This is an archive of past discussions about User:Saturday. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Elvaston Castle
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot07:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot09:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
BADSITES
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry, I'm not going to protect the talk page right now. I am, however, going to remove that thread, and send him a note. And I am going to advise you in the strongest possible terms to leave his Talk page alone. It is proving difficult to de-escalate this conflict. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
As an added on though, I would like you to tell him to stop calling me a stalker, I've written enough explaining my actions, which in no way are stalkerish. SaturdayContribs19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello – thanks for the message, and you made a good catch with that article. It had been a copyvio for over a month, and an ugly copyvio at that.
When you find a copyright violation, the first thing you should do is look in the article's history to see if there's a version that is _not_ a copyright violation. In this case, that version was found sometime in May 2007, so I reverted it back to that version. It isn't necessary to delete the article and rebuild it - we just need to remove the copyright violation from the posted article, not from the history. Most casual readers of Wikipedia don't realize they can look at every version. Take a look at the diff between the version I reposted (which should be the current version) and the version right before mine, and you'll see the plagiarized content is gone.
In many cases, plagiarism from an online source is indeed a copyright violation – but we have to be careful that we don't accidentally find identical content on a site like Answers.com that takes part of its content from us. Then we'd be deleting content that we provided to them, and we'd be chasing our tails and looking really silly. Not that we don't look silly several times a week, but you get the idea.
The Wikimedia Foundation occasionally gets legal threats about copyright problems in articles and they may take action themselves. In those cases, called office actions, you may see variations on usual practice and they have to stand. Copyright problems are one of the biggest headaches and can be very confusing, which is why I take tranquilizers every time I even see the Wiki-word 'copyvio'. You should read and try to comprehend the copyright policies as due diligence for editing. It goes in circles in a couple of places but there are lots of cheerful happy admins ready to promptly wash our hands of all blame and volley it right back to you help. Maybe. ;-) Thanks again for the good catch! - KrakatoaKatie04:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Aye, in my young days of Wikipedia editing I was often annoyed with searching sloppy writing that looked like a copyvio and finding a website that contained the exact same material... only for the website to be a Wikipedia mirror. I absolutely loathe reading about copyright rules on Wikipedia because, as you said, it just goes in circles and is incredibly dry. I'll try re-reading them now that I am on vacation, though my reading will probably be broken apart due to frequent inspection of the inside of of my eyelids.
And the catch was almost completely random; thank the Penny Arcade forums for somehow sparking in me an interest in Michael Jordan! G'night (or day), SaturdayContribs04:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot07:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot08:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Zeitgeist The Movie
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding Zeitgeist The Movie Could you kindly explain exactly what kind of 3rd party source is required for something that clearly exists? A movie that is watchable clearly exists. The sun clearly exists. the earth clearly exists. Logic tells me that someing that clearly exists sources itself. Thanks Vexorg02:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Well I wouldn't have used the existence of the movie as a thing that needs to be exactly verified (but we do have incident of hoax article being published), but things like a newspaper article or something talking about the movie would be helpful. The claim that movie was released in 2007 on Google video and is free for distribution needs to be cited. Anything regarding its contents needs to be verified. Anything that isn't incredibly obvious (i.e it is a movie) should be cited. Hope that helps, SaturdayContribs02:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot08:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot19:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot09:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot20:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism of entry DON MURPHY
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Son, I went to the Official Site and saw a discussion of the gentleman's films. Why would you vandalize the entry and call it an attack site? If you cannot explain calmly and wisely I will re add the page. GraciasMuckrakerius17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure. The official site and forum has been used in the past as an attack site against Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. It exposed Wikipedia editors and called on people to continue vandalising pages. Some of these attacks still remain on the website, particularly the ones that out editors, so the website should not be linked to. Please do not call people's edits that don't suit your ideas vandalism. SaturdayContribs18:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You have expressed words. Please provide evidence that the site attacks anyone as I cannot find it. Indeed, all I can see is several warnings to you from User :Guy warning you about an obsession with Murphy Muckrakerius18:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Off how you have no contributions for a month and a half but return for this Murphy character. Ah well. Thanks again Muckrakerius18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Well it concerns me personally (My address and phone number were published there...) so I prefer to see the information removed. SaturdayContribs18:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Alls well that ends well. I was stupid to have edited under my full name, and stupider for trying to argue rationally with Mr. Murphy. Oh well, whatever he says, I know the truth. SaturdayContribs18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
