User talk:Adambro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July - November 2007 December - April 2008 |
[edit] WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2008
| The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 10:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Upload an Image
hi, u recently contacted me on my talk page, (stephent90).
I have an image of Ince & Elton train station which I wish to upload, (photograph taken by me, owned by me), but as I am not yet an autoconfirmed user, I cannot do this.
Is there any way that would enable me to upload this picture now?
Thanks
Stephent90 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image Deletion
How do I delete images of mine that I am not satisfied with from commons? Britishrailclass91 (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- What image(s) would you be thinking of in particular. It might not be possible to delete all of them I'm afraid. Just a note about Commons regarding your comment about leaving and using Flickr instead. Commons isn't and doesn't intend to be a photo sharing site like Flickr, the idea of Commons is that you upload selected photos which are useful to one or more Wikimedia Foundation projects rather than sharing all photos you've taken as you might do on Flickr. Adambro (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Poetlister images
I have responded on my talk page here and on my talk page at Commons. I'm sorry if having the conversation in two different places makes it difficult for you to read. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ince & Elton Timetable
hi, why was timetable information removed for Ince and Elton railway station?
I feel as the service is infrequent, and many trains terminate at various destinations, it improves the article as it shows what destinations are available from the station. (rail articles tend to have comments such as "every 30 minutes", something which cannot be used here due to the irregular timings.
please advise
(talk) 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rockpool kayaks logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Rockpool kayaks logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Copyright claim
I'm aware of the situation; thank you. Ral315 (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pornography
Haven't you seen all of the news (see the wikipedia signpost) about how there is pornography. An encyclopedia that can be accessed by children should not have this sort of content! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Like Adam has said on various talk pages, since when did a naked human automatically equal pornography? This whole thing has really been blown way out of the water. Do you not think that such images are present in other encyclopaedias? ~~ [Jam][talk] 12:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I think JGXenite's point here is not entirely relevant. Whilst I would agree it is important to recognise that other more conventional encyclopaedias will cover controversial topics it is not necessarily possible to directly compare these with Wikipedia in an attempt to support or oppose the inclusion of the images. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopaedia in the conventional sense, we're not limited by space like a printed encyclopaedia would be and so where they might have to decide not to include images in some articles due to space limitations, we don't have this consideration. Therefore, simply because Encyclopedia Britannica for example does not include similar images, this does not mean that we shouldn't. Adambro (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but what I see is that wikipedians are becoming too confident. While their work that made this encyclopedia is something to be proud of, and indeed Wikipedia is far better than any other reference work in so many aspects, one should not forget that we are striving to build a professional encyclopedia, which should adhere as closely to the established academic writing rules, and gain its reliable status as other encyclopedias written by scholars. The MOS, especially the policies on the use of citations, IPA, trademarks... are a clear example of Wikipedia professionalism. Therefore, I don't see why Encarta and Britannica shouldn't be seen, or at least partly, as models. So, I don't know why you should sacrifice Wikipedia's professionalism in order to highlight its uniqueness and its "free-speech" and "no taboo" environment with really bad taste pictures (look at fluffing and stripper) doesn't anyone have common sense?) which are uploaded because editors are mostly anonymous persons and not renowned scholars. Eklipse (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- In the case of the two articles you highlight, I'm afraid I must suggest that the images are useful in assisting the reader in understanding the topic. Adambro (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The policies you refer to are to ensure that accuracy and legal compliance remain priorities. Professionalism, at least in a traditional sense, isn't necessarily where those come from. We're an encyclopedia, but we're also a wiki. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but what I see is that wikipedians are becoming too confident. While their work that made this encyclopedia is something to be proud of, and indeed Wikipedia is far better than any other reference work in so many aspects, one should not forget that we are striving to build a professional encyclopedia, which should adhere as closely to the established academic writing rules, and gain its reliable status as other encyclopedias written by scholars. The MOS, especially the policies on the use of citations, IPA, trademarks... are a clear example of Wikipedia professionalism. Therefore, I don't see why Encarta and Britannica shouldn't be seen, or at least partly, as models. So, I don't know why you should sacrifice Wikipedia's professionalism in order to highlight its uniqueness and its "free-speech" and "no taboo" environment with really bad taste pictures (look at fluffing and stripper) doesn't anyone have common sense?) which are uploaded because editors are mostly anonymous persons and not renowned scholars. Eklipse (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think JGXenite's point here is not entirely relevant. Whilst I would agree it is important to recognise that other more conventional encyclopaedias will cover controversial topics it is not necessarily possible to directly compare these with Wikipedia in an attempt to support or oppose the inclusion of the images. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopaedia in the conventional sense, we're not limited by space like a printed encyclopaedia would be and so where they might have to decide not to include images in some articles due to space limitations, we don't have this consideration. Therefore, simply because Encyclopedia Britannica for example does not include similar images, this does not mean that we shouldn't. Adambro (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Penis
How dare you link such an article to my talk page, I am thoroughly disgusted with your actions. If I were an admin, I would block you! I will be deleting the link. Britishrailclass91 (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I was just about to say the same thing... *rolleyes*
- If you haven't already, you might like to read DragonHawk's comments on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Pornography. ~~ [Jam][talk] 18:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I am starting to get increasingly annoyed with wikipedia users who seem to think pornography is fine for wikipedia. And to think I used to trust you Adambro. Britishrailclass91 (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Quite Equazcion - Wikipedia is uncensored and community produced. Overall, there is nothing wrong with the pictures - as has been said, they are perfectly relevant for the articles they are included in. If you do not like them, don't go on the articles featuring them. There are far worse things out there on the Internet than the pictures on the articles in question. ~~ [Jam][talk] 18:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Sure Radio
Hey Adam. Do you think that Sure Radio is notable enough to have its own page? I've been deliberating for a while as to whether or not I should take it to AfD. Most of the stuff there isn't referenced, and while it is fairly well known within the University, I'm not sure whether it is notable enough for its own page. Cheers. ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Geograph railway station images
Good point. I'll avoid using old photographs in the infobox when there is a new one available. Edward (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] wiki.xyrael.net
I am Adambro on wiki.xyrael.net. Adambro (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rollback rights
Ok, I am consulting you, now please, inquiring minds want to know what the benefit of having both rollbacker and syop rights are. :D Tiptoety talk 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Editor Review
I thought I would start off the reviewing - no-one else seemed keen! Btline (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Yorkshire - June 2008 Newsletter
| The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 11:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reminder Sunday Lunchtime
Just a reminder about Wikipedia:Meetup/London 10 See you Sunday 1p.m.! -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
