User talk:Free Citizen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

You might find these pages useful:

You can always experiment in the sandbox.

If you like, you can introduce yourself at the new user log, or write something about yourself on your user page.

One more thing: if you leave a note on any kind of discussion page it's always helpful to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~), which is automatically converted to your username and the date and time. Don't do this in articles themselves though as they are not 'owned' by any particular contributor.

If you have any questions, see help, leave a question at the help desk, or feel free to drop me a line on my talk page.

Thanks again and happy editing!

— Trilobite (Talk) 09:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China

I really don't understand what your problem is. The Wikisource text is linked at the top and the bottom of the page, so you can't miss it. "Wikisource has original text related to this article" - how much clearer do you want it to be? In any case, the Manual of style suggests that you shouldn't place external links nilly-willy anywhere - if you really want to explicitly link to it, then it must go in the external links section at the bottom of the page, which, not surprisingly already has a link to the full text. I won't revert you this time due to WP:3RR, but you should really have a think about this. enochlau (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The question really should be, What is your problem? It is you not I that have a problem with that link being put there. It is put there because it is most appropriate there and not nilly-willy anywhere. Although the title of that sub-heading is Content but it is not the actual content of the Law but interpretations of it. Readers will want to verify its accuracy and where better to put the reference other than at the end of that sub-section? Yes, the same paged is actually linked by the Wikisource notice but the title does not give any hint that it is the full text of the law. Depending on browsing habits, not everyone will click on it. The External links? So many links and so little time. Most netizens won't explore them and to have it listed half way down the list doesn't make it more visible. I am glad that you respect the 3 revert rule but you seem ignorant of good netiquette. Please note that this site is a wiki, meaning anyone can edit. No permission or approval is required to add anything in any form that is valid to the article. Its inclusion however, may be challenged. That is what the discussion page is for. Removing other user's contribution without good reason is like slapping a hand for no good reason. I don't even let my spouse do that. It is rude and bad manners. Since it annoys you so much to see a link too many, I will move the one under External links to where it is most relevant. Since this link and that of Wikisource is not the same, I trust you have nothing to object. (Free Citizen 18:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)).

At the same time, Wikipedia pages need to be neat and ordered, and what's what the Manual of Style is for. Consistency is very important for maintaining a good looking website, and that link just doesn't belong there. How about moving that Wikisource box from the top of the page into that section to address your concern that the full text should be linked to from the section in which Content is discussed. enochlau (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your understanding. However, I believe the Manual of Style is only a guide and not carved in stone. I do agree we should try to adhere to it as much as possible for consistency in layout. Yet, I do not think having that link positioned there breaks the style badly. I still maintain that is the best place to put it. The link title explicitly tells what it is. The Wikisource notice (box) does not. You will notice that the box actually appears twice. One at the top and another in the External Link. The latter may be removed. (Free Citizen 10:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)).

I asked for a second opinion: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Just_want_a_quick_comment. enochlau (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Lsq01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lsq01.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 11:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)