Misplaced Pages

User talk:Limeheadnyc: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:42, 15 April 2005 editBoothy443 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,606 edits →Thanks← Previous edit Revision as of 10:08, 21 April 2005 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 80: Line 80:


*Personaly, i can't see it being a problem, i figure if someone had a problem with it something would have been said by now. --] | ] 05:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Personaly, i can't see it being a problem, i figure if someone had a problem with it something would have been said by now. --] | ] 05:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==]==
Ullo. Looks like Luke's bowlderizing page for the Oral sex article (the one that shows the article without pictures) has been successfully VfD'd. He has reacted to that by linking the image, which seems rather mean to me. --]|] 10:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:08, 21 April 2005

Talk archive

Picture of the day 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is an American silent film directed by Stuart Paton and released on December 24, 1916. Based primarily on the 1870 novel Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas by Jules Verne, the film also incorporates elements from Verne's 1875 novel The Mysterious Island. This was the first motion picture filmed underwater. Actual underwater cameras were not used, but a system of watertight tubes and mirrors allowed the camera to shoot reflected images of underwater scenes staged in shallow sunlit waters in the Bahamas. For the scene featuring a battle with an octopus, cinematographer John Ernest Williamson devised a viewing chamber called the "photosphere", a 6-by-10-foot (1.8-by-3.0-metre) steel globe in which a cameraman could be placed. The film was made by the Universal Film Manufacturing Company (now Universal Pictures), not then known as a major motion picture studio, and took two years to make, at the cost of $500,000.Film credit: Stuart Paton Archive – More featured pictures...

Thanks... rewrote badly

Thank you Timbo. I *did* lose my comment, and was very upset about it. I rewrote something not as good and posted that. I'll stick with what I posted, but I do thank you for your quick intervention. High regards, BradGad (Talk) 06:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Me too! (Off topic)

Hi again Timbo,

I was making great strides as a scholar at UVa -- completed all coursework; passed orals; dissertation 1/3 done ... then I decided a divorce would be way more fun and profitable. Turned out I was wrong.

You have a good page. Thanks again for the help.

Regards, BradGad (Talk) 07:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Invalid VFD Thanks

Originally posted to User_talk:ClockworkSoul

Hi ClockworkSoul, thanks for at least agreeing with me about the VFD vote :). I really don't think the image is only used for shock value, but I can't convince everyone! Cheers, TIMBO (T A L K) 06:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Heya Timbo. The way I see it, if I have to be underhanded to prove my point, then my point obviously isn't very strong to begin with. In pursuit of that, I try to be sure that I care more about being honest than right. My wife hated that about me during the presidential elections. ;) – ClockworkSoul 14:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair use

En Misplaced Pages en español no se admite la subida de imágenes "fair use", por eso he tenido que borrar algunas de las que subiste. Siento las molestias, un saludo. --Comae 19:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spam

No, I think "counteracting" it only legitimizes it. Man, this is so unwiki. We're supposed to reach consensus, not campaign and make targeted spams. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I was discussing the same with Tony, and I just wanted to point out that admins tend to take every single vote into account, even if it was seemingly a result of vote stack spam. I realize this doesn't feel quite right, but I can't think of a feasible solution since the votes are cast by legit 'Pedians. Yours, Radiant_* 12:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

IfD

Hello,

Have read your message (excuse me I'm a bit tired it's soon midnight in France). OK, I saw the bug was fixed, then my vote is a vote to keep the image. Thank you for your message on my French User Page which was appreciated.

Pabix ܀. 21:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IfD vote was 65/48, no consensus

Phew! See you again next month, same venue. :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I just got your message. I'm in the middle of a move, so I haven't been on much, and I haven't had time to deal with the cleanup tasks that I had previously taken over. Anyway, thanks for taking care of it. – Quadell 13:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

you're welcome

You're quite welcome indeed! The way things are going tonight, someone might even have to do it for me. Happy editing, Antandrus 05:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

re: Thanks

N/P, it just gives me something to do. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • idk, i think so, just a metter of finding some one willing to do it. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your user page is temporarily protected. -- Curps 08:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Im Back

Hi Tim I figured I'd come back after my self imposed exile (I'll honestly try not to fight on articles I feel disturbed by)--198 04:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about If I move the drawing down? It's down that way in the Oral sex article--198 04:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Also I noted the IFD on that picture (that caused me to throw up); I figured I'd abstain from voting--198 04:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair use

Fair use depends on the use. If it's being used to describe the specific incident depicted, it should be fine. If it's being used as a general article, I'm not sure. No lawyers in the hizzy. --SPUI (talk) 22:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I think fair use requires the source to be credited. --SPUI (talk) 22:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Republican party article

Hi Limeheadnyc. User:Lagavulin is simply wrong about the paragraph being inaccurate or negative and I still believe that the paragraph should be in the article to highlight GOP beliefs. I can assure you that my own personal views have nothing to do with wanting it to stay. However, I think that Lagavulin is being completely partisan. -- Old Right 01:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks mate. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah i noticed that a bit back, just waiting for one of socks to pop up, just a matter of time. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Personaly, i can't see it being a problem, i figure if someone had a problem with it something would have been said by now. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oral sex

Ullo. Looks like Luke's bowlderizing page for the Oral sex article (the one that shows the article without pictures) has been successfully VfD'd. He has reacted to that by linking the image, which seems rather mean to me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)