User talk:JUBALCAIN

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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! feydey 12:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Advice on uploading images
Hello!

Thanks for uploading some pictures to Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure you were aware of some of the requirements and good practices for uploaded images.


 * Pick an image name.
 * When uploading an image, pick a file name that is descriptive, and unique. Remember that many images may be uploaded about the same topic, and remember that names are case sensitive.


 * Source the image.
 * On the image description page, explain where the image came from. If you created the image yourself, then say so.  If it's from the web, give a URL.  If it's a screenshot of a movie or game, or a scan from a book, give the title.


 * Provide copyright and license information.
 * This part is a little bit trickier, but it's very important. The copyright of the image generally belongs to whomever created it.
 * If it's a photograph you took, or an image you created (modifying an image that already exists doesn't count) in software like Photoshop or GIMP, then you own the copyright. To upload it to Wikipedia, you must agree to license it under the GFDL (which allows anyone to use it, but requires that they give credit to the original author and requires that any further edit to the image be licensed under the GFDL as well) or release it into the public domain (which allows anyone to use it for any purpose without restriction.)  Do this by placing an appropriate tag on the image description page, like &#123;{GFDL}} or &#123;{PD-self}}.  Be sure to mention that you created the image.  If you're using &#123;{PD-self}}, you may also want to use &#123;{NoRightsReserved}}, since there is some dispute as to whether one may grant items into the public domain.
 * If you didn't create the image, or the copyright somehow belongs to another party (like a screenshot, which you might "create", but the copyright belongs to the author of the movie or video game), then you need to find another tag that describes the copyright status of the image. Images used on Wikipedia need to be free for our use and the use of sites which reproduce our content.  This means that images cannot have a restriction such as "only for use by Wikipedia", or "for non-commercial use only", or "for educational use".  Images without a free license may be usable in certain articles under fair use, but such a use should be justified on the image description page.


 * Describe the image.
 * To another reader, the image may not be immediately understood. A caption in an article doesn't explain the image to a visitor who sees it on its image page.  Put a brief explanation of what is in the image on the image description page, similar to what you might include in a caption on an article.

Some links to Wikipedia pages on this subject:

Copyrights, Copyright tags, Fair use, Image description page, Public domain, Images for deletion, Possibly unfree images, Copyright problems, Uploading images

Thanks again for your contributions. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at my talk page. feydey 12:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Threat01.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Threat01.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. If you got it from a website, then a link to the website where it was taken from with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, 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 12:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 12:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: USYD significance
Hi JUBALCAIN. It may indeed be a significant issue, although I am not fully convinced that it is the sort of thing that needs to be covered on the main article about a University. It seems mainly to be about arrangements between the university, a student and a funding body that happens to be the government. But that is to some extent irrelevant. The key issue here is that to be included in the article, it needs to be not only relevant enough, but based on verifiable third party sources. If you can provide these (note, this doesn't mean original documents, but news reports or things like that), then please continue this discussion at Talk:University of Sydney, so that other editors may also join in. JPD (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Medicare card
Thanks for clarifying that section. I thought licenced was a reasonable, in not official, word to describe being given a provider number, but given US usage, it is definitely better to avoid it! As for the section you added to Medicare, it really does read like advocacy of a particular view, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If this controversy is notable enough to be included in the article, it needs to written from a neutral point of view, using reputable sources (however important the issue is, it doesn't get included on Wikipedia until it has some sort of coverage by reputable sources), and probably in a different location in the article. The constitutional foundation section is about the relationship between the federal and state governments, explaining how the scheme can exist in the first places. Questions about the consitutionality of particular schemes at this point simply make the article hard to read, and would be more appropriately covered in a section about how Medicare interacts with medical providers. Thanks, JPD (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be factual, but that doesn't stop it being soap box material. A reference to legislation is not good enough, you need to use 3rd party coverage of the issue, not your own observations and arguments. The section you have added is about the constitution, yes, and may be factual, but it is not about Medicare as a whole, but about particular schemes within/connected with Medicare. To discuss this near the beginning of the article, before things like the components of Medicare, disrupts the article. If this topic really should be included, it would fit better, and even be easier to understand, later on. JPD (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, rebates and provider numbers are central to the medicare system. However, the Medical Rural Bonded Scheme is only one issue regarding provider numbers, even if it will affect 20% of medical practitioners as you claim without giving a source. More relevantly, you are placing the section about conscription and the rural scheme early in the article, before the basic idea of what medicare does (ie give rebates, etc.) has been explained. I myself am reasonably familiar with the issues, but the article should be written so that it makes sense to someone who isn't. Adding sections focussing on a particular problem, rather than explaining the framework is not only against the neutral point of view policy, it also means that the article is less informative. JPD (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in you rewite to see if it can be communicate in a more susinct way...I accept the issues are complex...and perhaps I do assume too much pre knowledge...so i will leave you to it and then inspect. Howver it is not a particualr issue, it is a I think i put befopre the central and perhaps only issue in a medicare card, / medicare ans without provider numbers meciacare and medicare cards are useless. In fact the other issues metion in this artice such a using medicare card for an australia card are susiduary and specualtive issues as they have not passed inot legislation or nay tangiable form. perhaps it should be removed as it is purely speculative, scheme as opposed to the descrivbing the stautory mechanics of the medicare card systsem


 * I did not say that providers numbers are not a central issue to the medicare card. The particular issue you are addressing is the Medical Rural Bonded Scheme and whether it amounts to civil conscription. This does not affect many practitioners with provider numbers, and so is a particular problem. I agree that things like the MRBS are probably more important to Medicare than things like the Australia card (although to be fair, the Australia card mention is in the Medicare card article, not the Medicare article). However, I am not convinced that the particular issue (the civil conscription argument) that you are addressing is important enough to be in the article, so it is not really fair of you to ask me to rewrite it. If it is to be included, it should be included in the right part of the article, but more importantly, it needs to cite reputable sources claiming that it falls foul of the constitutional prohibition and backing up the other claims that you are making. JPD (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * its usally a good indication of importance when its in the countries constituion, what do you think? Thats the closet thing to a bill of rights australia has


 * Australia has no bill of rights. It is not helpful to treat the constitution as though it were one, as it is quite different. At any rate, the assertion that the MRBS is civil conscription is not in the constition, only the prohibition against civil conscription. Importance is relative. The consitutionality of the MRBS is clearly important to the MRBS (and hence an article on the MRBS), but is of lesser importance in an article on Medicare as a whole, as the MRBS is only a part of Medicare. JPD (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * why I said "Thats the closet thing to a bill of rights australia has"JUBALCAIN 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jellyfish
Hi. You added Turritopsis nutricula to Jellyfish. That's cool. But can you please expand the Turritopsis nutricula page from just 4 words + one external link to something more useful please? Fred Hsu 03:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah i know I'm really hoping some one esle will do id did link to that page from immortality wiki page and jelly fish page ...its really quite an interesitng critter....but i am interesed to see if some one else will expand....however pretty important 4 words!!!! maybe I can get an award for most consise wiki entry ever with most impact :). I kanda felt that the jelly desrves some mention, but I would just be repeating the link....and didn't to get into any copyright issues!JUBALCAIN 07:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've expanded it. I think that is more than enough for now. Yes, it's a very interesting creature :) Fred Hsu 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually credit where credit is due, some other guy wikified it and expanded it then I did a bit more.JUBALCAIN 04:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:LoCat.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LoCat.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 13:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Digital Autonomous Corporation


A tag has been placed on Digital Autonomous Corporation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. NorthAmerica1000 02:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension


A tag has been placed on York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Peppy Paneer (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)