User talk:Damaster98: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:08, 28 March 2007

Welcome!

Hello Pikablu0530! Welcome to Wikipedia! Below are some excellent guidelines to help you get started with the greatest encyclopedia on Earth. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Again, please feel free to talk to me if you need help with anything at all. Best of luck and have fun editing! Happy editing! Safemariner 03:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Windows Live Book Search

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Windows Live Book Search. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page is now redirected to Windows Live Search Books Pikablu0530 13:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Windows_Live_Toolbar_logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Windows_Live_Toolbar_logo.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image 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 '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 fair use images lacking such an explanation 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. ↔NMajdan•talk 13:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Fair use rationale for the image Pikablu0530 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Windows_Live_OneCare_logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Windows_Live_OneCare_logo.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image 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 '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 fair use images lacking such an explanation 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. ↔NMajdan•talk 13:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Fair use rationale for the image Pikablu0530 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Live Search Merge

Hi there, I have put forward an idea of merging the Windows Live Search pages. Please give your opinion on the talk page [1]. Many thanks... --A Cornish Pasty 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion

I nominated an article that you created, Windows Live WiFi Center, for deletion. If you think that the article is salvageable, or that I'm mistaken, please comment on its deletion page. Please see the Guide to deletion if you have any questions about Wikipedia's deletion process. -- ~~~~ --A Cornish Pasty 11:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Windows Live WiFi Center

An editor has nominated Windows Live WiFi Center, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Live WiFi Center and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Production Studio Merge

A little confused about this, they originally existed as separate apps/suites and so should remain as separate articles. A better solution, and correct me if i'm wrong, would surely to have simply written a section mentioning the two suites becoming one in CS3, and leaving it at that until the thing had happened? Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 15:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm reading the original article (should I emphasise, stub), it mentions that the official name of Production Studio is "Adobe Creative Suite Production Studio", so technically it is part of "Creative Suite" as well. So my logic is to have a section in the Adobe Creative Suite article for Production Studio (which no longer exist anymore after CS3 is announced). And in reply to your suggestion of leaving it at that until the thing had happened, Adobe CS3 is being announced TODAY - which is why I have decided to merge the articles today. Also there isn't much history about the Production Studio as a suite anyways for the article to remain - it would make sense to merge them right? Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks! Pikablu0530 23:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did some research and here is what it says on the official website: Bring new power and efficiency to your film, video, DVD, and web workflows with Adobe® Production Studio Premium software. Part of the Adobe Creative Suite family, this complete audio and video post-production solution...

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Windows Live Local; Network Neighborhood; Mount Colah, New South Wales; Explore2fs; Sootopolis City; Forest Glen, New South Wales; Media Player; Conquercam; Flying Windows; Whirl Islands; Windows Desktop Update; Berrilee, New South Wales; Verdanturf Town; Berowra Heights, New South Wales; Mount Kuring-gai railway station, Sydney; Berowra railway station, Sydney; Windows Desktop Search; Olympic Park railway line, Sydney; Asquith railway station, Sydney

Cleanup: Mini PE; List of instant messaging protocols; Mossdeep City
Merge: Wagga Wagga, New South Wales; Development stage; RealPlayer
Add Sources: Froogle; Seafoam Islands; Xbox Live
Wikify: Gigi Lai; The Secret Lives of Waldo Kitty; Cork GAA
Expand: BearShare; IRIX; Windows Workflow Foundation

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 08:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epping Station

A verifiable source is one that people can look up, like a report or a plan. You need that sort of thing to verify the platform numbering if it isn't obvious as it is on other railway stations. If you get the report and it cites that, I won't object to that information being there. But otherwise, it needs a verifiable source. A picture might suggest that the platforms will be numbered that way, but it is not definitive - although you could place it on WP with a suggestion that the platforms will be numbered this way. JRG 09:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is a photograph of the Platform numbers taken at the station itself not definitive? May I ask which accessible documentation states that Epping Station has three platforms and cited on the article? Or that the bus services listed is verifiable in a report or plan?

We are talking about a real infrastructure that exists and accessible by the public. Not everything needs to be written on paper you know. If you really doubt my photograph - why not verify it at the station? It is publicly accessible. And even when the construction completes, how will you "verify" the new platform numbers if they are not documented on a report or plan that is accessible by public? Pikablu0530 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 168: / Line 168: @@
 A verifiable source is one that people can look up, like a report or a plan. You need that sort of thing to verify the platform numbering if it isn't obvious as it is on other railway stations. If you get the report and it cites that, I won't object to that information being there. But otherwise, it needs a verifiable source. A picture might suggest that the platforms will be numbered that way, but it is not definitive - although you could place it on WP with a '''suggestion''' that the platforms will be numbered this way. [[User:JRG|JRG]] 09:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
+[[Image:Epping Platform 5 and 6 sign.jpg|300px|thumb|Platforms 5 & 6 at Epping Station]]
+::How is a photograph of the Platform numbers taken at the station itself not '''definitive'''? May I ask which accessible documentation states that Epping Station has three platforms and cited on the article? Or that the bus services listed is verifiable in a report or plan?
+::We are talking about a real infrastructure that exists and accessible by the public. Not everything needs to be written on paper you know. If you really doubt my photograph - why not verify it at the station? It is publicly accessible. And even when the construction completes, how will you "verify" the new platform numbers if they are not documented on a report or plan that is accessible by public? [[User:Pikablu0530|Pikablu0530]] 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)