User:Modulatum/archive3

Image Tagging Image:KRS-ONE.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KRS-ONE.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 01:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Modbot is neat
Thanks for spelling corrections :)!! Just another star in the night T 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, just doing my job! MOD  01:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Condensermic.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Condensermic.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot operations
I left a note regarding modbot at Wikipedia talk:Bots --Francis Schonken 11:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the bug has been fixed. MOD  12:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that the bot creates more appropriate edit summaries? "modbot" is a little too vague.  Thanks, violet/riga (t) 18:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I left a new note at Wikipedia talk:Bots; I don't appreciate overwriting all changes to a version prior to when the bot passed the first time. See also my comment at Bots/Requests for approvals --Francis Schonken 19:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This approval to run this bot (even though there wasn't any in the first place) has been suspended. I mentioned what needs to be done here. Please don't run the bot for the time being, or we'll have to block this account.--Commander Keane 20:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In your edit at Wikipedia talk:Bots you don't seem to be aware that any running of your bot (under any account) is prohibited. It was never approved for a one week trial period. It is simply not approved to run at all.--Commander Keane 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The edits are non-destructive in nature, and that's all I wanted to show. I'm not trying to work on anyone's nerves, I'm just trying to prove a point that the bot is perfectly fine as it is, and I'd very much like it to get approved. MOD  00:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

wrong template
when you wanna suggest a page move, place move on the talk page, rather than merge on the page itself! that's like wearing your shirt inside out and backwards, cracker.--Urthogie 06:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, I did it right. The code for the templates is inflexible though, so that sucked. MOD  17:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge suggests that both articles have content. The code for templates is inflexible, how exactly?--Urthogie 19:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it MOD  00:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Hinduism on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. GizzaChat  &#169; 11:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't find where your edit is now. It might of been another person but I thought you vandalised the page. Sorry, keep up the spell checks. You are doing a great job. GizzaChat  &#169; 20:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Sl1200mk2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sl1200mk2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Image legality questions. 13:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Summaries
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. MOD  15:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
I see you have recently changed spelling in 'Motorway' from 'manouver' to 'maneuver'. Can I enquire as to which dictionary you are using, since my UK Oxford miniDictionary gives the spelling as 'manoeuvre'? This is more a UK-oriented article than USA (see Freeway), so I would tend to favour the UK spelling. Comments? Murray Langton 13:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I have added this talk page to my watchlist, so I'll see any response you care to make.
 * While I duly apologize for causing an inconvenience for you, it's my belief that the language of en:wikipedia should be standardized. While Freeway does include other British spellings like "humour" and "colour" that I didn't catch, that doesn't make them any more valid. What if the article was a hybrid of spellings? It wouldn't cause a riot, by any means, but it would look messy and incongruent. If you feel the need to revert my edits, feel free to do so. I mean no harm. MOD  00:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, apparently I didn't make myself clear - I certainly didn't consider that you were causing me any inconvenience. If I had felt strongly about maneuver/manoeuvre I would have changed it on the spot; instead I opted to discuss the matter with you.
 * What I really wanted was a reference to some (online) US dictionary so I could check the spelling of 'maneuver' with a view to adding both variants to Manual of Style (spelling) - I've since found suitable references. In the Manual of Style it explicitly says that no standardisation is possible due to regional variations, but it does recommmend that any particular article should be consistent, and suggests that articles relating to some particular region should follow the 'standards' of that region. So feel free to convert Freeway to consistent US spellings if you wish. Murray Langton 08:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, will do! MOD  11:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

thing to watch out for
Thanks for the spelling fixes on rapping... unfortunately, some retards vandalized the page before and after your edit, so I had to revert back to before them. In the future, this can be prevented if you check for vandalism before you make fixes. Thanks, --Urthogie 15:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all good. MOD  17:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

youth culture
Dobryy vecher. What did you do with youth culture? You totally eviscerated it. If you're planning to rewrite it, that's cool, and you should, but meantime I will revert two of your last three edits. P.S. Take a look at my userpage. A lot like yours... St. Petersburg pride, eh? - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 04:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Maybe evisceration is not the best idea for now. An empty article with nothing but a see-also section is equally embarrassing, I think. Lots of things are an embarrassment to WP. :) Let's not name names. See ya around. - the.crazy.russian   τ   ç   ë  04:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Geezette
Talk:Lady Sovereign Geezer is British slang for a man, so geezette would mean a masculine woman. Ackie00 03:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * She's not masculine, but thanks for the heads up. MOD  11:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

redirects are not stubs
I was sorting stubs and I noticed that there were a lot of redirect pages that are marked with the stub template and that you added many of them. A redirect page does NOT need a stub tag. Check out Stub for information on how to properly use the stub tag. Amalas 20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I realized that and reverted all my changes. Thanks for the heads up! MOD  20:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not really stubs either. I think Listdev would be better for that sort of thing because it's really just a list of pages. Amalas 15:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)