User talk:Aldaron
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:2012.Alternate.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:2012.Alternate.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 non-free media 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Corrected, I think. I'm not sure how to use all the fields in the FU template though, so please let me know if I've omitted something. — Aldaron • T/C 21:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:2012.Alternate.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:2012.Alternate.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) 12:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Restored image. Notable as example of otherwise unobtainable (due to ownership issues) example of numerous alternate logos. — Aldaron • T/C 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hello, concerning the alternative logo, I don't think there is any justification for providing and displaying that particular logo. Many hundreds were sent in to various polls and companies, and as far as I am aware, this one was not even seen by much of the public, and therefore has no reason for being specifically picked. This logo: [1] (the first option) could, if at all, possibly be justified for selection as it won the public poll by the BBC as the best logo, and got relatively widespread news coverage. 86.136.60.192 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: UCFD
See Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_play_German-style_board_games. VegaDark (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, that is not at all what the category is about. I'm adding it back. How do I reopen the discussion? — Aldaron • T/C 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Take it to deletion review if you want the deletion overturned. VegaDark (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Wow. Can you walk me through it. Or can you just have a look at my changes. I can see why the original objection about "masqurading" (paranoid much?) was made, but have changed things so that it should be clear that this is just a true "by interest" category. — Aldaron • T/C 21:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The steps to list something on deletion review can be found here. As the notice at the top states, you should talk to the admin who closed the UCFD first. Simply changing the userbox around does not get around deletion debate results, there is no way the category will not be deleted at this point unless you get it overturned at deletion review. VegaDark (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm not sure who "administrator who deleted the page" is, since it hasn't been deleted yet. Where should I paste the second template? — Aldaron • T/C 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- On the person who closed the debate's talk page. In this case, User:Kbdank71. VegaDark (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure who "administrator who deleted the page" is, since it hasn't been deleted yet. Where should I paste the second template? — Aldaron • T/C 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Recent HiG Rule Release
Within the Carcassonne talk page, you mention a recent rule release invalidating your unofficial taxonomy. The comment was back from 2007, but I'm not certain which rule you're referring to. Could you clarify? -Fuzzy (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. it was pointed out to me my someone else, but I don't know what he was citing. I believe it's an exchange he had directly with the publisher and posted on BoardGameGeek. — Aldaron • T/C 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] German-style gamer user box confusion
I think there's a big misunderstanding here that I've tried to clear up in the relevant discussion. I'm not "attempting to misrepresent Wikipedians" (as you say). Quite the opposite. I'm trying to represent them correctly, and repair a simple mistake that will in fact result in misrepresentation. As you correctly point out, repurposing a user box so that it re-categorizes a user is a bad idea. But that is not at all what is going on here. As I've pointed out already, even for users who thought they were expressing a website "affiliation" (something that doesnt' even really apply here in isolation from an interest in German-style games), the chance they lack an "interest in German-style games" is effectively zero. Moreover, as I've maintained, I think most people with the userbox had their interest in German-style games foremost in the first place, and were only incidentally concerned with the website. To the uninformed, the original characterization of the category ("For people who play German-style boardgames or frequent BoardGameGeek") is easily misinterpreted, since it hides the fact that the set of people who "frequent BoardGameGeek" is a strict subset of the people who "play German-style boardgames", so that the latter characterization (and the updated category) is correct for everyone in the old category. Because of this, the correct correct thing to do is to have the old userbox point to the new category. — Aldaron • T/C 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with some points, and see the reverse on the others, but, fair enough, perhaps I'm missing something.
- I've asked an admin to act as WP:3PO for this. (See User talk:J Greb#3PO)
- Perhaps we can get this all cleared up. - jc37 21:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of User:AmbientArchitecture/BGG
- User:AmbientArchitecture/BGG
Nice backhanded way of achieving your mission. — Aldaron • T/C 02:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I explained what I did, and why, at the 3PO discussion. Everything was according to existing policy. That said, if you have further concerns (as apparently you do), I have no problem with taking this through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, or WP:MFD, for that matter. Btw: Note also that the DRV resulted in endorsing deletion. - jc37 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I surrender. From where I sit, you've made a complete mess of a simple thing by blindly applying rules without understanding what's actually going on. You've talked yourself into the rationale of this and I really don't have the time to talk you out of it. — Aldaron • T/C 03:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you feel that way. While I disagree with that assessement, I have asked others to weigh in (the 3PO; a person who asked me about this; and the DRV closer). Anyway, whichever the case, I do hope you have a great day. - jc37 14:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Next time consider this, in particular: "Approaches that don't usually convince: (1) Just quoting policy and guideline pages ... even when you're right. (2) Defending the process while ignoring the situation." — Aldaron • T/C 15:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion, and I hope that you might follow such advice as well. Have a good day : ) - jc37 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Next time consider this, in particular: "Approaches that don't usually convince: (1) Just quoting policy and guideline pages ... even when you're right. (2) Defending the process while ignoring the situation." — Aldaron • T/C 15:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you feel that way. While I disagree with that assessement, I have asked others to weigh in (the 3PO; a person who asked me about this; and the DRV closer). Anyway, whichever the case, I do hope you have a great day. - jc37 14:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I surrender. From where I sit, you've made a complete mess of a simple thing by blindly applying rules without understanding what's actually going on. You've talked yourself into the rationale of this and I really don't have the time to talk you out of it. — Aldaron • T/C 03:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
