User talk:Wit

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:


 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 15:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Virtual Avatar:Stub talk
Wit, I really don't think that this is a stub anymore. It took me a minute or two to see what I could do to improve it...after all, it had been labeled a stub, but after the clarification of the different kinds of avatars, this article is not a stub, and only needs, in my opinion, a few minor improvisations. What do you think?CryptoStorm 20:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wit.jpg
Hi,

It's nitpicky to quibble over tags on personal photos on user pages, but: I changed the copyright tag you attached to "Wit.jpg" from the "Promo" tag to "permission", because of your statement that you own the photo and nobody can use it on or off the Internet without your permission.

Everything posted to Wikipedia is being used by downstream users who aren't getting permission from anyone, so "permission" licenses are not allowed for picture uploads. I'd recommend releasing the photo under the GFDL.

Thanks - Tempshill 18:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, please read what Fair use have to say about copyrighted images on userpages. Yeah I know you won't sue yourself for using your image, but it's Wikipedia policy that user created content is licensed under GFDL, and copyrighted material should only be used in articles and only if there are no alternatives. Please reconsider using GFDL (or one of the more restrictive Creative Commons licences), GFDL actualy prevent a lot of potential "abuse" of the image because in order to legaly use it the re-user have to attach the full text of the GFDL licence and a list of people who have edited the image. Also even if you reserve all rights and what not people can still potentialy claim "fair use" and use it anyway, so the only way to fully protect it is to never upload it in the first place. Anyway just a suggestion. Just know that if it stays copyrighred as now it will be deleted as a matter of policy. --Sherool (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Wit- I hope you don't mind but I'm going to remove the extra usage rules at Image:Wit.jpg because they are incompatible with the GFDL. I know this annoys you, but wikipedia isn't really the place for contributions (text or images) which are restricted from free reuse. I'd be happy to delete the image for you if you'd rather keep it under wraps (or of course help you to understand or change the license on it). Staecker 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your wit. I know you probably don't want to discuss this, but I'm not sure what you mean by "abuse". If you choose to release this under GFDL, this means that I can print your image, draw a big mustache on it, put a copy of the GFDL on the collar tag, and sell it without giving you a penny. Is that abuse? Derivative works (the moustache) and commercial reuse (selling the t-shirt) are rights which we specifically allow for our content. If by "abuse" you mean that reusers should not violate the GFDL, then then I agree totally. Not trying to hassle you, just making sure you know what's up. Staecker 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can do whatever you want. It's just that if you ever go for the moustache thing, I'll prolly return the favour (or worse hehehe). That still falls under GFDL, right? Wit 19:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure does- Staecker 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

SEO Contest
Hey Wit. I left a message for you on the Seo Contest discussion area. I was wanting to link to a friends site. He is one of the Charity sites. In fact the Charity site. I left a message up there for close to two weeks. With no answer I posted it in the least spammy way I could think of. Please take a look at the site and let me know if it would be useful or not. I'm not wanting to spam up wikipedia at all and since you are sort or the mod on that page I was asking you. http://www.watching-paint-dry.com/v7ndotcom-elursrebmem/ DrakesTravels

Hello Wit. Not sure if this is the right way to ask but you removed the link to the precharge seo contest, why? it linked to the contest itself and not my entry. It's run by a real company, not like some of these other guys so I thought with the fact that their prizes were biggy that it should be part of wikipedia, especially if you consider they are the first major company to offer an seo contest.


 * I don't remember deleting that... You sure it was me? Wit 09:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Gemma Atkinson
Hi. I reverted your edit because consensus seems to be against including this information. Despite what you say I don't see that it is relevant. It would be like pointing out that William G. Stewart and Alistair Stewart are not related (and a few years back there were a lot of people who got the impression they were father and son). Anyway, if you have any thoughts on this feel free to contribute to this discussion on the talk page. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So are we gonna revert every single claim of relationship for years to come, only because this (otherwise well-known) fact is NOT included here? That's just weird. WP is meant to answer people's questions, and this one is the first one that enters their mind. IMV we're selling people short - as well as making our own lives miserable - by not including this. Wit (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC) P.S.: I wish Gem herself stepped up and spoke out, but alas she seems a bit shy.
 * I must say that before it started to appear in the article it had never occurred to me that they may or may not be related. I suppose if there's a lot of confusion and there's some good references around we could include it. Are there lots of cases where people have added this sort of information? TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gemma was born in 1984. Rowan's oldest kid (his son) was born in 1993 (see also http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/A/htmlA/atkinsonrow/atkinsonrow.htm which goes up to 1995, hence his daughter was not mentioned). The annoying thing is that people keep adding this Rowan/Gemma rumour over and over again. Maybe every 10th edit it's added again. Quite silly. Wit (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Nicholas Sutton for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicholas Sutton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Nicholas Sutton until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)