User talk:Tastemyhouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't be Afraid to Care User:Tastemyhouse

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Ragib 2 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)

[edit] Copying text when merging articles

When you copy+paste an article elsewhere, be sure to copy the source from the "edit this page" tab, rather the rendered output. Not doing so causes loss of some of the original wiki links and formatting. Also, it is recommended that you propose the merge and allow time for feedback before just doing a merge. The full process is described on WP:MM -- Bovineone 00:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this info, though i dont know if you're going to look back here or if that was a semi-automated message. The help is appreciated all the same -- I would've waited but since neither page had a talk page it seemed like nobody would mind if i went ahead -- It was the first time i'd done any sort of page move, and i guess i bungled it a bit =) TastemyHouse 00:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Simply because it had no talk page doesn't mean that people aren't willing to talk about proposed changes. I'm not sure I agree that merging was the right thing to do--after all, I originally split it from the main article not long ago. Bovineone 00:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

K. should we move this discussion the article's talk page? TastemyHouse 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal-reverting grapes

For reverting vandalism on Horcrux you get a bunch of grapes. Enjoy. ;) Sam Vimes 06:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
For reverting vandalism on Horcrux you get a bunch of grapes. Enjoy. ;) Sam Vimes 06:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My first barnstar!

If getting a barnstar was the best thing that happened to me today, does that make me a Wikipedia nerd? Thanks! Jasmol 08:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hardcore (film)

No problem. :) tregoweth 10:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks, but I can't take full credit; those aren't my sideburns. :) tregoweth 10:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Pls do not vandalize wikipedia anymore, one more time and you will be banned from editting. NObody wants to see gay sex on wikipedia. Thanks

[edit] Notability as a criterion

I saw your comment over at User talk:Dragonfiend about notability, and thought I'd chip in. As I see it, there's a group of people who feel that, for whatever reason, Wikipedia is better off including only things that are at least marginally well known--that is, notable, not just verifiable. Those people are supported with by another group for whom "notability" is simply a handy way to exclude, e.g., vanity articles about garage bands. Sure, you can't prove that "The Atomic Borscht Conspiracy" (or whoever) actually wrote that article about a group of kids playing the church basement; but it's easy to prove that they've never toured or sold albums. IMO, notability is so widespread because it's the easiest way to attack things that don't belong in WP for other reasons (original research, vanity, etc). Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletions...

heya ;] I just noticed you speedy'ing Dennis Smith (cat man). Couple pointers, if I may ;] When you speedy a page, {{db}} tends to be insufficient. {{db|reason for speedy}} lets the admins know why it should be deleted. Also, when you speedy an article, please do not blank it. One more quick note, if the article is already on AfD, it's usually best not to remove the AfD tags, especially when the article has only received two votes ;] If it were me, I'd add the speedy tags to the page, right below the AfD tags. Anyhow, good work out there, and thanks! ;] --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 10:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pigs (Three Different Ones)

It isn't my contribution. I think it's User_talk: 152.163.100.201 who did this edit. But I have to admit that I don't understand why you moved the block of text. Floyd(Norway) 10:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Anarchism

I don't know if you are a bot or not...but please do not delete entire sections of the article without reference to the talkpage - It's considered vandalism - max rspct 18:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheers, no worries :) -max rspct 18:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Core Topics

Hi Tastemyhouse, below is a "cut & paste" of the message I left recently on Ahmed's user page. I'm glad you responded positively to my challenge! Since the original posting I have reviewed most of Maurreen's assessments. Would you like to have a look at assessing the articles beginning with the last one, which looks like Work to me?!!

Hi, thanks for signing up for the core topics project at WP1.0, I'm really glad to have someone else involved. Things have been very quiet there for the last month as User:Maurreen has been away and we also need to align our assessments better, but now you have joined us I think we should press on with the work. The WP 1.0 project is about to take off in a big way IMHO, and we need a core of basic articles ready for that. We are mainly assessing articles at present, I have been using these assessment criteria. Take a look at the ones already assessed to get a feel for it, then try assessing a few. Once that job is complete we need to either get interested people to address the shortcomings of the article or (as a last resort) fix the problems ourselves. Maurreen is a journalist (I think), so she should be able to write well on a variety of subjects, but we can realistically only bring a handful of neglected articles up to standard, not 150.

Thanks a lot, Walkerma 06:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You Hooligan!!! Deliri 07:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the assessment rubric. Why don't you try a dozen or so assessments, then I'll look over them and give you my ill-informed opinion! These aren't set in stone, we will all have different views. But remember your opinion is much better than no opinion, and we have to start somewhere! Many of the things we look for are clearcut, for example "hard" references (from properly published material, preferably peer reviewed, not just from mybigotedopinion.com and the like. I was going to suggest that 2-3 of this group review the entire list, so we can iron out any anomalous assessments. We can debate (nicely!) any we have strong disagreements about. Cheers, Walkerma 03:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back from your Wikibreak! While you've been away we have finished assessing the basic list, and we have a new person, User: Gflores who has been helping Maurreen, Ahmed and myself. Now we're now looking at which articles to take out or switch. In some cases we found the topics have stubs or starts, but it looks like the material is covered better in other articles. Could you give use your opinions on the specific articles in question here and here? Also, could you take a look at the jobs to be done and sign on for something? Thanks, Walkerma 17:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tastemyhouse, I am looking for people to support my article on Cum Dumpster. You defended cum fart, and I was hoping you would review it and vote. Thanks! --DigitalPimpette 17:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0 Collaboration of the Week

Hi, I noticed you signed up as a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. Recently, a 1.0 Collaboration of the Week was created to work on essential topics that are in need of improvement, which will ultimately go in a release version of Wikipedia. You can help by voting, contributing to an article, or simply making a comment. Thank you for your support. :) Gflores Talk 07:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"

Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP 1.0

I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download & 2006 WP CD Selection. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. --BozMo talk 09:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libya

Hi,

I've recently added Libya to the list of featured article candidates. Overall the candidature is going well with many of the objections now sorted out. The final concrete objection is with the article's prose. I have been the main contributor to the article and have been looking at it for the previous 9 - 10 months. My eyes no longer see it freshly, so I am not a suitable copy-editor!

To meet the final demand of copy editing, I have been advised to ask different people to edit parts of the article.

I would really love to get this article featured as you can probably see from the page's history! I've worked very hard on it and I see this as possibly being the final hurdle.

You can see the prose objections, mostly raised by Sandy, on the candidature page. If you have the time, please choose a section (Politics, Religion, Culture etc.) and copyedit, perfect, ace it! I would be very grateful with any help I can get.

Thanks a lot,

--Jaw101ie 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 192.136.22.4 lifted. Sorry for the trouble!

Request handled by: Luna Santin 23:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:AvnerCat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AvnerCat.jpg. 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-no-disclaimers}} 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 05:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Iamunknown 05:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tastemyhouse, when I double-checked the image, I realized you stated that you got the picture in an e-mail. Would you forward that e-mail to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org? Thanks, Iamunknown 06:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:AvnerCat.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:AvnerCat.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jacowordofmouth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jacowordofmouth.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) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)