User talk:IntrigueBlue/2011

FFZ talk
You are quite right, IntrigueBlue, I should have discussed the tag. Better yet, an WP:BALANCE tag would have worked as the inclusion of critical testimony from only one side made the POV clear. Before my edits, the previous paragraph made the very critical remark that FFZs in and of themselves were violations of the law of war simply because civilians might be in them. Thanks for the message. I've started a bit of discussion and marked the page for watching.--S. Rich (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Whack!
I suggest that before you reverts someone else's good faith edits to fight vandalism that you first check to confirm that the content you is restoring is verified by reliable sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Poahcon (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dialogue
Hey, I've started a discussion on notable over at Template talk:Canadian federal political parties. I'd appreciate it if you could provide some feedback. Thanks. :-) Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Fages (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have deleted the comments by the ip address, and also your remarks derived from same. Please review WP:OUTING. There is no evidence that the ip was the person concerned, but in any event you should not have disclosed that suggestion anyway. Privacy is an important issue with Wikipedia and the WMF, and I strongly suggest you are more circumspect in future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting me; I'm a bit confused by this, and have responded on the noticeboard. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 16:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded there. I am sometimes difficult to understand, so if you require further clarification please drop a note on my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"For record, the mentioned discussion has been archived and concluded that the matter is not subject to WP:OUTING."

Marion Steam Shovel pic
I reverted your edit because I took that picture (it's a Quality Image on Commons) with the intent of improving on the original. The original photographer likes it better than his and didn't mind my moving it. I fail to see how it's a better image, and not just because I took it. The colors are far more appealing, the light is better, the sky isn't so blown and the contrast more even. I generally like the way the shovel looks like it's been "put out to pasture" in a more visibly bucolic fashion. The only reasons I floated the original was that it shows the treads (at some point, I do hope to get up to Western New York again and take a closer picture of the treads). Daniel Case (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I admit to acting hastily without taking a look at the full-size images. I'm not a fan of the two images with nearly-identical composition, hence the change, though I agree that yours is the superior aesthetically. I'll let the matter stand as-is. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 04:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it does look redundant to have two from pretty much the same angle, but until we can get one showing the treads in closeup it at least shows that and breaks up the text, making it easier to read. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Posting personal information
Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Onthegogo (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like you attempted to respond to the section here but it was lost in some sort of strange edit conflict. Unfortunately since there's no sign of your contribution, it's probably lost for good so you will have to re-write it or use any records you may have. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I've never seen that happen before. Thanks for pointing it out. Sorry to have inadvertently reverted your edit. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 18:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah same here. I've seen people remove a previous contrib via an EC without knowing while posting theirs but never had any where their contribs didn't appear at all and all they managed to do is remove a previous contrib. Nil Einne (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not eager to have this conversation again, but hopefully this will be the last time. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 19:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, seeing as last time it didn't appear to get through properly; please don't go around throwing this guys name out in relation to IP edits. It is fine to talk about COI on the article in general terms, but it is a BLP issue to be using the name explicitly (we have no idea if this is the guy or not, period, and it is inappropriate to keep mentioning his name). --Errant (chat!) 09:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Mikkel Paulson High Level Bridge.jpg
Hello. Thanks for uploading this image to the Commons (and the cropped version). In the image description, you say that it is your own work. To ensure that the free license of the image isn't questioned later on (because the image is on the party's website), I was wondering if it would be possible if you could send email confirmation to Commons that you've agreed to freely license it (the instructions are at Commons:OTRS). It's a bit of belt and suspenders, but we tend to try and be completely above board with copyright issues and just want to make sure that we have the creator's consent for all uploads. Thanks. Feel free to leave me any questions over at Commons:User talk:Skeezix1000. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All material on pirateparty.ca is licensed CC-BY-SA 2.0. The only reason I included the mention of it being my own work is because the original (uploaded in case people want to do further tweaking) isn't available elsewhere online. I'll send off the email anyway, though. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 00:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The OTRS isn't necessary if the website explicitly licenses it CC-BY-SA 2.0. I couldn't find the licensing information, but I may have been looking right at it.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Look at the bottom of the page. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk&#124;contribs) 20:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh! I was looking right at it. Sorry about that.  Never mind. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)