User talk:SuperGirl

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

SuperGirl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reasons cited by Peta for why I was blocked are that two other accounts "edit a common pool of articles" as well as inserting a "100 incorrect image licenses." Also is it stated that these two other accounts participated on my side of a CfD debate way back in October 2006. My reply: (i) I checked if we really edit a common pools of articles. Comparing histories shows different edit habits, dates, and articles. There is subject overlap as all three users seem to have interest in science bios. (ii) The CfD relates to a category that science bio writers mostly like. It was the non-bio writers voting against. Also it should be no surprise to find three accounts that agree, given the vote was 27 keep and 13 delete. Also it was one CfD 6 months ago. Simple statistics 101 tells us that one CfD is not significant:-) (iii) Where are these 100 claimed wrong image licenses? I know nothing about this. The first message I got from Peta on image license problems is the day before I was blocked (see her message and my reply by scrolling down). As you can see it is a vague message with no specifics. It is possible I have tagged some licenses incorrectly, but why doesn't Peta's message simply tell me what to do so I can correct it? I feel this blocking episode is a result of a rather 'trigger happy' set of conclusions that were jumped to.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The reasons cited by [[User:PDH|Peta]] for why I was blocked are that two other accounts "edit a common pool of articles" as well as inserting a "100 incorrect image licenses." Also is it stated that these two other accounts participated on my side of a CfD debate way back in October 2006. My reply: (i) I checked if we really edit a common pools of articles. Comparing histories shows different edit habits, dates, and articles. There is subject overlap as all three users seem to have interest in science bios. (ii) The CfD relates to a category that science bio writers mostly like. It was the non-bio writers voting against. Also it should be no surprise to find three accounts that agree, given the vote was 27 keep and 13 delete. Also it was one CfD 6 months ago. Simple statistics 101 tells us that one CfD is not significant:-) (iii) Where are these 100 claimed wrong image licenses? I know nothing about this. The first message I got from [[User:PDH|Peta]] on image license problems is the day before I was blocked (see her message and my reply by scrolling down). As you can see it is a vague message with no specifics. It is possible I have tagged some licenses incorrectly, but why doesn't [[User:PDH|Peta]]'s message simply tell me what to do so I can correct it? I feel this blocking episode is a result of a rather 'trigger happy' set of conclusions that were jumped to. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=The reasons cited by [[User:PDH|Peta]] for why I was blocked are that two other accounts "edit a common pool of articles" as well as inserting a "100 incorrect image licenses." Also is it stated that these two other accounts participated on my side of a CfD debate way back in October 2006. My reply: (i) I checked if we really edit a common pools of articles. Comparing histories shows different edit habits, dates, and articles. There is subject overlap as all three users seem to have interest in science bios. (ii) The CfD relates to a category that science bio writers mostly like. It was the non-bio writers voting against. Also it should be no surprise to find three accounts that agree, given the vote was 27 keep and 13 delete. Also it was one CfD 6 months ago. Simple statistics 101 tells us that one CfD is not significant:-) (iii) Where are these 100 claimed wrong image licenses? I know nothing about this. The first message I got from [[User:PDH|Peta]] on image license problems is the day before I was blocked (see her message and my reply by scrolling down). As you can see it is a vague message with no specifics. It is possible I have tagged some licenses incorrectly, but why doesn't [[User:PDH|Peta]]'s message simply tell me what to do so I can correct it? I feel this blocking episode is a result of a rather 'trigger happy' set of conclusions that were jumped to. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=The reasons cited by [[User:PDH|Peta]] for why I was blocked are that two other accounts "edit a common pool of articles" as well as inserting a "100 incorrect image licenses." Also is it stated that these two other accounts participated on my side of a CfD debate way back in October 2006. My reply: (i) I checked if we really edit a common pools of articles. Comparing histories shows different edit habits, dates, and articles. There is subject overlap as all three users seem to have interest in science bios. (ii) The CfD relates to a category that science bio writers mostly like. It was the non-bio writers voting against. Also it should be no surprise to find three accounts that agree, given the vote was 27 keep and 13 delete. Also it was one CfD 6 months ago. Simple statistics 101 tells us that one CfD is not significant:-) (iii) Where are these 100 claimed wrong image licenses? I know nothing about this. The first message I got from [[User:PDH|Peta]] on image license problems is the day before I was blocked (see her message and my reply by scrolling down). As you can see it is a vague message with no specifics. It is possible I have tagged some licenses incorrectly, but why doesn't [[User:PDH|Peta]]'s message simply tell me what to do so I can correct it? I feel this blocking episode is a result of a rather 'trigger happy' set of conclusions that were jumped to. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Welcome, SuperGirl!

Welcome to our community!

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Policies, guidelines, and rules (have fun, but watch out for these, as well!)
• How to edit a page and write a great article
• A handy tutorial, and a picture tutorial
• Writing well
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 13:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Erdos Number CfD

At Least there are some people around who are sensible like you. LW77 23:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Scientist

I urge you to stop sticking in those Infoboxes. There is a lot of opposition to it as is obvious from the recent discussion on the Template:Infobox_Scientist . The result of the debate was no consensous. To keep sticking in those infoboxes, and ignore all those Wikipedians who are opposed to it is inappropriate, even disruptive. I would suggest that you make some constructive contributions instead, by writing some state-of-the-art biographies. JdH 12:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Hi SuperGirl. Just wanted to drop you a note about using edit summaries. It is customary when making edits to leave an edit summary explaining the edit. This makes it easier for editors who may be watching the article or reviewing its history to know what your changes entail without having to review them all in detail. You may want to read over Help:Edit summary for more information. Hope to see you around. Kaldari 00:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Conway

I'm not saying that the replacement is good(i suspect that they cut it from a larger photo).But the replacement is PD.Well i guess we can argue that the replacement is not very showing and thus fair use still apply s for the old one.Do what you want.Whatever you do ,do it before the 13,because fair use images are deleted 1 week after they have been orphaned.--Pixel ;-) 12:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ginsburg Vitaliy Lazarevich.jpg

Hi! I'm not sure about current enwiki rules, but is it possible for the picture to be under fair use and creative commons attribution-sharealike licenses simultaneously? As far as I understand, if the picture is copyrighted, and copyright owner doesn't permit it's redistribution under CC, it can't be under CC license. And if it's under CC, it doesn't need fair use to use in wiki. Ilya Voyager 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Preview your edits

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --cj | talk 18:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

image size

Many of the images you are enlarging are natively smaller than the size you are specifying, resulting in ugly pixelation.--ragesoss 15:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Jonas_Salk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jonas_Salk.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ginsburg Vitaliy Lazarevich.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ginsburg Vitaliy Lazarevich.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion 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:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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 this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Abu badali ^(talk) 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

Could you be a little more explicit in your edit summaries? While I appreciate your restoring the See Also section back, it took forever to find where it had been removed. By that point, I'd seen so many unhelpful edit summaries I was rather upset. An edit summary of "rm some" (another editor's) is about as helpful as a random scream in the dark, and as unnerving.

I guess I can understand why you could characterize this as vandalism. I wonder if that editor has ever read Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Good grief, is this torture Albert Einstein month? (suitably stretched out over time, as it were ;-) Shenme 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, to some extent I was venting, after seeing all those other edit summaries which were near useless. After finding the actual edit that removed the see also section, I repeated my implied criticism of the person who removed it as unnecessary, in my note on the talk page. I've been told it is 'bad' to label another editor's good faith edit as 'vandalism', which is part of why I looked for the edit. However, it is _hard_ to diffentiate between vandalism and a truly bad edit. :( Shenme 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Image uploads

You cannot apply a creative commons license to a public domain to a domain image; and most of the images you are uploading have nothing from their source to indicate that they are infact public domai. Please don't make false copyright claims. --Peta 23:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Peta, Pls can you be a little more specific? Most of the pics I have uploaded are where the author died >70yrs ago. Are you talking about those ones in particular or the few others? For the PD-old-70 photos, I've been using "Creative Commons 2.5." If that is the incorrect one to select, please can you advise me which is the best choice for PD-old-70 stuff.SuperGirl 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GeorgeEllis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GeorgeEllis.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)