User talk:CanadianLinuxUser/Archives4

Edit Count List of created pages (Tool take a LONG time) Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Running Special:PendingChanges

Copying content
Hi. We cannot import content from previously published sources unless we do so in accordance with copyright policy and plagiarism guideline. If a source is non-free, as the Telegraph is, you cannot copy from it unless you are using the content in a clearly marked quotation in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline. Quotes must be used transformatively, as with some of the acceptable reasons for quoting set out. We can't take the language just because we want to convey the information. Please see Copy-paste.

I have reverted your last change to Robert Garside because the content was copied directly from the source, but not handled according to those policies and guidelines. If you have copied content into other articles, please make sure that it has been properly handled.

In terms of the addition, I'm unsure if it is necessary. While I have watched the article for over a year to make sure that it remains neutral and complete, I do recognize that there has been "undue" focus on controversy in the past, just as there has sometimes been apparent whitewashing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all counts of whitewashing and "focus on contreversy". Quick question... how much is too much as it pertains to Acceptable use and using brief quotations? CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's very relative, based on the length of both the source and the article using it. Because the laws are vague, our policy is, too. The length of the excerpt would undoubtedly be fine if it were attributed and quoted, in terms of our policies. We just can't place it here without acknowledging that it's explicitly copied, and we can't just baldly copy it. We have to have some reason, even if just an "According to so-and-so...." kind of thing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Given recent activity, I have semi-protected your talk page for 24 hours. You can, of course, request that this be lifted. I'll do so immediately if you like, and I'm sure that any other admin will comply if I'm not around. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. 24 hrs seems a fair time. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 days. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:SchroonLake.gif
Thanks for uploading File:SchroonLake.gif. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Okanagan International Marathon


A tag has been placed on Okanagan International Marathon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me a moment... trying to add some information :-D CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Not sure how you caught it before I did, but thanks for catching the comment on my user page, and fixing it :) PS - Your edit counter is cool, what is the process to opt-in? Sinisterminister (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Caught the dude editing elsewhere... was part of the cleanup. As for the edit counter... LOL I found that by accident... just copy and paste it and change you name... it automatic. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Jesper.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jesper.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Saguaro Cactus Needles
I have not registered with Wikipedia to make edits. I was in Arizona for a few years. A park naturalist showed me how to listen to a singing Saguaro at night. I suppose they can also be heard during the day if the wind is strong enough and little background noise. The place I inserted the edit looks like a very formal botany description. But it does look to me like the Needle entry is missing from the page. Recently I mentioned "singing Saguaro" to other people while on a hike. They had heard the expression but never knew what it meant. I am surprised to find in internet searches that most references to singing Saguaro shows a bird singing from the cactus. I am just trying to to add some visibility to this pleasant phenomenon. If there is a better way to include this information, please feel free to do it for me. 99.168.78.39 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * When one adds material to a Wikipedia article one needs to cite sources. Cite. Hope that helps. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hi. I've altered your request, as I'm afraid that it does not conform to requirements. First, you are to be neutral and not express or imply your view. Second, you are not to sign the request. Third, it is to link to the discussion, not the article. As the instructions note, the goal is to make it seem "(as much as possible) ...as though the request is being added by both participants." These steps help to avoid prejudicing the person who provides the opinion. Oh, except the third one. That one helps the responder find the debate. :) This is my effort. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Urrrk obviously I got it a "tad" wrong.... I will re-read before I try a 3rd opinion again. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! It happens a lot. 3O volunteers will routinely neutralize such requests when they find them (I used to volunteer there before I got swept up in my current work), but it can delay response, since the 3O volunteer who neutralizes a listing usually won't take it. You have to wait for the next volunteer who feels like wading in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

S.W.
Great job, thank you! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

American University of Beirut
Regarding your acceptance of [this version] of American University of Beirut... Please consider the edit again. Do you agree with my rejection of the edit since the long, disorganized paragraphs of uncited alumni and majors either need to be made into proper lists or removed entirely? Krashlandon (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

my talk p.
I know you meant well, but I would rather remove material from my own talk page by myself. If nothing else, I like sometimes to keep a note of the most foolish remarks.  DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Jesper.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jesper.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Added rationale here Sufficient or did I misinterpret? CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for a start, why is this irreplaceable? He's still alive, so what's to stop someone taking a picture and releasing it under a free license? J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Irreplaceable... obviously not... did I put the wrong tag then for using their image? Should be 'Non-free image data' ???  CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's not irreplaceable, it should not be used. Take a look at our non-free content criteria- the image should be removed from the article. For future reference, Template:Non-free use rationale is the best template to use on non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Reversion
Can you explain why you reverted my minor edits on the Hal Turner article? They corrected a factual inaccuracy. He did not become notable in "American Conservative circles" as a result of telephoning WABC radio in New York nor does the cited reference say that. (It says something like "area circles," presumably, within the NYC/NJ area where the program could be heard.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.80.233 (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sean Hannity is a conservative talk show host who has an audience of millions of Americans on radio. The Sean Hannity Show is a nationally syndicated talk-radio show. The reference is accurate CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:TonyManganwiki-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TonyManganwiki-1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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 File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. multichill (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have email logs. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please forward the email(s) to OTRS. multichill (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sent as requested...CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Spin Bowling
The information is already contained in finger spin and wrist spin. I am simply editing a table that I MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE because I forgot a term at the time. It really shouldn't be this damn difficult to change three words. As such I am going to revert your revert. Please don't mess with it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.246.173 (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Madonna reaction to Sinead on SNL
Please read carefully

Sinead ripped up an image of the pope The following week Madonna ripped up an image of Joey Butafuoco because she did not agree with Sinead's criticism of the pope. The section you keep reverting is dealing with Madonna's appearance not Sinead's.

The sources I can find are http://snl.jt.org/ep.php?i=199301160 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Live_(season_18) http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XEoG3FWFKVwJ:aesop.planetnull.com/katya/joey-buttafuoco-snl.html+madonna+joey+butafuoco+snl&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XEoG3FWFKVwJ:aesop.planetnull.com/katya/joey-buttafuoco-snl.html+madonna+joey+butafuoco+snl&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk http://www.whataboutu.com/wiki_Joey+Buttafuoco~1318.html http://dublin.forumforus.com/Sin%C3%A9ad+O'Connor

Are these enough? I think the first one is an offical SNL site ... not sure ... anyway it's certainly impossible to find ANY sources for the idea that Madonna ripped up an image of the pope, it is well documented even in the section we are discussing that the whole idea was meant to criticise Sinead for doing just that ... it stands to reason that she would not do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.234.113 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Already taken care of. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks - sorry if I went about this the wrong way e.g. no source for initial change, unsigned entry here etc. but at least the article is correct now. 188.221.234.113 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

N easter12345
Sorry, but I don't see why these articles are blatant hoaxes. Yes, I supported deletion at the AFD and beforehand, but that was because sources couldn't be found to prove notability: I didn't have solid ground for beliving that the article was a hoax. Perhaps an AFD is in order? Nyttend (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)