This is my talk archive. If you need to contact me, please leave a message on my active talk page. |
User talk:Meegs |
2005 Nov → |
2006 Feb → |
2006 Apr → |
2006 May → |
2006 Jun → |
2006 Aug → |
2006 Oct → |
2007 Jan → |
2007 Apr → |
2009 Jun → |
---|
Welcome back! Hope you had a pleasant wikibreak. Are you ready for some more WP:PUI fun ... ? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nuke it. I uploaded that back in my less informed days. If I knew it still existed I would have requested deletion. Quadzilla99 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
(copied from the Bot request page)
Despite instructions asking them not to, new users often include categories in their submissions to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Because all submissions from a single day are located on one page, it is the daily archives (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-04-17) that end-up in categories alongside mainspace articles. It would be very nice to have a bot go the AfC archives and linkify every category. Something like:
I did this manually from about Jan-June last year, and it wasn't much fun. What we have now is about 300 pages, plus one new one every day, that needs this treatment. × Meegs 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Meegs! Could you please advise if this article [15] and external links are OK or, regarded as Spam? Richard Harvey 11:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
hi there, very sorry you removed the rephrasing i did, took me lot of time to change everything. i think you did it wrong, i mean what use would be the 7_deadly_sins page without expression of any of them??? ==> same point for the 48 laws of power!!! i did rephrase the 48 laws so they don't "look" like the original copyrighted content. And as long as though are not copyrighted i personnaly think it's fair to express world's knowledge into wikipedia! but in this case i really think it's shit (sorry, i've confess i've drunk a little tonight) and what's the point of wikipedia? being a meta-meta-meta-knowledge-website with no content? if it's the case then i rather stop wasting my time contributing to it!! So please compare the original 48 laws as expressed and my own rephrasing i did not copyrighted it!!! Neantbriceen 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok then you're probably right, i'll wait for 2145 then copyright would be expired, ;) more seriously, is there an "official" flag that we could put on such article to clearly point out article are far from being complete because under copyright?? a bit like the "featured article" flag? if nothing like this exist, where/to whom may i suggest it? Neantbriceen 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, why do I need the transactions? Are those supposed to be listed also? (please respond on my talk page) Trevor GH5 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If you could double check some of my recent WP:COPYVIO reports, I would really appreciate it. I have an article and report; nine image reports; and the final user message. Thanks! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 05:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked the editor for continuing to recreate the copyvio, and now that all doubt about the text's origin is gone, deleted the article. If you're able, could you whip-up a one sentence stub replacement to get things started on the right foot. A solid reference would, of course, be great. × Meegs 03:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
HeadMouse is now calling names and being incivil. Could you consider an indefinite block? I am not looking forward to dealing with him/her again.-- MrFish Go Fish 14:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 11#category:Procol Harum Musicians. It's ending in the next day or so, so if you have a case (pro or con, not sure how you feel after our last discussion), you should make it.-- Mike Selinker 17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
''+ __NOGALLERY__ becuase of non-free images'' -- Um, non-free images cannot be categorized on Wikipedia? Smee 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Hrm, I have seen this done in other places, however. Smee 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Right now, I'm editing the Days of our Lives article to move it to good or featured standard. When you have a chance, can you respond here (and at my talk page) and tell me what you think of the article thus far, and if you want, can you comment on the peer review linked at the Days talk page? Thanks! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Appreciated your valuable input during the last flame up at Template talk:Infobox NFL player. I was hoping you would weigh in on the current one. — x a n d e r e r 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you are busy closing with categories for deletion of 23 July 2007. The past few days I tried to deal with the most frequent stated reason for deletion for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion. Please do not close but vote to keep based on my very recent edits diff diff. I am busy informing contributors who voted for deletion about my recent edits. I have made many similar edits and more are to follow. In addition please review my arguments voiced there, among others that we should not remove the category former Muslims etc. because it is not a defining characteristic of some people, though it is for e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Following the same reasoning we should not delete the category:painters only because it is not a defining characteristic for some people, like Adolf Hitler. Andries 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I updated the fictional locations nomination to address some of your concerns. Still feel the same way?-- Mike Selinker 14:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have received a message from you concerning that i had allegedly vandalized a page, i can assure you that i would never due such a thing and find the tone of your message quite disturbing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ken225 ( talk • contribs) 2007 August 6 19:27 UTC.
Thanks for the help, I was getting a bit carried a way! :-) jj137 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Check out my sig! -- AR Argon 08:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I didn't know about the "Move" function before.-- Redandready 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I would normally reply there, but since you offered congratulations and condolences, I thought it only polite to come here. Condolences might well be the way to go -:). I understand what you said, but I am still not sure about closing that particular CfD. I'll discuss it further at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. -- Bduke 01:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
How did you know the laptops at CSS were ibook G4s? Was it already in the text because I'm too lazy to read it all? or do you have a relation to the school? Ard0 ( Talk - Contribs) 07:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
...for cleaning up that bit of vandalism on my talk page. east. 718 at 16:44, September 6, 2007
Sorry, I just didn't know exactly what I was doing was not allowed. I've never once copied and pasted anything from another site, nor have I typed it word-for-word. I always thought I changed enough that it wasn't a problem.► Chris Nelson 11:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting out the disambiguation page. I misunderstood how these pages should be named. I thought I'd corrected the ones I'd changed but this one seems to have escaped my attention. Thanks for picking it up. Dahliarose 08:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The question I want to ask you is about my rights to upload pictures here.I am not familiar with the copyright law and I do not want to brake it.I was browsing the discography of British classic rock band Uriah Heep and I discovered, that their album Conquest issued 1980 has no picture of the original LP-record cover.I've noticed that, for their album High and Mighty you did the upload of the LP-record cover. My question is: how low resolution should be the copy of original to do not brake the copyright law.Or if ANY copying is a violation - please, let me know. Thanks Emil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzzkata ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 6 October 2007
Acknowledged. Thanks for the heads up. / Blaxthos 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Jestem Polakiem i proszę jeśli możesz o napisanie artykułu o Kościele św. Mikołaja z Bączala Dolnego(na polskiej wikipedii Kościół z Bączala) moj login to: Diabetes
Pozdrawiam...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.55.234.34 ( talk) 18:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "Q5, Q6, and other comments show considerable disagreement with the project's free content goals, so I'm not at all comfortable with RTD making image deletion decisions...I'm also disappointed by their response to Ronnotel's request for edit summaries, and share Xoloz and WJBscribe's concerns."
Please let me explain this more clearly. I do not oppose Wikipedia's goal of free content. Rather, I think that it should be balanced against the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia. Both using high-quality (though sometimes non-free) content and using free-as-in-freedom content further the end goal of Wikipedia: to provide more knowledge to more people in the form of an encyclopedia. Thus, we should seek a balance between free and non-free content that brings the maximum amount of knowledge to the maximum amount of people. The current non-free content policy does a very good, though not perfect, job of bringing us closer to this goal.
As I also explained in my RfA, it would be inappropriate of me to use the administrative tools to force this view on others, so my personal opinion of the policy is largely irrelevant anyway.
I have enabled the prompted edit summaries option in my user preferences.
I am aware of the difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN, and I can assure you that I will be correctly using this wikiterminology in the future. To question 9, what I meant was that I refuse to get involved in any deletion "discussion" revolving around lack of a use rationale. I will neither close such a debate as keep nor delete; I'd rather stay far away from the enforcement of 10c.
You may also be interested in my detailed response to WJBscribe's comments.
Please let me know if this addresses your concerns. — Remember the dot ( talk) 02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Meegs,
Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. |
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Qatar is
blocked
Shucks those
range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Meegs, thanks so much for your support. I look forward to getting going as a new admin.
--
A. B.
(talk)
22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No, no objection whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielspencer91 ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Comparison of dental practice management software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of dental practice management software. Thank you. TableManners U· T· C 06:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I have placed a query on the Talkpage of the article about the inclusion of timetable and services. I wondered if you may like to add some thoughts on the subject? Richard Harvey ( talk) 11:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I mentioned and paraphrased your earlier oppose of an RFA at this rfa. Dureo ( talk) 03:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Meegs. I am in the process of stamping out the horrid misspelling of the name "Habsburg". When I am finished you might consider the conclisons for your "r from misspellings" list. Cheers, Str1977 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Meegs! Happy New Year. Thanks for the syntax correction! Richard Harvey ( talk) 20:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This is my talk archive. If you need to contact me, please leave a message on my active talk page. |
User talk:Meegs |
2005 Nov → |
2006 Feb → |
2006 Apr → |
2006 May → |
2006 Jun → |
2006 Aug → |
2006 Oct → |
2007 Jan → |
2007 Apr → |
2009 Jun → |
---|
Welcome back! Hope you had a pleasant wikibreak. Are you ready for some more WP:PUI fun ... ? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nuke it. I uploaded that back in my less informed days. If I knew it still existed I would have requested deletion. Quadzilla99 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
(copied from the Bot request page)
Despite instructions asking them not to, new users often include categories in their submissions to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Because all submissions from a single day are located on one page, it is the daily archives (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-04-17) that end-up in categories alongside mainspace articles. It would be very nice to have a bot go the AfC archives and linkify every category. Something like:
I did this manually from about Jan-June last year, and it wasn't much fun. What we have now is about 300 pages, plus one new one every day, that needs this treatment. × Meegs 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Meegs! Could you please advise if this article [15] and external links are OK or, regarded as Spam? Richard Harvey 11:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
hi there, very sorry you removed the rephrasing i did, took me lot of time to change everything. i think you did it wrong, i mean what use would be the 7_deadly_sins page without expression of any of them??? ==> same point for the 48 laws of power!!! i did rephrase the 48 laws so they don't "look" like the original copyrighted content. And as long as though are not copyrighted i personnaly think it's fair to express world's knowledge into wikipedia! but in this case i really think it's shit (sorry, i've confess i've drunk a little tonight) and what's the point of wikipedia? being a meta-meta-meta-knowledge-website with no content? if it's the case then i rather stop wasting my time contributing to it!! So please compare the original 48 laws as expressed and my own rephrasing i did not copyrighted it!!! Neantbriceen 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok then you're probably right, i'll wait for 2145 then copyright would be expired, ;) more seriously, is there an "official" flag that we could put on such article to clearly point out article are far from being complete because under copyright?? a bit like the "featured article" flag? if nothing like this exist, where/to whom may i suggest it? Neantbriceen 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, why do I need the transactions? Are those supposed to be listed also? (please respond on my talk page) Trevor GH5 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If you could double check some of my recent WP:COPYVIO reports, I would really appreciate it. I have an article and report; nine image reports; and the final user message. Thanks! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 05:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked the editor for continuing to recreate the copyvio, and now that all doubt about the text's origin is gone, deleted the article. If you're able, could you whip-up a one sentence stub replacement to get things started on the right foot. A solid reference would, of course, be great. × Meegs 03:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
HeadMouse is now calling names and being incivil. Could you consider an indefinite block? I am not looking forward to dealing with him/her again.-- MrFish Go Fish 14:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 11#category:Procol Harum Musicians. It's ending in the next day or so, so if you have a case (pro or con, not sure how you feel after our last discussion), you should make it.-- Mike Selinker 17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
''+ __NOGALLERY__ becuase of non-free images'' -- Um, non-free images cannot be categorized on Wikipedia? Smee 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Hrm, I have seen this done in other places, however. Smee 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Right now, I'm editing the Days of our Lives article to move it to good or featured standard. When you have a chance, can you respond here (and at my talk page) and tell me what you think of the article thus far, and if you want, can you comment on the peer review linked at the Days talk page? Thanks! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Appreciated your valuable input during the last flame up at Template talk:Infobox NFL player. I was hoping you would weigh in on the current one. — x a n d e r e r 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you are busy closing with categories for deletion of 23 July 2007. The past few days I tried to deal with the most frequent stated reason for deletion for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion. Please do not close but vote to keep based on my very recent edits diff diff. I am busy informing contributors who voted for deletion about my recent edits. I have made many similar edits and more are to follow. In addition please review my arguments voiced there, among others that we should not remove the category former Muslims etc. because it is not a defining characteristic of some people, though it is for e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Following the same reasoning we should not delete the category:painters only because it is not a defining characteristic for some people, like Adolf Hitler. Andries 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I updated the fictional locations nomination to address some of your concerns. Still feel the same way?-- Mike Selinker 14:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have received a message from you concerning that i had allegedly vandalized a page, i can assure you that i would never due such a thing and find the tone of your message quite disturbing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ken225 ( talk • contribs) 2007 August 6 19:27 UTC.
Thanks for the help, I was getting a bit carried a way! :-) jj137 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Check out my sig! -- AR Argon 08:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I didn't know about the "Move" function before.-- Redandready 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I would normally reply there, but since you offered congratulations and condolences, I thought it only polite to come here. Condolences might well be the way to go -:). I understand what you said, but I am still not sure about closing that particular CfD. I'll discuss it further at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. -- Bduke 01:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
How did you know the laptops at CSS were ibook G4s? Was it already in the text because I'm too lazy to read it all? or do you have a relation to the school? Ard0 ( Talk - Contribs) 07:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
...for cleaning up that bit of vandalism on my talk page. east. 718 at 16:44, September 6, 2007
Sorry, I just didn't know exactly what I was doing was not allowed. I've never once copied and pasted anything from another site, nor have I typed it word-for-word. I always thought I changed enough that it wasn't a problem.► Chris Nelson 11:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting out the disambiguation page. I misunderstood how these pages should be named. I thought I'd corrected the ones I'd changed but this one seems to have escaped my attention. Thanks for picking it up. Dahliarose 08:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The question I want to ask you is about my rights to upload pictures here.I am not familiar with the copyright law and I do not want to brake it.I was browsing the discography of British classic rock band Uriah Heep and I discovered, that their album Conquest issued 1980 has no picture of the original LP-record cover.I've noticed that, for their album High and Mighty you did the upload of the LP-record cover. My question is: how low resolution should be the copy of original to do not brake the copyright law.Or if ANY copying is a violation - please, let me know. Thanks Emil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzzkata ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 6 October 2007
Acknowledged. Thanks for the heads up. / Blaxthos 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Jestem Polakiem i proszę jeśli możesz o napisanie artykułu o Kościele św. Mikołaja z Bączala Dolnego(na polskiej wikipedii Kościół z Bączala) moj login to: Diabetes
Pozdrawiam...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.55.234.34 ( talk) 18:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "Q5, Q6, and other comments show considerable disagreement with the project's free content goals, so I'm not at all comfortable with RTD making image deletion decisions...I'm also disappointed by their response to Ronnotel's request for edit summaries, and share Xoloz and WJBscribe's concerns."
Please let me explain this more clearly. I do not oppose Wikipedia's goal of free content. Rather, I think that it should be balanced against the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia. Both using high-quality (though sometimes non-free) content and using free-as-in-freedom content further the end goal of Wikipedia: to provide more knowledge to more people in the form of an encyclopedia. Thus, we should seek a balance between free and non-free content that brings the maximum amount of knowledge to the maximum amount of people. The current non-free content policy does a very good, though not perfect, job of bringing us closer to this goal.
As I also explained in my RfA, it would be inappropriate of me to use the administrative tools to force this view on others, so my personal opinion of the policy is largely irrelevant anyway.
I have enabled the prompted edit summaries option in my user preferences.
I am aware of the difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN, and I can assure you that I will be correctly using this wikiterminology in the future. To question 9, what I meant was that I refuse to get involved in any deletion "discussion" revolving around lack of a use rationale. I will neither close such a debate as keep nor delete; I'd rather stay far away from the enforcement of 10c.
You may also be interested in my detailed response to WJBscribe's comments.
Please let me know if this addresses your concerns. — Remember the dot ( talk) 02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Meegs,
Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. |
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Qatar is
blocked
Shucks those
range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Meegs, thanks so much for your support. I look forward to getting going as a new admin.
--
A. B.
(talk)
22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No, no objection whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielspencer91 ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Comparison of dental practice management software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of dental practice management software. Thank you. TableManners U· T· C 06:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I have placed a query on the Talkpage of the article about the inclusion of timetable and services. I wondered if you may like to add some thoughts on the subject? Richard Harvey ( talk) 11:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I mentioned and paraphrased your earlier oppose of an RFA at this rfa. Dureo ( talk) 03:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Meegs. I am in the process of stamping out the horrid misspelling of the name "Habsburg". When I am finished you might consider the conclisons for your "r from misspellings" list. Cheers, Str1977 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Meegs! Happy New Year. Thanks for the syntax correction! Richard Harvey ( talk) 20:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)