User talk:H2g2bob/Archive 2

165:. There is no stated connection between the two. Furthermore, ensceptico makes no assertion on his/her Flickr pages (that I saw, at least) that s/he owned the uploaded images. (I've often seen claims that someone has "created" an image when all they've done is taken an image they don't own and cropped or otherwise modified it.) I don't mean to cast aspersions on your effort. But given the widespread uploading of unowned images by folks who find the unapproved use of copyrighted material perfectly okay, despite its illegality, it is very important for uploaders to make their ownership of any images explicit if they are asserting a right to release it under CCL or GFDL. If you are the owner, and you are "ensceptico", you should state this clearly in the Wikimedia description page. (Actually, we don't really care if you are "ensceptico". If the Flickr user doesn't claim ownership, that's their problem. Knowledge is only interested in whether our "H2g2bob" asserts ownership. It would be helpful, however, to say how you came to own this image, in case any questions come up. See 640:

criteria (as described in my email) every bit as much as other links cited. The pages linked to provide value for members of the theatre community who would be researching shows they plan to audition for or produce. I wish to discuss this with you further if you disagree, and resolve this between us (per Knowledge guidelines on resolving disputes) rather than having to involve others in resolving this dispute. I would add that if these links are not allowed, then other links of equivalent types shouldn't either, and frankly loss of the links of similar value to those I have added would be a disservice to members of the theatre community wanting to research shows they plan to audition for or produce.

1326: 1225: 956: 824: 1011: 38:

the courses you've taken? If you do ... congratulations! 2) I recall that mathematical formulae can not be "copyrighted"... 3) I believe the true spirit of MIT OCW is to disseminate knowledge and this is also what I believe Knowledge stands for. I am pretty sure that Dr. Mattuck had similar intentions when he agreed on recording his course. There will definitely be PROBLEMS in disseminating the knoweledge but let's not fix what ain't broke. I gave credit where it was due...

1489:

about this problem, she mentioned that there's a possibility that Percipacite is a disgruntled audience member from a forum she held, and after looking through his other works on Knowledge, it seems to fit. Every other piece he has worked on has to do with Zimbabwe, with non of it dealing with medieval or contemporary Islamic philosophers. I've already had to revert the site back to your edits. Thanks again, I hope we can get this resolved, he seems persistent.

453:

dealing with rolling tobacco to add an advertising slant towards HBI. I also believe he is the same user: Stredler that has harassed me on my own talk page here on wikipedia. He is an HBI shill, I am almost certain. You can see that his very first contributions were to add the HBI International page to Knowledge, as well as other pages for their products (RAW, Juicy Jay), while also slandering competing brands. What action should I take in this situation?

373: 433:

everything together. These claims are published in New Scientist and perhaps other journals, without any real checks. The publication of these claims undermine other recently published articles from other people within the field and also undermine ongoing research by others. Maybe this is not the most appropriate analogy, but the best I can think off.

463:

write about Camel to my hearts content within Wiki guidelines, which I do follow. Please stop slandering me, stop vandalising pages and stop your over-the-top mannerism. Wiki is a place to share information and not for you to settle grievances. You should not have any grevience with me? I'm just a writer! --

1387: 671:

I believe you should remove your objection as the external links added provide value to individuals researching shows they may want to audition for as well as learning more about the show in preparing to produce it, especially by reading reviews and other material that may assist them in putting on a

549:

And there is a lot more out there too. I think the problem is "Esparto" which causes like "Esparto gas" which is possibly filled with toxins. I've never heard of anyone using Esparto in their paper before. Usually it's flax, hemp, rice, and pulp. Here is something from 1996 in Spain that says Esparto

481:

are that he's been taking advantage of the media and is commiting fraud, claiming he's rich and selling advertisements with this reputation, even though he hasn't got these listeners. I'm sure you'll understand our frustration when people start writing good things about him on Knowledge. I'd do a bit

462:

The page was blanked because you wrote a personal attack. You are making these false accusations above and then really writing sort of insane comments on my and other pages. Please calm down and stop your attacks. I do not work for HBI as I explained. I do not work for RJ anymore and I can therefore

424:

Well new information has come to light from reliable 3rd party sources which are verifiable. This information looks at the confusion over Ryan's dob. In the original article, that was pulled and archived, it was claimed by some that his age was 17 because his dob was March 1990. This dob has now been

349:

Hey. Here's a symbol. If you want to show support, put it on your user page or keep it on your talk page; if we get it on enough pages, it might just count for something. Please remove it if you don't want to show it. And if you've got a better picture, be my guest and use it. I'm open to suggestions

37:

1) If you look at the material presented by the author and at what I wrote in the article they clearly differ. It is as if I put up MY notes from Dr. Mattuck's lecture. I am not sure who has the copyright on these notes... Are you giving credit to all the profesors' material you've been taught in all

717:

I'm taking a good look at the references to the section. The only things I can't find in the references is the "FTC press released dated January 16th, 2003" and any reference to "spam", so I'll remove them.The second paragraph is mostly a direct quote from a court document. The section could do with

264:

Thanks for adding the previous AfDs box (and, for that matter, your reformatting of the nom to make it compliant initially...) I almost had it, borrowing the template used in the Stokke nom, but couldn't quite get it to format right (and certainly not going to hit save page in those circumstances.)

1488:

Thanks for your help so far with the Sonn bio page. I'm sorry if I seem belligerent, but if you look at the history of edits, it becomes apparent that this is an ongoing, frustrating battle with Percipacite, initiated by Dr Sonn and her Colleagues at The College of W&M. When I spoke to Dr. Sonn

556:

According to the articles they were actually sentanced to up to 4 years in Jail but have appealed it. I have not seen nor heard anything regarding the status of the appeal. I think they are trying to keep it all hush hush now perhaps. I've emailed them a few times asking for info with no reply. I

1308:

Yes, you are probably right. It looked like a good faith edit, but the fact that the anonymous user had not made any other contributions at the time probably made me overly sensitive. My main concerns were (a) the removal of valid text, and (b) changing the text to make is seem as if atheists were

1136:

Thank you for clarifying what happened regarding the edits on these artists' pages. I, too, apologize if I came across rude. I can see how the type of vandalism you describe must happen all the time, so from your perspective, I might just as easily have jumped to the same conclusion. Thanks again!

667:

2) Sites with content that is not practical to list on Knowledge. The pages being linked to specifically include announcements submitted of auditions for the shows listed. It is not practical for audition announcements to be statically added to Knowledge and then deleted as they pass. The pages

653:

You indicated that links I have added do not comply with the Knowledge guidelines for external links. I VERY STRONGLY disagree. Knowledge articles on plays and movies specifically contian links to other sites that have further information or consolidaiton of information on those plays or movies.

417:

Hi, in the "why so positive" section of the discussion pages of Hitz Radio, you said, "It's positive because Knowledge only allows reliable sources, which doesn't include blogs or forums. While the blogs may be true, anyone can write a blog, so it doesn't prove anything. I included a bit about the

325:

Thank you for your message back to me on this subject. I have re-written and edited the plot down as far as I think it can be at this time. (This is since your addition of the clean up tag) I have also been adding citations as quikly as I can. I have been pouring over media for several months, but

663:

The characteristic the guidelines cite include two key elements that specifically apply to the external links I have added: 1) Sites that provide additional content of value not present in Knowledge. For example, Stage Agent lists character vocal ranges. ThatTheatreSite.com lists for many shows

452:

Hi there, I noticed you blanked a page on which I was attempting to settle a grievance I had with user Mrtobacco. I am new to wikipedia and slowly learning its processes, but if you could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it. Mrtobacco has been deliberately editing contributions

502:

Do you mind if I put the developments text back on this main page? I don't know if you understand what it's about but that manufacturer makes lots of other brands (not just Bambu) so I wanted it on the main page for smokers to read about it and learn the facts. I know you might have seen some

639:

I have tried sending you an email disputing your claim that external links I added violated Knowledge guidelines. I have not seen a response. I include the message text below in case for some reason you are not reading email currently. I believe the links I added are appropriate and mee thte

315:

It has caused some conflict on the page. I researched the cleanup page and cannot locate it there. This page was recently cleaned up just a couple of months ago. Although the fan base of this movie does over edit the article, at this point it appears that people un-qualified to delete sections

432:

I will try and make the best possible comparison I can to your position within the field of science & physics. Imagine that an A-level or undergraduate Physics student claims to have found the 'God particle' and claims to know how it makes everything operate within the universe and 'ties'

1446: 169:

for how I did this.) This doesn't prevent folks from making false claims, but if we follow this basic requirement, we are at least doing due diligence to prevent copyright violations. Let me know if you have any questions about this, or about editing the description page. ~

265:

Odd that it's also hitting the 'briefs' noms (which I saw when I tried, and couldn't figure how to get rid of other than subst: and manual revision... and I wasn't going to try that either without knowing I could fix it.) Anyway, thanks for wielding the mop on that. :)

664:

character descriptions, as well as links to reviews, etc. Specifically, lists of reviews there grow over time, which makes listing many reviews on Knowledge impractical and contrary to guidelines as the number of external links would be larger than gyidelines suggest.

313:

After researching through the history of this article it appears that you have placed a "Wiki Clean-up tag" on the article "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". It does not appear that you are a Wiki Administrator, so I ask what qualifies you to place the tag? Why do I ask:

249:

I have actually been lurking around Knowledge for awhile now, but just now decided to register an account (so thankfully I am aware of some of the policies!) Anyways, it's really nice of you to take the time to give me a shout, and I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner!

287:

Actually... you do make a good point there... I'll let a few more people respond, then decide whether I should pull it down or not. I'm curious as to what you think should be done, the article does need a lot of work... I'm wondering whether it should be

308: 1401:

For thinking of the idea of introducing CSS classes to the map (or, at the least, refining the SVG code enough to make CSS editing easy) making the map way more versatile than it ever has been, and even easier to edit and use.

425:

verified as seen on the Companies House Certificate of Incorporation document. Since this area of comment and dispute is verified by reliable neutral sources, I hope that you will look at it and support that area of editorial.

1297:

I just reverted your last revert. I had removed edits which had deleted relevant and cited sections of the article, and changed the meaning of specific passages. Such changes should be discussed on the talk page first. --

1057: 428:

I have also commented on the discussion page as to why several things need to be verified. I've tried to make it sensible and as plain as possible for someone not connected with radio/media, like yourself, to understand.

145:, but I don't get why. You said in the summary there was "no assertion of ownership on image description page to validate claimed CC license". I was wondering what you meant by this - the image looks legit. Thanks -- 1038: 1020: 1032:

in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1071:

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on

326:

have decided to add internet sources untill I find print sources. I have re-moved the tag for now. Obviously it will only take time before it is needed again. Thank you for your support of the article. --

1005: 436:

Despite the 'bitchy' perception of the media in general, it is not uncommon for social scientists, scientists and physicists to argue theories and research findings. This is what may be happening here.

339: 330: 320: 399:

Hi I was adding to the content side of things etc. but seem to have made a mess of the referneces - if it could be restored back to the last version before I touched it that would be great. --

1218: 739: 1319: 1145:

I was researching Helium.com, attempting to find out of they were a scam site. Yours was the only relevant info I found on them, and it does seem you know what you're talking about.

856:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 600:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 1358:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 1257:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 988:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 949: 1331: 961: 817: 1354: