User talk:Superruss

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! --Curtis Clark 14:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

License tagging for Image:Prunus africana seedling.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Prunus africana seedling.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. 12:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edits to Lancaster University
Hi, could you please explain your edit here? Thanks, Darksun (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Again you have reverted my edits without explanation. Information about the companies at the conference is very relevant - it was those companies that caused the protest. Details of the failed appeal is also relevant. Please provide better edit descriptions when reverting edits. Darksun (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kool Aid, Flavor Aid & Jonestown
I'm all for it if you are righting an error, but you'll need strong referencing if you want to make edits to the effect that it really was Kool Aid, not Flavor Aid, at Jonestown. So far, you seem to have no more that an unusual claim by a single source (the film, Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple) or, worse, your "original research" observation, made in viewing the film. The former would be worth a footnote saying that this one source dissents -- possibly even a change to nonspecific wording such as "soft drink", with a footnote explaining the disagreement. The latter, whether right or wrong, is simply not an allowable basis on which to edit WP -- "no original research". Cordially, Lonewolf BC (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Canterbury Tail  talk  12:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Superruss i agree with the sentence in question, although i do not think it belongs in the introduction and because of endless edit wars on the British Isles article there are tough rules about reverting changes that must be followed. Its safer to mention any planned changes to the introduction on the talk page to see what others think. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

October 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Danny Dyer, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C. wiki
Hello, I am the lead sysop on the Liverpool F.C. wiki. It is a wiki dedicated solely to Liverpool F.C.. We aim to make the ultimate database for the club we all love. Since adopting the incredibly inactive wiki about a month ago we have greatly increased the article count and modernized it from it's previous state. The problem is there are not many active members on the site and we need more for the site to properly grow. It is well organized and on it's way to be a great site we just need more editors to expand. It is based on Wikia's network of wikis. Like Wikipedia it is free to use and the editing process is exactly the same. If you know how to edit Wikipedia you will know how to edit the Liverpool F.C. wiki. Now for the question you may be asking yourself. Why edit there? Wikipedia has articles on Liverpool. This is true. At the Liverpool wiki it is all about Liverpool. We allow editors to edit anything about Liverpool no matter how trivial. We allow edits on reserve and academy players, and even things as trivial as the fitness coaches for the year 2011. We also do not lock pages to registered users. That means if you have something to say about Steven Gerrard you can click edit and not view source and actually write something. I would love for you to come by and check the wiki out. Feel free to edit any page. Every time you click edit your ARE helping this wiki grow. Thanks for taking the time to read this! http://liverpoolfc.wikia.com/wiki/Liverpool_FC_Wiki --Coffeeclub213 (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello Superruss. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Moulton College, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And did I break any of these guidlines? I added some photos and general information, hardly insider trading!

Your recent messages on my talk page
Thank you for your messages to my talk page.

You say "Dont just delete things for a conflict on interest for the sake of it; that seems a very lazy solution". I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I was doing that: I can't see anything in my edit summaries, talk page messages, or revision deletion logs that could be read that way. All of my removals were for two reasons: blatant advertising and copyright infringement. Andrewmoodlebailey added substantial quantities of text copied verbatim from another web site on 2 December 2010‎, and more of the same on 21 December 2011‎. That content had to be removed: we cannot keep material copied from elsewhere unless we have clear indication that the copyright owner has released the material for free reuse. In this case, some of the content was copied from a web page which bears the message "All content © Harrow Council. All rights reserved." while other content came from pages on the college's own web site, which does not, as far as I can see, contain any suggestion that the content can be copied, modified, and reused for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, by anyone at all, as is required for compatibility with Wikipedia's licensing terms. Initially I was not aware of the copyright infringement, and removed the text in question because it was promotional. You said "in no way could the information be remotely interpreted with bias", but I wonder whether you had actually read it all. The edits in question included such language as "to help make your time at Moulton college a memorable and enjoyable experience", "offers a unique opportunity", "superb", "excellence", and so on and so on. In fact, with hindsight, I realise that I should have immediately recognised this as the kind of stuff that comes straight from the college's own publicity material, and discovered the copyright infringement at once. However, it was only when you challenged my removal that I looked into the matter further and discovered the copyright problem; thank you for calling my attention to it.

On 10 January 2012 you reverted an edit which had removed the promotional copyright infringing text, probably inadvertently, intending only to revert removal of text you had added. I had reverted to the last version before the first spam/copyright violation was added. In such cases frequently there is a mixture in the article's history of edits which add copyright infringement, edits which remove some or all of it, and other edits, unrelated to the copyright issue. This can make it very difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff, so that trying to find the best version to revert to can be a major job, and going back to the last version before the trouble started can be the easiest solution to the problem. Perhaps you would like to replace "easiest" in that sentence by "lazy", a word you used in a message to my talk page. However, I spend a great deal of my time on administrative work for Wikipedia, and I have to make judgements about what is the most effective use of that time. Very often spending a large amount of time searching through an article's editing history to find the "best" version to revert to produces very little improvement, and in many cases no improvement at all, over just taking the last known good version. You are, however, welcome to find a better version in the article's history and go back to it. As far as I know I have removed all the copyright infringing versions, so there should no longer be a risk of your inadvertently reintroducing the problem, as you did before.

I hope that this has helped to clarify for you the reasons why I did what I did. Please do let me know if you have any other questions about it, or if you need any help. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have restored the three files you uploaded for the Moulton College article. The problem was that the files were specified as being for use only on Wikipedia. Although common sense might suggest that that is OK, in fact it isn't. Wikipedia licenses all its content for free reuse by anyone, so it is not possible to license a file for use on Wikipedia but not to allow others to reuse it.


 * Unfortunately image licensing is a bewilderingly complex area, and one in which I have little experience, but I will give you what I hope is helpful advice. As far as the college logo is concerned, you should be able to give a non-free fair use rationale, though it would be better to upload a smaller copy of it, as anything bigger than is necessary to illustrate the logo in the article would be dubious "fair use". The situation for the photographs is a little more complex. If they are your own photographs, taken privately for your own use, and not on behalf of the college, then you can simply indicate on the file description page that you license them with the appropriate license (See Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License) or release them into the public domain. If, however, the photographs belong to the college, then you must go through the proper process of getting the college to license the images, and providing evidence of such licensing. This can be done either by directly contacting the Wikimedia foundation or more simply by linking to a page on the college's web site that shows such licensing. Simply saying on the image description page that the image is freely licensed, without providing evidence, is not enough. It is important for the copyright owner (whether you or the college) to realise that licensing a file for use on Wikipedia involves giving permission for the file to be reused by anyone in the world, including for commercial purposes, so if you are not willing to permit that then you should not continue.


 * Unfortunately there is a bewildering range of Wikipedia pages relating to various copyright related issues. However, it looks to me as though the ones most immediately relevant to you are File copyright tags and Non-free content. The page on Non-free content is certainly relevant for the college logo, but if you own the copyright to the photographs then you shouldn't need to bother: just put the appropriate tag on the file description to show that you are releasing the image. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that the files have been deleted again as having improper licensing information. If you can produce proper licensing information then let me know and I will undelete them yet again. However, as long as we don't have the correct information I see no point in repeatedly recreating them only to see them deleted every time. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"facts entered. Do not delete unless you can disprove that these are false!"
I'm afraid that the reverse is true. This collaborative effort is based on verifiability and it is the responsibility of those who add information to provide the verification for it.

Best Wishes S a g a C i t y (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Biodynamic agriculture
Please be careful about deleting statements supported by citations (in this case, by no less than three citations!!!) because you "know" the statement not to be true. In this case, it was a careless reading of the text: Biodynamics were not asserted to be one of the first modern farming systems, but one of the first modern ecological farming systems. Quite a distinction.

In any case, if there's a citation, it's probably not a good idea to pull the text. This is what talk pages are for: ask if there's not a mistake being made. hgilbert (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)