User talk:Philaweb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot.
Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Your new userboxes are ALL copyright violations!!

I see you added a bunch of user boxes with the logos of various car clubs on them.

Sadly, you're going to have to go and delete them all again because every single one of them is a copyright violation of that companies logo. You simply aren't allowed to go around using copyrighted images like that just anywhere in Wikipedia. The images are used in articles about car companies under the provisions of 'fair use' - which is a special excemption under copyright law that applies when the imageis being used for purposes of commentary about the company. Within Wikipedia, we have a set of ten conditions that must ALL be met in order to use an image under 'fair use' provisions. You can find that list in WP:FU - and your user boxes only meet about half of the conditions. So it is imperative that you remove these new userboxes immediately.

Any day now, you'll find your Talk page filled with automatic complaints from tools that run within Wikipedia that search for illegal uses of copyrighted images. Please don't wait for that to happen before acting!

SteveBaker (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed them all. Many thanks for letting me know. Philaweb T-C 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lund Central Station

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lund Central Station, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Lund central station. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of Østerport Station This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize there is a move feature. Many thanks for letting me know. Philaweb T-C 21:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Same with København H. I fixed that one. Thue | talk 23:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Many thanks for moving and splitting the pages as requested. Ir seems to me that User:Ivan Bogdanov and anon-ID 89.216.91.129 has similar preferences for articles on heads of states etc. I am not able to determin whether the article moves can be justified. All I know is that both users move and revert without communication in any way with other editors. Philaweb T 15:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems, Philaweb. Feel free to drop by my talk page if you need any help in future. I'm going to keep an eye on User:Ivan Bogdanov - I'm quite concerned about his shifting articles about without discussion and some of his edits look a bit peculiar. Sarah 07:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

I reviewed your account, Philaweb, and you look like a good candidate for 'rollback' so I gave you permission for it.[1]. Rollback is a special fast, one click feature that allows fast reversion of edits. It is used by administrators who can also enable it on the accounts of trusted editors; currently there are around 900 editors with rollback permission. Please be careful that you only use it for reverting vandalism - editors who have misused the tool, using it on good-faith, non-vandalism edits and in edit wars have had it removed without warning. Here are some helpful pages:

Cheers, Sarah 07:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, it already came in handy. Philaweb T 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked Ivan for 72 hours, but please make sure that you only use rollback for reverting obvious vandalism. Don't use it on edits that appear to be good faith if misguided edits as Ivan's edits appear to be. If you aren't sure if an edit is vandalism, don't use it. It's only made available to trusted editors as an anti-vandalism tool. Sarah 02:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ivan blanked warnings of his talkpage more than once, which indicates: 1) He is well aware of what a talkpage is 2) He has no intention of communicating. I do not see hes edits as being of good faith if misguided. Philaweb T 07:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that may be but I'm just telling you because you will lose the rollback privs if you keep using it like that. It is only a anti-vandalism tool and as easy as it is given it can be taken away by any admin who notices it being misused. It's up to you what you choose to do from here on but I know that those edits would not be interpreted by other admins as obvious vandalism but rather as something warranting an edit summary. Remember that edit summaries aren't just for the user you're reverting but for other editors as well - if you're using any automated reversion tool it should be very obvious to other editors looking at the edit history why it's being reverted, and if it isn't obvious it needs to be reverted by normal means. Even blanking warnings isn't vandalism and can't be interpreted as bad faith - people are allowed to remove messages (even warnings) from their talk pages and we simply take that as confirmation that they've read the message and can't claim in future when we block them that they never saw it. Sarah 07:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have most likely misunderstood the concept of rollback and would like you to remove the privilege. Philaweb T 07:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to take the last part of that sentence back.
Since I was in a hurry this morning and did not have time to elaborate, I would like to elaborate on my (07:12, 26 February 2008) answer now. Naturally, people are allowed to remove messages from their talk pages. That was not my point. My point is when people remove or revert messages to their talk pages, they also confirm they are actually aware of their existence and the likelyhood of the messages actually being read. Not answering the messages confirms unwillingness to communicate, which then further strengthens the impression of not being of good faith, even if misguided. Philaweb T 17:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Otte Wallish

Hi. I noticed that you put the article at Start quality. What would it take to get this to be a Good Article, in your view? Do you have much experience with the GA criteria and process? Thanks. Pls reply to my talk, HG | Talk 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I assessed this article at Start quality on the basis of the philatelic content, the biographical content has to be assessed at the same level. The article is well referenced, even though you could do some additional work on the citing technique. To improve the article I suggest you to dig into the procedures of preparations for the postage stamp issues - the why's and how's of the story. Furthermore, you need to take out words like "ironically", since it may just be ironical to some people (POV). After some days I will have a look at the article again for a second view. Philaweb T 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar Berger-Levrault

Hello! You marked the article as unreferenced. Is the Bertelsmann-Lexikon not a good reference? Kind regards, — Tirkfltalk 08:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the Bertelsmann-Lexikon. The article is missing in-line citations. Philaweb T 10:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PrivatBank

I would ask you to reflect upon your removal of PrivatBank from WikiProject Latvia. AS Banka Paritāte was a significant business bank in Latvia during the 1990s, and its re-branding as PrivatBank last year does not change this fact. Perhaps SEB Unibanka and Hansabanka also, despite their histories, should now be considered purely foreign (i.e. Swedish) banks? Being primarily related to Latvia is not, to my knowledge, the guiding criteria for inclusion of an article in WikiProject Latvia. Cf. DJ Lethal, for example. — Zalktis (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

AS Banka Paritāte is now AS PrivatBank (Latvia) - a subsidiary of PrivatBank. They are two different juridical entities, as well as SEB Unibanka is a subsidiary of SEB and Hansabanka is a subsidiary of Swedbank. The article AS PrivatBank (Latvia) would be a perfect candidate for inclusion to the WikiProject Latvia. Philaweb T 10:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Message about the Latvian SSR 1919

Hi Phila, if you can correct/revert my edit then please do so. I was trying to clean up the English of some of the articles so I may have made a few errors in terminology. I substituted "Soviet" for "bolshevik" in a lot of cases because it was a more neutral term but obviously in this article I will bow to superior judgement. In later articles I have done this substitution because it could be regarded as NPOV but here obviously you believe it is necessary. Thanks for your contact. Lstanley1979 (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just grateful thanks for your dog-work!

Hello! I just wanted to let you know your efforts on tagging content has not gone unnoticed! Many thanks for taking on the thankless task! —PētersV (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)