User talk:K.Nevelsteen/Archive 1

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, K.Nevelsteen/Archive 1! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Ryan 11:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. See ya! Ryan 12:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Unsuitable Images

It's unsuitable because it was not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not FARK. Nandesuka 21:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick comments on user talk pages and not their User space pages.... Sasquatch讲看 06:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that Einstein actually stuck out his tongue, as opposed to being photoshopped to look like one. The difference is important. Nandesuka 10:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna (entertainer)

I re-added the sentence for the reasons that I've been giving on the Talk page (and concerning which there's now an RfC. I corrected the image, spacing, and ToC to the normal Wikipedia style because, well, it's normal Wikipedia style, and it makes the whole thing a lot tidier, and avoids the need for all those spaces and comments. I hope that that's OK. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new layout is fine (though I've edited out all the spacing; I couldn't see why it was there). It's not clear to me that it's better than the normal format, but if you prefer it... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the problem lies in the way that you have your browser set up; my removal of the spacing just removed a big gap between the summary and the first section for me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vampire sublucitres

but the "modern real vapmpires" section is about aseparate subculture, not a fcition. could youp lease put it ack?Gavin the Chosen 12:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi there! What did I do to earn such praise? I'm glad you liked my photos - which one do you like best? Anyway thanks a lot for your compliments! --Fir0002 09:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Watchlist idea

That would be useful, I agree. I don't know how easy it would be to implement, though, or what drain it would be on resources. It would be worth suggesting it, I think. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gull

Please note I've reverted your changes to this article. The species should be listed in taxonomic, not alphabetical order, which makes no biological sense. jimfbleak 14:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard texts, such as the on-line Handbook of the birds of the worl (the standard for wikipedia) gives species lists based on relationships between the species. I'm not a biologist, so I take these on trust, but there are often obvious similarities, eg Iceland Gull and Glaucous Gull are next to each other, and both are large and lack any black in the adult plumage.

To be fair, there are a couple of cases where an alphabetical list supplements the taxonomic one. These are for families with hundreds of species, such as dove and hummingbird, just to make it easier to find a particular species. jimfbleak 17:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for fixing the edit counter-it hadn't occurred to me that I didn't have to type in my name every time! Duh... jimfbleak 05:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

freelancer

I appreciate your point, but wikipedia articles shouldn't contain advice or caution; otherwise most articles would have them. Adding the point, as you did, that the job can extend beyond normal work hours and work days implies that it could affect home life; we don't really need to say it outright, IMHO. - DavidWBrooks 16:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Scorpion

Thanks, Kim. He's blocked indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ham Sandwich impersonator

Blocked indefinitely. Thanks for letting me know. He'd also copied the real HS's talk and user pages. I've blanked them and posted a note saying he was blocked for impersonation of HS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for spotting the vandal that was impersonating me today! I appreciate it, and I'm sure the community at large does as well. I owe you a nice big sandwich I guess. A sandwich of diligence! See you 'round, and thanks once more for your help. The real Hamster Sandwich 16:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a special award created for fighting vandalism on my user pages. Wear it with pride, brave Wiki-warrior! Hamster Sandwich 01:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandwich of Diligence ::: Awarded for Unswerving Strength and Tenacity

P one, P Two, P Three, P Four

What's the purpose of these pages? They are nothing but redirects back to each other. Are you trolling? — JIP | Talk 12:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I don't know if this was serious or not. But seeing as I don't write for the pages which you suggested I take a look at. I would feel it wrong for me to remove anything from them. Havok (T/C) 21:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. How I do it is that I look at the sites which are submited. Mostly the pages I remove links from there have been discussions about there being to many links. So many of the editors have come to an aggrement in which links must be discussed before they are put up. Also, if the link is more "vanity" then it's removed. If it adds nothing to the article, for example containing the same information as the article it self, or a site allready linked to, it is removed. Hope this helps! ;) Havok (T/C) 21:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would suggest either {{Template:Npov}} or {{Template:Unencyclopedic}} them. If something is unencyclopedic or a personal point of view is stated in the article, it should be removed or re-written. Havok (T/C) 22:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Havok (T/C) 22:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-portrait.

Hey, they call me mellow yellow. :D Acetic Acid 11:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

the feature idea we discussed

sorry for not putting my signature on that discussion we had about the feature, but it was me, Urthogie who was discussing the following with you: Couple of things to fix
i was wondering if you think any of my ideas should be implemented, and if so, how do we go about showing them to the administrators?

Orphaned redirects

Orphaned redirects are not speedy deletion candidates, please stop labeling them as such. Orphaned redirects are actually useful for a number of reasons and are not even deleted via Redirects for Deletion, much less speedy deleted. - SimonP 00:35, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

your edit; this

You liked my edit I see and so you added that. I don't know why you didn't just put that ASCII art of goatse instead? DyslexicEditor 17:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional photo

Can you clarify Wikipedia:Publicity_photos? The text is REALLY bad an easy to miss interpret. Can you also clarify exactly what a promo photo of a celebrity is? Does a photo taken by someone at a premier event and the photo being is spread all over the internet and finally landing on a fan site qualify it as promo? Classify this please [1]. Cheers. --None-of-the-Above 14:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, but… in my understanding, a publicity photo would strictly mean one put out for purposes of publicity by the subject of the photo: for example, an actor's headshot or a band's official photos put out in their publicity pack, or an executives photo distributed as part of a press release. The fact that other sites (typically fan sites) have violated copyright by massively reproducing (for example) a wire service photo or a picture from a magazine or newspaper does not remove that photo from copyright, it just means that the copyright has been heavily violated. Wikipedia is simply a lot more scrupulous about this than the average site. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

As for the image you were asking about, follow the link: the page it is attributed to clearly claims copyright. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to learn here, so can you please tell me what you would think about the copyright on this image [2]. Clearly no source, but is it a promo photo? Is it technically valid to be on Wikipedia? --None-of-the-Above 17:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a cited source argues strongly that it is probably a copyvio. A quick Google image search for "Sean Penn" turned this up as the second image given. They find it on a Russian site (not usually a good sign) that also gives no information where they got the picture. I'd bet money that it is a wire service image, or something similar. In any case, it would be copyrighted (because any photo taken since 1973 is automatically copyrighted), so unless we have a specific basis to claim rights to it (basically, overt permission from the copyright holder), I don't see how we could make an honest claim that we have a right to use this picture. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:59, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Claire Forlani

Thing started simple. Until 1965 Twickenham was in Middlesex and not part of London at all.

However, in 1965 Middlesex was abolished and Twickenham became part of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (which was created from places that had been in Surrey and Middlesex).

So "Middlesex, London" would not be correct.

Mrsteviec 17:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solms TCD

Kim, thanks for finding this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solms TCD. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Spam

Please refrain from link advertising all over Wikipedia. Thanks. --None-of-the-Above 21:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a related external link be spam? I just placed some links to the About Gay Movies site on pages that were about film and gay. In my opinion this is not spam. Please don't delete my work. Lordmarchmain

When you add the same link to 3 or 4 articles at the same time, that is spamming. Usually every article has a handful of URLs as external links that pretain very well to that specific article. --None-of-the-Above 22:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because vandalism is quite common on Wikipedia. Page blanking, LOUD comments, etc... A lot of them just edit and run. Please feel free to contribute. --None-of-the-Above 22:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lordmarchmain

Wikipedia:Peer review/Gary Gygax/archive1

I noticed you created a new peer review request and listed it at Wikipedia:Peer review/September 2005 with old, inactive, archived requests instead of at Wikipedia:Peer review were all the current, active requests are located. Was there any reason why you wished to create this request and then place it in a location where it is unlikely to receive attention from any reviewers?

Some of the rewording you made to the peer review instructions has also been corrected to return to the longstanding practice of placing the active requests on the peer review page and the old requests in the various archive pages. --Allen3 ^talk 12:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review and other service pages that receive a large volume of edits generally have instructions and other header information located in templates. This allows for edits to the instructions to be separated from edits for new requests in peoples watchlists. Hopefully this has not caused too much confusion. --Allen3 ^talk 13:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Troll and Vandal

For some reason, you decided to troll my edits and vandalize much of my work, putting inappropriate notices on them and attempting to delete them. If you do this any more, I will file an RfC against you. I am not going to have all my contributions vandalized by a troll editing in bad faith. See what happened to the last troll and vandal who did the same thing, User:-Ril- and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Ril-. --Noitall 13:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC) DO NOT DELETE THIS COMMENT -- THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE WARNING FOR YOUR ACTIONS TARGETING ME (AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO YOU ARE EXCEPT FOR ONE PAGE) --Noitall 13:19, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Noitall#5_orphaned_images

Based on your comments on my talk page, I assume the matter is done and we can move on. --Noitall 14:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Kim, thanks for reverting that horrible vandalism from my talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought

This may not satisfy all of your needs, but if you don't show some support, we're not likely to get even this much. — Xiong 熊 talk * 10:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Connelly image

Hi I'm afraid Image:JenniferConnelly-Bm2b.jpg doesn't qualify as a promo photo. Photos taken at awards, premieres etc. are usually taken by photo/news agencies such as AP or wireimages so aren't allowed on wikipedia. Promo photos have to be relased by the person, their agent or employer i.e. film or music company. Thanks Arnie587 20:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I moved one of the screenshots in its place which is OK for fair use as long as there is comment on her appearence in that film in the article. Bye Arniep 12:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC) (Arnie587)[reply]

Merging Memory (computers) into Computer storage

In case you would otherwise miss it, I thought I should point out that an editor has proposed merging the page you split off back into Computer storage. See Talk:Computer storage#Cleanup and merging. -R. S. Shaw 07:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed on image

Hi K.Nevelsteen

I need some help on an image, and since I found you on Wikipedia:Image sleuthing, I thought you might be able to help me. I'd uploaded an image (Image:Roddick1 miami2005.jpg) from the website http://www.nickaweb.com. This image is copyrighted by the webmaster of the site, and I asked him by email for permission to use it. He gives away pictures that he takes himself, freely for use. Later, I also gave him a link to Wikipedia, and the article I'd added the image to, and he said that there was no problem. Now, someone changed the image summary at a later point of time to provide a link to a completely different picture, after which User:Petaholmes added a 'no source' tag to it. I want to know if this tag can be removed. Is this picture okay to be used? I have no intention of using something that shouldn't be here, so please tell me if the use is not right. I did not get a response from Petaholmes. Thanks a lot. -Aabha (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I have added some more information to the summary, please have a look at it now. Thanks again. -Aabha (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -Aabha (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Gygax

I recently edited this page. You reverted it, saying it was bad and brutal copyedit. Please look again. The only bit of info I removed was the line about him having been taught pinochle by his mother and chess by his brother, which I found to be too detailed, compared to the rest of the article. I added a number of reference quotes, and implemented the new ref-tag, wrote out previously unintroduced words such as RPG and fixed what I believed was a typo.

Please revert your edit. You are free to put back the deleted line, but reverting wholesale is not necessary, in my opinion. -- Ec5618 15:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VWN en WCN

Beste allemaal Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 16:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:MillionDollarBaby02.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MillionDollarBaby02.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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. meco 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:MillionDollarBaby01.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MillionDollarBaby01.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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. meco 14:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Gygax photos

I saw that you have uploaded two photos of Gary Gygax on en.wiki. It's possible to upload them to commons, so they could be used also on other language wikipedia ? --Moroboshi 21:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the try.--Moroboshi 07:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:CalvinKleinJeansAD-SpringSummer2004NataliaVodianova02bySteve.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CalvinKleinJeansAD-SpringSummer2004NataliaVodianova02bySteve.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. This is an automated message from BJBot 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Catherine McCormack.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Catherine McCormack.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. BetacommandBot 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:GaryGygax2.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:GaryGygax2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:CNExpo_2005_006_Gary_signing...EGADS!_a_3.5E_PHB!.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:CNExpo_2005_006_Gary_signing...EGADS!_a_3.5E_PHB!.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Weight of Water, The- 2000.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Weight of Water, The- 2000.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Queen of the Damned.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen of the Damned.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Thirteen-2003.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Thirteen-2003.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Heartbreak Ridge- 1986.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Heartbreak Ridge- 1986.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why I stopped editting

Yeah, right. A man like Gary that answers 300 mails a day is REALLY going to go through the trouble of all that copyright info. Largely why I stopped editting. Too much red tape. Give me a break. Real shame.

(Above copied from Talk:Gary_Gygax#Deleted_Gygax_photo, since my reply is off topic for Gary Gygax.) I know it can be frustrating. I've had an image deleted for exactly the same reason. I have to face deletion attempts on fair use images with far too much frequency. As a result, I've largely given up on seeking copyright approvals. But don't just give up editing! You've done good work! Just steer clear of the more frustrating bits. Thanks for all your work in the past; I hope you choose to come back. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Thirteen-2003.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Thirteen-2003.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Undeath (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:GaryGygax2.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:GaryGygax2.JPG. 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 image. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Doc Hollywood- 1991.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Doc Hollywood- 1991.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Gygax GA review

I see that you have put some work into the Gary Gygax article, which I have nominated for a GA review. If there is anything you can do to help it get passed, please join in! Also, feel free to comment on the D&D WikiProject talk page regarding our efforts to get articles in the 0.7 release. BOZ (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Gygax source you cited

A few years ago you added several citations to a work titled, "Gary Gygax, 'LONG BIOGRAPHY of E(rnest) GARY GYGAX', revision 6-05, ©2005" It looks like a great resource, unfortunately we're having a devil of a time tracking it down. Could you join in the discussion here and let us know where we might find a copy?. (If it's a while before you notice this, here is an archived link to the discussion; even if it's months later we'll still probably find it useful). Thanks for all of your time on Gary Gygax! Your contributions are forming a basis that we're hoping to turn into a Good quality article! — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your support! Good to have your help; even without the bio, we were able to get the article up to GA, and with it I'm sure we could get it up to FA. BOZ (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) If you're having trouble uploading the file, I think you should be able to e-mail it to me. BOZ (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can e-mail me at my secondary address. BOZ (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely; I will not post the whole document anywhere in that case. Are there any other restrictions that I should be aware of? Would it be OK to share with a limited number of people, or is it the fewer who have this the better? Any thanks very much - the FAC for Gary Gygax started just yesterday. :) If anyone asks to see the original document as part of the FAC (they may or may not) what can I tell them? BOZ (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Unfortunately, the first FAC failed... but hey, no problem, it took five tries to get Dungeons & Dragons to FA status! Thanks again. :) BOZ (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:K.Nevelsteen-BGP-4x.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:K.Nevelsteen-BGP-4x.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:CNExpo 2005 020 Finishing LA Thanks Gary!.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:CNExpo 2005 020 Finishing LA Thanks Gary!.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. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pervasive games

Hello there. I thought the only significant change I made was to replace the opening definition of "games that blend with the physical world" with "those which take place primarily in the physical world". I didn't change anything about the origins, I just flagged "origins are related to pervasive computing" as being an unclear statement - does the source (which I can't access) say that pervasive games grew out of pervasive computing, or did they grow out of regular games in the same way or for the same reasons that pervasive computing grew out of regular computing?

I'll admit that "take place primarily in the physical world" is quite a terrible pre-coffee definition (board games and sports take place in the physical world, but presumably aren't considered pervasive), and you're welcome to revert it, but "blend with the physical world" seemed a little opaque. I thought my wording was a fair, bland summary of the cited source's "pervasive games extend the gaming experience out into the real world", but it's probably not helpful that the source is talking from the starting point of video games, when we should be writing from no context at all. Can you think of a snappier explanation? --McGeddon (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies! I'd forgotten that I'd dropped pervasive computing from the list of origins when cleaning up the article. The pervasive computing link actually redirects to ubiquitous computing (which just says that ubiquitous computing is "also described as pervasive computing"), so I assumed they were basically the same thing. If there's a relevant distinction between them, that's fine, but we should help the reader by explaining it somewhere.

Redlinks are fine, they just seemed a bit uninformative to the reader in the context of a short list - the reader isn't told anything about the game, and can't click through to find out more. Maybe we could expand the games out into an "Examples" section, and explain how they're played?

As for blending - when you (and Benford etc) talk about "blending" a game with the physical world, do you mean blending digital games, or blending any game? If it's the latter (and the latter is certainly how I'd define pervasive gaming), we're really going to need a definition that explains to the lay reader how "blending a game with the physical world" is different from a simple game of football, or taking a chess set to a park. --McGeddon (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above and at Talk:Pervasive game, describing something as "a game where the game world blends with the physical world" doesn't seem very enlightening; I'm interested in games myself, but have no idea quite what this is trying to tell me. (I get the feeling it's trying to say that pervasive games take the sort of mechanics which aren't traditionally played at the physical, sport-scale level - like chess, or Pac Man - and rescale them to be played by some people running around in the real world. But I don't know if that's what your sources actually say.)

Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the very first sentence of a Wikipedia article "should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist". Having read the sources you cite, how would you describe a pervasive game to the average Joe on the street, in one sentence? --McGeddon (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence must be something that a regular Joe on the street would understand and accept as a starting point. If the definition of pervasive gaming is "necessarily vague" and undefined, we should say that, rather than giving the reader a vague description and hoping they somehow interpret this as "ah, this must be a poorly-defined field" rather than "I don't understand, this must be a poorly-written article".

We should be careful to stick to sources, but - what do you say when a non-gaming friend asks you what a pervasive game is? And how does your definition differ from that given by Benford/etc? --McGeddon (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck! And don't be afraid to use your own words - it feels like the article probably needs an overview explaining that different people have different definitions of the genre, and we're not necessarily going to have a source to quote on that. (Ideally this would end up as a long article listing various descriptions and examples, and the lead section would just summarise the whole article in basically our own words.) --McGeddon (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories

A quick heads up on categories - if one category is a subcategory of another, we should only put the subcategory on the article, because it implies the parent. (So Can You See Me Now? is just an "Outdoor locating game", not an "Outdoor locating game, and an Outdoor game".) --McGeddon (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - to make a category a subcategory of another, you edit the category description to have [[Category:Whatever category it goes in]] at the bottom, the same way you would for an article. It'll then automatically appear as a "Subcategory" on the main category page. I've gone ahead and done this for you on Category:Mixed reality games. --McGeddon (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shelby Logan's Run

The article Shelby Logan's Run has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mayast (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Mayast (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) Please don't take it the wrong way, but in my opinion [as a new page patroller] an article which only consists of one line of text shouldn't be published, at least not yet. The rules of New pages patrol say that reviewers should wait 15 minutes from the last edit before tagging the article, here it was more than 24 hours, so I assumed that it won't be expanded further in the nearest future. If the article is still under construction and you're planning to improve it, using the {{under construction}} template might be a good idea — or, even better, working on a new article in your sandbox, and then moving it to the main namespace ;)

Anyway, I want to help :) I admit that I don't know anything about pervasive games ;) but if I understand this page correctly, Shelby Logan's Run was one edition of The Game (treasure hunt), held in 2002. I'm not sure whether this one 'event' (or whatever else the players call it) is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. But maybe "Shelby Logan's Run" could act as a redirect to "The Game"? Especially when there is already some more text about it in that article. And if there is [later] enough content to justify a stand-alone article about Shelby Logan's Run, the redirect could be replaced with that article? — Mayast (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

Hi K.Nevelsteen. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Thank you. I will -use-the-force- wisely.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REXplorer

I'm not that interested in writing a full article about it from scratch, but if you have strong enough sources for it to meet WP:GNG, just put up a short stub article using those sources, and I'm sure it'll grow over time. --McGeddon (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Positioning systems. AlterGeo

Hello, excuse me, could you please explain why you reverted my AlterGeo-related edits to the articles of Wi-Fi positioning system, Location-based service, and Hybrid positioning system, as well as the information about IP and network environment data based positioning in Hybrid positioning system? Thanks. Andreykh (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Andreykh:, I'm terribly sorry, I think I might have made those reverts in error. They looked like vandalism, so I reverted. My apologizes and please feel free to put them back. But, please provide a citation, so that the information can be verified.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. No problem.--Andreykh (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2013 (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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Affective gaming for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Affective gaming is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affective gaming until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 04:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, K.Nevelsteen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Systems architect

The article Systems architect has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be a WP:COPYVIO from http://www.defaultlogic.com/learn?s=Systems_architect
with only two references, it's not well enough cited to stay

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, K.Nevelsteen. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, K.Nevelsteen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Day of the Figurines

The article Day of the Figurines has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this game passes WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]