His edits after you wrote the note were even worse. I've blocked him until he says he's ready to play nicely. Most likely just a passing vandal though. - Will Beback 01:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Just did not understand the process. Sorry! Not an act of vandalism. Hope that there will be a list of architects of malian origins as there is a list malian writers.
This is just a reminder that you've made 3 reverts to Lolicon. If you make any more you will be blocked for WP:3RR. (I've made my three reverts too.) Ashibaka tock
You're very welcome. Good luck with the cause. Keppa 23:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Primetime. I'm writing this here because I thought it wasn't relevant to the AfD discussion. I wanted to reassure you that my reasons for mentioning the fact that you'd written messages to inclusionists asking them to vote were not personal - I mentioned it because I genuinely thought it was relevant to the discussion. I understand that people who look at AfD are not a cross-section of the community, and I do not see anything wrong with telling people that there is a vote going on - as long as one does not intentionally tell only those people who are more likely to agree with you, as they are inclusionists. This, I believe will skew the vote. Anyway, I hope there are no hard feelings. Con Dem Talk 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thuresson 14:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, granted the fact that I haven't touched it, I think it says plenty (though I can't find it, so thats another matter altogether). No idea if the rest of the community will follow suit though -- Tawker 08:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Primetime. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Lolicon, restoring the version preferred by soon-to-be-banned troll User:The Psycho and a new anon IP account. You know, I took the time to write a fairly lengthy description of why I made my original edit. But you didn't address that, on the talk page or even in the edit summary.
I guess what I'm saying is, I'm going to need some justification for what you did, OK? Thanks. Herostratus 21:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
2006 (UTC)
Herostratus' comment on
Lolicon, while not entirely civil, was not a personal attack. Your warning was removed. Thanks.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 06:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd strongly suggest that you use the talk page more and revert less. - brenneman {L} 06:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know more about an image you uploaded, Image:Nationalist soldiers capture Republican troops.gif. Which action does it depict? I'm working on Spanish Civil War battles, and I'd like to find a place for it in an appropriate article. Albrecht 22:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, thanks for the heads-up I didn't summarize or alter your comment text in any way, I just moved it, cleaning up the page, but as I noted if that wasn't OK with anybody, fine. I thought it was clearer before, but whatever. I did re-add the new section for use of those editors who want to use it.
I don't get your reference to God. I'm a Unitarian, as it says on my userpage. You don't have to believe in God to believe that there are evil things in the world, I don't think.
Yes I had already gathered that you're here to help other people decide what to believe. I prefer to let them decide for themselves, but to each his own. Herostratus 11:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 86.128.222.36 12:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
We've had a small edit conflict. It seems the List of Shock sites debate wasnt closed yet; ive reverted your closing. Cheers, The Minist e r of War (Peace) 19:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Do whatever you want when you're editing; I couldn't care less. But don't lecture me on what's appropriate and don't tell me what I "should" be doing. Proteus (Talk) 21:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I missed your message. I have not been online in a while. Glad the outcome was "Keep". Please let me know of other voting proceedings you may need help with. LisaSastro 00:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to explain your revert of Loom91's sensible changes without a shred of explanation on the talk page? On WP we don't summarily chuck other people's bona fide work. At the very least, you should have explained your opposition and worked carefully to retain the changes that you did not object to. As it stands right now, I think the article violates POV and attack rules by naming specific practices of specific religions. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
That's three reverts. Better quit now. - brenneman {L} 05:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I just got your message, but as I was reverting the article an admin protected the wrong version. I'll keep an eye on it and revert it as soon as it's unprotected, unless someone beats me to it. Skinmeister 06:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you even looking at what you're reverting. Sweet mother of Abraham Lincoln, why would you care if the links had "http" in front of them? The notice at the top is appropiate, and making a pseudo-subpage is actually a measure of good faith on my part. Verification policy is unshakeable, and that material wasn't verified as being a "shock site" so policy allows it to be removed outright. If you want to be taken seriously, choose your battles, don't do pointless reverts like that one. - brenneman {L} 06:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your tireless effort on commenting on the list of shock sites article. There seem to be three disruptive users who are actively working against the consensus about this article. Keep up the good work. - Abscissa 17:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The page does not appear to contain any information about the owner's anonymity, the identity of the model, her acting background, how its popularity has spread, or when the site started. Please check out the talk page, however I'll refrain from further removals to give you a chance to fix these problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Without wishing to comment on the edit itself, do remember that the use of automated rollback for non-vandal edits, such as this is seriously unpopular. Although you are not an admin (right?) ArbCom has reprimanded admins for using rollback in situations such as this, and really the same thing goes for using non-admin versions of it. - Splash talk 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been sinking the boot into you something shocking the last couple of days. We're both clearly interested in what's good for the encyclopedia, so I'll try and not run roughshod over you as much in the future. If you're at all interested in hearing how I think that you could change your behavior, I'm happy to comply, but not unless you ask.
I always welcome criticism, constructive or otherwise. I know that you find fault with many things that I've done, but that at least I'd think you agree with. Tell me when you think I'm doing things wrong. I may not stop, but I will always listen.
brenneman {L} 04:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey ... I see you disagree with my edits, but I wish you hadn't simply reverted everything. But, whatever. You're interested in this article. I think it's obvious that not every single link on that page is worth including. I'm interested in hearing what you think, and having a discussion on the talk page so we can make this article as good as possible. Mangojuice 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No me puedo creer que un hablante que se define como de un nivel casi nativo pueda transcribir embarazada así como "ehm bahr ah ZAH dah". ¡Qué pecado más grave! Lo cambié a [emβ̞αɾα'θαð̞α] según el AFI. ¿Qué te parece? – Andyluciano 23:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey -- you haven't responded to some of my discussion and edits; could you let us know what you think on the talk page? I've culled out some of the clearly less remarkable sites, much still needs doing, though. Mangojuice 03:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Primetime. You are about to violate WP:3RR, colleague. `' mikka (t) 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was any way to find out why the Vernon Buckley pages and The Maytones pages were deleted thanks Chinamanjoe 03:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
wake up
see
AND
dont revert the changes i do
unless you know better
and even then
tell me
ask away
mfg
I must inform you that Paul (Pavao) Skalić WAS NOT GERMAN AUTHOR!!! He was born in Croatia, also his name is old croatian surname Skalić, so HE CAN NOT BE GERMAN!!! Regards,
And also, don't look too much in a Britannica- it is full of ignorance and mistakes like that!
They also have information that Croatia has only about 129 square miles of a sea- the real fact is more than 30 000 square Km.
RENS
Thanks for your understanding Primetime! It's good to see that someone can understand good arguments.
Two or three notices for you before I leave...
Surename version Skalić is, in fact, the original (Croat) spelling of that name, while the other you have mentioned is only one redaction of original.
And one beneficient advice: chech the all informations that you find in a Britannica, and compare it with other sources more times before you publish something. I don't wish to insult someone, but that encyclopedia is full of mistakes and ignorance- especially concerning smaller nations and countries.
For instance, you'll find there that we (in Croatia) have fought in a "Civil war" during nineties- which is absurd, hence we were attacked by Serbian forces that were in command of Slobodan Milošević
So, to conclude, don't believe anything you read- sometimes you must do your own research.
Regards,
Rens, Pula, Croatia
Primetime, I don't doubt it that that's what is written in that encyclopedias (Americana, Britannica...). But what is the problem with Anglo-American, and western encyclopedias in general- they all transfer same wrong informations one each from another, and then you have a transfer of mistakes all arround. It's unfortunate that people on west can't read oter languages, in this case Croatian- in Croatian Encyclopedia, where you'll be able to confirm that this information isn't false. One information I think you should know also- Croatian institutions are among the most serious in the field of encyclopedic work on the region of Central- South Eastern Europe, with old tradition of publishing encyclopedias of all kinds.
But there's one general shame of all western encyclopedias- they simply don't want/ manage to recognise anything done by anyone who's not from major countries like GB, Germany, France...
There are many contributions in so many areas of Croats, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, etc... but they always have to struggle for their's recognition!
Again, he was born in Croatia, and was ethnical Croat. On the end, I must note you once again - Skalić is old known Croatian surname, you will not find any native German with that kind of slavic surname ( all other versions are germanized surname)- it's time to correct this major mistake and injustice on Wikipedia- free encyclopedia (free also, I hope, for smaller nations than Germans, English, French.)
So please don't be as same ignorant like many people that love to call themselves as a experts...
Regards,
Rens
Regards,
Primetime 14:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Primetime, I know that you must be thinking that we're taking a credit for someone who's German, but it is not the case. You are right when you say I know a lot of about encyclopedias, but, in fact I know even much more, especially about Croatian culture, science, history etc. hence I'm a professor on a Croatian studies, I can assure you that Skalić is Croatian. Why he's in some encyclopedias presented as a German, I just don't know- that's their problem with accuracy of information they are publishing to the readers. Yes, I do have reliable informations which confirm he's Croat in croatian very reliable sources, but it seems that Croatian sources are not in a same level with american, british or of other major nations for you and people on a west, inspite of fact that Croats should be in a first line to judge who he really is hence his surname is Croatian, not German, also a fact that he was born in Croatia. Even all that versions of surname you are mentioning aren't of German caracter in any scence, yet Croatian. That's the fact that any linguist will confirm to you easily in any country.
So we got a dilema. It seems that you recognise that he is Croatian by his surname and by his born place, but still are willing to accept false, inaccurate informations from "Americana" or some other anglo-saxon related source, rather then to accept logic of common sense and information from "little more" educated professor in that field, who is, happens to be, from Croatia- country where Skalić was born and where he lived in Zagreb ( Croatian capital).
That means that "Americana" and other closely related sources mean much more to you than confirmation of one university professor with full professional indemnity. I know that is hard to accept that there are many false informations regarding some matters in many western encyclopedias that are repeating frowardly inspite of many suggestions for correction from professionals, but it's simply the fact- well known to many intelectuals from smaller countries, but I don't know why and how, these kind of mistakes are present to this day in many encyclopedias.
It is unfortunate fact that there's absolutely nothing done to correct that, and many other false informations. I have allready illustrated you how come that you'll find as same type of mistakes in many encyclopedias- they simply transfer as same false information one each from another and, by some time, that informations become "scientific facts", but that kind of practice undermine basic truth which is always bad thing to happen! As it seems they just don't care whether they publish correct or inaccurate informations concerning small nations- any way, that kind of facts aren't important enough to be presented correctly! That is real shame and injustice!
As same kind of "professionalism" is to blame why, for instance Nikola Tesla, one of the greatest scientists and inventors in a world history ( he invented modern system of AC electric power, which is in use in all arround the world, and many other inventions on a field of electricity and electronic) is relatively unknown in USA, while Tomas Edison is credited for many things, inspite of fact that Tesla is responsible for modern transformation of our world in such a profound way that it shouldn't have been as same that he didn't lived!
You can correct this kind of long held iniquity by supporting real truth about Skalić, who is not German! You know, there are some thing that should be credited to a smaller nations.
Regards, Rens
And one more thing. Do you know where is Croatia to make such a constatation that Croatia isn't near Germany. Croatia was for many centuries first neighbour of Holy Roman Empire which was ruled by the German dynastyes, also for many centuries later in control (rule) of one dynasty which held the crown of that empire. You should look for that informations more carefully, and got to find out much more about croatian history. But it is not you to be blamed for, it's a general problem of western educational system which is very negligent concerning smaller nations history.
If you insist so much on a citation, here you are a web site of CROATIAN MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY where you can find one scientific project that shows very well that Skalić was Croat:
http://www.mzos.hr/svibor/6/01/334/proj_e.htm
So check for yourself.
Regards, Rens
I agree that it would be a great injustice to your country if Skalić were really Croatian, but his heritage was thought of as German.-- Primetime 18:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I am curious, did you read what I have written to you. If you were you wouldn't be confused like that. Linguistic doesn't make such a mistakes, it's simple - Skalić, Shalich or any other redaction is Croatian Slavic construction of surname- you can chech if you want- ask any linguist, even better croatists or other slavists!
Other thing- who do you think is someone born in ZAGREB, Croatia- can it be that he's Hungarian ( Only if Zagreb is in Hungary- which is not the case!).
Other thing, Skalić had in his name also one adverb "de Lika". Lika is, to be informative for you, one region in Croatia. You will not find region with such name in Germany or Hungary, so it's very curious how far can ignorance go- that he is even Hungarian- UNBELIVEABLE RUBBISH!!!
That would be as same as I consider Newton ( who was born in England) as a German, or French, for instance... Sadly, but european encyclopedias are even much more filled with false, incorrect informations.
I guess, it must be that he's "Hungarian" hence Croatia was, for a few centuries a part of Hungarian kingdom- so some "professionals" assumed that this is enough to call Skalić Hungarian! That's the absurd statement at it's peak!
If that is the way as on which "serious science" in some european countries handle historical facts, I must say that I'm absolutelly stupefied with a level of that kind of professionalism, if we even can call it with that name!
I just imagine how much "accurate" informations do some european encyclopedias have about, for instance, Arab countries and their's history!
Oh, I have to quote one famous croatian poet: " Znanje je vrlo krhko!" ( Knowledge is very fragile!). So, think about that, if you have failed to recognise all very logic explanations I have mentioned to you. And, do as what you wish to do - go ahead on a same path of falsification of history if you aren't able to meet this reasonable arguments!
Regards, Rens
Anyway, I just checked, and Lika does appear to be a region in Croatia. I believe they may be referring to the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. I just added a footnote about the whole controversy to the article. Let me know if it looks OK. I think I may add a note about the matter to Scalich's article on Wikipedia, as well. Let me know if you object to that, also. I hope there are no hard feelings. Best wishes, Primetime 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Pavao Skalić
Yes, I do object! He's heritage is absolutelly certain:
1. He was born in Croatia- there are original municipal documents to confirm that,
2. His surname Skalić, Shalich or any other redaction is Croatian slavic construction- any linguist, slavist or croatist would confirm that,
3. That surname is of old croatian heritage, and there's many people with that surname even today in Croatia ( on a contrary there was/is no Germans or Hungarians with such a surname and that surname construction isn't present in any of that languages!),
4. With his name, he had an adwerb "de Lika"- Lika is Croatian region (you will not find that name nowhere in Germany and Hungary!),
5. In all croatian encyclopedias you'll find he's Croat, noone of scientists - slavists, croatists and linguists don't think he is German or Hungarian,
You can insist on a same false ( also very absurd!) informations of Skalić, which is shame for such a encyclopedias, and go on with a spread of forgery of history- intentional or not, but always destructive from the prospective of truth!
There are no hard feelings, but the truth must be uphold as it is! You are making controversy on a artificial way. Yes Croatia was part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, but does it mean that someone born in that time in Croatia is of Hungarian or German ethnical.
Does it mean, for instance, that Strauss, who was born in Austro- Hungarian empire was Hungarian, think of it little!
And to inform you, in that time (16.th century) there was no any Austrian-Hungarian Empire, only Habsbourg Empire (consisting of many ethnic groups; Slovaks, Austrians, Hungarians, Czechs, Croats, Polish etc...). So you must see how wrong is that constatation that someone born in a common empire under domination of Austrians ( later in 19th century also of Hungarians) is only by that Hungarian, German or something else.
I think you can't understand concept of countries, ethnic groups and nations in a Central Europe as same as some western encyclopedias.
On the end one historical information- Austrian-Hungarian Empire was created just 1867. with the confirmation of Austro-Hungarian agreement.
A year later 1868. another agreement was signed between Hungary and Croatia, which gave some kind of authonomy to the Croatia.
Regards, Rens
Unfortunatelly your encyclopedias show exactly what does many people in your countrie/s think of smaller nations and theirs contributions to the world science, culture etc.
Transfered to the conventional language- THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHT TO BE FAMOUS INVENTORS, SCIENTISTS, OR SIMPLY, TO BE CREDITED FOR NOTHING AT ALL. If it occurs that someone from smaller nations did invented something or is to be credited for something- HE MUST THEN BECOME GERMAN, ENGLISH, HUNGARIAN... ANYTHING BUT THAT EXACT SMALL NATION AS HE IS, HENCE IT IS EGREGIOUSLY THAT SOME CROAT, SLOVAK, SLOVENE, SERBIAN... TAKE THE CREDIT FOR SOMETHING !!!
Anglo-American and western world intended them only the role of some third-class nations, which is unfortunately very common thing at west. IN THAT SCHEME THERE'S NO PLACE IN BRITANNICA, AMERICANA, OR SOME OTHER WESTERN ENCYCLOPEDIAS FOR CROAT PAVAO SKALIĆ, ONLY FOR GERMAN PAUL SCHALICH, OR MAYBE HUNGARIAN- BUT THAT's NOT SO INPORTANT - only that matters is if he's not Croat!
At the end, I have to say that I'm not angry on anyone, but very dissapointed with the western official science which constantly ignore smaller nations and their credits, and I'm also dissapointed with western common sense...
Regards,
Rens
WHY ?!
Primetime, why do you always revert this version I have created. Didn't I presented enough arguments for that constatation? Why do you bother to put Skalić in text and to mention that he is Croat...
After all of time spent on a presentation of very reasonable arguments...? T IS NOT UNCERTAIN ORIGIN! YOU ONLY CREAT ARTIFICIAL CONTROVERSY- ISN'T IT TIME TO STOP WITH THAT ABSURD DOING!
Rens
Also, I apologize if I seem a bit fastidious. I really got into this because I like researching things (it's like an adventure for me). I also walk by the library everyday on my way to my classes.-- Primetime 22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It's time to start to encounter a problems, hence Americana isn't doing nothing else then transfering as same false informations as Britannica. When such a famous encyclopedias, like Brtannica and Encarta publish false informations- a lot of other encyclopedias take infos from that
encyclopedias as a truth- then incorrect informations can spread like a disease all arround the globe! That's the case with your precious Americana!
And also, you are traying to say that you, from America, have as same quality of arguments on someone that was born in my own country, than I am!!! That is pure ignorane, not to mention arrogance! After all presented arguments of pure common sense, you're still blindly reffering to a obviously false informations!!!
Unfortunatelly your encyclopedias show exactly what does many people in your countrie/s think of smaller nations and theirs contributions to the world science, culture etc.
Transfered to the conventional language- THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHT TO BE FAMOUS INVENTORS, SCIENTISTS, OR SIMPLY, TO BE CREDITED FOR NOTHING AT ALL. If it occurs that someone from smaller nations did invented something or is to be credited for something- HE MUST THEN BECOME GERMAN, ENGLISH, HUNGARIAN... ANYTHING BUT THAT EXACT SMALL NATION AS HE IS, HENCE IT IS EGREGIOUSLY THAT SOME CROAT, SLOVAK, SLOVENE, SERBIAN... TAKE THE CREDIT FOR SOMETHING !!!
Anglo-American and western world intended them only the role of some third-class nations, which is unfortunately very common thing at west. IN THAT SCHEME THERE'S NO PLACE IN BRITANNICA, AMERICANA, OR SOME OTHER WESTERN ENCYCLOPEDIAS FOR CROAT PAVAO SKALIĆ, ONLY FOR GERMAN PAUL SCHALICH, OR MAYBE HUNGARIAN- BUT THAT's NOT SO INPORTANT - only that matters is if he's not Croat!
Ok, but you believe in that that encyclopedias don't reference each other?! You shouldn't be so naive ( don't take this as a insult), they are doing exactly that- I have some contacts and know that very well! My words should have much more significance, since it matters from which country you are in this subject. Skalić was born in Croatia, so it is of importance for reason that scientists from Croatia should be much more precise in his biography that seconnd,third... hand Britannica and Americana.
Also, it's not the right solution just say that his origin is uncertain while there are many excellent arguments (excluding obviously false informations in Americana and Britannica) presented on a base of common sense (not some infos from some encyclopedias) that he is Croat
How come that people in America just don't use their own brain anymore to figure something? Why do you all toughly repeat something you have read -inspite of many excellent evidences that this is false?
Would you also jump from the bridge if one hundred people do as same? Think of it! What would be if
someone present to you absolutely reasonable arguments for something which are in opposition to your six encyclopedias! How would you'll be acting?! Follow something as a taperecorder, or decide to use
your own brain! If it soud you as a insult- you should know that you left me no other choice!
Rens
No, you are only a tape from dictafone! Just don't use any common sense, it's so much dangerous!
For instance I don't believe something I read in any encyclopedia if it is in a colision with a common sense and arguments! Real guestion is, why do you people on the west let so easily others to think for you- and you automaticly accept that what you read- if it is published in a "respectable" source. Is that the way on which Bush convinced you all that Iraq is a "AXIS OF EVIL", or on which way he/other one will convince you to go in a aggressive war against someone else, inspite of voice of common sense!? Think of it!
Rens
(Also same case with the countries ruled by the Germans, or with people of smaller nationalities/ ethnic groups!)
Also, I should mention that you are undoing our changes too many times. It's against the rules to undo someone else's changes more than three times in a day. It looks like you may get blocked from editing because of that, but the block will probably be for only a day. If you are blocked a second time, though, it would likely be for two days or a week.
Finally, I want you to know that I intend to research this matter further and will request several books from my library's storage area that I think may hold the answer. The reason I am willing to do this is that I think Scalich is not Croatian. Sincerely, Primetime 19:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You are in this way insulting any Croat (esp. academic one) by constantly deny such a huge thing as that he is Croat! That would be as same as to point that Thomas Edison isn't American. It is not only me who think he's Croat, there are many linguists, croatists, slavists... numerous scientists. Didn't you read my message regarding encyclopedias and it's mistakes- doesn't it incite you on a thinking on it's credibility? How come that you are so frowardly against any rational expalanations and arguments etc... also against him as a Croat- Is it so hard to imagine that some small nation has to be credited for something?! Is it ethnocentrism and arrogance of big nations so hard to prevent them to admit something to someone else and also that they do make mistakes ?
I just requested three books from my library's storage warehouse that I think may provide the answer. If they do not, I will submit a question to Google Answers. I am very confident I will be rewarded for my efforts.-- Primetime 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
All of that is Ok, but I'm not confident in western related sources at all, hence I was shocked for too many times with obvious mistakes found in, for instance Encarta, Britannica, some also in Americana.Did you read two or three examples of wrong informations I have mentioned to you? What is you though on it?
Also must say that I'm not very optimistic you'll find anything at all about Skalić on Google (normally this kind of search portals isn't mine choice), at least not something reliable.
But I am already sick of telling people that there are many infos about smaller countries in a prestigious encyclopedias that are false (you are not the first one). Many people, for instance come in Croatia in a basicly wrong conviction- founded on a too many Britannica or... informations, and then when they see or explore things themselves they figer out how many incorrect things is written.
User:Quentin Smith didn't vandalize List of ethnic slurs. He split it in two. The page still contained links to each half, List of ethnic slurs/A-M and List of ethnic slurs/N-Z. The intent was probably to avoid half of the wait while loading an unusually large page. That's debatable but well-intentioned, and I explained on Mr. Smith's talk page that it wasn't vandalism. Art LaPella 20:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Any particular reason you tweaked the definition of culchie? I have never heard a culchie call another culchie a culchie. It's solely a Dublin phenomenon. Saluedo 20:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I am from Dublin and I have asked my culchie friends and they agree. The users of a language know better than any book. I will change it back. Saluedo 08:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Son, you've been caught. Maybe you shouldn't have mentioned the source of your thefts (the Dictionary of Literary Biography) right on your user page. Reinhard Sorge, N. Scott Momaday ( here versus here)...do I need to continue? -- Calton | Talk 00:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Another administrator blocked me because he said he wanted to prevent me from creating any new articles. If that is what they're concerned about, I am absolutely willing to give a guarantee that I will not do so. I wish to continue sourcing words on that list as well as uploading public-domain images. I have also many articles on my watchlist that are obscure and unwatched by others.-- Primetime 06:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's start that list, shall we? Coming clean is good for the soul -- and the only way you'll get unblocked if I have anything to say about it.
What are the sources of your additions to/creations of the following? If you say you wrote the additions or article yourself, please supply the actual sources of the information you used -- ALL sources.
Your old user page had a list of articles (where I pulled the above list from), with the intro, "Non-stub articles to which I am the principal contributor (some of which were edited by me under other user names as well as under my old IP address [emphasis added])" What are those "other user names" and IP addresses? Do these include the following?:
If you have done any copyright violations not listed above, now would be the time to list them. Candor counts in your favor; lack of candor doesn't.
Bear in mind that any claims of original work will be investigated -- and not just using Google. -- Calton | Talk 06:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I am in receipt of your e-mail: to paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, you're not right; you're not even wrong. Stow the paranoia and paper-thin rationalizations, and demonstrate the tiniest shred of integrity: fewer excuses, more action, please. -- Calton | Talk 10:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I can think of no bigger waste of time than spending hours in a desperate attempt to remove information from an encyclopedia. The articles aren't hurting anyone right now. (From Primetime's e-mail to me, referenced above)
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you actually believe what you wrote above and you really don't understand, I suggest you make an appointment with one of your professors or with your academic advisor and put the question to them. I have no doubt that the professor is going to be aghast, and that you're not going to like the professor's answer.
But son, I really have better things to do, so here's the deal: you have 48 hours to respond in a meaningful way (not whining, not offering up fresh excuses, not concocting new rationalizations for intellectual theft, NO delaying tactics) or I'm just going to go ahead and suggest that all of your contributions here -- every single one, including those of the suspected sockpuppets -- be deleted, because then you'll have shown you can't be trusted -- or don't truly care.
If you want to save what is genuinely your work -- if any -- now is the time to step up to the plate, or else it goes into the bit bucket. Your choice. -- Calton | Talk 14:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
W.L. Sumner, "John Abbey: Organ Builder", The Organ, xxix (1949–50), pp. 122–7
Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol 1. p.230
Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol. 17, p. 1092.
Enciclopedia italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti, vol. 12, p. 410.
De Roover, Raymond. The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Matteo Pantaleoni, University of Bristol, <http://www.ecn.bris.ac.uk/het/davanzati/davanzat.htm>
Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol. 15, p. 453.
"Coralli, Jean." Encyclopædia Britannica
"Quasimodo, Salvatore." Encyclopædia Britannica.
Lind, L. Twentieth-Century Italian Poetry, 1974.
F. J. Jones, "The poetry of Salvatore Quasimodo," Italian Studies, 16 (1961): 60-77
F. J. Jones, "Quasimodo and the Collapse of Hermeticism," The Modern Italian Lyric (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1986), pp. 512-561.
Diaz Plaja, Guillermo, A History of Spanish Literature, New York University Press, 1971
Biografías y vidas. <http://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/m/menendez_pidal.htm>
"Menéndez Pidal, Ramón". The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
"Saving Fiat," The Economist, December 3, 2005, p. 64, vol. 377.
"Company Profile: Fiat S.p.A.," Datamonitor, May, 2005, p. 18.
Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol 1. p. 230
Great Soviet Encyclopedia, vol. 6, p. 621.
Dulles, John W. F., Yesterday in Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961
John Tagliabue. “Will GE’s Fresco Bring Good Things to Fiat?” The New York Times. September 12, 1999.
Luca Ciferri, "Fresco Brings Taste of New World to Fiat," Automotive News Europe (August, 1998) vol. 72, p. 6.
Bustamante, Carlos Maria de, El gabinete Mexicano durante el segundo periodo del presidente D. Anastasio Bustamante. Mexico City: J.M. Lara, 1842
Costeloe, Michael P., La primera republica federal de Mexico, 1824-1835. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1975
(Other sources are provided in the text.)
International Who's Who, 1990-91
Hopewell, John. Out of the Past: Spanish Cinema after Franco (1986)
Smith, Paul Julian, Desire Unlimited: The Cinema of Pedro Almodovar, (New York, NY), 1994.
Bouza Vidal, N. The films of Pedro Almodovar. Instituto de la Cinematografia y las Artes Audiovisuales, Ministerio de Cultura, 1988
Harold T Stearns. Comparison of the geology of the Society and the Hawaiian Islands Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 1978
E S Craighill Handy, History and culture in the Society islands New York, Kraus Reprint Co., 1971.
Gabriel Jackson, The Spanish Republic and the Civil War, 1931–1939 (1965)
Paul Preston, The Coming of the Spanish Civil War: Reform, Reaction, and Revolution in the Second Republic, 1931–1936 (1978)
Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, p. 2313-15
Colliers Encyclopedia, vol. 13, p. 419.
Clodd, Edward, The Story of the Alphabet (1901; reprint, R. West 1979).
Diringer, David, History of the Alphabet (Newbury Books 1983).
Wright, Judith, New Land, New Language; An Anthology of Australian Verse p. 11
Murray-Smith, Stephen, Henry Lawson, Lansdowne Press, 1962.
Gibilisco, Stan. Physics Demystified (2002) p. 358.
Gibilisco, Stan. The Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics (2001) p. 598.
"Igbiras", Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol 28. p. 900
Peoples of the Niger-Benue confluence. London (1970)
Costeloe, Michael P., La primera republica federal de Mexico (1824-1835), translated by Manuel Fernandez Gasallo. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1975
The Central Republic in Mexico, 1835-1846: Hombres de Bien in the Age of Santa Anna. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993
Santoni, Pedro, Mexicans at Arms: Puro Federalists and the Politics of War, 1845-1848. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1996.
Dulles, John W. F., Yesterday in Mexico: A Chronicle of the Revolution, 1919-1936. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961.
"Huerta, Adolfo de la." Encyclopædia Britannica
Wikipedia, "Giovanni Agnelli." <http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Agnelli>, <http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Agnelli_%28senior%29>
Levy, Peter B. Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush years. Greenwood Press, 1996
Hutchinson Encyclopedia of Biography, (2000)
Primetime, thanks for listing this information, but can you explain what all this is? Is it a list of the copied articles, or a list of sources for the articles you didn't copy? It isn't clear to me. Thanks, - Will Beback 05:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
That isn't to say that the rest are copied, though. You might want to drop the coyness, since you're in no position to be trying that tack.
I, too, marvel at this remarkable bibliography. Which means you're sticking to your story, so I'm calling your bluff: what I'm going to check the articles against first, if I get the chance this weekend, is NOT the claimed sources, but against whatever standard reference works I can find at the university or metropolitan library -- Britannica, Groves, Current Biography, and/or whatever encyclopedias they have lying around. If I find ANY copying at all, I'll know to stop looking, since it would mean that you lied about whatever entry had the plagiarism and you can safely be presumed to have lied about the rest. It's a zero-tolerance standard, but if you're being upfront, one you should have no trouble meeting.
So, as the lawyers like to say, you would like to amend any of your previous statements? Now's your chance. -- Calton | Talk 11:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and the plagiarized articles? Cough up those, too. Any suggestion that there aren't any won't pass the giggle test. -- Calton | Talk 11:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see you mentioning Anna Cora Mowatt, which was quite obviously copied. Are there any articles that were partly copied? - Will Beback 02:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I was wrong. It's wrong to copy material onto Wikipedia without attribution. I'm sorry.-- Primetime 04:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Based on the section heading, I read this as a general concession and apology regarding all of the suspect articles. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I must say that since everything Primetime has "written" is suspect, it's probably the way we need to go anyway. -- Michael Snow 05:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, we've got some puzzling behavior here. Ok, trust is hard to make and easy to break. But I'm not happy with the tone that's being taken. No one has any excuse to lay into someone on Wikipedia, and we'd all do well to try a bit harder to be nice, eh? Carry on with civility and caution, but a slight streak of meanness appears to be bubbling up here that should be curbed. - brenneman {L} 07:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Case in point: Retentivity
Primetime gives two sources for this, both from Stan Gibilisco. I looked up the first, Physics Demystified, on Amazon, which as you may know has this very handy "Search inside the book" feature. So I decided to try searching for "retentivity" to see if the term is discussed at all, and if so, whether the excerpts could actually provide enough source material to support what Primetime added, or if there must have been another source. Keeping in mind that we've seen both fraudulent claims that the material comes from one source while copying from another, I had no idea what I would find, or whether I would find anything at all.
So here's what the search yielded. What appears to be Gibilisco's section discussing retentivity starts: "Certain ferromagnetic materials stay magnetized better than others. When a substance such as iron is subjected to a magnetic field..." Here the excerpt provided by Amazon breaks off, and picks up again on the next page with: "... more magnetic. Now suppose that the current is shut off and that 19 G remain in the rod. Then the retentivity Br is Br = 100 X 19/135 = 100 X 0.14 = 14 percent Certain ferromagnetic substances have good retentivity..."
Corresponding passages in the original revision of the Retentivity article provided by Primetime, with brackets indicating portions where the text differs in any way: "Certain ferromagnetic materials stay magnetized better than others. When a substance[,] such as iron[,] is subjected to a magnetic field..." and continuing after a few sentences with "...more magnetic. Now suppose that the current is shut off[, and 19 gauss (1.8 mT)] remain in the rod. Then the retentivity [is given by]..." At this point the equation, using the exact same numbers as Gibilisco, is rendered in <math></math> format. Picking up again: "[Various different] substances have good retentivity..."
It would appear that the only thing Primetime has really done is convert this into wiki format and add commas according to taste, with the occasional word change thrown in. On this evidence, I conclude that it is time for what we already suspected was necessary, and intend to finish the job. All of Primetime's substantial contributions to these articles need to be removed, and Primetime should remain banned until we are persuaded of a sincere apology and serious remedial education in copyright law. Taking note of Will's comment above, I agree that whatever Primetime added to List of ethnic slurs ought to be double-checked against any source claimed as well. -- Michael Snow 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll gladly review your case, but it seems from the comments above that you have lost a lot of trust (it must be pretty serious when Jimbo blocks you). Can you give me a specific article whose deletion you object to so that I can take a look? I've only glanced at a few from the lists on your userpage. Copyvios of any kinds are serious violations of our rules and we must proactively seek them out (this point is non-negotiable, don't go there). Even if we cannot prove that a specific article is a copyright violation it may still be best to delete it (it's impossible to be sure that any article isn't a copyvio). You should have thought about all of the time and work you'd lose before you started copying material.
Finally, evading blocks is definitely not permissible so I have blocked your new account. Please respond here, use e-mail or our mailing list for future requests. Broken Segue 02:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
So, the most important thing anyone needs to know about me is that I've been blocked, huh? That must be why those big boxes are up on top. The fact I've spent six years of my life learning Spanish, or that I've spent 5½ years in college means much less to Will.-- Primetime 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The block is the most important fact about your Wikipedia user ID, because it makes your education unusable to us. I'm glad your standard is "integrity" - that means you will judge Calton and Will Beback primarily on their unchallenged facts, before discussing their tone. Art LaPella 02:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Latest sockpuppet: wikt:User:Yurejkf ( kindly self-identified in this comment.) -- Connel MacKenzie 04:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and don't think anyone hasn't noticed some of your more recent Wikipedia sockpuppets, Primetime, such as Hgfdf ( talk · contribs) and Jyurjf ( talk · contribs). -- Calton | Talk 06:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
If he needs to put it somewhere else, then why did you put it back, you idiot?
Hmm, maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm certainly not a thief. In any case, when he does set up a page in his user space, I'll leave notification here, for the benefit of the people having to clean up your mess. Also, you removed warnings of your latest sockpuppetry: not good. -- Calton | Talk 06:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
About the "sockpuppets" though, everyone knew they were me, and I didn't even try to hide them.-- Primetime 07:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
When I said that your actions were pointless, I meant it. You haven't even chased me away. The lessons you have taught me are completely different from those you were hoping. In any case, I do not think you represent the Wikipedia community because you aren't a contributor. Your opinions are meaningless to me, because I have absolutely no respect for you. In fact, you literally make me sick.
In my opinion, non-creative information does not belong to anyone, and some bland narrative is hardly the type of writing copyright law was designed for. Your extreme elitist views are just what the mulit-millionaire Jimbo was hoping for.-- Primetime 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The following are page scans from A New English Dictionary, volumes 2 and 5, published in 1893 and 1919, respectively. It appears that Oxford University Press copied them straight into it's Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989).
Before 1976, I guess the term of copyright was 14 years. [2] [3] Now, it's the author's life plus 70. It's my guess that authors did fine with 14 because that's when most of the profits were made. But all of your friends in the publishing lobby convinced Congress to extend it several times. 70 years, I understand, is a nonsensical time span because almost no works earn money for so long. But, I guess all of that is just fine with all of you.— Primetime 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
So Primetime aka Rickyboy aka Richardr443, at this point if you said that the sun rose in the east, no one would believe you. You don't belong here: go away. -- Calton | Talk 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, though, because you cannot win. I have learned how to automate much of my copying and formatting of text. Soon, I will make Wikipedia larger than your wildest imaginations.-- Primetime 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh for God's sake, how stupid do you think we are? The discovery of where you stole it from -- no thanks to you, since you lied and obfuscated at every step to prevent said discovery -- doesn't change the fact of the theft. Period/full stop.
You know, I already have a mother, and I never admitted doing it for personal glory. Really? Let me point you to a quote of yours, oh, directly above: "I honestly thought that I would eventually become a hero here." [4]
We're done here. You're done here. This isn't your playground, Primetime/Rickyboy/Richardr443, nor is it a place for your personal therapy. Go act out your weird psychodrama elsewhere. -- Calton | Talk 01:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Will Beback 09:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Albeit in mock disgust. Blocked by no other than Jimbo himself, massive talk page, must be a case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_motivation_of_a_vandal#Attention-seeking_vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaeso Dio ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Eleanor Roosevelt with Soong Mei-ling.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.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pegasus «C¦ T» 06:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pascual Ortiz Rubio.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Quotation_to_be_Moved_up_(Second_Draft).JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Quotation_to_be_Moved_up_(Third_Draft).JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Quotation_to_be_moved_up.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Quotation_to_be_moved_up.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Quote_to_be_Moved_up,_Version_Five.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Oxford_English_Dictionary_Set.jpg. 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 Wikipedia: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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast ( talk) 14:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cakewalk Dance.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.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — An gr 11:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Michael Drayton.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Prosfilaes ( talk) 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your uploading of this, but there's a slightly high-quality version we can replace it with.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Christopher Smart.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
File:Johann Peter Friedrich Ancillon.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Jean Pierre Frédéric Ancillon, Jentzen.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Jean Pierre Frédéric Ancillon, Jentzen.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 18:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Quote to be Moved up, Draft Six.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 02:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 8 rock. Since you had some involvement with the 8 rock redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 23:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The file File:John de Balliol of Scotland.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Fiat Group Revenues by Industry.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Albert Chevalier.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:James Craggs.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Also:
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Henry Compton black and white.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Thomas Chubb.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:James Manning.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Also:
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Theodore Edward Hook.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Sir Richard Church.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Also:
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Vigny, Alfred-Victor.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Guillaume Dubois (2).jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Anna Cora Mowatt.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
His edits after you wrote the note were even worse. I've blocked him until he says he's ready to play nicely. Most likely just a passing vandal though. - Will Beback 01:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Just did not understand the process. Sorry! Not an act of vandalism. Hope that there will be a list of architects of malian origins as there is a list malian writers.
This is just a reminder that you've made 3 reverts to Lolicon. If you make any more you will be blocked for WP:3RR. (I've made my three reverts too.) Ashibaka tock
You're very welcome. Good luck with the cause. Keppa 23:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Primetime. I'm writing this here because I thought it wasn't relevant to the AfD discussion. I wanted to reassure you that my reasons for mentioning the fact that you'd written messages to inclusionists asking them to vote were not personal - I mentioned it because I genuinely thought it was relevant to the discussion. I understand that people who look at AfD are not a cross-section of the community, and I do not see anything wrong with telling people that there is a vote going on - as long as one does not intentionally tell only those people who are more likely to agree with you, as they are inclusionists. This, I believe will skew the vote. Anyway, I hope there are no hard feelings. Con Dem Talk 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thuresson 14:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, granted the fact that I haven't touched it, I think it says plenty (though I can't find it, so thats another matter altogether). No idea if the rest of the community will follow suit though -- Tawker 08:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Primetime. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Lolicon, restoring the version preferred by soon-to-be-banned troll User:The Psycho and a new anon IP account. You know, I took the time to write a fairly lengthy description of why I made my original edit. But you didn't address that, on the talk page or even in the edit summary.
I guess what I'm saying is, I'm going to need some justification for what you did, OK? Thanks. Herostratus 21:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
2006 (UTC)
Herostratus' comment on
Lolicon, while not entirely civil, was not a personal attack. Your warning was removed. Thanks.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire! 06:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd strongly suggest that you use the talk page more and revert less. - brenneman {L} 06:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know more about an image you uploaded, Image:Nationalist soldiers capture Republican troops.gif. Which action does it depict? I'm working on Spanish Civil War battles, and I'd like to find a place for it in an appropriate article. Albrecht 22:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, thanks for the heads-up I didn't summarize or alter your comment text in any way, I just moved it, cleaning up the page, but as I noted if that wasn't OK with anybody, fine. I thought it was clearer before, but whatever. I did re-add the new section for use of those editors who want to use it.
I don't get your reference to God. I'm a Unitarian, as it says on my userpage. You don't have to believe in God to believe that there are evil things in the world, I don't think.
Yes I had already gathered that you're here to help other people decide what to believe. I prefer to let them decide for themselves, but to each his own. Herostratus 11:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 86.128.222.36 12:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
We've had a small edit conflict. It seems the List of Shock sites debate wasnt closed yet; ive reverted your closing. Cheers, The Minist e r of War (Peace) 19:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Do whatever you want when you're editing; I couldn't care less. But don't lecture me on what's appropriate and don't tell me what I "should" be doing. Proteus (Talk) 21:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I missed your message. I have not been online in a while. Glad the outcome was "Keep". Please let me know of other voting proceedings you may need help with. LisaSastro 00:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to explain your revert of Loom91's sensible changes without a shred of explanation on the talk page? On WP we don't summarily chuck other people's bona fide work. At the very least, you should have explained your opposition and worked carefully to retain the changes that you did not object to. As it stands right now, I think the article violates POV and attack rules by naming specific practices of specific religions. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
That's three reverts. Better quit now. - brenneman {L} 05:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I just got your message, but as I was reverting the article an admin protected the wrong version. I'll keep an eye on it and revert it as soon as it's unprotected, unless someone beats me to it. Skinmeister 06:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you even looking at what you're reverting. Sweet mother of Abraham Lincoln, why would you care if the links had "http" in front of them? The notice at the top is appropiate, and making a pseudo-subpage is actually a measure of good faith on my part. Verification policy is unshakeable, and that material wasn't verified as being a "shock site" so policy allows it to be removed outright. If you want to be taken seriously, choose your battles, don't do pointless reverts like that one. - brenneman {L} 06:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your tireless effort on commenting on the list of shock sites article. There seem to be three disruptive users who are actively working against the consensus about this article. Keep up the good work. - Abscissa 17:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The page does not appear to contain any information about the owner's anonymity, the identity of the model, her acting background, how its popularity has spread, or when the site started. Please check out the talk page, however I'll refrain from further removals to give you a chance to fix these problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Without wishing to comment on the edit itself, do remember that the use of automated rollback for non-vandal edits, such as this is seriously unpopular. Although you are not an admin (right?) ArbCom has reprimanded admins for using rollback in situations such as this, and really the same thing goes for using non-admin versions of it. - Splash talk 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been sinking the boot into you something shocking the last couple of days. We're both clearly interested in what's good for the encyclopedia, so I'll try and not run roughshod over you as much in the future. If you're at all interested in hearing how I think that you could change your behavior, I'm happy to comply, but not unless you ask.
I always welcome criticism, constructive or otherwise. I know that you find fault with many things that I've done, but that at least I'd think you agree with. Tell me when you think I'm doing things wrong. I may not stop, but I will always listen.
brenneman {L} 04:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey ... I see you disagree with my edits, but I wish you hadn't simply reverted everything. But, whatever. You're interested in this article. I think it's obvious that not every single link on that page is worth including. I'm interested in hearing what you think, and having a discussion on the talk page so we can make this article as good as possible. Mangojuice 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No me puedo creer que un hablante que se define como de un nivel casi nativo pueda transcribir embarazada así como "ehm bahr ah ZAH dah". ¡Qué pecado más grave! Lo cambié a [emβ̞αɾα'θαð̞α] según el AFI. ¿Qué te parece? – Andyluciano 23:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey -- you haven't responded to some of my discussion and edits; could you let us know what you think on the talk page? I've culled out some of the clearly less remarkable sites, much still needs doing, though. Mangojuice 03:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Primetime. You are about to violate WP:3RR, colleague. `' mikka (t) 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was any way to find out why the Vernon Buckley pages and The Maytones pages were deleted thanks Chinamanjoe 03:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
wake up
see
AND
dont revert the changes i do
unless you know better
and even then
tell me
ask away
mfg
I must inform you that Paul (Pavao) Skalić WAS NOT GERMAN AUTHOR!!! He was born in Croatia, also his name is old croatian surname Skalić, so HE CAN NOT BE GERMAN!!! Regards,
And also, don't look too much in a Britannica- it is full of ignorance and mistakes like that!
They also have information that Croatia has only about 129 square miles of a sea- the real fact is more than 30 000 square Km.
RENS
Thanks for your understanding Primetime! It's good to see that someone can understand good arguments.
Two or three notices for you before I leave...
Surename version Skalić is, in fact, the original (Croat) spelling of that name, while the other you have mentioned is only one redaction of original.
And one beneficient advice: chech the all informations that you find in a Britannica, and compare it with other sources more times before you publish something. I don't wish to insult someone, but that encyclopedia is full of mistakes and ignorance- especially concerning smaller nations and countries.
For instance, you'll find there that we (in Croatia) have fought in a "Civil war" during nineties- which is absurd, hence we were attacked by Serbian forces that were in command of Slobodan Milošević
So, to conclude, don't believe anything you read- sometimes you must do your own research.
Regards,
Rens, Pula, Croatia
Primetime, I don't doubt it that that's what is written in that encyclopedias (Americana, Britannica...). But what is the problem with Anglo-American, and western encyclopedias in general- they all transfer same wrong informations one each from another, and then you have a transfer of mistakes all arround. It's unfortunate that people on west can't read oter languages, in this case Croatian- in Croatian Encyclopedia, where you'll be able to confirm that this information isn't false. One information I think you should know also- Croatian institutions are among the most serious in the field of encyclopedic work on the region of Central- South Eastern Europe, with old tradition of publishing encyclopedias of all kinds.
But there's one general shame of all western encyclopedias- they simply don't want/ manage to recognise anything done by anyone who's not from major countries like GB, Germany, France...
There are many contributions in so many areas of Croats, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, etc... but they always have to struggle for their's recognition!
Again, he was born in Croatia, and was ethnical Croat. On the end, I must note you once again - Skalić is old known Croatian surname, you will not find any native German with that kind of slavic surname ( all other versions are germanized surname)- it's time to correct this major mistake and injustice on Wikipedia- free encyclopedia (free also, I hope, for smaller nations than Germans, English, French.)
So please don't be as same ignorant like many people that love to call themselves as a experts...
Regards,
Rens
Regards,
Primetime 14:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Primetime, I know that you must be thinking that we're taking a credit for someone who's German, but it is not the case. You are right when you say I know a lot of about encyclopedias, but, in fact I know even much more, especially about Croatian culture, science, history etc. hence I'm a professor on a Croatian studies, I can assure you that Skalić is Croatian. Why he's in some encyclopedias presented as a German, I just don't know- that's their problem with accuracy of information they are publishing to the readers. Yes, I do have reliable informations which confirm he's Croat in croatian very reliable sources, but it seems that Croatian sources are not in a same level with american, british or of other major nations for you and people on a west, inspite of fact that Croats should be in a first line to judge who he really is hence his surname is Croatian, not German, also a fact that he was born in Croatia. Even all that versions of surname you are mentioning aren't of German caracter in any scence, yet Croatian. That's the fact that any linguist will confirm to you easily in any country.
So we got a dilema. It seems that you recognise that he is Croatian by his surname and by his born place, but still are willing to accept false, inaccurate informations from "Americana" or some other anglo-saxon related source, rather then to accept logic of common sense and information from "little more" educated professor in that field, who is, happens to be, from Croatia- country where Skalić was born and where he lived in Zagreb ( Croatian capital).
That means that "Americana" and other closely related sources mean much more to you than confirmation of one university professor with full professional indemnity. I know that is hard to accept that there are many false informations regarding some matters in many western encyclopedias that are repeating frowardly inspite of many suggestions for correction from professionals, but it's simply the fact- well known to many intelectuals from smaller countries, but I don't know why and how, these kind of mistakes are present to this day in many encyclopedias.
It is unfortunate fact that there's absolutely nothing done to correct that, and many other false informations. I have allready illustrated you how come that you'll find as same type of mistakes in many encyclopedias- they simply transfer as same false information one each from another and, by some time, that informations become "scientific facts", but that kind of practice undermine basic truth which is always bad thing to happen! As it seems they just don't care whether they publish correct or inaccurate informations concerning small nations- any way, that kind of facts aren't important enough to be presented correctly! That is real shame and injustice!
As same kind of "professionalism" is to blame why, for instance Nikola Tesla, one of the greatest scientists and inventors in a world history ( he invented modern system of AC electric power, which is in use in all arround the world, and many other inventions on a field of electricity and electronic) is relatively unknown in USA, while Tomas Edison is credited for many things, inspite of fact that Tesla is responsible for modern transformation of our world in such a profound way that it shouldn't have been as same that he didn't lived!
You can correct this kind of long held iniquity by supporting real truth about Skalić, who is not German! You know, there are some thing that should be credited to a smaller nations.
Regards, Rens
And one more thing. Do you know where is Croatia to make such a constatation that Croatia isn't near Germany. Croatia was for many centuries first neighbour of Holy Roman Empire which was ruled by the German dynastyes, also for many centuries later in control (rule) of one dynasty which held the crown of that empire. You should look for that informations more carefully, and got to find out much more about croatian history. But it is not you to be blamed for, it's a general problem of western educational system which is very negligent concerning smaller nations history.
If you insist so much on a citation, here you are a web site of CROATIAN MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY where you can find one scientific project that shows very well that Skalić was Croat:
http://www.mzos.hr/svibor/6/01/334/proj_e.htm
So check for yourself.
Regards, Rens
I agree that it would be a great injustice to your country if Skalić were really Croatian, but his heritage was thought of as German.-- Primetime 18:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I am curious, did you read what I have written to you. If you were you wouldn't be confused like that. Linguistic doesn't make such a mistakes, it's simple - Skalić, Shalich or any other redaction is Croatian Slavic construction of surname- you can chech if you want- ask any linguist, even better croatists or other slavists!
Other thing- who do you think is someone born in ZAGREB, Croatia- can it be that he's Hungarian ( Only if Zagreb is in Hungary- which is not the case!).
Other thing, Skalić had in his name also one adverb "de Lika". Lika is, to be informative for you, one region in Croatia. You will not find region with such name in Germany or Hungary, so it's very curious how far can ignorance go- that he is even Hungarian- UNBELIVEABLE RUBBISH!!!
That would be as same as I consider Newton ( who was born in England) as a German, or French, for instance... Sadly, but european encyclopedias are even much more filled with false, incorrect informations.
I guess, it must be that he's "Hungarian" hence Croatia was, for a few centuries a part of Hungarian kingdom- so some "professionals" assumed that this is enough to call Skalić Hungarian! That's the absurd statement at it's peak!
If that is the way as on which "serious science" in some european countries handle historical facts, I must say that I'm absolutelly stupefied with a level of that kind of professionalism, if we even can call it with that name!
I just imagine how much "accurate" informations do some european encyclopedias have about, for instance, Arab countries and their's history!
Oh, I have to quote one famous croatian poet: " Znanje je vrlo krhko!" ( Knowledge is very fragile!). So, think about that, if you have failed to recognise all very logic explanations I have mentioned to you. And, do as what you wish to do - go ahead on a same path of falsification of history if you aren't able to meet this reasonable arguments!
Regards, Rens
Anyway, I just checked, and Lika does appear to be a region in Croatia. I believe they may be referring to the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. I just added a footnote about the whole controversy to the article. Let me know if it looks OK. I think I may add a note about the matter to Scalich's article on Wikipedia, as well. Let me know if you object to that, also. I hope there are no hard feelings. Best wishes, Primetime 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Pavao Skalić
Yes, I do object! He's heritage is absolutelly certain:
1. He was born in Croatia- there are original municipal documents to confirm that,
2. His surname Skalić, Shalich or any other redaction is Croatian slavic construction- any linguist, slavist or croatist would confirm that,
3. That surname is of old croatian heritage, and there's many people with that surname even today in Croatia ( on a contrary there was/is no Germans or Hungarians with such a surname and that surname construction isn't present in any of that languages!),
4. With his name, he had an adwerb "de Lika"- Lika is Croatian region (you will not find that name nowhere in Germany and Hungary!),
5. In all croatian encyclopedias you'll find he's Croat, noone of scientists - slavists, croatists and linguists don't think he is German or Hungarian,
You can insist on a same false ( also very absurd!) informations of Skalić, which is shame for such a encyclopedias, and go on with a spread of forgery of history- intentional or not, but always destructive from the prospective of truth!
There are no hard feelings, but the truth must be uphold as it is! You are making controversy on a artificial way. Yes Croatia was part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, but does it mean that someone born in that time in Croatia is of Hungarian or German ethnical.
Does it mean, for instance, that Strauss, who was born in Austro- Hungarian empire was Hungarian, think of it little!
And to inform you, in that time (16.th century) there was no any Austrian-Hungarian Empire, only Habsbourg Empire (consisting of many ethnic groups; Slovaks, Austrians, Hungarians, Czechs, Croats, Polish etc...). So you must see how wrong is that constatation that someone born in a common empire under domination of Austrians ( later in 19th century also of Hungarians) is only by that Hungarian, German or something else.
I think you can't understand concept of countries, ethnic groups and nations in a Central Europe as same as some western encyclopedias.
On the end one historical information- Austrian-Hungarian Empire was created just 1867. with the confirmation of Austro-Hungarian agreement.
A year later 1868. another agreement was signed between Hungary and Croatia, which gave some kind of authonomy to the Croatia.
Regards, Rens
Unfortunatelly your encyclopedias show exactly what does many people in your countrie/s think of smaller nations and theirs contributions to the world science, culture etc.
Transfered to the conventional language- THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHT TO BE FAMOUS INVENTORS, SCIENTISTS, OR SIMPLY, TO BE CREDITED FOR NOTHING AT ALL. If it occurs that someone from smaller nations did invented something or is to be credited for something- HE MUST THEN BECOME GERMAN, ENGLISH, HUNGARIAN... ANYTHING BUT THAT EXACT SMALL NATION AS HE IS, HENCE IT IS EGREGIOUSLY THAT SOME CROAT, SLOVAK, SLOVENE, SERBIAN... TAKE THE CREDIT FOR SOMETHING !!!
Anglo-American and western world intended them only the role of some third-class nations, which is unfortunately very common thing at west. IN THAT SCHEME THERE'S NO PLACE IN BRITANNICA, AMERICANA, OR SOME OTHER WESTERN ENCYCLOPEDIAS FOR CROAT PAVAO SKALIĆ, ONLY FOR GERMAN PAUL SCHALICH, OR MAYBE HUNGARIAN- BUT THAT's NOT SO INPORTANT - only that matters is if he's not Croat!
At the end, I have to say that I'm not angry on anyone, but very dissapointed with the western official science which constantly ignore smaller nations and their credits, and I'm also dissapointed with western common sense...
Regards,
Rens
WHY ?!
Primetime, why do you always revert this version I have created. Didn't I presented enough arguments for that constatation? Why do you bother to put Skalić in text and to mention that he is Croat...
After all of time spent on a presentation of very reasonable arguments...? T IS NOT UNCERTAIN ORIGIN! YOU ONLY CREAT ARTIFICIAL CONTROVERSY- ISN'T IT TIME TO STOP WITH THAT ABSURD DOING!
Rens
Also, I apologize if I seem a bit fastidious. I really got into this because I like researching things (it's like an adventure for me). I also walk by the library everyday on my way to my classes.-- Primetime 22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It's time to start to encounter a problems, hence Americana isn't doing nothing else then transfering as same false informations as Britannica. When such a famous encyclopedias, like Brtannica and Encarta publish false informations- a lot of other encyclopedias take infos from that
encyclopedias as a truth- then incorrect informations can spread like a disease all arround the globe! That's the case with your precious Americana!
And also, you are traying to say that you, from America, have as same quality of arguments on someone that was born in my own country, than I am!!! That is pure ignorane, not to mention arrogance! After all presented arguments of pure common sense, you're still blindly reffering to a obviously false informations!!!
Unfortunatelly your encyclopedias show exactly what does many people in your countrie/s think of smaller nations and theirs contributions to the world science, culture etc.
Transfered to the conventional language- THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHT TO BE FAMOUS INVENTORS, SCIENTISTS, OR SIMPLY, TO BE CREDITED FOR NOTHING AT ALL. If it occurs that someone from smaller nations did invented something or is to be credited for something- HE MUST THEN BECOME GERMAN, ENGLISH, HUNGARIAN... ANYTHING BUT THAT EXACT SMALL NATION AS HE IS, HENCE IT IS EGREGIOUSLY THAT SOME CROAT, SLOVAK, SLOVENE, SERBIAN... TAKE THE CREDIT FOR SOMETHING !!!
Anglo-American and western world intended them only the role of some third-class nations, which is unfortunately very common thing at west. IN THAT SCHEME THERE'S NO PLACE IN BRITANNICA, AMERICANA, OR SOME OTHER WESTERN ENCYCLOPEDIAS FOR CROAT PAVAO SKALIĆ, ONLY FOR GERMAN PAUL SCHALICH, OR MAYBE HUNGARIAN- BUT THAT's NOT SO INPORTANT - only that matters is if he's not Croat!
Ok, but you believe in that that encyclopedias don't reference each other?! You shouldn't be so naive ( don't take this as a insult), they are doing exactly that- I have some contacts and know that very well! My words should have much more significance, since it matters from which country you are in this subject. Skalić was born in Croatia, so it is of importance for reason that scientists from Croatia should be much more precise in his biography that seconnd,third... hand Britannica and Americana.
Also, it's not the right solution just say that his origin is uncertain while there are many excellent arguments (excluding obviously false informations in Americana and Britannica) presented on a base of common sense (not some infos from some encyclopedias) that he is Croat
How come that people in America just don't use their own brain anymore to figure something? Why do you all toughly repeat something you have read -inspite of many excellent evidences that this is false?
Would you also jump from the bridge if one hundred people do as same? Think of it! What would be if
someone present to you absolutely reasonable arguments for something which are in opposition to your six encyclopedias! How would you'll be acting?! Follow something as a taperecorder, or decide to use
your own brain! If it soud you as a insult- you should know that you left me no other choice!
Rens
No, you are only a tape from dictafone! Just don't use any common sense, it's so much dangerous!
For instance I don't believe something I read in any encyclopedia if it is in a colision with a common sense and arguments! Real guestion is, why do you people on the west let so easily others to think for you- and you automaticly accept that what you read- if it is published in a "respectable" source. Is that the way on which Bush convinced you all that Iraq is a "AXIS OF EVIL", or on which way he/other one will convince you to go in a aggressive war against someone else, inspite of voice of common sense!? Think of it!
Rens
(Also same case with the countries ruled by the Germans, or with people of smaller nationalities/ ethnic groups!)
Also, I should mention that you are undoing our changes too many times. It's against the rules to undo someone else's changes more than three times in a day. It looks like you may get blocked from editing because of that, but the block will probably be for only a day. If you are blocked a second time, though, it would likely be for two days or a week.
Finally, I want you to know that I intend to research this matter further and will request several books from my library's storage area that I think may hold the answer. The reason I am willing to do this is that I think Scalich is not Croatian. Sincerely, Primetime 19:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You are in this way insulting any Croat (esp. academic one) by constantly deny such a huge thing as that he is Croat! That would be as same as to point that Thomas Edison isn't American. It is not only me who think he's Croat, there are many linguists, croatists, slavists... numerous scientists. Didn't you read my message regarding encyclopedias and it's mistakes- doesn't it incite you on a thinking on it's credibility? How come that you are so frowardly against any rational expalanations and arguments etc... also against him as a Croat- Is it so hard to imagine that some small nation has to be credited for something?! Is it ethnocentrism and arrogance of big nations so hard to prevent them to admit something to someone else and also that they do make mistakes ?
I just requested three books from my library's storage warehouse that I think may provide the answer. If they do not, I will submit a question to Google Answers. I am very confident I will be rewarded for my efforts.-- Primetime 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
All of that is Ok, but I'm not confident in western related sources at all, hence I was shocked for too many times with obvious mistakes found in, for instance Encarta, Britannica, some also in Americana.Did you read two or three examples of wrong informations I have mentioned to you? What is you though on it?
Also must say that I'm not very optimistic you'll find anything at all about Skalić on Google (normally this kind of search portals isn't mine choice), at least not something reliable.
But I am already sick of telling people that there are many infos about smaller countries in a prestigious encyclopedias that are false (you are not the first one). Many people, for instance come in Croatia in a basicly wrong conviction- founded on a too many Britannica or... informations, and then when they see or explore things themselves they figer out how many incorrect things is written.
User:Quentin Smith didn't vandalize List of ethnic slurs. He split it in two. The page still contained links to each half, List of ethnic slurs/A-M and List of ethnic slurs/N-Z. The intent was probably to avoid half of the wait while loading an unusually large page. That's debatable but well-intentioned, and I explained on Mr. Smith's talk page that it wasn't vandalism. Art LaPella 20:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Any particular reason you tweaked the definition of culchie? I have never heard a culchie call another culchie a culchie. It's solely a Dublin phenomenon. Saluedo 20:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I am from Dublin and I have asked my culchie friends and they agree. The users of a language know better than any book. I will change it back. Saluedo 08:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Son, you've been caught. Maybe you shouldn't have mentioned the source of your thefts (the Dictionary of Literary Biography) right on your user page. Reinhard Sorge, N. Scott Momaday ( here versus here)...do I need to continue? -- Calton | Talk 00:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Another administrator blocked me because he said he wanted to prevent me from creating any new articles. If that is what they're concerned about, I am absolutely willing to give a guarantee that I will not do so. I wish to continue sourcing words on that list as well as uploading public-domain images. I have also many articles on my watchlist that are obscure and unwatched by others.-- Primetime 06:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's start that list, shall we? Coming clean is good for the soul -- and the only way you'll get unblocked if I have anything to say about it.
What are the sources of your additions to/creations of the following? If you say you wrote the additions or article yourself, please supply the actual sources of the information you used -- ALL sources.
Your old user page had a list of articles (where I pulled the above list from), with the intro, "Non-stub articles to which I am the principal contributor (some of which were edited by me under other user names as well as under my old IP address [emphasis added])" What are those "other user names" and IP addresses? Do these include the following?:
If you have done any copyright violations not listed above, now would be the time to list them. Candor counts in your favor; lack of candor doesn't.
Bear in mind that any claims of original work will be investigated -- and not just using Google. -- Calton | Talk 06:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I am in receipt of your e-mail: to paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, you're not right; you're not even wrong. Stow the paranoia and paper-thin rationalizations, and demonstrate the tiniest shred of integrity: fewer excuses, more action, please. -- Calton | Talk 10:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I can think of no bigger waste of time than spending hours in a desperate attempt to remove information from an encyclopedia. The articles aren't hurting anyone right now. (From Primetime's e-mail to me, referenced above)
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you actually believe what you wrote above and you really don't understand, I suggest you make an appointment with one of your professors or with your academic advisor and put the question to them. I have no doubt that the professor is going to be aghast, and that you're not going to like the professor's answer.
But son, I really have better things to do, so here's the deal: you have 48 hours to respond in a meaningful way (not whining, not offering up fresh excuses, not concocting new rationalizations for intellectual theft, NO delaying tactics) or I'm just going to go ahead and suggest that all of your contributions here -- every single one, including those of the suspected sockpuppets -- be deleted, because then you'll have shown you can't be trusted -- or don't truly care.
If you want to save what is genuinely your work -- if any -- now is the time to step up to the plate, or else it goes into the bit bucket. Your choice. -- Calton | Talk 14:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
W.L. Sumner, "John Abbey: Organ Builder", The Organ, xxix (1949–50), pp. 122–7
Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol 1. p.230
Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol. 17, p. 1092.
Enciclopedia italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti, vol. 12, p. 410.
De Roover, Raymond. The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Matteo Pantaleoni, University of Bristol, <http://www.ecn.bris.ac.uk/het/davanzati/davanzat.htm>
Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol. 15, p. 453.
"Coralli, Jean." Encyclopædia Britannica
"Quasimodo, Salvatore." Encyclopædia Britannica.
Lind, L. Twentieth-Century Italian Poetry, 1974.
F. J. Jones, "The poetry of Salvatore Quasimodo," Italian Studies, 16 (1961): 60-77
F. J. Jones, "Quasimodo and the Collapse of Hermeticism," The Modern Italian Lyric (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1986), pp. 512-561.
Diaz Plaja, Guillermo, A History of Spanish Literature, New York University Press, 1971
Biografías y vidas. <http://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/m/menendez_pidal.htm>
"Menéndez Pidal, Ramón". The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
"Saving Fiat," The Economist, December 3, 2005, p. 64, vol. 377.
"Company Profile: Fiat S.p.A.," Datamonitor, May, 2005, p. 18.
Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol 1. p. 230
Great Soviet Encyclopedia, vol. 6, p. 621.
Dulles, John W. F., Yesterday in Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961
John Tagliabue. “Will GE’s Fresco Bring Good Things to Fiat?” The New York Times. September 12, 1999.
Luca Ciferri, "Fresco Brings Taste of New World to Fiat," Automotive News Europe (August, 1998) vol. 72, p. 6.
Bustamante, Carlos Maria de, El gabinete Mexicano durante el segundo periodo del presidente D. Anastasio Bustamante. Mexico City: J.M. Lara, 1842
Costeloe, Michael P., La primera republica federal de Mexico, 1824-1835. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1975
(Other sources are provided in the text.)
International Who's Who, 1990-91
Hopewell, John. Out of the Past: Spanish Cinema after Franco (1986)
Smith, Paul Julian, Desire Unlimited: The Cinema of Pedro Almodovar, (New York, NY), 1994.
Bouza Vidal, N. The films of Pedro Almodovar. Instituto de la Cinematografia y las Artes Audiovisuales, Ministerio de Cultura, 1988
Harold T Stearns. Comparison of the geology of the Society and the Hawaiian Islands Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 1978
E S Craighill Handy, History and culture in the Society islands New York, Kraus Reprint Co., 1971.
Gabriel Jackson, The Spanish Republic and the Civil War, 1931–1939 (1965)
Paul Preston, The Coming of the Spanish Civil War: Reform, Reaction, and Revolution in the Second Republic, 1931–1936 (1978)
Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, p. 2313-15
Colliers Encyclopedia, vol. 13, p. 419.
Clodd, Edward, The Story of the Alphabet (1901; reprint, R. West 1979).
Diringer, David, History of the Alphabet (Newbury Books 1983).
Wright, Judith, New Land, New Language; An Anthology of Australian Verse p. 11
Murray-Smith, Stephen, Henry Lawson, Lansdowne Press, 1962.
Gibilisco, Stan. Physics Demystified (2002) p. 358.
Gibilisco, Stan. The Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics (2001) p. 598.
"Igbiras", Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol 28. p. 900
Peoples of the Niger-Benue confluence. London (1970)
Costeloe, Michael P., La primera republica federal de Mexico (1824-1835), translated by Manuel Fernandez Gasallo. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1975
The Central Republic in Mexico, 1835-1846: Hombres de Bien in the Age of Santa Anna. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993
Santoni, Pedro, Mexicans at Arms: Puro Federalists and the Politics of War, 1845-1848. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1996.
Dulles, John W. F., Yesterday in Mexico: A Chronicle of the Revolution, 1919-1936. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961.
"Huerta, Adolfo de la." Encyclopædia Britannica
Wikipedia, "Giovanni Agnelli." <http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Agnelli>, <http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Agnelli_%28senior%29>
Levy, Peter B. Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush years. Greenwood Press, 1996
Hutchinson Encyclopedia of Biography, (2000)
Primetime, thanks for listing this information, but can you explain what all this is? Is it a list of the copied articles, or a list of sources for the articles you didn't copy? It isn't clear to me. Thanks, - Will Beback 05:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
That isn't to say that the rest are copied, though. You might want to drop the coyness, since you're in no position to be trying that tack.
I, too, marvel at this remarkable bibliography. Which means you're sticking to your story, so I'm calling your bluff: what I'm going to check the articles against first, if I get the chance this weekend, is NOT the claimed sources, but against whatever standard reference works I can find at the university or metropolitan library -- Britannica, Groves, Current Biography, and/or whatever encyclopedias they have lying around. If I find ANY copying at all, I'll know to stop looking, since it would mean that you lied about whatever entry had the plagiarism and you can safely be presumed to have lied about the rest. It's a zero-tolerance standard, but if you're being upfront, one you should have no trouble meeting.
So, as the lawyers like to say, you would like to amend any of your previous statements? Now's your chance. -- Calton | Talk 11:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and the plagiarized articles? Cough up those, too. Any suggestion that there aren't any won't pass the giggle test. -- Calton | Talk 11:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see you mentioning Anna Cora Mowatt, which was quite obviously copied. Are there any articles that were partly copied? - Will Beback 02:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I was wrong. It's wrong to copy material onto Wikipedia without attribution. I'm sorry.-- Primetime 04:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Based on the section heading, I read this as a general concession and apology regarding all of the suspect articles. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I must say that since everything Primetime has "written" is suspect, it's probably the way we need to go anyway. -- Michael Snow 05:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, we've got some puzzling behavior here. Ok, trust is hard to make and easy to break. But I'm not happy with the tone that's being taken. No one has any excuse to lay into someone on Wikipedia, and we'd all do well to try a bit harder to be nice, eh? Carry on with civility and caution, but a slight streak of meanness appears to be bubbling up here that should be curbed. - brenneman {L} 07:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Case in point: Retentivity
Primetime gives two sources for this, both from Stan Gibilisco. I looked up the first, Physics Demystified, on Amazon, which as you may know has this very handy "Search inside the book" feature. So I decided to try searching for "retentivity" to see if the term is discussed at all, and if so, whether the excerpts could actually provide enough source material to support what Primetime added, or if there must have been another source. Keeping in mind that we've seen both fraudulent claims that the material comes from one source while copying from another, I had no idea what I would find, or whether I would find anything at all.
So here's what the search yielded. What appears to be Gibilisco's section discussing retentivity starts: "Certain ferromagnetic materials stay magnetized better than others. When a substance such as iron is subjected to a magnetic field..." Here the excerpt provided by Amazon breaks off, and picks up again on the next page with: "... more magnetic. Now suppose that the current is shut off and that 19 G remain in the rod. Then the retentivity Br is Br = 100 X 19/135 = 100 X 0.14 = 14 percent Certain ferromagnetic substances have good retentivity..."
Corresponding passages in the original revision of the Retentivity article provided by Primetime, with brackets indicating portions where the text differs in any way: "Certain ferromagnetic materials stay magnetized better than others. When a substance[,] such as iron[,] is subjected to a magnetic field..." and continuing after a few sentences with "...more magnetic. Now suppose that the current is shut off[, and 19 gauss (1.8 mT)] remain in the rod. Then the retentivity [is given by]..." At this point the equation, using the exact same numbers as Gibilisco, is rendered in <math></math> format. Picking up again: "[Various different] substances have good retentivity..."
It would appear that the only thing Primetime has really done is convert this into wiki format and add commas according to taste, with the occasional word change thrown in. On this evidence, I conclude that it is time for what we already suspected was necessary, and intend to finish the job. All of Primetime's substantial contributions to these articles need to be removed, and Primetime should remain banned until we are persuaded of a sincere apology and serious remedial education in copyright law. Taking note of Will's comment above, I agree that whatever Primetime added to List of ethnic slurs ought to be double-checked against any source claimed as well. -- Michael Snow 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll gladly review your case, but it seems from the comments above that you have lost a lot of trust (it must be pretty serious when Jimbo blocks you). Can you give me a specific article whose deletion you object to so that I can take a look? I've only glanced at a few from the lists on your userpage. Copyvios of any kinds are serious violations of our rules and we must proactively seek them out (this point is non-negotiable, don't go there). Even if we cannot prove that a specific article is a copyright violation it may still be best to delete it (it's impossible to be sure that any article isn't a copyvio). You should have thought about all of the time and work you'd lose before you started copying material.
Finally, evading blocks is definitely not permissible so I have blocked your new account. Please respond here, use e-mail or our mailing list for future requests. Broken Segue 02:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
So, the most important thing anyone needs to know about me is that I've been blocked, huh? That must be why those big boxes are up on top. The fact I've spent six years of my life learning Spanish, or that I've spent 5½ years in college means much less to Will.-- Primetime 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The block is the most important fact about your Wikipedia user ID, because it makes your education unusable to us. I'm glad your standard is "integrity" - that means you will judge Calton and Will Beback primarily on their unchallenged facts, before discussing their tone. Art LaPella 02:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Latest sockpuppet: wikt:User:Yurejkf ( kindly self-identified in this comment.) -- Connel MacKenzie 04:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and don't think anyone hasn't noticed some of your more recent Wikipedia sockpuppets, Primetime, such as Hgfdf ( talk · contribs) and Jyurjf ( talk · contribs). -- Calton | Talk 06:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
If he needs to put it somewhere else, then why did you put it back, you idiot?
Hmm, maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm certainly not a thief. In any case, when he does set up a page in his user space, I'll leave notification here, for the benefit of the people having to clean up your mess. Also, you removed warnings of your latest sockpuppetry: not good. -- Calton | Talk 06:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
About the "sockpuppets" though, everyone knew they were me, and I didn't even try to hide them.-- Primetime 07:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
When I said that your actions were pointless, I meant it. You haven't even chased me away. The lessons you have taught me are completely different from those you were hoping. In any case, I do not think you represent the Wikipedia community because you aren't a contributor. Your opinions are meaningless to me, because I have absolutely no respect for you. In fact, you literally make me sick.
In my opinion, non-creative information does not belong to anyone, and some bland narrative is hardly the type of writing copyright law was designed for. Your extreme elitist views are just what the mulit-millionaire Jimbo was hoping for.-- Primetime 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The following are page scans from A New English Dictionary, volumes 2 and 5, published in 1893 and 1919, respectively. It appears that Oxford University Press copied them straight into it's Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989).
Before 1976, I guess the term of copyright was 14 years. [2] [3] Now, it's the author's life plus 70. It's my guess that authors did fine with 14 because that's when most of the profits were made. But all of your friends in the publishing lobby convinced Congress to extend it several times. 70 years, I understand, is a nonsensical time span because almost no works earn money for so long. But, I guess all of that is just fine with all of you.— Primetime 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
So Primetime aka Rickyboy aka Richardr443, at this point if you said that the sun rose in the east, no one would believe you. You don't belong here: go away. -- Calton | Talk 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, though, because you cannot win. I have learned how to automate much of my copying and formatting of text. Soon, I will make Wikipedia larger than your wildest imaginations.-- Primetime 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh for God's sake, how stupid do you think we are? The discovery of where you stole it from -- no thanks to you, since you lied and obfuscated at every step to prevent said discovery -- doesn't change the fact of the theft. Period/full stop.
You know, I already have a mother, and I never admitted doing it for personal glory. Really? Let me point you to a quote of yours, oh, directly above: "I honestly thought that I would eventually become a hero here." [4]
We're done here. You're done here. This isn't your playground, Primetime/Rickyboy/Richardr443, nor is it a place for your personal therapy. Go act out your weird psychodrama elsewhere. -- Calton | Talk 01:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Will Beback 09:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Albeit in mock disgust. Blocked by no other than Jimbo himself, massive talk page, must be a case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_motivation_of_a_vandal#Attention-seeking_vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaeso Dio ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Eleanor Roosevelt with Soong Mei-ling.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.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pegasus «C¦ T» 06:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pascual Ortiz Rubio.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Quotation_to_be_Moved_up_(Second_Draft).JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Quotation_to_be_Moved_up_(Third_Draft).JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Quotation_to_be_moved_up.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Quotation_to_be_moved_up.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Quote_to_be_Moved_up,_Version_Five.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Oxford_English_Dictionary_Set.jpg. 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 Wikipedia: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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast ( talk) 14:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cakewalk Dance.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.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — An gr 11:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Michael Drayton.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Prosfilaes ( talk) 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your uploading of this, but there's a slightly high-quality version we can replace it with.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Christopher Smart.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
File:Johann Peter Friedrich Ancillon.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Jean Pierre Frédéric Ancillon, Jentzen.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Jean Pierre Frédéric Ancillon, Jentzen.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 18:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Quote to be Moved up, Draft Six.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 02:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 8 rock. Since you had some involvement with the 8 rock redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 23:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The file File:John de Balliol of Scotland.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Fiat Group Revenues by Industry.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Albert Chevalier.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:James Craggs.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Also:
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Henry Compton black and white.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Thomas Chubb.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:James Manning.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Also:
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Theodore Edward Hook.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Sir Richard Church.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Also:
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Vigny, Alfred-Victor.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Guillaume Dubois (2).jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Anna Cora Mowatt.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)