User talk:Blightsoot

Image:Sven.jpg
The source you have given is not enough. You're going to have to give the actual URL of the original image, plus an accompanying statement which affirms the copyright holder actually has released that image into the public domain. Please note that a publicity shot is not automatically in the public domain, the author still holds the copyright and as a result it should not be tagged as PD.

If the photo is a genuine publicity shot then you can tag it with (which is for copyrighted promo shots). You would also have to provide the URL of the original source and a rationale for its use in Wikipedia. Qwghlm 10:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * PS If you think I'm being harsh or overly-arbitrary then please take a look at the Fair use WikiProject, which is a community-wide project on image copyrights - in particular their their advice on promotional images might be handy. Qwghlm 11:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Blightsoot 12:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I cannot remember the URL, and I didn't log it. As a result I have removed the picture from the article and will look for an alternative in the near future. It is now listed under media for deletion.

Boston Legal
The last edit you corrected in the Boston Legal entry wasn't pointless I don't think... it looks like the editor just rearranged the names to mirror those in the opening credits of the show. Of course, he didn't note that logic in his change. :-) Cgrocki 17:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is probably why Wikipedia like people to "Provide an edit summary".... "Even a short summary is better than no summary." I've reverted the starring part back now. Thanks for telling me :D Blightsoot 17:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Wogan.jpg
Sorry but the image listed above is a copyright violation from of europe.htm. It has now been listed at WP:CP. Thanks for all your other contributions to Wikipedia though! Wikiwoohoo 16:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a picture I uploaded a while ago when I hadn't got to grips with this whole image licensing thing. (Just looking up the page you can see that) :(

ps The other pictures on the "president of europe page" are clearly taken from other sources as well due to the random sizes and the stretching of their images. Not that it excuses me. :(

Blightsoot 20:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's alright, licensing on Wikipedia can fool everyone (and it does!). Just thought I'd let you know that it was listed as a copyright problem. Keep up your edits though! Wikiwoohoo 20:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarkson
Hi Blightsoot, what was your reason for placing a copyvio tag on the Jeremy Clarkson image. I saw that you reverted yourself, but why did you place it there in the first place? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You removed the previous BBC image:
 * "The supposedly PD image seems to be owned by the BBC so I've removed it."

I found the second image on the BBC site and assumed it also is owned by the BBC and should be removed for the same reasons......but apparently I was wrong.  Agent Blightsoot 10:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

uk template
hi - saw you created an alternative UK template. You didn't need to make it an "alternative" - just replace the original one. The original one is dull and crap because they all are, but they're there to be improved. On that basis, I hope you don't mind me copying your template to user United Kingdom, and removing the ALT from the category. Deano 22:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC). P.S. - why orange? Any possible concession on a more UK-alternative!?

I checked the original template and who was using it, and the grey one didn't look too bad on some peoples user pages, while on others it truly sucked. So I created it as an alternative to just add variety really.

I don't mind it being copied and put on the main one as long as it's OK with other people.

I chose orange as my original plan of making a more British alternative failed miserably, so I went for a something along the basic lines of the Firefox user template:

User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Firefox Until I thought up something better. If you can make it more British, then by all means go ahead. :D  Agent Blightsoot 23:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

ps I've tried something at but it could still do with some work I think.

Thanks
For reverting my user page!--Shanel 21:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, happy new year!  Agent Blightsoot 00:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Pink Floyd on main page
I don't know if you saw, but Pink Floyd will be featured on the main page on May 9. I was the one who ran the article through FAC, and wanted to thank you for nominating it in the "Today's featured article" section - I didn't even know you could nominate articles for it. It'll be quite a thrill to see it there. - dharm a bum 06:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker arbitration / 3RR
I've replied to your and Deathrocker's comments on the talk page for his RfAr, but please use WP:AN/3RR to post possible violations of 3RR in the future. (For parties in arbitration cases that have closed, please use WP:AE rather than AN/3RR.)  Deathrocker's probably ok because the IP he was reverting showed signs of a Leyasu sock, such as bringing up policies in almost every edit summary (see WP:SOCK; most anons don't know the policies here) and reverting edits to metal pages. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your CVU MFD comment
I read your comment you made at the MfD for CVU. I have to say that your reform ideas were simply brilliant and directly in line with Wikipedia's goals of open and civil community. One of the points you made regarding simple newbie tests being slapped with "blantantvandal" rather than the tried-and-true "test1", "test2", etc is all too true, but I think this is more a problem with the VandalProof software and how that's being used than anything the CVU is doing. Wikipedia needs a place where vandal cleaners can go to discuss these very issues. I think this is where the CVU's need becomes obvious. Its replacement (CUV), if you can call it that, simply doesn't inspire discussion. At any rate, from the looks of things, the CVU page will be spared. Once this fracas is over, I hope that you will consider presenting your reform ideas to the group for discussion. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shepherd's Pie Advert
An article that you have been involved in editing, Shepherd's Pie Advert, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Shepherd's Pie Advert. Thank you. Pan Dan 10:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At last! The thing that should have been done in the first place.  Agent Blightsoot 10:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment moved from WT:COI and User talk:Barberio
I've taken your comments to heart and moved my complaint to Barberio's talk page in an effort to resolve things with him. That's the first step. He's been extremely aggressive, using every trick in the book to try to get his way. I think issues should be decided on the merits, not by who's better at manipulating process. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status
The Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to and/or  status. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU. Thank you. Delivered on behalf of user:xaosflux 01:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

link hold - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles_promoted_in_2003

Re: your RFCU view
Hi Blightsoot. I appreciate your view and advice in the RFCU about Cambios, however I think there are details that aren't clear about the nomination for deletion. This may in part be due to the fact that the talk page for Threshold remains deleted; I hadn't initially been for deletion, but after two other long-time editors suggested there that notability was questionable, I decided to bring the article to AfD. I just thought I'd try to make that clear in case you hadn't seen talk page in question. :-) &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response Mendaliv. I haven't seen the talk page as I am a true outsider: I have only seen the information presented at WP:RfC. I can't really comment fully in that instance - I'll lift my comment.  Agent Blightsoot 02:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've thought it might be worth asking someone to restore the talk page, especially since the article got userfied shortly after the AFD concluded; I'll post that to the RFC talk. I don't think it's inappropriate for you to provide an outside view, I suppose I felt the need to kind of explain myself. :-) &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I stopped by to reply to Blightsoot's comment on Cambios's page and ran into this, so I thought I'd leave my comments. I think it's a little disturbing to find User:Mendaliv going around to post in people's talk page asking them to remove their votes based on his version of events.  This is the second one I've run into today with another on User:Fred_Bauder's page.  Is this really appropriate?  It was left out that several new notability sources were removed or dismissed on pure opinoin as people were trying to improve the article. One went so far as to remove TMS from the Kallimina (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, being confused, I didn't understand that this was a comment about the RFCU. I went and found User:Blightsoot's comment (now deleted), and honestly, I feel that he assessed that situation perfectly.  It does take more than one to be involved in an edit war.  The long-time users of Wikipedia could have sought third party opinions or mediation before resorting to bans and continued accusations of meat/sock puppetry because they knew these options were available.  I find it interesting, that the person who brought the RFC in the first place never even tried to resolve any kind of conflict with User:Cambios but started this RCF.  (Seems to be in contradiction with the RCF rules.) Kallimina (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the RfC was probably necessary as there clearly are disagreements on a few of the issues here. This is reflected by the amount of discussion on the AfD itself on the main en-Wiki Mailing list alone.

On the above, Mendaliv hasn't asked me to remove any comments and even went as far as to say " eh i don't think it's inappropriate for you to provide an outside view". I chose to remove the comment on my own as I don't believe the full information had yet come to light yet - I'm under the impression the talk page in question is now visible as Threshold as a page has been recreated and is under Deletion Review. I'll re-post on the RfC after I've taken a proper look later tonight.  Agent Blightsoot 20:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. I'm unsure why the Threshold page was re-created while it was still under-going a DRV. What happenes if the DRV overturns the deletion?  And what happens if it undergoes another AfD right away?  With all the attention and spotlight on it, I don't see how it will survive the scrutiny and constant attacks. Kallimina (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and apologies to both of you for butting in. I don't seem to understand what's going on half the time. Kallimina (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You've every right to participate and ask questions. As to the current page at Talk:Threshold (online game), it's not been recreated from the old content. I'm going to go ask Protonk directly if he'd do that. I have no intent of immediately AfDing the article after the DRV closes. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Cambios Talk
That is our next big project, actually, and we've been working out the details. I actually run my own Wiki using the Media Wiki software, so it's likely that we'd host it ourselves rather than use Wikia. (Though, there might be some benefits of Wikia that I don't know. Your input here would be appreciated.) I notified Cambios of your offer, so he can take a look himself. Kallimina (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia Revival
Hello, I'm Jamesjpk. I wanted to let you know that the Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia, has been tagged with a semi-active tag. I am messaging you about this because you are listed under the wiki-project's list of active participants. Please contribute to the WikiProject if you want to keep it alive! I hope that it becomes active again! Jamesjpk (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)