User talk:Artx

2000s (decade)

Please note that the material from the Time Magazine article is being discussed on the talk page at Talk:2000s (decade)#Request for consensus, please join the discussion rather than simply restoring the material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

be careful of editors

you should know that when you made this edit: [1]that you are in danger of being bloked because one of the editors on that page says you canot remove anything until you first made a new paragrap about it on the talk page. See: [2] [3] so be carful. 68.17.232.180 (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Althgouh the previous sentence is bogus, you still should be blocked because of WP:3RR and possible WP:BLP violations in restoring the unsourced "common usage" claim for "Noughties".

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2000s (decade). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at 2000s (decade)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at 2000s (decade). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Artx reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Names of the Decade

Join the "Names of the Decade" rewrite debate. Artx (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2000s_(decade)#Request_for_consensus_concerning:_Names_of_the_decade

File copyright problem with File:2000s_montage4.PNG

Thank you for uploading File:2000s_montage4.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Closedmouth (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation of images in File:2000s montage5.PNG

I've added documentation and copyright status for most of the images in the montage. All but three are public domain, one is copyrighted but can still be used per EU law, and I couldn't find documentation for the other two. There is a high probability the image montage will be perfectly okay with regards to copyright, provided you add source information for those last two undocumented images (the ISS drawing and the social networking logos montage). Thanks. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 13:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Question:

The ISS image came from the NASA website - Should I show it as: (PD-USGov-NASA)

All of the Social Media images have usage on their individual Wikipedia pages - Are individual links required for every one of the items in the montage? Artx (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For the space station image, you can use PD-USGov-NASA but you'll need to put the link to the description page for the image from NASA's website. Other images you could use are: [4][5][6][7][8][9]. The social networking logos are probably just fair use, so use Template:Non-free logo. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 09:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added licensing information for each of the social networking logos, but some of the versions uploaded to Wikipedia are more recent than the ones in the montage, so ideally you would need to recreate the social networking part of the montage - I've listed on File:2000s montage5.PNG#Copyrighted links to the versions of each of the logos currently on Wikipedia, all can be used in the montage as they are fair use images. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 09:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jatkins! I will update the Social Media montage with new logos as provided.

The link for NASA will be added as well... Artx (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:2000s_montage5.PNG

Thank you for uploading File:2000s_montage5.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Orange Order in Ghana.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Orange Order in Ghana.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)