User talk:Slackergeneration

Leave a message if you skate

Thank you for uploading Image:Image:100buffett.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:100buffett.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:100zarqawi.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. HermesBot 14:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:100murdoch.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. BetacommandBot 14:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slackergeneration. There are various problems with the Time 100 page, hence your undiscussed revert was inappropriate. Looking forward to your involvement on the talk page. Thanks, Deiz talk 06:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed your contributions, it also appears this may be a single purpose account. SPAs can be a problem because such editors either tend to have neutrality issues, or feel that they WP:OWN an article. It is especially important in such cases that editors are willing to discuss the content of the article(s) they focus on, and are seen to welcome other's contributions. SPA editors who consistently refuse to engage in discussion, revert legitimate edits without reason, or otherwise act contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia can have their ability to edit Wikipedia restricted. Deiz talk 06:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet as. Regarding the Oprah image, there was no image displayed, just an empty box, hence I removed the gallery tags and left the text listing. Looks fixed now. Cheers, Deiz talk 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with notability, verification and future-proofing. It's an annual list, hence certain people will be on there (almost) every year. It's also not really the job of Wikipedia to make observations about this kind of thing. Example: I know Condoleezza Rice is notable. I know Time Magazine is notable. However, there is no reliably sourced information that appearing on this list a given number of times is notable. You're just making observations, cross-referencing the information and presenting it. I think any list should be kept as short and as demonstrably significant as possible. Deiz talk 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you are misunderstanding the definition of "monkey" in the MW dictionary[1]. Note that "as contrasted with" means "different from" and hence "not including". The text you pasted in from MW is less clear and less detailed than the text you replaced but actually means exactly the same thing. It is also unwikified and potentially a copyright violation of MW's dictionary. The bit at the top about about "monkey" being the "name of an ape" is from the etymology section. That refers to the word's earliest uses. In this case, from around 1530. None of the modern uses include apes. If some newsreaders don't know that a chimp is an ape not a monkey then that speaks of their ignorance. The article needs to be clear and accurate to avoid such confusion (lest any newsreaders drop by to learn the difference for future reference). --DanielRigal (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]