User talk:Domestic Correction/Cheese

Errm.
Errrm is right, I unblocked in order to lengthen the block after I did a little more investigation...then my connection messed up and I had to unblock three times to get it to work...then, apparently the reblock didn't work. Very Strange Happening. Thanks for notifying me... Dreadstar †  21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Domestic Correction 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome...and thank you for the note... Dreadstar †  21:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your username
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:
 * If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
 * If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
 * You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/programmes/perfect_housewife/series_3/episode02.shtml --Domestic Correction 08:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It carries connotations of domestic violence. Correction in the penal sense, that is.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In which century? --Domestic Correction 08:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what it connoted to me, so in this century. And if it connotes it to me, it can connote it to other people too.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * *shrug* I intended as a television reference. I can't say I see there's a problem unless someone is looking to find fault. --Domestic Correction 08:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, do you want an RfC?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For what, exactly? The quite modest edits I've been making haven't appeared to be a problem for anyone, thus far. --Domestic Correction 08:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're confused. If someone's unhappy with your username, you can be taken to RfC. The quality or otherwise of your edits doesn't make any difference at all.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confused as to why a term that can be safely used by TV's Anthea Turner in reference to cleaning would turn out to be such a burning issue. Perhaps if I left a note on my user page? I've been wondering what to do with the empty space... --Domestic Correction 08:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use
Yes it does. If you click "Edit this page", it says the text below; it doesn't show up because the template's broken.

{{Information
 * Description = This is a promotional photo released by the BBC.
 * Source = An official BBC promotional photo, from here
 * Date = 2005-05-08
 * Author = This image was cropped and reduced in size by Porcupine.
 * Permission = Copyrighted, fair use claimed.
 * Article = Time Crash

Fair use rationale
The above image is believed to qualify as fair use as it is an image of: a web resolution, and of a lower quality then broadcast/verbatim media releases. The image provides critical commentary in describing the concept behind the said episode, illustrating how the more abstruse aspects of it will fit together. Furthermore it is believed that this image will not impede the copyright owners' ability to profit.

Licensing
}} --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Try using Non-free use rationale: the rationale has to be at the very least visible. --Domestic Correction 09:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not actually my problem; I typed in the rationale using a standard template. You can't delete it because the cretin who designed the template didn't do it right.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I FIXED IT BEFORE YOU JUST DID THAT. YOU MUST CHECK THESE THINGS. IT'S DONE, IT'S FIXED, EVEN IF IT WASN'T YOU'D BE WRONG, NOW NEVER ENTER INTO DIALOGUE WITH ME AGAIN!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You missed the article name; it's necessary for WP:NFCC(c). --Domestic Correction 09:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't. As of the last time I edited it - - read the top line of the article. It says "For the article - Time Crash". That seems correct to me. BTW, just do it yourself rather than harassing others to do it - it wouldn't have hurt you.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you have to specify it for the rationale itself. It's possible for an image to see other uses (for which other rationales have to be written); you can't simply hope that people will guess which rationale goes where.  The guideline is explained as follows:


 * "Each rationale must explicitly name the article to which the rationale applies."


 * Now, had you asked me, (including the magic word, natch) I would have quite happily sorted things out for you. Or if you'd used the recommended template as I suggested, you'd've found it a doddle to do it yourself.  Quite why you thought the best course was to dig your heels in and start edit warring, I don't know, but there it is. --Domestic Correction 09:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to ask. You should take it upon yourself.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No. I happen to believe that the more people learn to pick up skills relating to the use of non-free media, the better for everyone, as it'll cut down the incidence of shoddy usage; giving someone the option to fix a rationale theirself can be a valuable learning experience.


 * And as I said, the advice I already offered (use the recommended template) would have eased things for you. You can't say I'm a completely merciless taskmaster... --Domestic Correction 10:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Stuff that. See sofixit.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No. If you feel an article needs an image, it ought to be your responsibility in the first part. If you're too proud to ask for help, then that's certainly no one else's problem but your own. --Domestic Correction 10:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)