User talk:Randomfrenchie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. That said, you are more than welcome to leave a message if you want to. (I do check even if I'm not in an editing mood)


Welcome!

Hello, Randomfrenchie, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article RANDOM 17 may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, each user is entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. -- Francs2000 01:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, if ever you need anything, just ask. -- Francs2000 00:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Christopher Columbus

I removed that section becuase the critisism is in the rest of the article, so I saw no need for an individual 'section' on that when wikipedia has that spread through-out the article. I was working on that article as part of WP:SPOTLIGHT. This is a collaboration of multiple editors who are working to improve articles. Feel free to join us and ask your question on IRC (detials at WP:SPOTLIGHT). Cheers! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bill987.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bill987.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wonder Spot

I have restored the deleted article to User:Randomfrenchie/Wonder Spot. Note that it is a copyvio from the source newspaper article, and as such will be instantly deleted if it shows up in the article namespace. ➥the Epopt 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilobbying

Why did you delete the page Wikilobbying? It will not let me recreate it. I know that I can create an unbiased version of that page which will be written in Wikipedia-style. Please let me create it. There is no point of deleting factual articles. The more articles on Wikipedia, the better. Randomfrenchie 22:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This was one of dozens of inappropriate pages created as a result of Stephen Colbert's "Wikilobbying" segment. I just made this one a redirect to The Colbert Report. I don't think that "wikilobbying" is a sufficiently important topic to warrant a dedicated article, but you're welcome to propose that one be created. I suggest that you coordinate any such efforts at Talk:The Colbert Report and file a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review when you believe that you're ready to present a compelling argument in favor of the article's existence. If you so desire, you may begin authoring such an article at User:Randomfrenchie/Wikilobbying and cite the resultant prose as evidence. —David Levy 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you can help improve the article at User:TV4Fun/Wikilobbying--Kevinkor2 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Exarion 02:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. this edit was out of line in more than one way. Please communicate with other users on their talk page, not their user page. Please keep Wikipedia:Civility in mind. Try to discuss differences with other users first; if that isn't working, ask for opinions from 3rd parties. Certainly there will be times when one can be frustrated with other users' actions, but please do not resort to personal insults and profanity. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes; for problem users, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Note that replacing a user's page with profanity could be considered vandalism, so I'd strongly advise against doing so. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 05:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hm?

Okay, apparently I have badly pissed you off by deleting your article. Thing is, I delete a lot, a lot, a lot of articles. SO I honestly don't know which one it was. Tell me, and I'll see if I can explain things to you. Okay? DS 14:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Boris, the reason I deleted the article on the Wonder Spot was that it was copied from an article on the Wonder Spot that appeared in a newspaper. It was a copyright violation. You are free to write a new article on the WS, using the newspaper article as a source of information - but not as a source of sentences. Okay? DS 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason we care about copyright violations is that it leaves us open to legal consequences. We use original material, public domain material, and material that has been licensed under the GFDL. There may be material on Wikipedia that is copyright violation, but we do our best to remove it wherever we find it. Understand now? DS 22:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit box states quite clearly "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted" regardless of your own personal philosophy, you may see the risk as small but that is irrelevant. There also seems to be a misconception here that you hold no personal liability for your postings. Other than the representation that you make that you are contributing these under the GFDL (which if you aren't able to is potentially fraudulent), the information posted here be it libel, copyright infringement or whatever you can personally be held liable for. Regardless of the direct legal risk, wikipedia is also about building a free resource, you may have seen we make much of that, we also rely on donations to keep the project running, there are plenty of critics who would happily jump on any lax attitude to protecting the rights of others, this may then negatively impact out ability to keep the project running. --pgk 22:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dixie Chicks

I agree it's biased. I hope you'll stay around long enough to help correct it. Xiner (talk, email) 05:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please see my response at Talk:Your mom

Please see my response at Talk:Your mom. Also, on talk pages, new comments generally belong at the bottom. —dgiestc 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary

Hi, you seem to be confusing a proposal to merge two Wikipedia articles (Wiktionary and French Wiktionary) with a proposal to merge the two projects English Wiktionary and French Wiktionary. This is not the same thing at all, and since individual project language editions have no control over the direction of other language editions and Wikipedias have no control over other projects, it would be impossible anyway. Thanks – Qxz 21:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:School 804.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:School 804.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands 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. 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't restore that "public domain" tag on that image. It is definitely not "public domain". The only way we can keep that picture is if you get the owners (presumably the school) to explicitly release it under the GFDL. You need to obtain at least an e-mail from them saying that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milton High School (Alpharetta, Georgia)

Hello. I was wondering, why did you revert my edits to Milton High School? I added a notice on the image's speedy deletion, sourced the Kyle Farnsworth thing, and pruned the "traditions" section. PTO 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of edits needed for adminship

Hello! You have asked how many edits are needed for someone to apply for adminship. The answer is NONE. You technically don't need any edits to apply for adminship. However, you almost definately will not pass if you do not have more. There is no official number, but around 4,000 to 6,000 edits is the norm. Sorry if I scared you off, but that's about what you need to have for people to not talk about a lack of experience in your RfA. If you have any other questions you want to ask, leave me a message on my talk page. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That notwithstanding, an empirical analysis would suggest you have an increasing chance of having a successful RfA with an increasing editcount between 1 and 4000 edits. From 4000 edits upwards there is no statistical correlation. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Statistics for more stats and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D to see which editor have declared they care about editcount and which ones don't. Rockpocket 03:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
some editors are happy with arond 3,000, somw ill accept less. I do not think that any would see your current total of 207 as being anywhere near adequate. It is also important to show a good involvement in WP:NAMESPACE, which means taking part in WP:AfD, WP:RfA and WP:POLICY, etc. discussions.--Anthony.bradbury 00:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 322 edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from 322. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Flowerpotman talk-wot I've done 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 322 (reply to your message)

Sorry, I was a bit confused about what you were trying to do at 322 The standard naming convention for articles about years is to give the article the name of the year. So 322 is the standard place in Wikipedia for the article about the year 322, and to be honest, I think that should stay where it is.

If you want to create a disambiguation page for the number, maybe you should create an article at 322 (disambiguation). You could then add an other uses tag , i.e. {{otheruses4|the year}}, at the 322 article. Hope this helps... Flowerpotman talk-wot I've done 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All seems to be working. I added a disambig tag to the 322 (disambiguation) page so it gets categorized. Flowerpotman talk-wot I've done 23:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Dear editor. I'm puzzled by your renaming of this article to "16th", and by your explanation for the change. Every article I have checked so far shows the title spelled out, as in First Amendment to the United States Constitution, etc. I haven't checked every one (in the case of the United States, all the way through Amendment 27), but I'm unclear as to why this change was really needed. Any comment? Yours, Famspear 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow up note: OK, I've believe I've checked the articles for all 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution and I can't find a single one (other than the article you changed) that uses the numera format for the number. All appear to spell out the number, as in "First" amendment rather than "1st." Yours, Famspear 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cars85

omg; he/she just became a user, don't delete the page right away, wait a few months

Let me highlight the relevant portion of the notice, for your convenience:

"Not an active editor's page: Only two edits (both in March 2006) are to this page. WP is not a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute."

It appears the userpage is being used for information storage that may be used to create an article.

It's a spam page, part of an identical series of eighteen I tagged today, essentially reproducing a series of ALREADY deleted articles, all created in Match 2006.

Wait a few months. If there are still no edits, then the deletion tag may be applicable

Does "12" count as "a few"? --Calton | Talk 07:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've tagged hundreds of these type of things, and I swear there's no end in sight. I apologize if my message seemed like overkill. --Calton | Talk 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you need to be the one to revert the change, because I can't. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Calton | Talk 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 28, 2007

Please do not violate Wikipedia policy by introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Pat Payne 21:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Vandalism

Randomfrenchie,

Thank you for the observation. Please note, however, that it is from March 28 and it has already been addressed. Why you are readdressing it days later is a mystery. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/n/User_talk%7ERandomfrenchie_3811.html"