User talk:Designdonkey

Fair use rationale for Image:Innersphere.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Innersphere.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 '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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 11:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Innersphere
A tag has been placed on Innersphere, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

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 article and leave a note on the article's talk page 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Stephenb (Talk) 11:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place  on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Stephenb (Talk) 11:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Stephenb (Talk) 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Sad, isn't it
(Reply)
 * You have every right to build a legitimate article, and could have done so despite my speedy deletion tag (which was just my opinion, and therefore worth just as much as anyone else's, although obviously at least one admin agreed with me!). Adding the  tag and adding a genuine reason for keeping the article would have been a start.  But, like many others, you just jump in without any thought to what a good article should contain first. Wikipedia needs patrollers to keep out the vandals, but it can also be a learning experience for people editing with good faith when they add content they have not fully thought through, in your case not indicated any noteworthyness of your company.  Stephenb (Talk) 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Innersphere.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Innersphere.jpg. 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. BetacommandBot 15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Innersphere
I deleted the talk page because the article's page was previously deleted by another administrator (Deb, check here. Below is a copy of the talk page:

Instillment of this Article
Innersphere is an interior design firm specialising in hospitality & gaming, that is located in Sydney, Australia, and is arguabley significant enough to warrant its own article page on wikipedia.

I have encountered troubles in the past about notability, therefore I shall prove that aspect on this talkpage before the actual article is created, to avoid and issues arising

From Notability
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Reliable sources include:
 * - Company Website
 * - an indepandant website regarding the industry in question (gaming)

This is enough information to sufficient notability for this article, or at the very least take the article above the criteria for speedy deletion.

Designdonkey

Hope that helps. --Carioca 00:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article will need more than those two sources to assert its notability. As a starting point, you can read this. The article needs mostly secondary sources, like newspaper articles. If there are no reliable secondary sources to assert its notability, then the company is probably not notable. --Carioca 01:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Loopla 12:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Loopla 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Rjd0060 21:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are one edit away from violating this policy. The logo on that page should not be so big, as you keep making it. - Rjd0060 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Comment you left on my talk page
Loopla left you several warnings. The only thing that user could have done differently, is to better inform you of what the problem was. The warning's Loopla (and I) left you are templates, and very broad because of that fact. You did however, continue to undo Looplas edits, which in this case, you were making a disruptive contribution to the page (by constantly increasing the size of the image), which could lead to blocking. However, see this edit summary that I left. I left that summary and you didn't do it again. So maybe that worked? - Rjd0060 15:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And as far as telling you to stop making "test edits", what I believe Loopla was doing was abiding by one of Wikipedias policies, Assume Good Faith. S/he just as easily could have warned you for vandalism.  - Rjd0060 15:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize on behalf of Loopla. I am glad you understand why your edits were being reverted, and I really hope this situation doesn't turn you away from Wikipedia. - Rjd0060 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Image of St Andrew's
FYI- The image of St. Andrew's Cathedral reflected in the nearby office block was met with immediate acclamation when it was put at the lead of the article about the diocese. The article is not about the cathedral building. There is another article specifically about the cathedral at St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney. The reason why the image is popular is that it shows the relationship of the building to the city, for anyone who has never seen it and doesn't know its situation. This makes a contrast if you are aware that most English cathedrals sit on wide green lawns and most European cathedrals are in the heart of ancient towns. In other words, the pic symbolises the cathedral in Sydney grappling with a large modern metropolis.

If you go to the St. Andrew's article, you will find that the George St view, which is, incidentally the back, not the front of the building, is used in an appropriate place. Amandajm (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)