User talk:Elementalkarl

Image copyright problem with Image:Tesa.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Tesa.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source and copyright licensing problem with Image:Chateau Montaigu.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chateau Montaigu.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work contained within this image, you will need to specify


 * 1) the creator of the original work
 * 2) the copyright status of the original work, usually indicated by adding a licensing tag. 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 derivative works, 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 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rlandmann (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tesa Arcilla
Please see wp:afd, removing AFD tags is considered vandalism. If you oppose deletion please make your case on the deletion discussion page. Hairhorn (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tesa arcilla prefix:Wikipedia:Deletion review
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Tesa arcilla prefix:Wikipedia:Deletion review, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

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 hangon 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review
If you want a deletion review then you need to follow the procedure at Deletion review, not create a page such as Tesa arcilla prefix:Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, before you do so, I should warn you that such a review is very unlikely to succeed. Your complaint is that you do not agree with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, not that you think those criteria were misapplied in this case. If you want to suggest changes to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines you are, of course, welcome to do so. However, while the guidelines are as they are now you will be unlikely to get very far by asking for review of a deletion which was made in line with those guidelines because you disagree with them. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes that is precisely what I wrote. Let me expand on JamesBWatson's point. In Wikipedia, we require that all information is verifiable by citation to reliable sources (preferably independent ones) and that people with standalone articles have a non-trivial level of coverage in independent sources, which is what we call "notability" here. I did not make up these guidelines one day. They have been hammered out by consensus over the past four years, to prevent Wikipedia from being beaten into submission by self-promoters, search engine optimisation specialists, internet crusaders with an axe to grind against disliked individuals or organisations, and the like. The value and correctness of these guidelines aside --- if you disagree with these guidelines and feel the need to go around insulting other people's "competence" because we adhere to them, then Wikipedia is not the place for you.


 * If you want to make a complete database of Hong Kong journalists or any other topic area on which existing independent sources decline to focus any attention at present, then I suggest you set up your own website (and I wish you very good luck in not getting sued for libel for what you write there, building up a reputation so people believe what you write even when it lacks citations, etc). David Webb has been very successful in a similar way with his database of officers of listed companies on webb-site.com. (You will also notice he doesn't let anyone on the internet come along and write whatever they want on his site). cab (call) 04:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I live in Hong Kong. I don't watch TV news in English, and neither does the vast majority of the non-expatriate population here. Wikipedia is not the place for you to write about your colleagues and friends and then try to justify it afterwards with high-minded speeches about the role of journalists in society. I should not have to be explaining to someone in your line of work what a "conflict of interest" is and why it's a bad thing. cab (call) 10:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking legal action
Under Wikipedia's rules, if you're considering legal action related to Wikipedia, you are not going to be able to edit Wikipedia until you either complete the legal action, or withdraw the legal threat unequivocally. I want to give you an opportunity to clearly state that you have no intention of taking legal action, now or in the future, in relation to your Wikipedia editing dispute, if that's the choice you make. If you aren't able to do that, I understand, and will be happy to block this account until your legal action concludes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be interested to know that some of your edits are being discussed here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)