User talk:49TL/Archive/January 2007


 * This is a talk page archive for Xy7. Please do not edit this page. To leave a message, please see the current talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Thanks and well wishes
Hey FireFox, although Esperanza is done with, I wanted to thank you for all the hard work you put into it, making it a great place for all. We can still hold the sense of community within ourselves, and I know you do that anyway. Many thanks, and I look forward to seeing you around Wikipedia post-Esperanza. Happy Holidays! -- Nataly a 04:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Big bro
Sorry about that! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celebrity_Big_Brother_2007_%28UK%29&diff=prev&oldid=98250111) just an edit conflict... - Jack (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's alright, things were getting a bit hectic so I've semi-protected the page for a while. — FireFox  ( talk ) 20:46, 03 January 2007

Big Brother
Hi, I used the sprotect tag as a deterent to vandals. I know its quite unorthadox, but I thought it'd be worth a try. -- Mattythewhite 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza
Hey, what happened to Esperanza? The Updater 23:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This kinda sums it up. — FireFox  ( talk ) 19:25, 09 January 2007

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oi?
What's this about I wonder?? K O S |  talk  21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I got bored with having a userpage :) — FireFox  22:26, 12 January 2007
 * I just 'borowed' most of your monobook, thanks in absentia :) --Alf melmac 16:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, no problem. — FireFox  16:50, 13 January 2007
 * Everything is fine with it, I think I got all your personal stuff out while keeping the warnings the same as you use, however, even though I set false to each of the types of pages I don't wish to watch, it is still setting them as watched, is there another line I can't spot which is setting talk pages to watched, my watchlist is already big enough ;) --Alf melmac 18:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not quite sure. I wasn't aware my monobook automatically watched certain pages for me... like what, for example? — FireFox  18:43, 13 January 2007
 * All talk pages that any of the messages are put on; the lines in the monobook are written like -
 * addlilink(talkm,'javascript:edit_summary_watch("", "vandalism warning (1)", false, 1)',"test 1");
 * which should not end up being watched, the "false" in that place should uncheck the box, maybe it's a caching problem and it'll go away after a full clear out and reboot.--Alf melmac 18:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd. My monobook doesn't add anything to my watchlist automatically. Strange... — FireFox  19:11, 13 January 2007
 * While the topic is out there, FireFox my "talk messages" are gone, do you think you could take a look at my monobook and see if you spot an error or anything like that? I'd appreciate it very much as always. K O S  |  talk  20:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * AH KOS!! You have just mentioned the reason I changed my monobook.js to start with, the messages tabs had disappeared and I couldn't find anyone who knew who'd changed what had affected it!--Alf melmac 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... I had the problem of for some reason, when the tabs appear too far to the right of the screen, they disappear. I don't know why, so I just had to put up with it :( — FireFox  20:22, 13 January 2007
 * Oh yes, I checked my default settings and (ahem) I have watchlisted all pages I create, which includes anon and new user talk pages, where I was seeing what I thought was a problem (ahem) --Alf melmac 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A ha :) — FireFox  20:57, 13 January 2007

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Wikiglitch.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wikiglitch.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia Vandal
...and I'm proud of it. Good luck. GroverTheGnome 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Priestley/"World" titles
Hi there

Noticed on the Priestley page that you expressed that a world title solely refers to World Championships. I see the logic of the statement as the World Championship is undoubtedly the premier event in both camps. I also feel, however, that the tournaments that start with "World" (ie Matchplay, Grand Prix, Masters) are also world titles in terms of both stature and definition.

I have nothing concrete for such an assertion although I've often read in darts players autobiographies of certain players' world title successes who have never won a world championship (ie Alan Warriner, Rod Harrington; Bobby George's books also refers to his News of the World wins as "world titles" (something I disagree with). I've also heard the likes of Waddell refer to the likes of Lloyd and Harrington and refer to their world titles (ie "of all his (Harringtons) world titles, the 1998 matchplay at Blackpool was his best.")

At best, I feel its a moot point. Referring to non-World Championship events as world titles may be a technically incorrect colloqualism, but then - if they aren't to be considered as world titles - why is there inconsistency in the names of the major events (ie Desert Classic, Darts League, World Grand Prix, Premier League, World Matchplay etc).

Looking at the contributions you've made on most of the darts-related pages, you obviously know more about darts than me and I'm not saying your interpretation's wrong. I feel that any authority on the subject (ie from the BDO or PDC) would be welcome nonetheless.

Cheers Dar2020 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to leave your message here... — FireFox  14:04, 20 January 2007

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:AWBBug.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:AWBBug.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

questions
Hello. I've been tasked with updating my company's pages on Wikipedia. In doing so, I'm getting notes about copyright infringement. How can I say that we approve the use of our own materials? Does this happen to other organizations and companies? Thanks! Karencohick 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay well, it's a bit of a grey area I'm afraid. If you're up for a bit of reading, see Copyrights and Copyright FAQ – basically, it's not a good idea to copy text directly from websites because it can be seen as a copyright violation. The best thing to do would be to re-write the information in your own words and submit that instead. That way, the article (or part of the article) is safe from potentially being deleted because of copyright issues. Hope this answers your question. — FireFox  21:32, 30 January 2007


 * I just want to make sure I understand completely. Even though, my organization says it's ok to publish our information here and will provide whatever is necessary to ensure that, I still have to rewrite all the information? Is there a way to maybe atribute all of it or some of it instead? Perhaps using footnotes for some of the information that is less easy to rewrite - facts, data, research? Karencohick 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If your organisation clarifies on their website that the contents of the website can be used freely, or explicitly state the text can be used on Wikipedia, then I see no reason why this should be a problem :) However if other editors cannot find proof that your organisation allows the direct 'publishing' of your information on this site, I cannot guarantee that it will be accepted. — FireFox  21:50, 30 January 2007


 * Ok I can look into that. For data points and specific breast cancer facts, how do attribute them? I'm not sure I can rewrite those without losing their meaning and credibility.Karencohick 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you give me an example of one of two of these facts that you're referring to? Thanks. — FireFox  21:27, 31 January 2007


 * The above is a talk page archive for Xy7. Please do not edit this page. To leave a message, please see the current talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.