User talk:Georgeccampbell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Campbell's Discussion Page

[edit] Stop

Stop blanking articles. It is considered vandalism. You do it again, you will be blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism and personal attacks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It was worth it. george 00:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Hiya.

I'm not going to type in the fantastically long title of your article :-)

Re: "This is new information, not available anywhere else" [1]: Please see Wikipedia:No original research for an explanation of why such information is unsuitable for Wikipedia, and a list of places where such research is not only tolerated, but encouraged.

chocolateboy 05:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia is not for me. george 14:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I replied to your message here.

chocolateboy 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let It Go

George You have done good and interesting work on the Defense Homes Corp and its developments so it seems you have something to offer. The present debate over your last article up for AFD, though, contains many vitriolic comments from you that are unworthy. At times like these, you just have to bite your lip and reaslise that a private webhost may be the answer for getting the info out there.

Here's a similar case of non-notability for an editor who was passionate about the subject [[2]]. Eddie.willers 15:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ease Of Deletion

George - thanks for the comments re: my msg to you. The problem with making the AFD process too complex or too slow, in my opinion, is that it would give carte-blance to the vandals and fools. Take a look at the Articles For Deletion pages each day - there's at least 150 articles per day being considered - and you'll see that there's a good deal of nonsense, personal attacks, unverified statements, personal opinions etc etc. AFD is not perfect but it does work - after a fashion. Eddie.willers 18:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miloslav Istvan

Feel free to point out the hoax: http://www.musicabona.com/istvan/cd/index.html.en Antidote 06:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marking Articles for deletion

You recently categorized a number of articles under Candidates for speedy deletion. Please be advised that these are part of a larger project that is attempting to create articles related to education in Canada. If you would like to help please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada. Wakemp 08:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping an eye on a vandal

Not sure what this guy's problem is. Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Thank you for experimenting with the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Stelzner on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please read our Manual of Style

Hello George. When you have a moment, please review our Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Generally speaking, years and decades, such as 1942 or 1940s, are considered to be "low value" links, and it is not necessary to repeatedly internally link to every word or phrase that has an article in Wikipedia. Over linking to certain words, especially in the same paragraph, is both distracting and puts an undue burden on our readers who use dial-up to obtain an internet connection. If you have any further questions regarding this please don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CCC&StL

What evidence do you have of this being the "Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad"? The external link in the article - [3] - calls it Railway, as does the database at [4], and this valuation report. --SPUI (T - C) 14:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

See also this stock certificate. --SPUI (T - C) 14:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's how Rowlee Steiner refers to it in his manuscript. The stock certificate, however, is damning evidence that I'm wrong.george 14:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti Speedy Deletion

I do not consider Race to Space to be a "minor" film in all respects. It was not released by an obscure company and has notable cast members. Other much less qualified films have remained on Wikipedia. Although I do admit that it is the IMDb’s job to list every film out there, Wikipedia is also responsible for featuring relatively significant films.
I hope I don't sound rude. =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 07:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not done making the page yet. =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Brunkeberg Tunnel

I don't understand why people put up articles with just one sentence. I think it behooves you to write some text about who built the tunnel, why it was built, interesting history, etc. It appears that the page was created simply to show a neat photograph that you took! Its not an article, its like a factoid in the U.S.A. Today newspaper. george 12:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all I did not take that picture! Sorry you don't like the article, but it is a pretty old (i.e. historical) and also a very long tunnel, so it is not just some crap. Bronks 12:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion

George, please stop using articles for deletion as a venue to make a point. Your recent submissions appear to be driven by your personal dislike of certain content. If you want to change to policy and guidelines on bands and article quality, please work with other editors to reach consensus on the appropriate policy/guideline talk page. Thanks, Gwernol 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has to stand up for Quality. The band Hole is not notable and I've never heard of it. The fact that they have obscene lyrics just makes them less relevant unless you are a 12 year old who thinks its funny to see Dicksomething. george 20:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Its your opinion that Dicknail is "obscene dreck", one that is not shared by millions of other people. We are not here to build "the Encyclopedia of things that George finds inoffensive" nor "the Encyclopedia of stuff George has heard of". If you want to build that, then you are encouraged to set up your own Wiki-based encyclopedia with your own rules. While you are editing here its reasonable to ask you to stick by the rules such as WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL until there is WP:CONSENSUS to change them. Gwernol 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knives

Thanks for your additin to the Bob Loveless page. If you are a knife enthusiast, I would appreciate your help in putting together a category of notable knife makers. Again, thanksIsaac Crumm 04:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

George, thanks for the kind words...as a Drake alumnus and CFL fan, I couldn't believe that Johnny Bright didn't have an entry on Wikipedia. I'm glad you liked the page!

[edit] License tagging for Image:Ohio State Fair Picture 3.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Ohio State Fair Picture 3.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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. 01:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Help! I'm drowning in paperwork! Seriously, I marked the image for Speedy Deletion and uploaded another one so hopefully this whole nasty episode will simply go away. george 02:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For your constructive criticism, i fail to see how you can make such statements when the sum total of your wiki contributions are on railroads.... You could argue that both of us have interests which lie outside of the mainstream, i fail to see how your comment was helpful?

I didnt realise wikipedia had a bad name

This person didn't sign their name and didn't refer to what article they were discussing. Based on the grammer, I would assume it was a proponent for the Dudicals page. If so, then all the more reason to delete. george 19:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

or even the grammar :) --MichaelMaggs 20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I deserved that. george 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive comments, George! Alanmoss 11:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manasquan Reservoir

In reply to your shockingly rapid criticism, I do not know. The ideology of wikipedia seemingly states that individuals from around the globe should merge together in order to unearth, and summarize the information of a specific subject matter as best as they possibly can. For the moment, this article is classified as a rather brief one; although for the future, it will expand. Patience my fellow wikipedian—patience.Nalco 05:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I cam across a comment you left about an {{afd}} that I a agreed with -- even though you left it well over a year ago. Many participants in the {{afd}} fora are incredibly rude, and irresponsible. So I came to your user pages. Was that article the Rowlee Steiner article? From your brief description he sounded like someone who merited coverage on the wikipedia. Did you consider challenging the deletion?

My own intermittent experience with {{afd}} is that it is a fora where there is unchecked "know-nothingism" -- "If I never heard of him/it, then this topic is not-notable"

If you do decide to initiate the steps for undeletion, let me know, and I will be happy to go to undeletion fora, and see if I agree with its undeletion, when I know more about it.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith with User:Analogue Kid

Calling good-faith editors vandals is definitely harsh; vandalism is maliciously removing content from the encyclopedia, not attempting to make it better. Assuming good faith is one of the principles of Wikipedia, and failure to do so reflects poorly. Regardless of whether or not the link is unsuitable, calling User:Analogue Kid a vandal is definitely inappropriate. Linking to your own site in general is a bad idea per the conflict of interest guidelines, as people tend to have an inflated opinion of their own sites, making them unsuitable to judge whether it is applicable. I would suggest starting a discussion on the talk page. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, there are copyright issues here. All of the postcards published after 1923 are technically still copyrighted, and Wikipedia generally does not link to sites that contain copyright infringement. While the likelihood of any action being taken is slim to none, it is generally felt that the best course of action is to be safe and simply not link. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I give my opinion fwiw on the discussion page of the Columbus article. Since the site is responsible for copyright, not us, I'd rather know that a copyright is infringed before blocking the link. We link to inumerable sites without verifying that they material they host is compliant will all laws. I agree we don't want to particularly promote illegal sites if we know of them. Pete St.John 19:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than constantly deleting other people's contributions, why don't these "self-appointed hall monitors" go and add something themselves? Five percent of the edits to an article actually add information to it while the rest either tinker or remove. Its pathetic. george 15:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colonial Hills

No, as far as I remember I'd never heard of the place before coming across its article. Thanks for the compliment, though! Nyttend 00:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:1940-11_White_Lead_Paint_2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:1940-11_White_Lead_Paint_2.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 09:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example of why Wikipedia sucks. If people put 10% of the effort into adding to articles that they spend trying to remove things, it would be a lot better. george 11:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1940-11_White_Lead_Paint.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:1940-11_White_Lead_Paint.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 09:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Have lawyers overtaken Wikipedia? This doesn't even make sense. There will be no images at this rate. george 11:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:1940-11_White_Lead_Paint_2.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:1940-11_White_Lead_Paint_2.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shell ^babelfish 23:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

Thank you for making a report about 206.188.164.2 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! WODUP 05:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)