UDP
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
Image copyright problem with Image:470580648_b9cc9cca4e_m.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading Image:470580648_b9cc9cca4e_m.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Indian_wikipedians_and_crew.jpg listed for deletion edit
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Indian_wikipedians_and_crew.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Britannica Editor's son edit
Hey there, We met at Wikimania Taiwan and I mentioned the story of when the son of the editor of Britannica posted here that his father had dies, but was removed for lacking sources. Here is the link to the original article where I read that, in the Weekly Signpost (the wikipedia newspaper) of April this year. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-04-16/Britannica. The relevant story is at the bottom of the article.
I hope that helps, Good luck, I'll be following your progress with interest, Witty Lama 13:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Your user page edit
Do not link youir user page to an article again as you did here. Take great care with this as you have now been warned, SqueakBox 00:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Venezuela edit
Nic?, well, I don't know who's userpage is this, but it's me, Damian, from Venezuela, I have some great news for you guys, please contact me asap to damian.finol (_@_) gmail . com (You know how to edit this to get my email :P). DamianFinol 00:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Adam_in_london.jpg listed for deletion edit
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Adam_in_london.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 04:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Synopsis on your website Truth in Numbers edit
You spelled possess incorrectly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Synopsis on your website Truth in Numbers edit
You spelled possess incorrectly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Image source problem with Image:P2170051.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading Image:P2170051.jpg. I noticed that 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.
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 20:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tie One. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tie One. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
My message to the FBI edit
Dear Mr. Klempert,
I wanted to let you, as a member of Wikimedia's Board of Trustees, know that I have sent the following message to the FBI, my senators and representatives, and your fellow trustees. I have also posted it to EDTECH, the educational technology mailing list, and Tweeted about it.
Lawrence M. Sanger, Ph.D. | http://www.larrysanger.org/ Editor-in-Chief, Citizendium | http://www.citizendium.org/ Executive Director, WatchKnow | http://www.watchknow.org/ sanger@citizendium.org
I really regret having to report this, but I feel I must. My name is Dr.
Larry Sanger and I am widely known as co-founder of Wikipedia, the
encyclopedia project. I have long since departed the organization, over
disagreements about editorial and management policy. I have also since
founded a more responsible project, Citizendium.org, and a teacher-edited
non-profit directory of preK-12 educational videos, WatchKnow.org. Given my
position of influence on matters related to Wikipedia, though I'm no longer
associated with it, I feel I have a moral obligation to make the following
report. The language of 18 USC §1466A makes it sound like I have a legal
obligation as well, so here goes.
I believe Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/), owned and hosted by the California-based Wikimedia Foundation, may be knowingly distributing child pornography. The clearest instances I found (I did not want to look for long) are linked from [deleting link; it's a category about pedophilia] and [link deleted; it's a category about something called lolicon]. I don't know if there is any more, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is--the content on the various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons and various others, are truly vast.
You can see on [the history of the category page] that the page has existed for three years. Considering that Eric Moeller, a high-level Wikipedia manager, is well known for his views in defense of pedophilia (http://mashable.com/2008/05/08/erik-moeller-pedophilia/), surely the existence of this page must have come to the attention of those with the legal responsibility for the Wikimedia projects.
In my non-lawyer's opinion, it looks like this violates 18 USC §1466A(2)(A). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html Perhaps the defense of this will be that the depictions are exempted due to §1466A(2)(B), i.e., the Wikimedia Foundation may argue that the images have some artistic value. I guess that's for you and maybe the courts to decide.
There are probably many copies of such images online. If there is a reason to hold the Wikimedia Foundation [responsible], however, is that they purport to be a reliable source of information. Moreover, a recent discussion on EDTECH, the educational technologists' list, indicates that some school district filter managers are not filtering such smut from the view of teachers and students. See: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lx&list=EDTECH&user=&pw=&month=1004 It was actually in response to comments on that discussion that I decided to look into this situation myself.
I don't envy the FBI the task of regulating the seedy underside of the Internet, and I doubt this is very high on your list of priorities. But I want to be on the record stating that this is wrong and should be investigated.