User talk:Vaelta

License tagging for Image:Ladybird on pine cone.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ladybird on pine cone.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Ladybird on pine cone monsteredit.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ladybird on pine cone monsteredit.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

Since nobody seems to have posted it before. Welcome to Wikipedia and Featured Picture Candidates in particular :-). Instead of a big chunk of boilerplate text I throw in a link to Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee/Welcome_to_Wikipedia. --Dschwen 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I really should have a look through this instead of peering into the edit boxes trying to figure out how the "wiki" works... Thanks. --Vaelta 16:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Canyon Hoodoos[edit]

Here it is. Image:Bryce Canyon Amphitheater 1.jpg. --Digon3

FPC[edit]

Hi, I realise that you're new, but could you please be a little nicer in your comments on FPC? Some people put a lot of work into creating photos, and commenting on other people's efforts. Your snide remarks about "artistically poor" photos, or sarcastic remarks about other contributors are really not helping make Wikipedia an enjoyable place to be. If you have a criticism about FPC in general, it would be best to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Thanks. Stevage 02:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPA[edit]

This is completely unacceptable: [1]. You need to read and follow WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY or you are going to find yourself blocked. Do not insult editors, anons, vandals, trolls, or anyone all. That entire thread is littered with examples of your incivility. ^(H) 15:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I find it quite difficult to describe how little I care: the only reason I registered on wikipedia was to see quite how nepotistic and biased the content control mechanisms are, and with no less than two Fir0002 butterflies on the main page in the last few days I think this would prove my point without any further research... Wikipedia cannot be relied upon to produce anything like an unbiased world view when it is solely the collective schemata of a relatively small group of people. Not only this, but the hostility towards anybody who challenges it is an impediment towards a better system. At best, wikipedia is only a place to easily find some initial source material FROM ANY REFERENCES. NOT, however, from the material on wikipedia itself. --Vaelta 12:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From NPA: "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption"...A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks."

You don't have to care, but if you keep it up you will find yourself blocked. If you cannot get your point across without name calling then perhaps you should rethink your point. ^(H) 13:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the only reason I registered on wikipedia was to see quite how nepotistic and biased the content control mechanisms are" - in that case, you will most likely be unregistered from Wikipedia by a very large block, the way you're going. You really don't seem to get it - you can disagree all you like, but we will not listen to your arguments until you start being civil. We have no reason to listen to someone who just wades in insulting everyone and everything without a care. Be civil, stop attacking people, and assume good faith or you will be forcefully removed. Consider this your final warning - you will likely be blocked instantly and without notice if you don't take what I have just said to heart. If it makes it easier, have an official final warning template, below. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okaaaay... Perhaps if some wikipedians would like to contribute to this debate I would feel better: "The cult of the amateur."

Just for me personally, I don't actually feel I have done anything very bad. Certainly nothing to warrant the hostility you are displaying towards me. I have NOT personally insulted anybody: I have made some comments about Wikipedia's policies and cited some particularly absurd examples of how it seems to be failing. If you are referring to the anonymous "Fir's brother" then hopefully you have the wit to see that he was the one who lowered the tone, not me. But hey... what do I really care, huh? I think I have been pretty civil (except to "Fir's brother"), but if you disagree and feel the need to flex your administrative muscles then please be my guest. --Vaelta 15:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Funny, you sarcastic prick", you don't see that as a personal attack? Okay let me break it down for you. "Funny, you(the person) sarcastic prick(the attack)". You see it now? ^(H) 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had major problems with me before that point. So I could just assume that the anonymous (prick) in question was you, trying to get me to do something that you could actually point to and say "bad boy". Well, okay, I don't honestly believe that, but obviously somebody was pretty pissed off with me and didn't want to reveal their username. My simple point is that before Mr or Mrs Anon. Imbecile walked into the discussion with a stupid comment I had not done anything to offend anybody. We were having what is commonly called "a discussion". --Vaelta 16:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in many point Vaelta. But that's how Wikipedia is and I doubt you can change that. We have to get used to Fir0002 insects until we could have another photograph who would actually take pictures of more interesting subjects. But overall, Fir0002 is doing a good job giving us these images. But after all it's an advertisement for his own website. --Arad 00:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]