User talk:Donald Guy

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Donald Guy! 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, cohesion★talk 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Image Tagging Image:Keggy.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Keggy.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media 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 media, 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. Thank you. Longhair 09:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have sourced, tagged, and rationale(-ed) it. The grounds are a little shaky. I believe it to be fair use, if you dissagree go ahead and delete it --Phoenix9 04:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikiality redirect

I think your suggestion that wikiality be redirected to the List of The Colbert Report episodes is quite sensible, and so I've been bold and redirected it there. (I wanted to tell you directly rather than have this get lost in the blur of conversation on that page.) Cheers, JDoorj a m Talk 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L'Amour Toujours music video version used

I happened to come across this edit you made four months ago and I figured I would try to give you some info since I've done research on Gigi D'Agostino's releases.

It's actually not from the Tecno Fes version, but rather is its own radio edit called the "Small Mix", which is the "L'Amour Vision" with a few minutes in the beginning cut off. The Tecno Fes version and the "L'Amour Vision" are almost identical up until the start of the "Small Mix", at which point the Tecno Fes version goes off and has an instrumental part similar to the "Small Mix"'s beginning and ends a minute later while the "L'Amour Vision" actually contains all of the "Small Mix".

Hope that helps, ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Echo Screen Euphoria cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Echo Screen Euphoria cover.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 00:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Not constructive, a lot of your additions constitute original research and are unsourced. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with a full reversion; your objection seems in my view to apply fairly exclusively to this passage of my edit:

posing a facetious rhetorical question (erotesis) to the listener in which the suggestion of an absurd overall etiology acts as holonym to dismiss the credibility of a self-concept which downplays or disregards actual communal, familial, & cultural etiology and interdependence.

I would call this more plain clarifying description than original research, but I think reasonable minds can differ about that

---

I however feel that my revision to the lede (as well as the re-structuring of the section containing the potentially-OR passage) was a meaningful improvement/constructive (if open to some re-wording/copyediting) and as well sourced as what it was replacing (a point that follows somewhat by how it contained a net +2 of references) Donald Guy (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]