User talk:Kid calabria

Unspecified source for Image:Praga.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Praga.gif. 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 01:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MECU≈talk 01:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credence

There is no such spelling as credence with 2 e's -- see [1]]. Try googling it; not one dictionary lists it. The Creedence Clearwater Revival article itself speaks of the deliberate misspelling: [2]. freshacconci (✉) 00:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Clash, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your email dated 27 June 2018

Hello,

Thanks for your message.

A: 1) The Emilio Praga photo was not uploaded by me. 2) The source of the Praga portrait I have - which I never uploaded - was the archives of the Italian Cultural Institute in Bucharest (no longer in existence). The image had no credit. 3) I believe the copyright for the image has expired as it was from around 1860 and I haven't been able to trace any descendent of Mr. Praga. 4) I wrote a dissertation about The Scapigliatura for my MA at University College London in 2005; it is mentioned among the sources of the Scapigliatura entry on Wikipedia (in English). You will find it in its entirety elsewhere, on-line (like Facebook! Lol!) and in books in different languages.

B) The Clash's corrections. There are so many well-known and numerous sources for those that I thought it superfluous and pointless to specify such an obvious and widely-recognized fact. For instance: 1) The Ramones' documentary film End Of The Century. 2) Don Letts' film Punk: Attitude. 3) Interviews with "eye-witnesses" such as Chrissie HYnde, Joe Strummer, Paul Simonon, Arturo Vega, and many others, including Johnny Ramone who recounted the event to me in person, etc..etc.. - "ad infinitum", quite literally. Also, copies of the original Roundhouse posters have been reproduced in several books, documentaries, etc.. I could go on, but I won't, except for a brief addendum: many Wikipedia entries are replete with errors of grammar, syntax, misspellings, punctuation, declension of verbs, etc.. and it is apparent that when one corrects them, one gets the sort of "message" (????) I received in this case. Indeed I do not intend to contribute to Wikipedia any longer, although I have previously written over 4000 edits without any complaints (except for a "contributor" who seemed to ignore the fact that the root of the word "credence" is "creed") and not for MY benefit. Indeed, I wrote most entries and edits anonymously... and also to avoid this sort of nonsense.

I shall mention just one reason as a blatant (and fraudulent) example: the entry about "Chemtrails", which is clearly false and deliberately so. "Chemtrails" are mentioned in the Wikipedia entry as a sort of "tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory", and that section is locked and cannot be edited, changed or corrected. And yet there are myriads of scientists, doctors, government officials, documents, science publications, books, etc.. from different countries and many other (super)-reliable scholars and witnesses whose works belie your Chemtrails... "entry" (I use the term "entry" loosely, and for the lack of a more fitting word). There are even legal court proceedings - on video - that prove beyond any doubt that Chemtrails are NOT a "conspiracy theory". As proof I attach just one piece of footage from a court proceeding in Shasta County, California, and from the distant 2014!!!! Here is the YouTube title (I cabn't post the luink... how very convenient!). It's called: "Pilots, Doctors & Scientists Tell Truth about Chemtrails [Excerpts]".

This fact by itself proves that Wikipedia is unreliable, unprofessional, purposely false and misleading, and I won't contribute one more syllable to it, as I won't be an accomplice of yours in spreading falsehoods... and - also - that is your loss, naturally...

I hope you read this and hopefully learn something in the process. I apologize for any possible mistakes, misspellings, etc.. but I just don't have time for this. Sorry. Thank you.

Regards, R