Talk:History of gunpowder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Image
I removed the image from this article[1], which clearly from another website created in year 2000 http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~dispater/handgonnes.htm. Eiorgiomugini 05:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Eiorgiomugini. Reproductions of ancient paintings are free of copyright in the United States. This is called PD-Art on Wikipedia. This image is therefore Public Domain. Thank you to restore it. Here is the PD-Art tag for your information:
The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years. Under American copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright work may not be protected under American copyright law. |
Arlight, fine, but I think the caption of the image needs some source. Eiorgiomugini 06:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion
May I know why material supposedly from Encyclopedia Britannica (though I myself haven't checked it) is being deleted? Is the material misattributed? Or is the source considered unreliable?[2]Bless sins (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Read the very extended discussion in the main Gunpowder article. Hopefully that will answer most or all of your questions. Regards. Meatwaggon (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
-
user:Meatwaggon is undoing other editors (user:Pyrotec and user:Ammar shaker) and removing Britannica.
-
He's getting away with it because of the following things he said to me, which drove me away:
-
-
your feeble attempt to sound ecumenical notwithstanding, as if that was somehow going to fool anybody.Oh, if I could only convey the depths of my amusement at this statement.he seems to be doing a bang-up job so far.I could also easily make an idiotic parade of your own recent diarrhea of edits to this page.so ignoring your idiotic attempts at caricaturization.
-
-
This was in answer to "why material supposedly from Encyclopedia Britannica is being deleted"? The copy/paste of quotes is given here BTW.
-
-
- Nobody drove you away, Vtria. Or was it Moerou? You've had so many names. You also said you were going to appeal to an administrator. What happened? Decided to be nice? Or was it because you felt they might actually follow up on my assertions about you? You tucked tails and ran, though I asked you to stay and answer for yourself. The fact that you now come over here to whine speaks volumes about your intellectual integrity. Not to mention you conveniently failed to include the context of my posts and have been able to hide your personal attacks against me with this method of list-posting. Anywho, now that you're here, care to answer some of the more vexing questions that you pointedly and repeatedly chose to avoid before? Or are you just going to run again? BTW, you also represented like you had additional sources which back you up, which you said you could post screenshots of. Where are they, pray tell? It's been several days now, and not having enough time to post them is becoming less and less of an excuse, especially given the plethora of edits you've made here in the recent past. Everybody is still waiting in rapt attention for you to educate us, Vtria. Meatwaggon (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Categories: Military technology and engineering task force articles | B-Class military history articles | WikiProject Firearms | B-Class Firearms articles needing review | B-Class Firearms articles | Unassessed China-related articles | Unknown-importance China-related articles | Unassessed Middle Ages articles | Unknown-importance Middle Ages articles