User talk:Justforasecond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


S E M I - R E T I R E D]

This user left Wikipedia in January 2007 but comes to visit now and then

Plenty of reasons why. Most of all, it just isn't fun anymore. I'll save the lengthy analysis of what is wrong with wikipedia for another time.

See yall round.

Justforasecond 21:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I thought this was unkind

Please don't refer to the things I write as "chatter." [1] It is demeaning and rude, especially after, in the RfC, I had specifically explained that I found that rude when Dbachmann did it earlier. Second, please try to keep your comments on all talk pages and RfCs focused on the matter at hand and refrain from bringing up unrelated matters or old vendettas. This RfC is not about Deeceevoice, it is about many users who feel they have been treated with no respect by Dbachmann, including myself. I found your interjection off topic and unhelpful. If you do have something to add, can you do it in such a way that's more calm and constructive? I'm also letting you know that you made me angry, but I'm trying to be non-confrontational about it. futurebird (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Justforasecond, I noticed that you opposed my arbitration candidacy on the basis that, as I'm a checkuser ombudsperson, I "monitor arbcom" and this would create a conflict of interest. I'm just a bit confused about this - because I said in my candidate statement that if it was felt that it would be a COI to hold the two roles I would gladly step down as an ombudsperson. Rebecca 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be a bit confused about the role of the ombudsperson. They don't actually have anything to do with the arbitration committee or blocking - their only role is to investigate complaints about CheckUser data being disclosed in breach of the privacy policy. Rebecca 08:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Kreager

For starters, keep in mind that AfD isn't a numerical vote; consensus is based upon editors bringing up reasons according to Wikipedia guidelines for a keep or delete. In this case, the reasons to keep the article were primarily based upon predictions that it may become a long-lasting news item of notability, which isn't an acceptable reason (WP:NOT#NEWS applies here, among other reasons). Perhaps more importantly, though, the Baltimore bus beating article paralleled the same content while focusing on the larger (and more notable) issue, drawing in all parties involved; keeping both articles would just duplicate information.

You can bring up the issue at Deletion Review if you disagree; I won't take it personally. I would instead suggest focusing on working on the Baltimore article, however, as there's not a need to have two articles with the same content. Cheers, Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] jpgordon

Ok so I came to your page and I changed the retired thing cause it was totaly misleading! I also explaned that on your talk page I think nicely... but that jpgordon guy came to my page to tell me not to do that! WTF i figure if you had a problem with it you would have said so, it's not like I blanked all your info!!! Plus what buisness is it of his anyway... well I thought I would let you know it seems he has a personal vendeta against you... cool!!! I can't seem to get under people's skin that much (yet!) but I think my latest comment will get me blackballed! LOL John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Re....

I wanted to do it to your since I saw it... but it's just plain mean and wrong. So i put it on my page. have a look if you want ^^ John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Yoshimura webpage.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Yoshimura webpage.JPG. 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) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Miami vice don johnson.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Miami vice don johnson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:House_armed_services_committee.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:House_armed_services_committee.gif. 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 14:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 14:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Barrel_racing.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Barrel_racing.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 14:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Talk:Perl 6

Talk pages are not a venue for your opinions of the subject of the article. I have removed your comments. Please restrict yourself to article-related discussion on talk pages in future. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 16:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Miami vice don johnson.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Miami vice don johnson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)