User talk:Spot Color Process

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 (Talk) 23:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I like messages :-P

Revco
Thanks for adding Mary Lou's "And, another thing..." to the Revco page. I cannot believe that you remember she said that. Wikipedianinthehouse 22:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ha! A lot of things from my childhood still occupy space in my memory that really aren't necessary. I just happened to be reading a Wiki page about the Olympics, and when I saw Retton's name I immediately thought of Revco, which of course meant I had to immediately see if there was a Wiki article on it. Turns out the history of Revco is somewhat interesting; I wasn't aware of the bankruptcies, just that they became CVS at some point. --Spot Color Process 02:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

JonnyT peekin in...
Heya,

This is JonnyT formerly of the ULMB, noticed your comments on the snopes article so thought I'd pop in and say hey.

So, er, yeah. Hey, and all that. *waves*

--Black Butterfly 01:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC) PS I am now a raving anarchist. Thought you should know.
 * Yeah, I figured you'd become an anarchist someday. :D Thanks for checkin' in. --Spot Color Process 01:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Peanuts List of Birthdates and Information
Hi, Birdhombre -- I'm just saying that I'm sorry I didn't say where I got this "List" info. I was visiting a friend, and he has all the info on Peanuts. I don't know where he got it (the talent), but he says it's all true information. It will be published on the Net in January 2006. --Janet6, a Wikipedia user
 * Since my comments on your user talk page got deleted, I'll put them here:
 * Janet6, if you did indeed register this username, please log in. Currently, all of your edits (including the creation of this user/talk page) are showing up as the anonymous IP address 24.255.115.243. Also, the reason Wahkeenah and I keep reverting your "Peanuts facts" is because Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, which states:


 * Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what those sources say.


 * You have listed your source as a "new paper" that cannot be found on the internet, and/or a website currently under construction. Until that paper or website is published, we cannot use it as a source for an encyclopedia article. Further, Wikipedia has a policy on verifiability, which requires "reputable sources" to verify facts. Since, as I've said before, I am a long time Peanuts fan and have never heard or read any of these birthdates/names you keep adding, I would be suspect of this new paper/website even once it is published. UnitedMedia's Peanuts biographies at Snoopy.com make no mention of your information either.


 * Please understand where I am coming from here; I am not out to target you, but I also do not want to see false or unverified information added to Wikipedia. There is enough of that already; we don't need more. Thanks. --Spot Color Process 03:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * --Spot Color Process 21:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Beagle
Don't you understand the beagle is Smiling in the photo and not Smelling? Quit the revert war! 83.31.244.130 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, no, I don't understand. I've never heard of a "sense of smile" other than in the names of photography studios and dentist offices. Also, you added Please revert to previous verion is caption reads: The Beagle has a very well-developed sense of smell. to the comment tag in your edit. So you basically violated your own suggestion by changing "smell" to "smile." Further, I asked twice before in my edit summaries why you changed "smell" to "smile," and you continued to change it without explaining why. Now you're accusing me instead. Beautiful.
 * And for the record, the five senses are sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. But you probably knew that. --Spot Color Process 03:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ameriflora
I'm glad you started a page on Ameriflora. I think resizing the pictures I added was the right move - it looks better.

I was always sad that it wasn't more of a success. You always get the feeling that Columbus is embarrassed a little by being named after Christopher Columbus. Old Chris has not been treated kindly by history, and is now considered a VD-bearing greedy jerk who is hardly mentioned in school books. He used to rank up there with George Washington when I was a kid. But I digress - nice job on the page. george 06:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have all the references listed on that page, but haven't taken the time to add citations to the text of the article. I keep meaning to do that. Thanks for adding the pictures; I scanned the logo, but didn't feel like digging out pictures from 14 years ago too, if I even knew where they were.


 * Yeah, the Wolfs touted AmeriFlora as Columbus' time to shine, hoping it would place the city on the world stage, but there were angry residents right from the time the committee was even founded in the '80s, which meant there was limited local support. I went there twice (I was 12 at the time), and it actually was a really nice exhibition, but it's too bad it wasn't better planned. --Spot Color Process 12:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

DoubleClick
Birdhombre

i just want to let you know that doubleclick absolutely has a software. it is an adserving solution which is built around both advertisers and publishers workflow. typically it is sold as an asp solution, often customized for specific client needs. on the publisher side they do have an enterprise solution which allows publishers to control their own ad serving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntermj (talk • contribs)
 * Cool. That might be something good to add to the article if you have some sources. --Spot Color Process 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Apropos [this deletion], [this source] confirms it. However, I am not comfortable adding it; that would violate WP:NOR; what to do? Do you want to add it? Please reply here. --Elvey 08:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you could add this by simply stating who is making the claim, rather than just posting it as an outright fact. For example, you could say, According to San Francisco IT consulting group The Elvey Partnership, although DoubleClick does offer an opt-out page, this only affects cookies; DoubleClick continues to track users via IP addresses. Then include the link you posted.


 * I would think that would be good enough, and instead of trying to find multiple sources to back up the claim, the burden of proof is on The Elvey Partnership rather than Wikipedia. That's my view, anyway. --Spot Color Process 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for backing me up on the Oglebay talk page! As far as I know, what you said is true. In my policy manual it states that I must keep a positive image of the zoo when talking to the public, but they must categorize Wikipedia under something that has to go through the PR department. I'm pretty sure I know who added that note, but they tried pretty hard to cover it up (they didn't use their IP) All the info. I added was completely factual, but I did not add info. about who worked there (why should I?). The person who added the note was upset because I had not yet added them. They're probably tracking my account now, but I don't know. I was thinking about creating a new Wikipedia account, but it might be better if I just apologize in person and work it out. As a veteran Wikipedian, what do you think I should do? Create a new account, apologize in person, or edit my page so that I have no affiliation with the Park and its entities. When editing that article, I had no intention of threatening my volunteer job at the zoo or upsetting anyone. Morganismysheltie 18:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I could see how they would consider Wikipedia to be "talking to the public," just as any blog or website probably would. The difference here is that one would have to read the article's talk page or history to see that you're a volunteer. I noticed you removed that note from your user page, which is probably good. Maybe setting up a new account and starting fresh is a good idea too, in case that person is watching your contribs. My point to User:Ohiovalley was simply that Oglebay's PR department doesn't really have any control over Wikipedia, so it's kind of silly to claim the article needed "approval," but it sounded to me like they were just warning you to be careful what you say, not making any kind of threat. I probably wouldn't bring it up to anyone in person since it doesn't sound like you're in any trouble, but that's just my view. :) --Spot Color Process 19:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ameriflora '92 Logo.png}
Thank you for uploading Image:Ameriflora '92 Logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)