User talk:BirdKr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, BirdKr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 05:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Battlefield2Stats.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Battlefield2Stats.jpg. 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. 12:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield 2 Weapons

How do I make a table? Why not make it yourself rather than undoing my edit? Vayne 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Battlefield2Stats.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Battlefield2Stats.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you delete the image? --BirdKr 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Battlefield2Cover.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Battlefield2.jpg. The copy called Image:Battlefield2.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 18:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerstmanngate

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For preventing the conspiracy theorists from pushing their POV. Will (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What on earth?

Aside from you and Sceptre\Will (nice award above, I see), the consensus on the discussion page was that there's nothing wrong with including the information. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I originally wanted to post the information, and even wrote a draft of it, later on I suspected that the information was non-notable due to the fact that it is based on gossip and the event has been out of the radar the week after the news was broken. Despite the fact that were reliable sources reporting on the rumor, their sources could not be verified. The controversy had a strong face, but a weak foundation.
As for what you call "consensus", there is hardly any, with those who want the information added being unregistered users.--BirdKr (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nearly everybody there seemed to agree it should included. And there is a difference between "gossip" and "widespread controversial rumor."

What distinguishes the former from the latter is that it is more widespread and credible, based on some actual evidence other than anonymous sources in the tabloids and blogs. A lawsuit regarding a rumor, for instance, is more than "gossip." Sceptre acknowledged this. But why, for instance, should there have to be a lawsuit for a rumor to be regarded as "encyclopedic"?

The mainstream media covers widespread controversial rumors -- making it notable -- while tabloids cover gossip. So, given the degree of mainstream coverage this story has been given, it is far more than, for instance, mere allegations about John Travolta being a homosexual.

Examples of rumors included in Wikipedia, of the same standard as this article (no lawsuits and so on):

San_Jose_Earthquakes

However, in January 2004, rumors surfaced that the club might be sold to the owners of Mexico City's Club America (and potentially renamed "America San Jose" or "America USA").

BitComet

As a result of the now fixed DHT bug, rumors spread that BitComet was abusing the BitTorrent protocol.

Ronald Speirs

Soon after, rumors began circling that Speirs had killed twenty or thirty POWs after handing them cigarettes and giving them a light. Speirs never denied nor confirmed the rumors.

Scepter's entire argument relies on the assumption that rumors = gossip = conspiracy theories. Under that definition, the three articles above should all be fixed as well. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed from BitComet and the SJE. However, the rumors surrounding Speirs is historical fact, by virtue of Band of Brothers. By the way, talk page mob mentality can never surpass WP:RS and WP:NOT#NEWS. Will (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Sceptre, the rumors surrounding Speirs are not historical fact because, while widely reported in the media and controversial, they have never been confirmed. What in your opinion is "talk page mob mentality" and how is it different from "consensus"? It is consensus which defines WP:RS and WP:NOT#NEWS. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in response. I would've been concerned with the first example as there's no citation of the rumor regarding to the LIVING PERSON. The 2nd lacked citations on the initial rumor and seemed to be debunked completely by the author of that quote. As for Spiers, such rumor is part of what made him a legend in the Band of Brothers, at least from his Wikipedia article...although such statement is uncited.--BirdKr (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I could find other exaxmples? If this is an issue for Sceptre, he should Google for "rumors" site:Wikipedia. There's thousands, many of which fit the same description above. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale. They'll be dealt with soon enough. Will (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
As much as I appreciate both of you trying to strive to reach at which point does a rumor becomes valid to be mentioned in an article, I think it's better if you discuss such issue in the Gamespot/Kane&Lynch section as no doubt other editors will learn a lot from this discussion as I have.--BirdKr (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sceptre, WP:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy is also an important policy. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not a policy, much less an important one. Importantly though, that advice is to shed some lights on article deletions. --BirdKr (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timing your comments

Just to point out, this comment is replying to another comment that is almost a year old. If you were still interested in the topic, you'd probably be better bringing it up in a new section at the bottom. WLU (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Of course I'm human...

...(beep), (whirr).  ;) NawlinWiki (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expelled

Can you chime in with your thoughts here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)