User talk:A.J.1.5.2./April07
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Talk
[edit] Usage of fair use images in the user namespace
Hello again Gregor. I see you reverted my removal of the copyrighted University of Sussex logo (Image:University of sussex small logo.gif). I must ask you to reconsider this, as the image is uploaded to Wikipedia under a "fair use" license, meaning it is not free and may only be used in some contexts. According to Wikipedia's policy on fair use (Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy), fair use images may be used only in the article namespace - see point 9 in the policy I linked. Therefore, I must again ask you to remove the following images from your userpage:
- Image:Imperial logo.gif
- Image:University of sussex small logo.gif
- Image:UCL-logo-new.png
- Image:Drexciyathereturnofdrexciya.JPG
Thanks in advance. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- That you have made an edit (to your userpage, even) after my posting of the above message indicates that you have read it. Any response, or will you continue ignoring me? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sadly it takes me time to find alternative images, I also have written to UCL to see if I can permission to use the logo. If I was a member of staff then the use of the logo would be fine, however, the rules seem less clear if you are a graduate student. I would fix things sooner if you were less vexatious. - Synthesis for all 13:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm sorry, your failure to respond coupled with your earlier reverting of my removal of copyrighted content led me to (wrongly) assume you were going to ignore my inquiries. I am glad we have sorted it out now. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Patrick de Meyer
[edit] Patrick de Meyer
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Patrick de Meyer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pete.Hurd 01:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- It was deleted on 31st March by someone even though I pointed out that he was a member of two bands that charted and have their own pages T99 and Technotronic. This should make him notable. He is also a well known Belgian electronic music producer. I think that maybe people see the word Belgian in front of a musician and immediately decide they are not notable. So how you managed to tag it is beyond me, maybe time travel? - Synthesis for all 10:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, Patrick De Meyer was the deleted article. I noticed that the redirect page Patrick de Meyer was not deleted, so I put a prod tag on it and notified you, it's creator, as a courtesy. No time travel involved. Pete.Hurd 14:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was deleted on 31st March by someone even though I pointed out that he was a member of two bands that charted and have their own pages T99 and Technotronic. This should make him notable. He is also a well known Belgian electronic music producer. I think that maybe people see the word Belgian in front of a musician and immediately decide they are not notable. So how you managed to tag it is beyond me, maybe time travel? - Synthesis for all 10:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Jarvic 7
An editor has nominated Jarvic 7, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarvic 7 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Meister Bock
Your articles states the services provided by an otherwise non-notable establishment (as far as one can tell from the article). If it was not intentionally so, that makes it an advertisement. If you intend to re-create it, as you state, then for it to survive you will nned to include real assertions of notability.--Anthony.bradbury 12:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
