User talk:Skol fir/Archive 4

About the link you removed
Hello there,

Firstly I did not use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote my own creations, but as a matter of fact my creations do exist and therefore they have a right to figure on the relevant pages if only as an external link, to both further the topic and document it. In other words culture is alive and breathing, has to be inclusive and is not a dead corpse that you dissect. You want to be able to observe it. Of course some like the post mortem better, I will never understand them.

Secondly, I do not claim Scott Adams Dilbert's characters as my own, if you visited the link you can see a clear copyright Dilbert characters on the header. You fail to mention that for some reason. However Scott Adams offers his readers the possibility to do mashups of his strips, although the characters are not mine (and once again I do stress the mention of the Dilbert copyright), the texts and the story are mine. It is a creation of my own intellect, and I have a right to it that cannot be denied.

Now why dont you exercise yours (intellect) and put the links back.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrimerReaper (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate creativity as much as you do. However, I don't see how your imitation of another person's original work merits an external link in a general article for Adventure, which is a broad description of that topic. The examples given under historical, modern and fictional categories are notable examples that already have their own Wiki articles and can be Wikilinked to them, conditions not met by your link. As for the article on Asok, it is purely about the Dilbert character, originally created by Scott Adams and no one else. Wikipedia frowns on people promoting their own work, by tagging onto another person's article. You already have your own blog, as I see by following the link. I did not even mention that personal blogs are not to be used as sources in Wikipedia (see WP:SELFPUBLISH). Just putting the word Dilbert on your images, does not mean that you got permission from Scott Adams to use his copyrighted image. I stand by my original explanation, which you already saw at your Talk Page. I don't need to change anything. My reasons are related to the Wikipedia policy on external links, if you care to read them at WP:EXT.


 * I will not return links that do not follow Wiki rules and procedures. Maybe you misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia. It is to recount verifiable information (verified by secondary sources other than your own blog), which means they are notable in having been reported elsewhere. Furthermore, I repeat that attaching your own blog to an article that makes no mention of your own work is obvious self-promotion and does not add anything to the subject of the article itself. If you feel strongly that a separate section on mash-ups of Asok is applicable, that would be a more acceptable way of including your mash-up, rather than an external link purely to promote yourself. --Skol fir (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

About the link you removed
Hello there,

Ok, I understand your point of view, however theses policies betray the idea of Diderot the inventor of the very concept of encyclopedia, he meant it to be as extensive as possible. I stick to my opinion that an article should not only cover the topic at hand extensively but also point to other resources that might be of interest to someone researching the topic. External links are a way to achieve this desired result.

You consider that as self promotion, even if I conceded that point it does not change a thing to the fact that people interested in the character of Asok will not dispose of this additional creative material about that character. In that regard Wikipedia by not allowing such links, considering material written by myself or others as self promotion, misses the point, you want to offer the reader the possibility of accessing all of the available material on a topic. Of course the proposed links have to be reviewed, and we should offer the reader the possibility to objectively rate theses links (like articles are).

Wikipedia cannot and should not be a closed system, it should take advantage of the openness of the web, forbidding people to post links to blogs is a major mistake. The blogosphere is where things are happening now, relevant blogs should be accessible. Its not a way for their authors to promote themselves really, its just material that is there and should accessible. period. Denying whole domains like blogspot.com is... censorship ?! In what is it different from the great firewall of China ?

Regards, etc, — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrimerReaper (talk • contribs) 10:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You are suggesting that Wikipedia should allow using external links to personal blogs to drive traffic to your site, or to promote an aspect of the article that directly links to your own creative efforts. However, an encyclopedia is not a free forum without limits. According to Wikipedia guidelines (WP:EXT) that I already mentioned to you, it states clearly that personal blogs should be avoided -- in the section WP:LINKSTOAVOID, #11, it says editors should avoid "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"


 * If you really object to one or more of the rules set out by Wikipedia, you should start a Request for Comment, which is the first step to changing Wiki policy. You would submit your question or suggestion and other editors will comment on your input. It is a democratic process to allow change, and open discussion of the pros and cons of an issue. Changing Wiki policy requires discussion and consensus before it is implemented. --Skol fir (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

About the link you deleted
Hello there,

I dont get your point about driving traffic to a site ? Its the nature of the internet. Thats how it works, you get traffic because people are interested in the content.

Secondly, Im not advocating for Wikipedia to become a free for all, links should be rated, and removed if the content is deemed substandard (through vote, always, we have to let the people decide)

On to 'working within the system to change it', if you have some interest in history you know that it doesn't work. Im not going to waste time advocating my ideas because I know for a fact that WikiGods will want to keep their little privileges, removing links and so forth...

Lastly, I should be a 'renowned authority' on Asok ? Thats a bit funny. Ironically I have done now more 160 mashups over 2 years that all tell Asok's story at the CIA, so, yes, I am one of the few living authorities on Asok. Maybe you should read my strips. As you do so please do not try to fight the feeling of remorse at having deprived other Wikipedians of this content.

Regards, etc,

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/lPzKjGCrwFeWAn_wUQ1vSg?feat=directlink

F1 tie-breakers
Thanks for your kind words! Good info on the tie-breakers, yes, technically it can go down to the most trivial result of the season to decide the champion. Like you, I would far rather see a shared championship than something like that! It reminds me of the 2007 season when Hamilton beat Alonso for second place in the championship because he had 4 wins and 5 second places, and Alonso had 4 wins and 4 second places. Hopefully that's as close as it ever gets! Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Hooray"
Thanks for catching my spelling error in Schmuck (pejorative). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! The AHD actually favors "hur·rah", with "hooray" and "hurray" being secondary spellings. Leo Rosten, though, seems to like "hooray" and since he wrote the book, who's to argue with him? :-) --Skol fir (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Skol fir, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Skol fir/Soanya Ahmad.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Skol fir/Soanya Ahmad has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Soanya Ahmad, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Soanya Ahmad, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  18:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
 * Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Soanya Ahmad (from Channer Conversations).jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Soanya Ahmad (from Channer Conversations).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Soanya Ahmad (from Channer Conversations).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Soanya Ahmad (from Channer Conversations).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Soanya ahmad-2010.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soanya ahmad-2010.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. January ( talk ) 19:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Soanya ahmad-2010.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Soanya ahmad-2010.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. ukexpat (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You should have tagged the page with OTRS pending; without an indication that permission is imminent, I will delete anything that is uploaded clearly without permission. As it is, once you get the letter, it won't be "a lot of trouble" because we can simply undelete it without difficulty.  Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, kind-of, but not exactly. Once you have the permissions email, you can forward it to the permissions email address; you should include "File:Soanya ahmad-2010.jpg" in the subject line, and you'll need to specify that the image has been deleted and that therefore it will need to be restored.  If the email is handled by an agent who is not an administrator, the agent will go to the page you named and ask that the image be restored so the permissions template can be applied.  In the mean time, there's no need to go through with the undeletion request, since either you'll get permission and the process I just discussed will happen, or you won't get permission and the image will thus not be suitable to stay on.  Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, you need to go to File:Soanya Ahmad (from Channer Conversations).jpg right now and add a permissions template for the license that was agreed in the email; for example, if they agreed to the Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 3.0 License (which is what you had typed on the other image), you need to go to the file page and add"cc-by-sa-3.0"Without a license tag, there's no point in the OTRS pending tag, since we always require an image to have a "license tag" (which results from this type of text; it's the statement of the terms by which people may use the image) of some sort. As far as getting the email processed, I'm not able to help you; the permissions people are known as "OTRS agents", and I'm not one of them.  Unfortunately, because they're all volunteers like you and I are, it can often take them this long to process emails.  You can go to OTRS noticeboard to contact the OTRS agents, but it may still take several days.  I'm sorry, but there are always lots of emails for the OTRS agents to review; they're not ignoring yours.  Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Soanya Ahmad (from Channer Conversations).jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Soanya Ahmad (from Channer Conversations).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. ukexpat (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)