Jump to content

User talk:Hu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paul Barlow (talk | contribs) at 08:14, 14 April 2009 (DTR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you start a chat, talk, or discussion, or make comments here, I will respond here and not on some other talk page. Similarly, if I post on your talk page, I'd generally prefer to continue the conversation there. Thus, we can avoid incomprehensible disjointed threads spread over several pages.

Archive

Archives


1: 2005-11-10;
2: 2006-02-08;
3: 2006-11-15;
4: 2006-12-23;
5: 2007-12-02.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mount-Rushmore-High-On.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mount-Rushmore-High-On.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now provided yet more full and complete rationale for the fair use of this image by Wikipedia. Hu (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Helotes Park Terrace

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helotes Park Terrace

Can you think of why this article is notable? I'd help if I knew what to write. You made an edit to the article over a year ago. If you need time to work on it, give me a hint to what you want to do and I can withdraw the AFD.Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded in the AfD. Hu (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Brood

Thanks for the input on this article. Perhaps now, people will stop translating it! Greetings TINYMARK 01:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Babe Ruth-First Base.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Babe Ruth-First Base.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pretty-in-pink-cd.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Pretty-in-pink-cd.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._W._H._Abeyesundere.

I am sending you this as I am not sure how the "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag can be removed.

Since the tag was added more reference material has been listed to suffice the removal of the tag. I would appreciate your help in having it removed.

As I am not sure how to set about having this done, I am addressing this to you as you were one of those who edited the article sometime in 2007.

Given the fact that some of the events are several decades old the reference material listed is as much as is available with even the subject of the article being deceased. I have seen many articles with less reference material not having this tag attached to it.

Your help in getting this done is appreciated.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthInNews (talkcontribs) 10:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gabor-magyarposta.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gabor-magyarposta.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rosamond Street

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rosamond Street, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosamond Street. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Longhair\talk 07:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sighting

I have attempted to define WP:Sighting. Please feel free to improve or revert this change. I agree with you that, if we are going to discuss flagged revisions, we need this definition. Certes (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DTR

Thank you for your edits. Please consider: Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Paul B (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What template? I didn't use a template. Are you a regular? If so, then it is high time to preview, group, and summarize edits. Hu (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's high time you get off your high horse and read the link provided. It means don't patronise regular editors with platitudes. You used a set of mechanical cliches, which is the equivalent of a template. If you want to read the total changes of a group of edits it is very easy to do so. I often have difficuly copy-editing in edit space, so often only notice spelling errors and the like when posted. Because of the computer I use it is easy to lose edits is not posted quickly. I do not appreciate my talk page being stuffed with patronising comments. Paul B (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since your little homily is presented apropos of nothing, it's not even any use. Paul B (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]