User talk:RebelScum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hey, I just wanted to formally apologize for the mixup over at Gwynfynydd. You're right, I should be more cautious, and I'll try to be in the future.
For however much (or little) it's worth, I think you're an excellent writer. I really like what you wrote at Dolaucothi and Welsh gold.
- Avocado 22:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I should be less angry :) Peace! RebelScum 09:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] {{cleanup}}
I appreciate people pointing out mistakes I make. However, your note wasn't exceptionally helpful in finding out what you are talking about. I suppose you were referring to Robert Fitz Richard. I admit that I slapped the {{cleanup}} tag on that page because I couldn't make head or tail of it and hoped to attract someone who can. I didn't expect that doing so would offend the author so much that he would feel compelled to post a rant on my talk page. I suggest you assume good faith even if you don't agree with someone else's edit every now and then. Rl 14:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's annoying to be in the middle of quite a complicated and rather irritating bit of historical detective work, trying to work out the liniage and correct history of an entire family who lived over 1000 years ago, sometimes going down blind alleys to find that a person, may not have been as important as first thought, or pretty much every source has different birthdates. As soon as your back is turns, some wiki-facist comes along and stamps {{cleanup}} on stuff you wrote, probably without a single moment to think how long it took, or what you are doing. I think that most of these people do it rather than write articles themself, just to get themselves on the history page. RebelScum
-
- As for the motives of other people your guess is as good as mine. However, why we suggest people assume good faith for good reasons. Consider that no matter how long another editor ponders, it is not necessarily apparent how much work you put into your research, or what you are doing, when there's hardly any encyclopedic content on a page. Rl 15:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
Are you aware that your user talk page (this page) is in the category:Wikipedia cleanup? My recommendation would be to change {{cleanup}} to {{subst:cleanup}}, save it (which will expand the template into actually code) and then edit it again to remove the instruction adding it to the category. (I'd do it myself but I'm reluctant to edit other's comments on a talk page.) RJFJR 16:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Clare DW.jpg)
 |
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Clare DW.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 09:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:Normancrest-small.png, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 00:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
