Durval

Image copyright problem with Image:FARMER, Philip Jose.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:FARMER, Philip Jose.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 uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Asher196 (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:FARMER, Philip Jose.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.explorepeoria.net/famouspeorians.html. As a copyright violation, Image:FARMER, Philip Jose.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:FARMER, Philip Jose.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at [[Talk:Image:FARMER, Philip Jose.jpg]] and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at [[Talk:Image:FARMER, Philip Jose.jpg]] with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on [[Talk:Image:FARMER, Philip Jose.jpg]].

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Asher196 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rei

Hi,

In your edit to Truth you changed the translation of Latin "rei" from "of thing" to "of things", saying that "rei" is plural. Since "res" is fifth declension, though, "rei" is actually the genitive singular. I don't think your translation is necessarily less accurate than the original (since English sometimes uses plurals to refer to generic or abstract concepts, where Latin might use the singular), but I do think your grammatical observation was mistaken.

Schoen (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Skyrim

Hi Durval,

Thanks for your edits. I did however had to remove this. A subsection mentioning that there won't be any more DLC is inappropriate, because on Wikipedia we write what we do know and what did and does happen, not what stopped happening. The articles states that three packages of DLC have been released, and that's it. Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 10:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Soetermans,

Thanks for your thoughtful, explanative comment. I would like to ask you whether you have a reference for the rule you described above (which I marked with the "Citation Needed" tag). Also, I would like to point out that my edit did not disobey that rule: we do know that Bethesda has decided to not publish any more content for Skyrim (I even included the references, including one to Bethesda's own blog) and it did happen that Bethesda declared so, therefore we are not just talking about something that "stopped happening", right? Again, thanks for your consideration. Durval (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Thingspeak logo white.png

Thanks for uploading File:Thingspeak logo white.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record:

In fact I had not added the necessary authorship and copyright tags. I've just added them, thereby fixing the issue Durval (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve ThingSpeak

Hi, I'm Giso6150. Durval, thanks for creating ThingSpeak!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please review WP:Org and add some context. Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. giso6150 (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Giso6150,

Thanks for your input and critique.

I think I've just addressed the concerns you remarked, to wit:

I've reviewed WP:Org I think you meant my reference to the "ThingSpeak development team" in the "developer" field, which was tautological and therefore not very relevant; I've removed it.

I rephrased the initial paragraph so as to make it less advert-like.

I've added more contextual footnotes.

I consider the issues addressed, so I've subsequently removed the issue tags you added.

Thanks!

Durval (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Your recent editing history at Cotap shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see that I'm not doing any edit wars -- I've merely reinstated the section that I wrote and is being repeteadly removed by another editor, even after I asked (both on WP:ANI and on the article's Talk page) for it to stop. Also please note that I fully explained my reasoning on the article's Talk page before doing it. Thanks for your consideration. Durval (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly reinstating material is an edit war, and in this case, it's more than one editor who has been removing it. Asking people not to revert your edits does not allow you to trump standard Wikipedia editing practices. You are free to argue for the material's inclusion without reinserting it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"People" (in this case, you and other two) are not reverting my edits, you are simply removing the section I added; neither am I trying to "trump" any Wikipedia rules; In fact, as I just noted on WP:ANI, the right thing to do would be to keep the material I wrote up while it's still being discussed; I think your repeated removals without responding to the defense I posted on the article's talk page, and now the blocking my edits based on the WP:BRD constitute undue censorship. Durval (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No censorship involved. People are disputing that the content meets Wikipedia standards. Anything that people don't believe adhere to the rules and policies should not be in mainspace. If there is something questionable in an article the default perspective is to remove it and then discuss. This is not censorship, this is the way Wikipedia works. As you say you've been here for 10 years so you know the editing policies and practices. Canterbury Tail talk 14:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the material is questionable, as I've repeatedly argued on the article's Talk page(and to which neither you nor the other two editors have responded), so I don't think it's fair for it to be removed while it's being discussed. In more than 9 (not yet 10) years on Wikipedia, this is the first time I'm seeing something like this, which I regard as outrageous censorship. Durval (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It has been addressed on the talk page. Also note that encouraging people from other sites to come here and edit war is not helping the argument that this is something Wikipedia should have (see here). Canterbury Tail talk 15:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been hit with a really large amount of work in my job and I have had no time for that in the past few weeks, and this situation is expected to continue for some more weeks at least. I find it strange that (a) you found about my call for action on the Spiceworks page so fast after my placing it; are you actively monitoring it as part of your relationship with Cotap, or are your friends from Cotap monitoring it and then notified you? (b) that said call for action is not good, and the one you posted in the Administrative Issues here on Wikipedia is. Anyway, I plan on coming back and getting on top of this again as soon as I have some free time. Durval (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's much more simple, and less conspiracy theory than that. I've been around Wikipedia long enough to recognize the signs. When people who have never edited Wikipedia before suddenly start posting on something in very close succession to one another it usually means that someone is encouraging others from off site to come here. I've seen that pattern dozens of times, as have all the other administrators on Wikipedia. Once that was obvious the only other thing is that Google is scarely efficient, a simple search with your username and Cotap lead straight to that thread. Canterbury Tail talk 10:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• == Cotap Spamming ==

Note: this is in regards to a discussion here in this board, which seems to have been archived (but I can't find in the archives and can only find by this "diff" link : here. I don't know the proper procedure for referring to it (should I copy the entire discussion here? Should I just refer to it, but by some other mean?), so please feel free to redo this and/or tell me how it should be done.

[moved from ANI archive by Drmies]

Anyway as I mentioned on my talk page, I've been hit with a really large amount of work in my job and I have had no time for that in the past few weeks, and this situation is expected to continue for some more weeks at least, but I plan on getting back on this as soon as I have the time. User:Canterbury Tail thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt re: blocking; perhaps you are not so evil as I was considering you to be. User:Drmies I have many years logged into Wikipedia, but this is the first time I've been involved in any such controversy, and I apologize for any blundering I may have made in handling this. Durval (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, you read the ANI discussion, and there's plenty of commentary here. What you need to comment on is this stuff you posted on external websites, trying to get support for your cause. Personally I have a very low opinion of such behavior. Canterbury Tail? Drmies (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding my inadvertent "meatpuppeting" in the Spiceworks forum, I had never heard of this term before (as I said, this is the first time I'm involved in any such controversy here in Wikipedia), and find it strange and more than a little elitist that User:Canterbury Tail can come here to the Administrator's Noticeboard and ask for help in supressing my edits, and I can't go to an open forum where there are other people affected by Cotap's spamming and ask for they to come and weight in here. But it seems that this is an established Wikipedia rule, and I believe in respecting the rules, so I stand corrected; I've just edited my message on Spiceworks and removed the aforementioned "call for arms". I really have no more time now to spend on this, will come back when I do. Durval (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually if you read the thread on ANI you'll find that I didn't ask others to suppress your edits, I asked them for oversight on my actions to be sure that I wasn't the one that was in the wrong. It was a simple call for a third party view on the incident, and standard practice since I had been editting the article (to remove the mentions) for a short while and therefore it would have been improper for me to use my administrative tools further in the discourse. Canterbury Tail talk 11:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The ANI discussion can be found here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nail You Down

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nail You Down requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.) that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)