User talk:Adraeus/Archive008

Brand Identity
Please fell free to elaborate on your answer as I found it misleading rather than useful. Thanks. Kaeso Dio (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This edit: Kaeso Dio (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of "Maritime piracy"
But there was a discussion, here. I started that discussion, then waited a full month before performing the merge. An active contributor to Piracy agreed with the merge. Maritime piracy is a stub, a mere definition, and a content fork compared with Piracy. Don't you agree? Hult041956 (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you interested in discussing this? Every bit of Maritime piracy is now contained in Piracy. The former is a two-year old stub, getting very little attention. The latter is a fairly thorough, interesting, well written article. Having both is content forking. Shall we restore the redirect? Hult041956 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you discussed merging the article on an entirely different article without involving the editors of maritime piracy? Not good. I disagree with, and oppose, your suggestion to merge the articles. Maritime piracy might be incomplete at the moment, but there is more than enough material to make the article more comprehensive than piracy.
 * If you want to discuss this the right way, please start up a topic on the maritime piracy talk page and file for a request for comment. I don't spend every waking moment on Wikipedia (and I'm not inferring that you do) so my response will probably be late. Adraeus (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thought I might just comment here, but you cannot blame Hult for this. I agreed to the merge. On the merge banner on the Maritime Piracy page, if you click "Discuss" it takes you to the Piracy page. Since it it being merged into Piracy, that is where the discussion needs to be. I know this is probably not going to sound right but I don't know any other way to say it. It sounds like you feel that Maritime piracy is competing with the Piracy article. When in actuality they ARE the same thing. If you look, the first sentence of the Piracy article is "Piracy is a robbery committed at sea, or sometimes on the shore, by an agent without a commission from a sovereign nation." That is by definition Maritime Piracy. I saw this and just thought I would comment on it.  Def lag ro   C/T 03:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Piracy should be a disambiguation page linking to at least three separate articles on maritime piracy in history, maritime piracy today, and maritime piracy in popular culture. Maritime piracy concerns more than just robbery, and more than just robbery on the sea or shore. The scope of the piracy article is limited and reads more like an article on the popular notion of piracy instead of the reality of maritime piracy, as defined and described by the United Nations and scholars. Adraeus (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So are you suggesting we delete/split up the article into three smaller ones? I don't really see why that is necessarry...? Modern Piracy and Popular culture piracy have sections in Piracy. If they were split off they would be considered stubs.  Def lag ro   C/T 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they would be stubs were there editors to work on those articles. I consider my previous suggestion ideal; however, I'm willing to concede to the merger if material from the published works that I listed in the Further Reading section were included and cited in the resulting article. I can help you and other editors obtain those works via private channels. Alas, I don't have enough time to be active as an editor. Adraeus (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Cited and not just listed? I can help, but I don't have any of those books.  Def lag ro   C/T 16:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They're actually articles from academic journals. I can get you PDF copies. E-mail me. Adraeus (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did in fact include all the Further Reading references when I did the merge. Piracy contains every keystroke of Maritime piracy. Best regards, Hult041956 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but he's talking about them actually being cited and not just further reading. I'm about to send you an email Adraeus.  Def lag ro   C/T 19:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks.  Hult041956 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey I went to Special:Emailuser/Adraeus and it says you haven't set it up for users to email you through the Wiki. So what's your email? Or you can just set that up in My Preferences. I'm actually really interested in reading those articles. Thanks!  Def lag ro   C/T 19:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Works now. Most of the articles in the collection I'll send you are different. I lost the others, but there are still quite a few. Adraeus (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I sent it this morning but forgot to post here. If you don't get it, let me know.  Def lag ro  C/T 19:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Paris, Texas
I was looking over your edits to the Paris, Texas article, and was wondering about your "controversies" section. I'm failing to see how these really qualify as relevant and encyclopedia worthy... 74.193.85.244 (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Clan Ramsay.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Clan Ramsay.png. 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 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 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) 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a better way. This coat of arms is older than 150 years. So the author is dead for over 70 years and his copyright is expired. You only have to ad the template. --Thw1309 (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Organized crime in California
A tag has been placed on Organized crime in California requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I think you have the wrong person
I think the user you should be addressing regarding those deletions is User:Otolemur crassicaudatus, not me. Please review [the revision history of the CHP article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Highway_Patrol&action=history] before going around accusing people of deletions they had nothing to do with! --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit: Cite?
Considering your edits to A Story About A Tree, it's all good stuff, but why did you reformat the citing format? The original one is the standard set by Citation templates. The removal of the double link is good though. Just curious really, I though the other ones were quite a bit easier to understand.MaxGrin (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I hope you do not mind the revert (refs only). The thing with templates is that it allows us more or less formatted representation of the contents, i.e. if the guidelines change, we'll be able to reajust them in a blink rather than manually checking every article for syntax. Your points are absolutely valid though.:)MaxGrin (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Video game companies in San Diego, California
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Video game companies in San Diego, California, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Video game companies in San Diego, California has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Video game companies in San Diego, California, please affix the template 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo_edelbrock.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Logo_edelbrock.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of DRS Technologies
A tag has been placed on DRS Technologies, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.  EhsanQ  (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Logo bioware.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Logo bioware.gif. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Clan Ramsay (Plant Badge).png
A tag has been placed on Image:Clan Ramsay (Plant Badge).png, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

this is an image of a plant with no source information. being a plant, it is very reasonable to assume a free image can be obtained. this image doesn't meet the requirement for usage under wikipedia's fair use policy

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on  explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Celtus (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Clan Ramsay.png, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Image:Clan Ramsay.png appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Clan Ramsay.png has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Image:Clan Ramsay.png and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Image:Clan Ramsay.png with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Image:Clan Ramsay.png.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Celtus (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

{subst:di-disputed fair use rationale-notice|1=Clan Ramsay (Arms).gif}} Celtus (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Clan Ramsay (Plant Badge).png
Thanks for uploading Image:Clan Ramsay (Plant Badge).png. 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, 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, 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 tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, 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 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 Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kevin (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that this supercedes the speedy deletion notice above. Cheers Kevin (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)