User talk:Sir Floyd/Archives/2010/January

Re: Klapa Fa Lindo
I' haven't logged off for the year just yet... :-) Fa Lindjo and Cara are on my todo list now; I've taken a brief look at both, edited a few bits - more to come later. Best wishes, GregorB (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks GregorB! Best wishes to you too. Ps I'm finding that the Google is not picking up Fa Lindjo. Would you know why? Sir Floyd (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 10:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Negative0-26-12A(1).jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Negative0-26-12A(1).jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright letter to Klapa Fa Lindjo (prepared by Sir Floyd)
I hereby affirm that I, Paula Kasulic-Appointed Representative of the exclusive copyright of Negative0-26-12A(1) agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License".

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS: Paula Kasulic (Second Soprano) SENDER'S AUTHORITY:Klapa Fa Lindo's-Appointed Representative DATE:

E-Mail to: permissions-enwikimedia.org

Honor
It's onor to collaborate with capable editor as you are, congratulations very much! At Broz article I have just inserted that source linked by you in my talk: I know other sources too. You can explain your mind here--ANTE RAKELA (talk) 12:09, 23 Januabry 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
Thanks. :) No problem. Just doing my usual rounds. :) --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 08:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

TITLE
Sorry for the inconvenience, Sir Floyd, but that was User:Ragusino's IP (threats, personal attacks, block evasion, edit-warring, sockpuppeteering, etc.).

I'd like to add a request. I sincerely admire your work on Croatian articles, but I'd seriously advise you to try your best and avoid the restarting of the edit-wars that raged on articles such as House of Bunić. You have no idea how long the old conflicts lasted and how difficult it was to end them. Lets leave the controversial questions be. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User DIREKTOR delete my edithere. I just want to write that I'm not Ragusino. Please Sir Floyd, ask a check user for me, because (of course) DIREKTOR prefer to accuse, without to give evidences, he does not have... Anywaay, it seems I live in continent different from Ragusino. Isn't funny? I agree with you. Article needs a title chance, but firt you have to reach proper consensus.--84.221.67.86 (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that one needs a title change (may be later on). Best to have a agreement first. I'm in no hurry. I like the idea of semi-protection, who needs the stress. Sir Floyd (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any registered account can edit House of Bunić, but it may not be much use unless someone has the time to read the sources. Are there reliable sources that have commented on the importance of the Bunić family as a family? In the past, Ragusino created a bunch of articles that were mostly genealogy. (i.e. the family *existed*, not on what it actually did). A speedy deletion via db-banned may be the quickest way to deal with this article unless someone thinks it can be seriously improved. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I too think the House of Bunic- Sources should be check (as all sources should be). If the article survives, it should be renamed. If your interested please check the sources on the Talk:House of Bunić/House of De Bona. Sir Floyd (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the house is pretty insignificant. Most of User:Ragusino's "House articles" are. It was deleted for good reason. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)