User talk:Nashferatu

Nash the Slash

Revealing personal information

In this edit you posted the real name (or what you claimed to be the real name) of a wikipedia editor who does not choose to edit under his real name, and who was neither the subject of the article nor a public figure. This violates wikipedia's normal practices,a dn i consider it highly disruptive. Do not do this or anythign like this again. A repetition will lead to your being blocked from editing wikipedia for a time. DES ^(talk) 22:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also Please remember our civility policy when debating issues on talk pages. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 22:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a claimed real name, I have met the person in question on Oct 28th 2000 at <info removed>. Plexus is <info removed> He is a performer himself who was a personal friend of Nash's for over 20 years. During this time he would have defended Nash from exposure of his real name with the same vigour as myself. Now they are not friends he tries to out him, and in doing so he wishes to retain his anonymity - this sucks whatever way you look at it. His alias is plastered all over the web together with his real name, but because it suits him, he does not want it published on the Nash The Slash discussion page !!!. I have lost all faith in the wiki concept, and to be frank I dont give a damn whether you ban me or not. User:Nashferatu 10:59 (GMT) 10 Nov 2005

(copied from User Talk:DESiegel): I disagree with your comments. In the article's discussion page you say, quote, I note that if an editor was also the subject of an article, information about that editor which can be found in the public domain may be included if relevant and appropriate, and that my statemetn did not apply to editors who are the subjects of articels, within those articles - unquote. The info I included was both relevant and in the public domain, about the editor in question. This guy was a former friend who was launching a personal attack. User:Nashferatu

Including in an article published encylopedic facts, such as the actual name of a performer, is not an attack. The editor's motives are irrelevant. The editor was not the subject of the article, so your desire to amke him the subject of the discussion on the article talk page is also irrelevant. I am sorry that you have "lost all faith in the wiki concept", and I hope you will reconsider, but if you do continue to post here please comply with our policies, and do not 1) attempt to suppress verifiable, publicly availalbe, relevant info about the subjects of articels; and 2) do not publicise the personal info of editors who are not the subjects of articles without their consent. DES ^(talk) 17:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see why this guys name is irrelevant - he has performed with Nash the Slash, but you say he has a right to privacy within the discussion, despite the fact that he is trying to name the articles subject. Sorry but that is pathetic, and I for one want no further part of this online sniggering and finger pointing fiasco. This is as low as paparazzi. User:Nashferatu

Image:Children-Book.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Children-Book.jpg, it has been tagged as fair use. Please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. Shyam ^(T/C) 15:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Children-Tray.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Children-Tray.jpg. It has been tagged as fair use. Please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. Thank you, Shyam ^(T/C) 15:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Nashcreepy4.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Nashcreepy4.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 01:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Nashclose.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nashclose.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Nash91.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nash91.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. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Nash9.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nash9.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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-en@wikimedia.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-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} 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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]