User talk:Tkma

Image copyright problem with Image:LopezSizedRark.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LopezSizedRark.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Le Poidevin

A tag has been placed on Jordan Le Poidevin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. GhostPirate 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jordan Le Poidevin has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki 13:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who are "promising" or who may possibly become famous in the future don't meet WP:BIO. If and when Mr. Le Poidevin becomes a professional cricketer or appears with the national team, then he will meet those standards and you can create an article. NawlinWiki 13:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Jordan Le Poidevin

A tag has been placed on Jordan Le Poidevin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This is the second time this has been recreated. Still no assertion of notability.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. J Milburn 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question

Which article and which edit are you talking about? I haven't edited any of the articles that come up in your edit history. Rossrs (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: edits to User talk:Rossrs

I'm not sure if you are being purposely obtuse, but if you have an issue with an edit someone makes, it is reasonable for you to indicate what edit that would be and what article it would be on. Since you refuse to do so, and instead suggest that Rossrs compare his edit history to yours in order to figure out what you object to, it would indicate that either you don't want to advise him thusly, or you are purposely being cryptic. If you can't tell him where the problem was, I'd suggest you cease with the Unencyclopedia comments and let it go. If it is that important to you, ante up with the article title or leave his talk page alone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me revise that. I went back over the edits you've made with this account for the past year. Rossrs has made no edits to any article that you've edit in the past year. Either you were editing while not logged in, or you are fabricating an argument. In either case, you're right, Unencyclopedia is more your speed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your contributions list over the past year, beginning from the time you first left a comment on Rossrs' talk page on 21 July and scanned the history lists. Rossrs name was not on them. In any event, you're purposely being obtuse, so I have no plans to discuss this further with you. Either pony up the name of the article or get on with your life. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being purposely obtuse. I started from the time you posted on Rossrs talk page and went back over the past year from that date. Do not approach me again. Get on with your life. You're wasting my time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you to stop approaching me and leaving inane comments and displaying an obsessive need to have the last word. This qualifies as harassment and will not be tolerated. Don't you have something better to do with your time besides wasting energy trying to one-up someone? And just to edify you, the paragraph you inserted, which you indicate came from here, is a complete copy and paste number, which constitutes a copyright violation (see the bottom of that page with the copyright notice) and therefore cannot remain in the article. It cannot be returned due to copyright concerns. Now, get on with your life and desist. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it looked like original research by the way it was written. The fact of the matter is that I'm not particularly interested in the Cameron Diaz article. I removed the information in good faith because I thought it was inappropriate. That's my right as an editor. It turns out that removing the material was the correct action, although it never occurred to me that it was not your own work. Copying information verbatim from a copyrighted site is against Wikipedia's policy of copyright. Please read through WP:COPYVIO. I think we are never going to see eye to eye, and I'm not interested in discussing this any further as I've answered your questions. I accept that we see things differently and I suggest you do the same. Rossrs (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copying information without permission

Sure thing. The reliable source noticeboard is usually only for the discussion of specific sources which are right on the border of WP:RS. Since no one who answers questions there is "special" (insofar as we have no greater understanding of wikipedia policies and guidelines than anyone else), the narrower the scope the better.

My answer is that there is likely not a noticeboard that can solve this problem. If you have material from off wikipedia and you want to use it in an article here, one of two things has to happen. Either that material needs to be released into the public domain by the owner (if possible) or the owner of that website has to email the OTRS people to tell them "it is ok if this material if used in full on wikipedia. Those are both kind of cumbersome, but we have to insist upon them because anyone can make an account on wikipedia and impersonate a site owner. If either of those two things are done, material can be used in full on wikipedia without summarizing.

I would suggest that you avoid that by just summarizing and referencing the site in question. 99% of the time, the tone and coverage of a site will not be suitable for Wikipedia. I hope this helps answer your question. If you have any more questions or have some followup questions, feel free to ask me here, on my talk page or ask anyone else by placing the text (as it appears here) {{helpme}} on your talk page. Protonk (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Wildhartlivie, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I don't know what your problem is, but we've edited nothing in common in the past year, so get a grip and stop approaching people for no valid reason and posting crap like you just did to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]