User talk:Island Monkey/Archive 1

I'll welcome myself then
Welcome!

Hello, Island Monkey, 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 my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Warning a vandal
I didn't warn said vandal because there had been intervening acts of vandalism before he was warned. When going back to revert older vandalism, I only warn once with the hopes that the vandal will reform/cease. See Vandalism. "For purposes of warning, multiple edits should be considered a single instance, and only one warning given, if:
 * the edits are of the same page;
 * the user received no intervening warning between the edits; and
 * the same user warning template series would be used to warn for each edit."

In the this particular instance, the vandal received no intervening warning between the edits, so the warning you had given him were sufficient. Hope that helps. —Ute in DC (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of books
Hello. I noticed that you tagged Once I Was a Cardinal for speedy deletion. You may already know this, but books aren't applicable under A7 of the speedy deletion critiera, so it's better to mark it for PROD or AfDinstead. Best, Meph talk 15:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Newport White
Hello Who needs names?. I am just letting you know that I deleted Newport White, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Jhonald
Hello Who needs names?. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Jhonald to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Win8.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Win8.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used underfair 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you have removed the deletion notice without resolving the situation. The image still lacks a use rationale. Doing so amounts to vandalism. Do not do that again. Fleet Command (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And please do not assume that replacing one description tag with another resolves the situation. You need a rationale. Non-free content criteria policy mandates that. Fleet Command (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BITE. I've only been here for two weeks. Who needs names? talk the talk 07:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But you are certainly born a long time ago and therefore know about copyright laws. You do know that publishing an image that is stolen ("leaked", "compromised", whatever, call it what you want) or taken without the author's consent is illegal. Then, you placed a Non-free image data instead of a Information and pretended to have added a fair use rationale, while you haven't. Now, instead of playing martyr, please add a fair-use rationale. I really want to know what is your rationale for publishing a stolen secret of a company. Surely, identification is not the reason, right? Fleet Command (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added one. Happy? Who needs names? talk the talk 08:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha? And why should you demonstrate the stolen secret of the author to people who are not meant to see it? That is not a valid fair use rationale. Fleet Command (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you do it then. Who needs names? talk the talk 09:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Better for you that we take care of this than if Microsoft or the government found out and took action. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 22:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Win8.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Win8.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Fleet Command(talk) 09:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings
I was going to say it's pretty impolite to use the boilerplate WP:VANDALISM templates to "warn" long-standing editors of vandalism rather than a polite note on their talk page, but can I presume that this warning on my talk page was due to you using an automated counter-vandalism tool (STiki)? I'm presuming STiki flagged my edit because the redirect was originally categorized, but can you be a bit more careful in future? That was a legitimate edit to redirect a fairly common generic term ("Mud Men") to a disambiguation page with several entries rather than a redirect to an obscure anchored item in a large list of fictional characters. --Canley (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Username
Re: your warning to Danlaycock: you do realize that Laycock is a perfectly normal surname just like Hitchcock, Babcock, etc., and the user's name might be Dan Laycock? I've removed your notice; Danlaycock's done nothing wrong.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Island Monkey talk the talk 18:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)