User talk:Rusl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey - the Al Gore presentation is already online in a legal form: http://www.thewatt.com/article-1156-nested-1-0.html The lorax 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ciclovia

Based on your edits, you seem more of the bike type than the Spanish speaker, but you made edits to an article recently, so I thought I'd point you to a question I had at Talk:Ciclovia--Fisherjs 14:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USA influence

I am starting to get disallusioned by wikipedia. There is too much US viewpoints bias creeping in. I was looking up liberal and think tank. They are just so damn America. For instance, liberalism is only seperated from radicalism in France, according to this article. And the necessity of reference is so abused as being simply href to the mainsteam news trumpets. Stephanie McMillan is seen as a liberal somehow. There is no entry on her. But there is this BS think tank article about the great depression [1]...

Anyway I'm not giving up. But I'm becomeing dispirited by so much hubris on these articles. Before it was really a lot less people contributing to writing the articles and a much larger percentage were doing it from a basis of edumacation. Now, so much 'content' generation business comes from this thing that the right wingers are trying to take it over. They have and easy time making idiotic propaganda assumptions rule the day. It is subtle, but it is dispiriting.

I guess I am not seeing the big picture. Of well. Damn that idea of progress!

And all the fucking anal get-me-a-cheap-href-tags that are appearing. Some cleanup nazi robots are running wild. What purpose is there is banalising this entire thing so it does nothing more than refernce and bunch of trivial myopia from crappy 'newspaper' websites. Kill the message. Now even the article on progress is not very enlightening, instead it points to all sorts of trivial variants and is having a hard time questioning the basic word that it is meant to.

[edit] Serious insecurity

The idea of having a reference link for every single point of fact is absurd and new to wikipedia. When I first started looking at this thing - long before I because a registered user - the reference ephasis was not there. It seems the insecurity of a few to prove that wikipedia is indeed as good as Brittanica - that the subjectivity of open editing is absolutely countered by obcessive citation - that is pure insecurity. Not seeing the point. I don't know why we are trying to recreate this in the image of something it is not.

It's like the insecurity currently gripping my city of Vancouver about the 2010 Olympics making us 'world class' (like a 1980s airline commercial)... Or the Bushies cabal insecurity war on terrorism. A kind of overcompensation that is hidden by people never looking at the big picture - and getting away with it because it is an insecurity that pretends to be ABOUT the bigger picture. But frankly, having URLs for statements is not big imagination. Neither are 2 week sports events or police states/corporate welfare schemes. We as a species have a lot more potential in us.


[edit] Redirect of Pyslsk

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Pyslsk, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pyslsk is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Pyslsk, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 04:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pyslsk screenshot.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pyslsk screenshot.png. 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. BetacommandBot 14:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nicotine Screenshot.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nicotine Screenshot.png. 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. BetacommandBot 15:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Maryleechan-takingoncityhall.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Maryleechan-takingoncityhall.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) 14:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)