User talk:Jsonitsac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them; *How to edit a page *How to write a great article *Naming conventions *Manual of Style If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Alexandros 00:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It appears that we're both right concerning the Washington Redskins helmet. They seem to use both. I'll change the page. I hope you're not planning on inserting that helmet picture into the article becuase:

1. 1-It has a nonsense article name
2. 2-It's probably a copyright violation.

RickK 00:01, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello Jsonitsac -- welcome aboard! I see you've been busy creating new articles and adding to existing ones. I did find, however, an lot of typos in many of your edits -- there are a lot of folks who do housekeeping work here, but you're creating so much good content that it will be hard to keep up. Please don't take offense, but perhaps you'll consider editing in WordPerfect or Word (or any other word processor with a spellchecker) and then pasting the checked text into the article. And also, I added a number of wikilinks -- using the "Show preview" button helps, but mostly you'll get a good sense of what people tend to link and what will most likely have an article about it.

Anyway, hope this helps and I look forward to more of your work. Please feel free to ask me any questions you've got!

Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 05:24, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

• Image:Images.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 03:15, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Operation Bernhard

Hi. I'm partly reverting your edit to Operation Bernhard because you said that the leaders of the operation did not want the forgers killed else they would be considered war criminals. This is not the case - the SS guards were ordered to kill the forgers all together at the start of May 1945, it was only the breakdown of the truck which was being used to transport the forgers 1/3rd at a time between camps which delayed the massacre long enough for the camp to be liberated. -- Arwel 23:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NMAH.gif

This orphan image has been listed for deletion on WP:IFD

[edit] Image:Camdenyards.jpg

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 09:46, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional Elvis impersonators

The List of fictional Elvis impersonators is currently nominated for deletion. As a previous editor on that article, your opinion in this matter is valued. -Litefantastic 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Jsonitsacsig.jpg

--Hetar 09:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, it's not a good idea to use images, and especially not fair use images, in your signature. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landover Baptist Founder

See the talk section of Landover. We know that the Objective Ministries is a prank by the same people -- that is even mentioned in the main article (or was).

That doesn't mean that everything it says on the Objective Ministeries site is inaccurate. There is no doubt that Chris Harper is the chief writer and the founder of Landover along with the character who does the Mrs Betty Bowers site. If it wasn't already well-known the book that they have just written makes it plain. Stunz 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cardassian Union logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cardassian Union logo.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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. Durin 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Romulan Star Empire logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Romulan Star Empire logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Temple Institute

I removed the material you added because the article is on a specific organization, the Temple Institute, and criticism of specific religious institutions has to be specific and reliably sourced, it can't be inferred synthetically from general principles. Because criticism tends to be controversial, the verification and original research synthesis policies tend to be enforced more strictly than for general exposition. Note that there is a separate Third Temple article on the general concept as a whole which does include a section on Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism views. If we didn't have this policy, every article on every Orthodox synagogue would end up with a large section on Reform Judaism's general critique of Orthodoxy, every Reform temple article would quote general Orthodox criticisms of Reform, and this criticism could easily end up dwarfing the article's subject. For this reason, only criticism of the specific instution itself is appropriate in articles on an institution (and the source has to mention the institution). General criticism should go on the general articles. If a significant figure in Reform or Conservative Judaism has said something about the Temple Institute, you're welcome to summarize what they said and cite the source. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Washington-crossing-delaware.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Washington-crossing-delaware.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BlueAzure (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)