User talk:Onorem/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

David Falk Pic?

Greetings. I'm still wondering if you can help me figure out whether a picture I've found of David Falk is acceptable to use in his article. I've posted the matter for discussion on a number of pages (the "David Falk" talk page, the "WikiProject National Basketball Association" talk page‎, and the "Copyrights/Can I use..." talk page), but still haven't gotten any response from anybody after a few weeks. I've pasted the same request I've made in these places below for your convenience. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated... I feel like the Falk article is easily GA by now, but it seems glaringly incomplete without a pic.

I'm looking for a photo of David Falk that I could use for this article. I've had my eye on one, but don't know if it's acceptable to use or not. I would appreciate it if someone could 1) tell me if the image I give below is acceptable (in which case upload and post it in the article, or inform me and I can do it), and 2) if this image is not acceptable to use, it would be great if someone could find an acceptable photo.

I found the pic in an article entitled "Falk meets with Sport Management and Law Students," posted on 10/10/2006. The article can be found at this address: <http://hshp.syr.edu/news.asp?id=329&type=archive>

The direct link to the image is: <http://hshp.syr.edu/images/Falk(1).jpg>

I'm wondering if it could fall into fair use since I can only find one other photo (via ESPN). I've tried using a number of free photo searches, including Flickr search, yotophoto.com, and fotosearch.com. An e-mail to the site's administrator asking for the image's release got no response.

Joseph Petek 05:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I hadn't responded until now. I actually did look at both of your questions before archiving my talk...I just forgot to note that I didn't have an answer for you before I archived it.

I'm definitely not a fair use expert around here, but I do know that it's tough to convince some of the people here that it's unreasonable to expect that a picture of any living person can be considered irreplaceable. I did try to find pictures myself, and I agree that there really isn't much out there. While I wouldn't revert or tag the image if you added it, I also wouldn't be able to argue very strongly against another editor if they decided that the image didn't qualify as fair use. Sorry that I'm of no use to you here. I'll continue trying to find a picture myself though. --OnoremDil 02:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Thanks anyway. I think I'm going to try e-mailing the webmaster at the site again and see if I can get a response this time. Joseph Petek 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem!

Twinkle's actually fun (when my computer hasn't slowed down to a crawl). That guy got his last warning, so you can get him blocked if he tries it again. Cheers!Freshacconci 12:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A message from Gideon72 (talk · contribs)

Dude, I'm thoroughly unimpressed with you. You don't seem to realise that Andy Gill IS the man, and by deleting the pages he writes you are becoming more of an unman than you already are. Please respond here. You're welcome-- The Janitor.

Thanks for your input. --OnoremDil 12:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Harvey's Point

Apologies, I was editing it at the same time as the tag went on, I got message about two edit's happening and when I re-saved it, it must have removed the tag. Thanks for your assistance Irishjp 15:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

STOP HIM

Then would you kindly remind him to leave my page alone? See my talk page's history. Squash Racket 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw your page's history. That's why I left the same message on his page. --OnoremDil 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

?

Then what are our talk pages for? It's not an e-mail. If I message other users, we should have a log to show our debates? Otherwise the page may be obsolete. I don't understand your plight. Squash Racket also keeps putting the messages on his talk page on my talk page. It's not a letter box either! Reginmund 23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's not on the page, it's still on the page history. There is no reason for you to revert if he decides to delete a message. --OnoremDil 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That was reaction to what you were doing for long you cheap liar (see page's history). You really made the mark today. Now STOP! Enough.Squash Racket 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Liar? I never lied about anything! Tell me what I lied about, please. Enlighten me! What page history also?

HE STARTED AGAIN! PLEASE SOMEHOW STOP HIM! Squash Racket 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put up a message you reverted before. I asked why you called me a liar. In fact, a cheap liar, which I think could be considered a personal attack. Reginmund 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When I asked you two to stop arguing on each other's pages, I didn't mean to start here.

There is nothing wrong with discussion between the two of you, but all you were doing was reverting each other without adding any new content to the discussion. It was worthless talk page edit warring. --OnoremDil 01:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to start a debate on an irrelevant user's page but Squash Racket is too sentimental for me to write on his user page. He kept dumping his talk page on mine and removing my messages. Reginmund 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

...which is why I suggested walking away for a bit. I thought it was fine that you reverted his edits when he dumped his page onto yours. I also thought it was fine that he removed your comments from his page. You were both participating in useless edit warring, and I'm frankly amazed that neither of you are blocked right now. --OnoremDil 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked on what violation? Edit warring? Maybe the one who is dumping fuel on the flames should consider that I actually cited my sources. Edit warring has more serious connotations. Reginmund 08:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is right or wrong has nothing to do with it. Reverting more than 3 times is supposed to lead to a block (WP:3RR). You reverted each other about 20 times on the article, then started reverting each other's talk pages once the article was locked. --OnoremDil 09:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not true, there are exceptions on vandalism and soapboxing that don't apply to the 3RR. Reginmund 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a simple content dispute, not vandalism or soapboxing. --OnoremDil 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point. Why would there be a reason to block? Reginmund 06:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The point of WP:3RR is to stop people from edit warring over simple content disputes. You were edit warring over a simple content dispute, but it really doesn't matter anymore now. --OnoremDil 10:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

True. The dispute is at consensus. Reginmund 07:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

David Amoo

Amoo's potential is not the only point I made. I also spoke about great fan interest from worldwide to montior every move their club makes and every players, big or small, they sign. I spoke of the money involved in football and maybe i should have added the money a footballer earns or even a youth team footballer earns as well as what fee is paid between the clubs. Liverpool would have paid at least £100 000 for Amoo to Millwall which is a minimum for compensations these days.The fee could rise up to £2 million. Amoo would be earning £400-8000 himself and there are artists and actors in this world in some countries who earn less than that.Even if you talk about potential, his potential would have been realised only days before he chose to switch to Liverpool because had he stayed he would have been part of the Millwall first team! (See what the Millwall manager says in the article and what I wrote on the talk page.)

Advert so you can delete it :)

no i want it to be an advert so you can delete it, cause that works apparently with other sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminoacid91 (talk • contribs)

Well, that's not going to work here. The article is fine now, and anything you do to create an advertisement will simply be reverted. If you decided to continue making edits to turn it into an advert, you would eventually be blocked, but the article would remain. --OnoremDil 20:25, 16 July 2007

Maurice Jay Wolin

Please explain why you removed a good chunk of my article on Maurice Jay Wolin. I was citing it as you erased it. Please don't be overzealous. That is not fair to the people putting the time into building up an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plesmond (talk • contribs)

I didn't remove any information from that article. Replied on your talk. --OnoremDil 15:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page, its much appreciated--Jac16888 12:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well well well

Perhaps you should have thought about the consequences of your actions before you annoyed me?

Prepare for punishment.

Krummy2 09:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! What will I do?! Thanks for the warning...now please stop vandalizing. --OnoremDil 09:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Audioslave article

Hi there!

I am currently working on the improvement of the Audioslave article, now about halfway done, I'm opting to make it a featured article, but that is a lot of work. It isn't visible on the article yet, I haven't saved any changes, I want to save the whole thing once, when it's complete. I'm not from an English speaking country, I'm from Hungary, so I'm not really good in writing, expressing my thoughts in English, or not on that sophisticated level the feature article criteria requires, but I try to do my best. So the reason I'm writing to you is that if you'd like to help me in any way, e.g. finding sources, references, citations, any ideas on how to improve the article, maybe images, you're really welcome! Of course, if you like Audioslave as much as I do and would like to see it as a featured article. The best would be if you could help me with English, the grammar and stuff like that. So if you're interested I can send you the work I've done maybe in e-mail or some way, I don't think it would be good if I copied it to the talk page, it's pretty long and currently I'm just working on it in Microsoft Word. You can check it then and see if you have anything to add or help/correct. So anyways, if you're interested just say so.

Thank you very much in advance. Gocsa 17:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Looks like this is the current thanks section...so I'll just add my name to the bottom. Thanks for the quick revert on my user page. --OnoremDil 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Gscshoyru 18:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of Demonarchy in India

This article is posted by the owner, author and publisher of www.sookta-sumana.com Shree Vinekar himself under a pen-name ID Bharatahitachintaka. If you have any questions please e-mail to shreevinekar@yahoo.com. It is not a promotional article for personal or for the web-site. It is an informational article about a new paradigm is understanding the political system wherein vestiges of monarchy are living and well in a democracy. There is no violation of the copyright. Indeed this article may be reproduced and republished with acknowledgement of the source: www.sookta-sumana.com. Thanks for hanging on and publishing it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharatahitachintaka (talk • contribs)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Onorem! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 10:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Gary Spidercuff

Sorry! I'm new to Wikipedia and I thought you could make a page tie in with your user page, but I won't do it in future. Strangely I've read the rules...anyway my apologies! --CyberImperial 07:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10