User talk:Faedra: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:40, 4 April 2024

Wikipedia the free lunch.

How often in life do you get anything for nothing is the question raised in this item.

Seldom, must be the answer, unless you are very fortunate or have some legal claim. A good example of the something for nothing culture has evolved into the Wikipedia free encyclopaedia.

Yes, it has been stated that any individual surfing the net, may freely copy a wikipedia article, but you can copy just about anything from the WWW, and once it has been de compiled and re associated with other material, it is difficult to really claim any previous copyright to have been violated.

I have copied many pages from Wikipedia, read them, and asked myself what have I gained, very little in fact, given the public access to original material available to any interested party in the modern world. Further as a contributor for several months having provided over 100 original pages, I find I have gained even less. A considerable amount of effort has to be put into into compiling an objective, accurate and useful article for any encyclopaedia, and the satisfaction from such effort does not come from seeing it at Wikipedia, or even on the web, but in fact from the effort stated.

Wikipedia has such a weak grip on its own content, having chosen to assimilate its content under the form of the GNU, that its material is redistributed by numerous other agents, many of whom seem to be providing a useful service to the educational establishment, the instrument of its downfall seems most likely in that it states itself to be a community. As such it is flawed, and heading for problems. Many authors initially happy to contribute to Wikipedia, have indicated that feel the 'community' a bunch of arrogant pirates, and full of their own self importance, (it is widely recognised how this behaviour is self defeating). This however is not the problem with the legality of the GNU, in the context of Wikipedia.

Whilst a statement exists on all pages that any contribution is licenced under the GNU, no method of obtaining a verification of this proposition is presented to the beginner. Whilst a simple javascript could be employed, it can not be back dated. I will, if compelled therefore challenge the Wikipedia GNU and present my 'wikified' texts to an independent publisher, with the intention of exposing this absurd proposition, a form of free licensing aimed at escaping responsibility, and duty of care for intellectual property.

I am not easily upset by genuine critism, but will not tollerate arrogance. Thousands of websites are available for those inclined to upload material of any sort, the math does not add up, when it is considered objectively, Wikipedia is rotten from the inside, and this is only noticeable after some experience with its methods of utilising the good will of its users. It remains potentially a valued resource for education, but is criticised for exploiting its members, beyond reasonable cause. If it is ever to evolve into a useful institution major reforms are required.

My first interest in the website manifest when I discovered that it was possible to make direct edits to existing pages, and encouraged by the advise, and warnings about responsibility whilst so doing I begun to take an active part in the program. However I soon noticed how very few people actually have anything of merit to contribute, and how most changes are simple at best, or just useful corrections made at random, by readers, in passing.

Whilst I am content to allow my contributions to be edited beyond recognition I have noticed that the main preoccupation of many 'Wikipedians' seems to be in spending time criticising work submitted, without taking the appropriate amount of time to make any alterations they might deem required, and this I find a mark of gross ignorance. I can find fault in just about anything if I wish to be negative, but this freedom does not give me the right to assume I am correct.

I am not so preoccupied that I fail to notice failings around this website, and wish them to be addressed. I am not bothered if my contributions are unwelcomed but would appreciate it if someone would tell me so. I thought perhaps some one might appreciate my imput, but it is not compulsion.

I concede readily however that many Wikipedians are exceptional people with rare talents and congratulate them for their efforts.

The kind of opinion that indicates arrogance and self importance, to be avioded in a public forum:

An implacable command states that you the user must obey at all times all the guidelines and agreed conventions that other people have gone to the trouble to create.

No such file from Fester.

Of related interest:

Lord Warden

No problem. It's always nice to see people with an interest in British history here. Proteus (Talk) 08:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleted pages

Hi. The page Early National Socialism/draft was deleted several months ago by a consensus vote. You "reconstructed" this deleted page and put it back on wikipedia as European National Socialism. Please do not resurrect pages that have been deleted without first conducting a vote to "undelete" the article. Please see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Early_National_Socialism/draft for the earlier debate on why that page was inappropriate for wikipedia. AndyL 16:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I have also contributed alot to this site but what unnerves me is the constant editing and the slanting of articles that approximate censorship. A particular fellow runs after me editing and censoring a certain author I use. He is deleting all reference to him. I do a lot of research only to find that it is clearly deleted and thrown over. It doesn't make for an enjoyable time. It is sometimes worthless to try. I feel your pain on your other points as well.WHEELER 17:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In many ways I do agree with you. I often smile when I consider the votes for deletion, which many take awfully seriously, forgetting, it seems, that just anyone can sign up and have a vote! It's quite arbitrary who bothers. You are also very right that there is relatively little construction to match the deconstruction, because so much effort is put into little things. However, perhaps you should take into account that the contributors are very keen and the process rather addictive and perhaps this is the best outlet they could find for their urge to get involved. I noted your frustration with the rules lawyers that have a grip on the place. You just have to shrug that off. There are always going to be people who rather than try to convince you they are right will appeal to "the guidelines", forgetting the spirit that they are intended to represent and making out they are inscribed in stone. But that is not everyone here. I'm sure there are many who will engage in constructive debate. I hope you will not be discouraged and will continue to contribute.Dr Zen 07:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Dixieladye

Hi. I notice you are back, using the name User:Dixieladye. Let's hope for a better result this time. Deb 19:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Blue-Circle Barge, Thames Barge Race at Gravesend.Gif

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Blue-Circle Barge, Thames Barge Race at Gravesend.Gif. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:10, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hoo Peninsula

Hi Faedra, wanted to ask a few things about this article, on which you did all the spadework, but looks like you've thrown in the towel. Just on the off-chance you may still be looking/caring...

I've started a separate article for Cooling, Kent (before working out who to contact), as it was such a large section in Hoo. Plan is to keep brief descrip in Hoo, with x-ref to main Cooling article. Hope this OK with you.

Kingsnorth power station (Isle of Grain): are you sure about the dates of 1948 and 1953 for building and start-up? I have a CEGB visitor's guide to Kingsnorth which gives 1963 and 1967.

The original text seems to give the B2003 as the road to Cliffe, thru Cliffe Woods. Unless it's changed recently, shouldn't that be the B2000?

I'm loathe to change stuff when I don't understand _why_ it seems inaccurate - but you don't ref your work, so it's kinda hard to check your sources against mine (and I'm from Cliffe, so agree that I am likely to be 'arrogant' about my level of info over yours here ...)

I'm sorry if you've really given up on Wiki - I for one will miss your contributions... JackyR 19:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Allhallows-on-Sea_sunset.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Allhallows-on-Sea_sunset.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. 11:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Holburn_family_Crest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Holburn_family_Crest.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Planet-Thanet-CM_BadgeNo7_released_to_wikipedia.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Planet-Thanet-CM_BadgeNo7_released_to_wikipedia.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. Iamunknown 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ramsgate_beach_in_winter.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ramsgate_beach_in_winter.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. Iamunknown 01:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Upper_Stoke_Church.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Upper_Stoke_Church.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. Iamunknown 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reculver_towers-Kent.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Reculver_towers-Kent.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. Iamunknown 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dealbeach.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dealbeach.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. Iamunknown 02:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bleak_house_bradstowe.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bleak_house_bradstowe.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. Iamunknown 02:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Broadstairs_Harbour.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Broadstairs_Harbour.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. Iamunknown 02:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Northwode

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Roger Northwode, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Addhoc 16:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of James Holburne

An article that you have been involved in editing, James Holburne, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Holburne. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Pastordavid (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:No such file.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:No such file.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withington

Did you author the page for Lothrop Withington? Just wondering where you came about this information? Thanks! JWithing (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider

I see that you are no longer an editor at Wikipedia. I am sorry to discover this as I have just read the excellent article you created on Humphrey de Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford. I am impressed with the attention to detail and sheer amount of information which is contained inside the page. The map provided is useful as is the image in the infobox-in short, it is a wonderful article that you can take pride in, and indeed all of us here at Wikipedia. Humphrey de Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford is the kind of article that refutes the popular notion that we are all a bunch of amateurs. I will conclude with one final comment: Faedra, Wikipedia needs more editors like you. Please come back.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:CrazyRomans-Politantric-stonehenge logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CrazyRomans-Politantric-stonehenge logo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John de Sutton V

The article John de Sutton V has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

lack of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Agricolae (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aubi Faedra-(1984).jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Aubi Faedra-(1984).jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aubi Faedra-(1984).jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aubi Faedra-(1984).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Lionel Lukin

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Lionel Lukin, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://arthurmicklethwaite.htmlplanet.com/boatmans_tales_by_S_Holbourn/Boatmans_tales_original_lifeboat_story.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Lionel Lukin and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Lionel Lukin, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Lionel Lukin. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Lionel Lukin with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Lionel Lukin saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Richard Hoborn

The article Richard Hoborn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8: apparently non-notable, unreferenced since 2004, no reliable source found, seems to have been created as part of someone's personal family history (NB: there appears to have been a shipwright called Richard Holborn in the 16th century)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dudleytown, Connecticut for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dudleytown, Connecticut is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudleytown, Connecticut until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Qwirkle (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robert Holborn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Holborn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Holborn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]