User talk:Wyattt

Talossa
Wikipedia does not require 2 articles on Talossa or any other micronation, and it is likely the second one will be deleted in due course, as the "republic" in its own right is not particularly notable or verifiable. The existing article more than adequately documents both groups, so please stop reverting the article. --Gene_poole 23:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry if I've broken some sort of wiki rule. I'm new to this.  I know it is a bit of a strange hobby, but it is something lots of people are interested in.  The previous article doesn't really explain both micronations, though (and they are distinct groups despite a reunification movement) as the infobox is exclusively about the Kingdom.  Having an infobox for the Republic as well is rather awkward looking as it crowds out the text (trust me, we've tried it on another wiki) so a new article seemed a more elegant solution.


 * Saying the Republic and the Kingdom are the same micronation, though, is like saying North and South Korea are the same country. It's not untrue, but it doesn't capture the whole truth.  Sure, it's not a terribly serious topic, but lots of Wikipedia articles, although written with due attention to accuracy, are not about 'serious' topics.


 * Actually, there are pretty strict criteria governing all Wikipedia articles - serious or not. Articles about minor micronations are typically deleted as soon as they appear. Talossa is an exception because it can be verified in multiple media sources. The "republic" is only notable because it's associated with the "kingdom" - as a stand-alone it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's verifiability criteria. The best thing to do is update the existing article - but please ensure any content you add complies with WP:V and WP:NPOV otherwise it will be rolled back. --Gene_poole 00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I see what you mean. The problem is that the Kingdom, as it currently stands, isn't really, obviously, more Talossan than the Republic.   It is a complicated issue, but in light of the recentish raprochment between the two sides it would be fair to say that they both have a legitimate claim to be Talossa.  The Kingdom went through so much turmoil and turnover when the King abdicated, (and renounced them as Talossans), and have changed so much in their recoverey, that it is in some ways a different county to the old Kingdom.  Anyway, I take your point about most micronations not deserving an entry in the Wikipedia.  Talossa is unusual in that it largely pioneered the concept and as such deserves more attention.  It would not therefore follow that all the minutiae of Talossan life would therefore deserve a seperate article.


 * Question, though. If there is to be a Talossan article and it is tolerated by the powers that be, is there a limit to how long or detailed it can be?  Would it be wrong to have too much info in an article who's existance is somewhat controversial?  Would that be pushing things too far, or is the principle that once there is an established article there is no limit to the amount of detail the Wikipedia will bear?  --Wyattt 00:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Pelecaci.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pelecaci.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Pele at Willand.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pele at Willand.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Florin Pelecaci.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Florin Pelecaci.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Bath City FC.png
Can you downsize image File:Bath City FC.png? Or upload it in vector format (svg)? It breaks the current layout of Bath City F.C. due to it size (3,864×5,584) is more than wiki can downsize it automatically (Image size can't be more than 12.5 million pixels)