User talk:Shift6
Feel free to post comments to me here. Thanks.
Minor edits on "Nigger"
Pretty good job. Definitely improved things. Lou Sander 12:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
|
On January 24, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Chick, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 17 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dallas Theological Seminary, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--Majorly (o rly?) 17:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Lewis Sperry Chafer
|
|
On 11 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lewis Sperry Chafer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--Wizardman 02:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Kiefer Sutherland
Hi, I saw you added a non-free image of Kiefer Sutherland to the infobox of the article. You stated per Wikipedia:Publicity photos. That page however is only an essay and goes against our non-free content policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- It depends on the article and the context in the article to see if the non-free image passes the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Look at criteria #1. It is possible to get a free image of Kiefer Sutherland. It's not possible to get one of Jack Bauer. Although personally I think it actually is possible since they look alike (duh, some actor) and he's not wearing special clothes or uses special make-up etc. But consensus seems to disagree with me on that. Either way, the point is now moot on the Kiefer Sutherland article since there is a free content image now. Garion96 (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Becoming jaded and removing original research/unsourced content
I am replying here because this has more to do with my wikipedia philosophy and editing practices than it does with article content. This is in reply to your last paragraph. I did not intent to offend. While you may be sick of deletion of good faith edits, I am sick of people (not you) thinking they can just put their own views in wikipedia without a citation. If something seems plausible and helps the article, I will fact tag, but more and more I have become jaded. Fact tagged material sits in articles for way too long, and drop in editors frequently add unsourced, original research and are never to be heard from again. More and more lately, because of these experiences, I have just been reverting new content that doesn't meet fundamental wikipedia policies and guidelines (and I know I am not the only one). If the editor seriously wants the content to be included, they can add sources, bring it up to standards, and if necessary, talk things out on the talk page, thus resulting in content that isn't in a "rough draft" form sitting in the article because the original editor didn't have the time or mind to properly cite and format content according to policies. Again, this is my jaded self speaking, and I am not referring to you, so please don't take offense. In this situation, I saw minority views being added without qualification along with what seemed like personal commentary, and all this without a single citation, so I reverted on sight. Sure you did it in good faith, but also editors who add their own personal interpretations to number of the beast are also acting in good faith (that content is even more inappropriate there than what you added). But since you a seriously concerned about the content you added (which is saying a lot more than most of these situations I encounter) we are here making progress and talking things out. I also believe in the WP:BRD cycle. If someone makes a controversial edit, it's ok if it gets reverted, because it leads to talk page discussion and the article being improved in the long run (plus, multiple editors can collaborate and work towards a consensus version that is much stronger than a single editor's contribution). So I guess in conclusion here, try not to be too offended if you get reverted for making a significant edit, and you can cut down on the amount of content that gets reverted if you always remember to cite sources and try to leave out stuff that sounds like personal interpretation. Again, I apologize if my initial revert seems drastic, but I'm glad we are making progress. (I'll also try to keep reminding myself that sometimes it's better to improve edits and add tags than it is to revert). I'll reply to your content back on the article talk page.-Andrew c [talk] 18:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:Kimfisher_zeds.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kimfisher_zeds.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. Garion96 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
