User talk:Tejastheory

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. 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! WAvegetarian 03:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 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
 * Proper tags to place on stubs (short articles)
 * How Votes for deletion works
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Motorcycle safety
The intention of the section is to demonstrate with accurate and well-documented real-life examples that motorcycles are lethal when operated exactly the way intended by the manufactures. The list of deaths of experienced riders, including the president of a motorcycle club and numerous police offiecers, sheds an accurate light on the limitation of "motorcycle safety" which is an oxymoron when 80% of motorcycle accidents result in death or serious injury.

Look at the Wiki definition of vanity and you will see that such definition does not apply since I do not have any association with the deceased individuals. I believe the real motive for removing the section is to downplay the extent of serious well-documented danger of this consumer product. There is a pattern of downplaying the deadliness of motorcycles by the motorcycle fans who generally contribute to these wiki pages, which has been demonstrated by the redaction of mortality statistics from both the Harley-Davidson and the Motorcycle articles. Such censorship has no wiki basis and such activity gives the strong appearance of nothing more than product-support based censorship. As one writer in the Harley-Davidson discussion page noted, that article is little more than a Harley-Davidson company portal. If you would like to continue this discussion, let's copy our comments over to the Motorcycle safety page and continue it there. Then when I put a neutrality disputed tag on the page, it will make sense to all concerned.

David F. Traver 00:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As an initial matter, what makes those deceased individuals "special" is that their motorcycle-related deaths are well-documented on the web, as was their experience as motorcycle operators. So it was possible to provide supporting links.

Perhaps there is a middle ground which will be satisfying to you and to other readers of the motorcycle-related pages. I suggest we collaborate to create a new article titled something like "Motorcycle social costs and mortality rates." We could move information from the "safety" page to the new page. The notion of discussing "motorcycle safety" is an oxymoron to me, since there is nothing a rider can do to make the machine safe for operation on a highway. It is somewhat like having safe Russian roulette. Social costs and mortality rates could explore the death rate, lost earnings, costs to Medicaid, welfare, Supplemental Security Income, and Social Security Disability due to uninsured and unemployable motorcycle accident victims, etc. We could document and show the social costs in miles traveled to differentiate motorcycles from modes of transportation that have substantially fewer social costs, such as airplanes, automobiles, trains, and buses. It would be a pleasure to have someone to work with on the project. David F. Traver 00:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The newer Type H cards claim to offer speed increases over Type M cards, as well as include special "picture effects", although most of these are only available in use with Olympus digital cameras.

Image:Sather tower.jpg
Hi. When you uploaded Image:Sather tower.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with GFDL-presumed and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually GFDL-self or PD-self. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 09:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Somebody told me.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Somebody told me.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. After Midnight 0001 03:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Somebody told me.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Somebody told me.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cyber Monday
An article that you have been involved in editing, Cyber Monday, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Cyber Monday (2nd nomination). Thank you.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 09:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:3RR for breaking WP:V policy
You have reverted Template:Canon DSLR cameras four times: 1 2 3 4. All four times are in clear violation of policy WP:V. Do it again and I will block you under WP:3RR since you are knowingly, and uncaringly violating policy.

Per WP:V:


 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

You are clearly restoring questionable material and you refuse to cite it in the template per policy. Cburnett (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Truce
Look, this is getting ridiculously stupid. For acting like an ass: I apologize. For following policy and warning you for your edit warring in violation of policy: I don't apologize.

Per policy, WP:V, you must put in citations as the restoring editor. Putting links to sources on a talk page does not count: no one looking at Canon EOS-1D will be able to see the citations on that page. They must go to the template and realize they are on the talk page, and so look there. That is not how citations work. Step back and realize that putting links somewhere on a talk page doesn't help anyone actually wanting to find it. The labels have a history of being contentious and if they aren't in plain view for people to check that, yes, 5D is a "professional" line camera then they will continue to change it. Cburnett (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * . Thank you, thank you, thank you.  Cburnett (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to say anything more than use your common sense next time. Look at these templates:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Pentax_DSLR_cameras&oldid=193810976


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Olympus_DSLR_cameras&oldid=193811958


 * Can you honestly say your edits were making a positive contribution to wikipedia? Especially after it was made clear that the information about target markets is readily available, and it would just take some time to find and list citations for each and every product line.  At the very least, you use this: Template:Fact, which shows to all readers that the information is unverified and possibly contentious (your point), but at least allows that information to be verified, without ruining the templates in the meantime.


 * I'm not interested in carrying on this discussion further, but that's just a point I'll hope you'll consider next time. -Tejastheory (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If I should have added fact then why didn't you the four times you restored the labels? Policy says to remove (fact is a  courtesy, if you will).  You should appreciate following the letter of policy after you [wholly, unnecessarily, and unconstructively] railed me on accuracy and precision.


 * I didn't use fact because I don't like the cavalier "tag it and forget it" approach people take. I LOOKED at the product pages for numerous cameras and didn't find one use of any particular label.  Zero, none, zilch, nada.  I TRIED to find an authoritative source on the labels and didn't find anything.  I couldn't in good conscience add fact after attempting to find a source myself: that's not the point of the tags.  I tried and failed so I removed the labels.


 * So, yes, I would consider them positive contributions for removing material that was unsourced and, as far as my attempts were, unsourceable. Cburnett (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nikon DSLR Template Vote
There is a discussion/vote you may be interested in taking place at Nikon DSLR template talk Regarding the format of the table and the information it displays. This vote has been prompted by discussion regarding the placement of the Nikon D3, Nikon D1/Nikon D2X and the Nikon D700. If you chose to vote, please familiarize yourself with the discussion and the Nikon system. If you can help out, great. If not, no worries. Thanks in advance. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is the notice I have put on the talk pages of users who seem involved with DSLR's etc. Most of these users I have never had interaction with. I'd just like to get some other options.

Camera timeline templates missing
I see you have been an active editor of camera templates. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Photography.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)