing the Article for Deletion tag. Doing this over and over again violates the three-revert rule. Please give us your input on the article's entry. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose its deletion, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. -- Perfecto  02:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Octagon-warning.jpg You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeatedly removing an Articles for Deletion notice on a page. As per the policy stated in the tag, once the tag has been placed it should not be removed until the discussion over whether it should be deleted or not is held there and finished, 5 days from now. Mo0[talk] 02:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• There was no reason to delete my post. I have been just adding new posts to the site and also made a donation of $500 USD to the WIKIPEDIA site. It is very unfair how someone who is trying to do some good, is treated so bad.

• • I am not the one who nominated your article for deletion. I was simply called in to enforce the standing rule that the tag should not be removed, which you did repeatedly after being told not to. I'd like to point out, also, that donating any amount of money does not exempt you from any of the rules, nor will it get you any brownie points with any editors. Mo0[talk] 02:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I understand you are just doing your job, and that is completely understandable. I simple do not see why some people do get "brownie points" because they are allowed to get something deleted. I simple added a company to the site, just like many other people have other companies, such as Coke, Mt. Dew or whatever other soft drink. From what I have read the only rule I broke was removing the tag, and the rules those people should have broke was trying to have something removed without any reason. Just because someone does not drink coke does not mean cokes page should be removed, nor if someone does not like drinking Monavie's products, should a page for them be removed. Thanks for your information.

• • • I don't think you completely understand the deletion process here. What the tag represents is that the article has been nominated for deletion. Anyone can nominate any article for deletion for any reason. For 5 days afterwards, other people form a consensus as to if the article actually shold be deleted or not. This is where you should be defending the article, not by removing its deletion tag. There are no brownie points involved in this process, anyone can do it. I only mentioned brownie points because you were waving around your $500 donation (which is kind of unverifiable without getting into your private information, which is something no one wants to do) as if it were an excuse. Mo0[talk] 02:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Poppaea.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Poppaea.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairusein|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

Same with Image:Nerostatue.jpg (yeah the statues are in the PD no doubth, but not nessesarily the photos of them). Additionaly what makes you say the copyright holder of Image:Monavie.jpg have released all rights to it? There is no indication of that anywhere on the site and remember everyting is copyrighted by default acording to copyright law. If you make a claim that an image have no rights attached, you need to produce some sort of "evidence" to back that up. Please fix these problems to ensure the images are not deleted under the new, stricter image rules. Thanks --Sherool (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Well I have no access to edit anything. So I cannot change anything. I took those pictures myself at the museum in Chicago while they were on display.

If you will agree not to remove the tag from the MonaVie page, I will ask the administrator who blocked you to remove the block early. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Janos, I've unblocked you per the understanding that you won't remove the AfD tag on that article again. I'd hate to be mean about it, but if you do remove that tag before the current nomination has completed, I'll be forced to block you again. Mo0[talk] 03:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not working

I guess I am not unblocked yet

[edit] Image:Monavie.jpg has been listed as a possible copyright violation

As for the rest of the images: Acording to the log the block is lifted, still having problems editing? --Sherool (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)