User talk:Finlay McWalter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives:

User talk:Finlay McWalter/archive1 (September 14, 2003 → August 14, 2004)
User talk:Finlay McWalter/archive2 (August 15, 2004 → August 23, 2005)
User talk:Finlay McWalter/archive3 (August 24, 2005 → December 3, 2006)
User talk:Finlay McWalter/archive4 (December 4, 2006 → September 21, 2007)

[edit] Leave new messages at the bottom, please

[edit] 3rd Rock from the Sun

There is a discussion to merge the individual episode articles into one, and since I saw that you are an editor, I would appreciate you giving your input into the discussion here. If you have any questions, please leave on my talk page. Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Paul Neil

Thankyou for your concerns about the image uploaded to Christopher Paul Neil. In future you may wish to consider your civility when dealing with such issues. I didn't particularly consider the tone of your message to be appropriate. Meanlevel 12:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've reverted the edits by User:194.223.81.88. I have no idea if this is the same person who you left a message on their talk page or not.

Thanks. I've warned the anon about the serious BLP concerns regarding the image. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The problematic image (the one titled M...) was me (it's my current mySpace profile pic). My pet stalker is obsessed with calling me a peadophile, and making it known that he knows where I work, etc.). See my talk page history. His latest account is similar to my real name. I'm not sure what he's trying to achieve. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. It was pretty clear that he was adding a picture as a joke; I'm sorry to hear there was such pointless malice into the bargain. I do hope you're not too discouraged by this chump. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply to multiple questions

actualy i was getting wikipedia is experincing an error at this time so thought it hadnt posted, and clicked back waited a few minutes and tryed again, sorry --86.20.169.136 16:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claire Grogan

Finaly - nope, not me. Take a look at the diffs and you'll see that all I did was set this up as a misspelling-redirect, which someone else later changed into an article. I'd tag it with { { importance } } if I were you. SP-KP 22:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JohnnyTampa / Macuser77

I've been having a lot of problems with Macuser77 (who used to be JohnnyTampa before he got banned) removing my contributions to articles saying that they're spam when in actuality I believe they are not. Coincidentally, JohnnyTampa was banned for spamming and now he's trying to punish me, because my site is a competitor of his. If you could please shed light on if my links are spam or not I'd appreciate it. For example, please take a look at the "safe sex" article, where I reference an article on my webpage for the content I've written. Thanks! Superkevbo 14:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

DEAR Finlay McWalter,

User SUPERVEBO did everything in his power to have user "JohnnyTampa" banned from WIKI because user JohnnyTampa was adding links to his comerical website CondomDepot.com.

User SUPERKEVBO is owner of a competitor of user "johnnyTampa" called CondomMan.com.

Every Link added to WIKIPEDIA by User "SuperKevbo" has been to his personal commercial shopping website. This is obviously being done to gain Google Page Rank for both of these companies. Bottom line is Neither "CondomMan.com" or "CondomDepot.com" or any other "Spam" website for that matter should be linked from WIKI.

My understanding is that user "JohnnyTampa" was banned for the same thing user "SuperKevbo" is complaining about. Both users deserved to be banned.

Macuser77 —Preceding comment was added at 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The links to condomman.com have been removed until a senior editor can make a decision about whether they are spam or legitimate references. But the uncivil and vindictive behavior shown by Macuser77 (WP:ICA), in addition to the fact that he's already been banned once (user JohnnyTampa) I would very seriously like to see action taken against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superkevbo (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Riktam Technologies

Dear Sir,

I thank you a lot for the feedback that you have provided me about Riktam Technologies. And I would not recreate the content for Riktam Technologies. As of the comparison, I am very glad to hear that "NOTABILITY" criterion is and was based on the REVENUES GENERATED. Probably this should have been put in the Authoring Guidelines and FAQs. So that innocent souls like me would come to know that Notability is infact a matter of Revenues and Wikipedia makes a note of only those Companies with their turn over in billions.

Well the soul of the economic world is not revenues. I hope you agree with me. Importance of a firm is dependent on several factors like business values and ethos, guiding philosophy, a responsibility towards society, and responsibility for tomorrow.

They teach us not to compare entities that have differences in scales and scopes. Big firms, can operate at high revenues and turnovers, but can be least important and significant to the world around. Where as a small firm, might not be able to work in a scale of billions, but can have a tremendous impact on the society and civilization.

I really thank you for sparing your precious moments, reading this, reading my article on Riktam Technologies, and spending your valuable mental energies in comparing us with Satyam Computer Services Pvt. Ltd.

Thanks A Lot, Warm Regards,

Aditya2you

Aditya2you (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If this company has made "tremendous impact on the society and civilization" then it would be notable. You need to prove that it has. But instead you've repeatedly uploaded an article that looks like advertising. Wikipedia is a charity, and abusing it to promote a company is hardly a "responsibility towards society" to be proud of. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Kushty

My page isnt bullshit, if you lived here, you would know him. FOOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakhra (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pls check message re your recent block of User opiumjopnes 23

ie unblock to allow anwser and responses that were ongoing when blocked

He (i.e. you) can answer on his (i.e. your) talk page. Other administrators will read that. But we're not going to get into a nice chit-chat about what is or isn't an acceptable legal threat, or what circumstances do or don't allow you to threaten other Wikipedians (even jerks, even sockpuppets, even axe-wielding maniacs). WP:LEGAL is a rule, not a guideline. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roseberry Avenue Autonomy Centre

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Roseberry Avenue Autonomy Centre, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Roseberry Avenue Autonomy Centre. B. Wolterding 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Johncons

My Norwegian is rusty to say the least, but he is saying roughly that he is not going to post here any more when he's had so much beer. Probably a good idea. If he has email, I'll try & put an explanation together for him tomorrow. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I was here accedentely, and what I said was something like this: Skål tilbake, jeg har ikke noe øl her nå, men jeg skal se om jeg får tak i det ved en senere anledning.

It translates to: Cheers in return (since the user said 'skål' to me, then I returned the salute, since it mean cheers, I thought the user was Norwegian) I havent got any beer here now [to say 'skål' with/or kind of 'clink' with], but I might get some on a later occation [at least]).

I'm sorry I wasn't aware of that the user wasn't Norwegian.

I was a bit tricked by the Norwegian salute.

So I didn't mean to be unpolite with writing Norwegian.

Johncons (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fuck off

fuck you asshole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.156.192.243 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Shawn

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "the burden of proof is squarely on you to show that"? So what do you want me to do? I am sure this is a very important article for young people and NOT an advertisement - I am not working for this company!!!!! Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyshawn (talk • contribs) 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are already linked from your talk page. Further, take a look at Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Right now your article just says "xxx is a cool party" and links to the page where people can buy tickets. You need to show that it is "a very important article", citing independent sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.). The website of the company is not an independent source. "burden of proof" means you have to show that it's notable - it's not up to us to chase around after you adding in reliable sources. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank's for your comment. But I don't understand the difference to Kazantip for example. I can't find any citation. It is also a great party and they are also a company... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyshawn (talk • contribs) 16:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spaahm

Looks like you were one of the admins who dealt with the Spaahm vandal over the holidays. I've summarized the situation here. Please let me know if you're aware of other accounts. Thanks. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inflammatory

Hi, Finlay.
Talking about my reporting of user Cherso on WP:ANI, you have to know some things. You weren't involved from the beginning on the case, so it's not fair from you to draw the attention away from the original problem posted on WP:ANI.
To clarify, I'll try to help you with this kind of description.
As you've posted on your userpage, you're British Wikipedian.
Now, see what Cherso wrote:
19:48, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote:
[1] 'Today (february 17, 2008) for the first time since WWII a piece of Yugoslavia breaks away from the Slav control!! KOSOVO IS INDEPENDENT ! I hope soon other parts of ex-Yugoslavia will follow....may be even my CHERSO, or Istria or Zara....who knows"
Or this Cherso's message from 20:11, 17 February 2008:
[2]. "Independence of Kosovo...... what a beautiful day for the non-slav (and even Italian) Irredentism!)".
And this Cherso's message from 20:24, 17 February 2008:
[3] "...Finally, the Slavs have lost some territories..."
How would you feel if someone wrote things like "independence of Belize...what a beautiful day for Argentinian irredentism... hope that other parts of British Empire will follow... may be Falkland Islands...". Do you get now how inflammatory Cherso's messages are?
It's silly to compare my talkpage with Cherso's messages. I'm against joining of my country to EU (just as there're many British that are against British membership in EU), and? So what? That's not insult to anyone.
But take a look at Cherso's messages, man.
I hope that now you'll understand what I want to say.
Looking forward for better mutual understanding in the future, Kubura (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

It's interesting to receive a threat of being blocked from editing, yet it took someone else to actually correct the article. The article was correctly moved last year in April, and User Docu incorrectly reverted and redirected to attempt to keep the name in French. Wiki guidelines are quite clear about this - so my apologies for being incorrect, but while noting my actions please also note the incorrect actions of User Docu and point out the fact that the article name should remain in English. That does not require any dispute resolution when the guidelines are in plain English - Rarelibra (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You still should have used the move tool; your cut and paste move still violated the copyrights of those editors who edited between Docu's move and your own. Your opinion of what the article should be titled does not allow you to ignore their rights. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The good of royalty

Re your answer on the RefDesk here, you Brits are at your funniest when speaking of the Queen. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the administrators

There is a very serious problem with the administrators of the Polish Wikipedia, as well some of those administrators who are poles living abroad. So what is the problem? After reviewing some of the sites it is very clear that there are several groups of the administrators which consists of 1. The ex members of the communist party, or their children some living abroad, 2. current politician or members of the "some" political party, 3. members of the military, 4. very inexperienced and very young members who are also the students of political science. So what is the problem? They are correcting Polish and some with quite poor ENGLISH, wikipedias articles. Their corrupted views on polsish history and politics (some based on a fabricated by the communist history of Poland results in glorifying the autobiographies of some communist era politicians specially such as Alexander Kwasniewski *Aleksander Kwasnieski's father, Wojciech Jaruzelski, Czesław Kiszczak, Jerzy Miller, Bronisłaaw Geremek, Jerzy Urban, Adam Michnik or even Lech Wałesa. The greatest hero of 20 century colonel Ryszard Jerzy Kukliński *[http://www.videofact.com/english/agents3_en.html Kuklinski, (they made him look like a traitor and spy against Poland, while he was very highly patriotic and spied against Soviet Union and never against Poland. Those biographies on polish wikipedia sites are frequently protected from editing, and if some one edits them (those unprotected) they would vandalize their precious work. Those people need to be permanently banned as the administrators. Great informations are on sites of Polish exiles and poles who are second generation poles: *Videofact or [4] with articles in both Polish and some in English. Since the wikipedia in polish is a real piece of crap, I would suggest totake my demand higher and to ban the counterfeiters of the polish history (communist and communist military point of view), and fabricated by the communists biographies such as Aleksander Kwasniewski. I am also pist off since there is many members of my family listed in the wikipedia, and those morons are correcting the articles which contain the informations known ONLY to the members of the family.

It is mandatory that we get rid of those people as the administrators, while some of them are really in charge of Polish site. Some of them with quite poor English are trying to edit the English articles. What can we doo about it> I would like to remind that at one time members of US congress were barred from editing their own biographies since they looked better at the time of election! It is in interest of some highly patriotic poles that the polish language wikipedia would not be a demonstration of Polish nationalism, and reflect the rteal history of Poland and not the russifyied by the communist party lies and fabrications.

[edit] Problems with the autobiography of Lech Wałęsa

There is a problem with the Wałęsa site in Eglish were the latest finaly published facts are censored.

Lech Wałęsa was NOT what many thinks who he really was. He was a paid informant of polish security forces under the name of agent "Bolek", to turn later Security Forces agent who went rough. The documentaries about Wałęsa produced in Poland, and his closest coworkers within the labor union disclose the truth about him. The Polish Television produced the film aout Wałesa disclosing and presenting the documents from the Institut of National Remembrance (memory | Instytute Pamieci Narodowej short IPN] which disclose the documents attempted to be destroyed by the Wałesa while he was a president who fortunately were earlier photocopied about what he never knew. There are also articles unfortunately published about Wałęsa which we living outside Poland know very well but are not accessible to poles within Poland. *Interview with Anna Walentynowicz part 1 *Interview with Anna Walentynowicz part 2, whom the Secret Police in collaboration with Wałesa attempted at one time to poison. "Solidarity" with Wałęsa, was the accident at work of Polish Security Forces.

downloads of documentaries

[edit] Documentaries about Lech Wałesa

[edit] Copyright and Fair Use doctrine

There is a problem with using the Copyrights,intellectual protection laws and with alleged protection of authors rights in Wikipedia. Fair Use is also permitted for EDUCATIONAL Purposes, and such is the encyclopedia,or Wikipedia] A. What Is Fair Use?

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against infringement. If your use qualifies under the definition above, and as defined more specifically in this section, then your use would not be considered an illegal infringement.

So what is a "transformative" use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varying court decisions. That's because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit the definition of fair use. They wanted it--like free speech--to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody.

1. Comment and Criticism

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

   * quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
   * summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
   * copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
   * copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases.

2. Parody

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original.

Above citation

The United States Supreme Court mad an exception to citations also known as "Fair Use".

The right to Fair Use should be dominant when writing the articles in Wikipedia!

I don't know why you're telling me all this. I've not edited the Lech Wałęsa article for four and a half years, and even then all I did was improve grammar. Please use the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure described at WP:DR. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tiltrotator article

Leaving message here as you have previously edited this article. The basic articles ok as explains the attachment but there are loads of external links which i removed some (2) then an IP user reinstated even though all adverts for same co. citing valid links to US and Canada (but basically an advert video which another link still had)

I Then Tag article for external-link clean up which has now been removed by another IP user by reverting my edit and removed talk comments added at same time. Please advise or sort out. (10 ext links for 30 line article seem excessive to me) Dont want to start a battle, is it classed as vandalism or ? --BulldozerD11 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.