User talk:Davidbspalding/Archive/2007-Feb

Robbie Harris

Hi david

Robbie Harris is one of the leading exponents of modern bodhran playing today. Through his extensive touring with Riverdance and many other traditional Irish music groups he has introduced the Irish frame drum to many new audiences. His versatile playing style has allowed him to colabrate with musicians from a wide varity of stlyes.

Slan

Paul —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.35.142 (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not fooled by what appears to be intentional mispelling to disguise a sock puppet. Aside from that, when a user who appears to be the subject of the page creates a page on himself (herself), several WP policies and guidelines (WP:COI, WP:BIO, WP:NOT) come into play. User:Robbiebodhrán appears to have created an account with the sole purpose to create a page on himself. Then he added his picture off his web site to the article. Listen, this is NOT MySpace, where people can create their own promotional/bio pages for free. The subsequent edits to his page are from an account apparently created just to defend the first editor's CsD-tagged page -- this appears to be an attempt to subvert the policy of WP.

Here're my suggestions for this situation:

Stop using sock puppet accounts just to defend the Robbie Harris page.
Ensure Robbie puts his reasons for not deleting the page he created on himself on the Talk page.
Invite other editors who know of his work and nis "notariety" and can edit the page themselves. Need names? Just look at the history of the history of the Bodhran page, there are several editors wno can write good, NPOV, objective text about him.
Tone down the "fan review" tone of the article. WP mandates an objective, null-point-of-view approach in articles. Check the recent deletion of Harmony Glen, it was a quite complete article, nixed due to it being too subjective and adoring of the topic.
Put references in the Robbie Harris page to back up the contention that he's notable. Links to reliable sources (most news media have online access to their reviews, e.g. NY Times, SF Chronicle, etc) would seal the deal. A single link to his own promotional web site is not sufficient.

David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Picture of Me

You write:

Please correct the copyright and licensing of this image. If it really is non-copyrighted, that is you release it fully for WP use, then you can use on your User Page. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 23:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What's WP use?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alex_in_D.C._Super_Close-Up.jpg

Yours,
Allixpeeke 01:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

answered on your page. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

My profile is the article namespace-whatever. I uploaded it for the specific purpose of placing it on my user-page. I don't know how to indicate that it is not at all copyrighted. Can you do me the favour of placing the correct "copyright status" thing on there? This would be much appreciated.

Yours,

Allixpeeke 05:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, your User page is in the User namespace, it is not a WP article.
I cannot change the copyright on your image -- it's your image! It's not up to me to determine the copyright status of your own promotional image.
Try reading up on IMAGE USE POLICY, IMAGE COPYRIGHT TAGS, UPLOADING IMAGES as well as FAIR USE CONDITIONS. Based on all that's on your user page, I don't think you're going to have trouble grasping these policies.

David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 06:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock on, compadre

You are the anti-knob of the day.:)NinaOdell | Talk 18:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(blush) Thank you. ... I demand an anti-knob barnstar, now dammit! (whoops, now I'm a knob) :D ~Dbs

Fair use image in user namespace

Hello!

You have used two fair use images in your user namespace (Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb.jpg and Image:Alien01.jpg in User:Davidbspalding). Criterion 9 of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria states that "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine." I have removed them on these grounds. If you are looking for free images try the Wikimedia Commons.

Sincerely, --Oden 12:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. By editing my page and breaking some formatting, rather than just leaving me a nice note and letting me do the right thing, you violated WP:AGF, and created some repair work for me. A quick look at your activity indicates some possible Wikilawyering in progress. Suggest you go outside and enjoy some fresh air away from the Internet. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume Oden made that edit in good faith, in order to help Wikipedia, not to cause you inconvenience. --Kjoonlee 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-ha, you didn't like what I said over at Wikipedia talk:Don't-give-a-fuckism, so you came to my Talk page and looked for any instance that you could ding me on? If that isn't trolling, I dunno what it is. "Go away, kid, ya bother me." David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Please assume good faith. I visit a lot of talk pages, and I write on a lot of them too. --Kjoonlee 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B.S. Let me be blunt here: STOP. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

You're being uncivil again. I can't agree to disagree in such cases... :( --Kjoonlee 16:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil

Hi, I see a number of edits from you that I find uncivil. Please reread WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:DICK. I have, at your suggestion. --Kjoonlee 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to assume I'm a troll. Please don't, and take a look at some other edits I've made if you want. --Kjoonlee 16:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Kjoonlee --Kjoonlee 16:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my statement. The first paragraph of troll fits what you're doing to a "t." WP:NPA in my opinion means you don't keep coming back to my Talk page and chiding me and condescending to me, even after I've asked you to stop. See above. Really, I'm sorry if you didn't like my contention with you over at that deletion discussion or the page's talk page, but LET ... IT ... GO. I mean, really, you're embarrassing yourself by picking on me with no clear reason. Wikilawyering me to death won't change that. For the last time, STOP POSTING TO MY TALK PAGE. SUBSEQUENT POSTS WILL BE DELETED. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steal it all!

Steal anything you like. I agree, the situation at DGAF is a clusterfuck. Some people (like the person above) are pedantic for the sake of being pedantic, and I don't even bother acknowledging them. Everyone seems to be missing the point, which raises the ultimate question: is this a matter of reading comprehension, willful stupidity and refusal to acknowledge a point, or honest stupidity? --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 02:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Academy Award for Makeup

Just a note that I removed the "2006 shortlist" from Academy Award for Makeup as it seems to be OR or conjecture. As I'm sure you know WP:NOT discourages such content. When the nominees are announced, that can certainly be added. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some awards have special committee decided shortlists. I am on the Academy press list, and I couldn't find an online source for their press release at the time I added it. This here is the release. -- Zanimum 15:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, with the reference it is now verifiable. But the page is about "winners and nominees," so technically ... we oughta wait until 1/23 to add them. Pretend to be a reader who knows nothing about this, and finds the shortlist ... what does it mean, the reader asks. Since you're insisting on including it, I've converted the link to a reference citation. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UH-60 edit comment

Your summary for your edit on the UH-60 Black Hawk page said,

You're right, it was redundant, but for the poor reader who doesn't know what a helicopter is, this phrase helps. And the next instance of the word helicopter is wikilinked.

You're arguing that someone who doesn't know what a helicopter is, is going to know what a rotary-wing aircraft is? Incontheivable!! --Born2flie 03:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. You had corrected someone's "rotary-wing helicopter" (appropriately, it's a redundant phrase) and I noted that "helicopter" was used twice within 4-5 words ... a little variety doesn't hurt. On the talk page, you note that "rotary wing aircraft" isn't used much outside the military. Ahem ... the UH-60 is a military-only aircraft. As a recent veteran of the USCG, I can assure you that the term is in common use. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nanking (film)

Yes, I'm done for now.--Daveswagon 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guilford College

David,

Many bad things happen at any university campus at any given time: fights, rapes, assaults, drininking binges, hazing incidents, bad grades, etc. But when I go to an "encyclopedia" article to find out more about that school, I want to find useful information about the school or history of the subject rather than see what amounts to a blog, or around the clock update on such an incident. As an alumni of this school, I certainly don't want the whole article on Guilford to basically be about a drunken brawl that has yet to see true factual details emerge.

I have no problem with an external link on the subject, I just don't believe that it has to take center stage for the page.

As a resident of Durham who is (I hope) aware of the quickly disintigrating Duke Lacrosse case, surely you can respect the negativity and liability issues involved with basic heresay, "we said, they said" can have on a case such as this.

When I want to read about the Guilford incident, I'll check the newspapers and the local news channel. I don't need to see it in Wikipedia.

I am sure you wouldn't want to see the same if this happened at USC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guilfordgrad96 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Repeated blanking of content is strongly discouraged. Likewise, WP is not censored. IIf you don't like reading about negative events associated with your alma mater, then don't read WP. Your own bias about the school doesn't give you special rights to censor WP, rather, you are discouraged from making subjective decisions about content. Finally, you received two warnings about blanking content and you continued to vandalize the page. You need a time-out, bub, edit wars on WP won't change the prestige of the college. Also, please sign your comments on Talk pages. End of discussion. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what ya' lil geek fuck. I just looked up your number and I'm coming to find you. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guilfordgrad96 (talk • contribs) 15:00, January 26, 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm impressed that you care enough to send the very best. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TheWickerMan_HowieOnTheCliff.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:TheWickerMan_HowieOnTheCliff.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT 20:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TheWickerMan_HowieAsPunch.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TheWickerMan_HowieAsPunch.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT 20:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]