User talk:PacifistPrime

Welcome!

Hello, PacifistPrime, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

The Wookieepedian 12:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Bashing and verifiability

I know you're new here, so I'm sorry if I haven't treated you more gently. Wikipedia:no original research is one of the most fundamental tenets of WP, and yes it does apply to fan culture. The nature of WP is that for anyone to be able to trust its information, an article must refer to outside sources. In that way, the reader knows that the facts are real and the article isn't a result of some guy fooling around 2 seconds before the reader reads the page.

I've been looking for a source that distinguishes or compares "Lucas Bashing" and "fan criticism"- did a google search, and I couldn't find one. That's my main issue with this article- when you say "Lucas Bashing is a separate phenomenon" and I say "it's just a more insulting term for fan criticism" it's basically your word against mine. I think you showed maturity by not going into what is called an Wikipedia:edit war- but verifiability is something that has to be insisted on. This is an encyclopedia after all.

You are right that articles on fan culture tend to bend or break the verifiability rule. Star Wars fans on WP tend to be more strict however through my experience because there tends to be a lot of published material on Star Wars canon and Star Wars fan culture that can be referred to. Plus we tend to be older and more mature than the Harry Potter guys for instance.

To solve this situation, we need to find a good source on all that material. Most of the material on the individual things that Lucas is bashed for is easily verifiable- the only problem is the word "Lucas Bashing" itself. If no source can be found, one way to resolve this problem is to do research on it yourself. You seem to be quite a good writer, maybe you could write and publish an editorial for a reputable popular fan site? (reputable, e.g. NOT supershadow). That would certainly do as a reference.

I hope you stick around as a Wikipedia contributor. Please feel free to reply on my talk page. Borisblue 14:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio image

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Image:Joleneblalock001.jpg, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! --Yamla 14:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Catherine_Bell_-o-02-1600.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Catherine_Bell_-o-02-1600.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 15:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Anne_hathaway_08.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Anne_hathaway_08.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then 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 want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.

GoryJarJar.jpg marked for deletion.

Image:GoryJarJar.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:GoryJarJar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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.

I apologize. No offense to you, I just feel that GJJ is gratuitous and unencyclopedic in the presence of the tamer picture. --Kitch 19:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:He-man_godskeletor.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:He-man_godskeletor.jpg. 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HemanvsSkeletorPoster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HemanvsSkeletorPoster.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 11:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:JarJarBeatin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JarJarBeatin.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith

A reference to the Marvel Comics Lilith is already on the Lilith page. Please don't re-add it without discussing it on the talk page. Danny Lilithborne 02:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:UltraMagnus.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:UltraMagnus.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:IncontinentInTenContinents.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IncontinentInTenContinents.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 03:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:HolographicDarthMaul.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HolographicDarthMaul.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. EEMeltonIV 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HolographicDarthMaul.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:HolographicDarthMaul.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --EEMIV (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Macbeth (2006 film) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. sinneed (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm I sympathize. I have had edits I could not source deleted repeatedly, and one particularly energetic editor warned me fiercely. I would say: find some way to cite a source, or just keep slogging, or give up. I gave up. I won't remove your edit again... but I must tell you that without a source it is vandal-hunter bait. I tried to find a source, but none popped up for me on short searching. All the best. Thank you for editing, and I am sorry my zap hit an edit you feel confidence about. sinneed (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought... you are the only one edit warring. Each editor has reversed you only once. sinneed (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]