User talk:JackSparrow Ninja

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived discussions

---

Contents 1 Image tagging for Image:Tloztp twilightking.jpg 2 Image tagging for Image:Tloztp princesszelda.jpg 3 Winning Eleven vandalizing 4 Image:Sarahfisher.jpg 5 Linkspam 6 Zelda: TP 7 Image tagging for Image:Raymanravingrabbidswiibox.jpg 8 Fair use rationale for Image:Tloztp twilightking.jpg 9 WP:3RR 10 "Vandalism"

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Tloztp twilightking.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tloztp twilightking.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Tloztp princesszelda.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tloztp princesszelda.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winning Eleven vandalizing

Hey MrBronson,

Just thought I'd let you know I've put a protection on the Winning Eleven so that editing of the article by unregistered or newly registered users is disabled. I hope this will help. Let me know if there's any further problems.

greets JackSparrow Ninja 19:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sarahfisher.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarahfisher.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. --Chowbok ☠ 20:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

I noticed that you added a link to an outside Zelda site to The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Trilogy. This is linkspam. Don't do it, it will only get reverted and get you blocked. Scepia 06:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

But why was the link ever on there? It seems like advertising a site that that doesn't need to be linked to. Scepia 07:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I read the talk page. It's all good ;) Scepia 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zelda: TP

Just putting the semi-protection tag doesn't protect a page. Only an Admin can actually protect the page, you can always request protection though. TJ Spyke 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How can I do that, or could you? Cheers. JackSparrow Ninja 04:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you go, request it here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. TJ Spyke 05:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Raymanravingrabbidswiibox.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Raymanravingrabbidswiibox.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tloztp twilightking.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tloztp twilightking.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with 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 fair use images 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. — TKD::Talk 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Hey Jack,

Just wanted to let you know that you're in violation of the three-revert rule at List of computer and video games considered the worst ever, having reverted multiple editors in good faith at least 5 times in the last 24 hours. Please discuss the issue with them on the talk page rather than engage in an edit war. Please be aware that further reversions may result in a temporary block, as this type of editing is considered disruptive and counter to the whole idea of consensus-building. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 20:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule at List of computer and video games considered the worst ever. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The block is for 24 hours. Note that these are 4 clear reverts: [1], [2], [3], [4]; but there were also some partial reverts in this time period as well. Reverting constantly is not going to convince anyone, and is disruptive. Please discuss the issue on the talk page when the block expires. — TKD::Talk 00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue with them on the talk page rather than engage in an edit war.

If you would look at the situation, you would see that said users are the ones that have started an edit war, ignoring any discussion that over time has been made by the users that look after the article.

The edits have not been in good faith. Well referenced parts have been removed, while others have been removed where a simple tag would have fullfilled. The edits that were made were done very carelessly and with no showing of good faith howsoever. Good faith would have been discussing it, as has been proposed many times by me. Yet these users believe, for some reason, they are important enough to have a veto that overrules anything else.

This whole ordeal is caused because all users that have never been involved in the article, and have no background information whatsoever, have been dragged into this by one user that for some reason feels wronged about a well-referenced addition. I hope when overlooking the situation, you will see past a 3RR, which is nothing more then a try to stop the vandalism that this article is enduring, and unblock me. Cheers. JackSparrow Ninja 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appears that the dispute is over referencing standards for inclusion in the list, and what may have been acceptable in the past is being questioned by multiple editors. Remember, consensus can change and that there is no ownership of an article outside of the sense for copyright purposes. Bringing in third (and fourth and fifth, etc.) opinions is fine; it's what WP:RFC does. That said, it looks like everyone is editing in good faith; it's a matter of how to define the standards for inclusion in the list that appears to be problematic. I'd advise you to be careful not to label their edits as vandalism, especially given concerns over verifiability and defamation; WP:VAND's definition is stricter than that. This isn't about vandalism; it's a content dispute.

I'll unblock if you promise to stop edit warring and work with the others to try to come to a consensus as to what the standards should be for "the worst ever". — TKD::Talk 00:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess a different point of view is possible.

Promise though. Thanks for understanding. JackSparrow Ninja 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked. Happy editing. — TKD::Talk 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

Please do not tag good faith edits by other users as vandalism. Wikipedia:No original research is an official policy on Wikipedia - please have a good read through it. Remember too that this is an encyclopaedia and articles should be written in an encyclopaedic-tone and have citations. Thanks/wangi 17:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember you were unblocked above because you indicated that you would stop doing these reverts... /wangi 17:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This was one -of many- case of vandalism by AMIB. He has removed many well referenced parts, and removing the game that is considered the worst ever by everyone -take a look at the article page, it's overrun with references to it- is vandalism. That entry is no OR, it is well referenced and supported by everyone. JackSparrow Ninja 17:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)