User talk:Wroush

Welcome!

Hello, Wroush, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

The Wade Roush?

At least I assume that's who you are... Welcome! If you're not Wade Roush, forgive me.

One of these days someone needs to update the article to reflect the new new magazine.

Which is really good, by the way. I've been meaning to remember to send Jason Pontin some fan mail.

I loved the last issue. Your article on the Sony Rootkit is the best thing I can recall reading about the topic.

(By the way... the connections between the superscripts and footnotes is all messed up, because the older system used in that article made it difficult to keep them in sync. There is now a newer mechanism, described at WP:FOOTNOTE, which is much better, and one of these days I or someone needs to update the article to use it...) Dpbsmith (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's The Wade Roush

Thanks for your kind welcome, and for your nice comments on Technology Review and my rootkit article. Jason would appreciate your fan mail. He is at jason.pontin@technologyreview.com.

I have been covering social computing a lot and I see that the existing Wikipedia article is pretty much a stub. I think that's where I'll take my first real stab at contributing.

About footnotes -- should I go back and try to fix the footnotes in Technology Review or should we just wait until it gets rewritten...which I will be happy to do? Wroush 00:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Jason Pontin.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Jason Pontin.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was reviewing images tagged for deletion and noticed the image discussed above. It may be confusing (and the other person left the wrong template) so I wanted to give you a human-written explanation of the issue. The issue is that Wikipedia only accepts licenses that permit commercial reuse. The image you uploaded from flickr is tagged as "attribution-noncommercial". If the image comes from Flickr, only images that are tagged as "attribution" or "attribution-sharealike" can be used. If you know the copyright holder personally and can request that they choose one of these licenses, then the image can be used. Also, if you upload the image to Wikimedia Commons, it will automatically show up on Wikipedia (provided that you use a name of an image that isn't already taken here) and Commons has an automatic process in place to verify licenses. (Verifying the license allows us to continue to use it even if the copyright holder at some point changes their Flickr license or deletes their Flickr account.) --B (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Wade here. Thanks for your helpful note. I have uploaded the image to the Wikimedia Commons, so we'll see if that works. I don't quite understand the image licensing policy. Wikipedia is noncommercial, right? So why isn't an attribution-noncommercial license good enough? Don't mean to get into a debate, just curious.
- Hi Wade, the reason that non-commercial isn't sufficient is that there are "downstream" users of Wikipedia content that are commercial. For example, with Special:Book, you can order (and pay $$$ for) printed copies of Wikipedia articles. (I'm not sure why you would, but the service exists.) Also, Wikipedia content is copied by commercial websites like Facebook and about.com. (I'm not saying that I agree with it ... but it is what it is.) --B (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Jason Pontin. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]