User talk:Nick Wilson/Archive Archaic

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Xgl.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Xgl.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Image:Xgl.png[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Image:Xgl.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. But|seriously|folks 23:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Compiz quinn 09-14-2006.png[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Compiz quinn 09-14-2006.png. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Db4o (object database)[edit]

I understand your point of view. The deleted version was a cross between an advertisement, a tech review and a User's Guide. If I restore it to a sandbox in your userspace, would you commit to cleaning it up into a more encyclopedic form? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD?[edit]

Please take the AfD category off your user page; it's confusing.--RDBury (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it up, didn't realize I had placed it as a category. Nick Wilson (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--RDBury (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Narkedamilli[edit]

Hello Nick Wilson, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Narkedamilli) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion converted to redirect[edit]

The title log-based intrusion detection system was a "plausible redirect" so it would have been better to simply convert it to a redirect. Also note that {{Uw-csd-a10}} requires a parameter: the original article. Did you not check your message in User talk:Toppi and wonder why it was displaying [[:{{{article}}}]]? But do keep up the new page patroling. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that, I was unsure about a redirect, and was looking into whether it would be suitable (Should have held off on the csd). I did specify the original article, but for some reason Twinkle omitted it and I never bothered to check. Nick Wilson (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly too new for Twinkle. I note Amalthea (talk · contribs) has been working on Twinkle - leave them a note. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

You're coming perilously close to edit-warring/WP:3RR sanctions on various articles in your dispute with Ernest the sheep. Although I can see why you and others have been reverting their content, serial reverting is for dealing with vandalism only. Anything else, and you should be trying to resolve the dispute through proper channels. For example, this should have been discussed and improved, not simply reverted. I agree it isn't suitable for the first paragraph per WP:UNDUE, and its tone isn't neutral, but the source does support most of the edit. It should not be removed but perhaps included less prominently in the article, in an improved form. Please be more careful in future. EyeSerene^talk 10:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...in fact, I've integrated it into the text (I changed my mind about the first paragraph because that does seem to be the natural place to mention it). Hope this helps. EyeSerene^talk 10:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I saw the complaint about Ernest the sheep on the action board, and had in haste reverted his edits once on a few of the articles that appeared to have a bias against Austrailia and/or New Zealand. I revisited one of these articles and recognized that my revert on Australian_cuisine and Buzzy_Bee were potentially in error, as he was a primary contributor to the first and had a valid cite on the second. I did not have any intention to edit war, and did so unknowingly by doing single reverts across multiple articles. I'll do my due diligence on article history and look a little closer to the actual content next time to avoid any potentially controversial reverts. Nick Wilson (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through all of the debatable reverts I made to Ernest the sheep and make sure any beneficial information he has added is put back in. Looking over his history, I don't think he's a vandal at all, but just has some viewpoints which might construe him as one occasionally. Nick Wilson (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. No-one will worry too much about the odd content revert per WP:BRD, but it's serial reverting that becomes problematic (even when you're in the right!) Just so you know, I've indefblocked Ernest the sheep for their persistent tendentious POV editing and edit-warring despite three previous blocks; this may or may not become permanent, depending on how convincing their unblock request is. Thanks for understanding, and all the best, EyeSerene^talk 11:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick[edit]

I wasn't quite sure how to contact you, but I was wondering if there was any way to get the old info back on the page "Nerissa Montemurro". I was working on it before and I wanted to restructure some stuff so that it can fit into wiki criteria. I would appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djayku (talk • contribs) 04:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first revision of the page that I edited contained only {holdon}, however I see in the deletion log it was removed as per the G11 deletion guidelines. You can petition Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion to have the page restored to your user sandbox. Nick Wilson (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like some help with the article itself, please let me know! Nick Wilson (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I just requested an undeletion of the Nerissa Montemurro page. This is my first page so I would really appreciate all the help I can get. It was deleted because it was seen as advertisement but I think it may be because of the resources I used or the formatting. I would appreciate your help so we can get this page up to wiki standards. Thank you so much for your help.