User talk:Fomeister

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Fomeister! Thank you for your contributions. I am VQuakr and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! VQuakr (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:30[edit]

Please be careful when you making requests on that forum. Edits like these are almost vandalism as you didn't take the time to read the instructions.Curb Chain (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about? I made a 3PO request, which was rejected because other editors has commented on the post. I then made an RFC, as suggested over the editing dispute. It has been already commented upon by another editor? If I submitted this incorrectly, I would have hoped that they, or someone like yourself would let me know so I could correct it? How could this possible be considered vandalism?

The page in question is WP:30. You cleared huge swaths of text for your file/request-for-a-3rd-opinion. I'm not talking about any other page other than WP:30.Curb Chain (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I must express my apologies, I though it was part of the 3PO process (which I have not used before). Thank you for reverting my edit, and again it was not my intention to change the 3PO article. Upon visiting the page I thought it was somehow dynamically there for me to add comments to. I so very much in appreciation for your correcting my mistake. Sincerely - Fomeister (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Fomeister. You have new messages at Talk:Georgia State University.
Message added 01:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In regard to this edit, please strike out your misrepresentation of my comments. I did not say that the University style guide trumps policy or copyright law, what I did say was that the use of the logo is compliant with policy and copyright law as fair use. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr, thanks for the post on my talk page. I would prefer to keep this discussion on the relvent talk page. If you would like to look at it, I have made my point as clear as I know how. I said ti violates POLICY, and that it should be removed per POLICY. I also cited POLICY, which states that neither consensus, nor a Wikiproject page [verbatim] can override policy. Your statements, and mine are there. Any Wikipedian can tag an image as a copyright violation, at which point the uploading editor must provide rationale that all 10 points are satisfied. It does pain me that this is not understood. Perhaps you could give me some guidance in helping Wikipedians understand that this is POLICY? And why it exists? Any policy says that consensus cannot override it. Why does the Exemption Doctrine Policy exist? There are very few, if any "rules". I understand that concept that is the embodiment of Wikipedia. However, this is one that does exist. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy . And, IMHO, it is not acceptable for anyone here to violate it. In regards to your comments, and mine about yours, they shall stand on their own merits. It is important to discuss the edit, not the editor, and in this case I believe I am 100% in my rights to remove the image.

Yes, centralizing the policy discussion is a good idea. But I posted to your talk page to address your editing behavior, not the underlying policy discussion. Your edit attributed a statement to me that I did not make, and this is problematic. What I did say was "fair use of copyrighted images is not a violation of Wikipedia policy or United States copyright law". Your accusation that editors are ignoring copyright law because of a style guide is a red herring. VQuakr (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you feel that way. However, do you not agree that editors decided to use a copyrighted image without going through NFR. Your statement was the same, that the image can be used, however no editor pursued it through NFR. The intention of this encyclopedia is to use free-content. Any and all content that is not free-content can and should be challenged, and its submission subject to NFR status determination accorind to NFCC. You simply stated that consensus allows that to be skipped. In this context, if you still find my statement I attributed to you not to be civil, please let me know. Fomeister (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not uncivil - just untrue. You misparaphrased me by implying that I based my opinion on a style guide, which is not an impression any competent person could get from reading my post. Incidentally, NFR is for challenging questionable non-free content; there is no requirement that all non-free content be reviewed at NFR. VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GSU Seal[edit]

Per your request, I've laid out a justification for use of the seal under Wikipedia's non-free content policy on the George State University talk page. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 17:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gratis versus libre[edit]

I think I see where a lot of the contention about the GSU is coming from: the difference between the logos being freely available versus freely licensed. I also used to make that mistake. The issue is well explained at Gratis versus libre. Hope this helps--GrapedApe (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will read it now, and I appreciate your assistance. I only had time to edit 2 article in the last 2 days because of all this. Again, my thanks.

Even though I'm fighting you on this, you definitely have the tenacity to be a great editor here. Hope you keep it up.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your involvement GrapeApe. I don't consider it your fighting per se, as much as your engaging in discourse about a subject, from a different point of view. I do appreciate your complementary remark, though I don't consider myself worth of praise. Now, I am off to editing non-GSU/image articles. Have a good weekend! Fomeister (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective naming and gender pronouns[edit]

Regarding recent edits (which I went to revert, but which other editors have already done so) please could I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Gender_identity#Retroactivity and MOS:IDENTITY. Hope it helps, and happy editing. —Sladen (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The article referenced, was to an interview. The name spoken to, and which the answer was given was by Bradley Manning.

MOS:IDENTITY says: Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 01:09, 1 December 2014‎

Sladen,

While you, Kww, and others were done, all of you failed in IMHO to do so correctly.

I explained my reasoning to the previous editor.

I was not aware of any Consensus, but having read it I stand by my edit.

MOS:IDENTITY . Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary).

The article that is linked is to a legal deposition, given by one Bradley Manning. The title of the article has Bradley Manning's name in it.

Stop with one-click dictatorship.

I am as equal to you as any other editor. When you start doing things like this, you are contributing to the overall downfall of what was a great project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fomeister, thank you for getting involved and wanting to help improve Wikipedia—please could I remind/draw your attention to WP:CIVIL. The edit at [1] does not appear to involve any direct quotations. Please ask here if you have any further queries, and myself or another editor will endeavour to assist. —Sladen (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]