User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2: Difference between revisions

< User talk:SlimVirgin Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:53, 7 October 2006 editJmabel (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators90,290 edits 50,000← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:50, 7 October 2006 edit undoDr Zak (talk \| contribs)2,735 edits Image sourcingNext edit →
Line 31:		Line 31:

	Thanks, my barn probably needed another star. (And I honestly had no idea I'd hit 50,000 edits. Kinda scary.) - ] \| ] 02:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)		Thanks, my barn probably needed another star. (And I honestly had no idea I'd hit 50,000 edits. Kinda scary.) - ] \| ] 02:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

			== Image sourcing ==

			Dear Slimvirgin, please accept my apologies for the outburst . Since yo asked how I came across Scholem's article, a couple of days ago I bought his biography of Sabbatai Zvi and got curious what Misplaced Pages had to say about either man.

			However, comments such as and do nothing to defuse an emerging conflict. Misplaced Pages aims to be an encyclopedia and I feel that images ought to be held up to the same verifiability standard as claims in articles, that is there should be a minimum standard of sourcing - at the very least the year and name of photographer and copyright holder (or archival collection) should be given. Listing a webpage as a source is certainly not adequate sourcing. You are certainly not singled out here - if you go though my list of contributions you'll see that I do root through image categories and list cases on ] or in clear-cut cases on ].

			What I did notice is that some of your early image uploads are poorly sourced - ] has as source a now defunct wepgade at the Universidad de Chile. Those need fixing.

			Regards, ] 14:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:50, 7 October 2006

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost

Picture of the day

Earth Photograph credit: NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center / Arizona State University; edited by Bammesk

NYCPUNK

Thanks, good to have another view. Rich Farmbrough, 07:25 6 October 2006 (GMT).

WP:V

Thank you for your kind note. I completely agree with your assessment. I understand the desire to keep this policy page stable, but I do wish you would articulate your reasons in reverting to a particular version on the talk page so misunderstandings can be quickly worked out. Even if there are a number of reverts in a few days, just one note about why is preferred version for all reverts would really be helpful.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Hey Slim, sorry about the reverts. I guess I'm getting a bit frustrated here. I'm not going to edit the article any more today. I am however intersted in improving the intro and I definitely feel like my suggestions are not being seriously considered. Kaldari 21:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin; I don't know you except by the dealings we have recently had but I must mention that I do not think that you have been treating me appropriately starting with you reneging on your unblock. My basic sense of fairness alarm is ringing pretty loudly and that is a good indicator to me that something is wrong. I find especially egregious your back-door page ban on me that has lasted quite a few hours. I would like you to respond to me directly on that issue. Thanks--Justanother 02:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

50,000

Thanks, my barn probably needed another star. (And I honestly had no idea I'd hit 50,000 edits. Kinda scary.) - Jmabel | Talk 02:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Image sourcing

Dear Slimvirgin, please accept my apologies for the outburst here. Since yo asked how I came across Scholem's article, a couple of days ago I bought his biography of Sabbatai Zvi and got curious what Misplaced Pages had to say about either man.

However, comments such as this and this do nothing to defuse an emerging conflict. Misplaced Pages aims to be an encyclopedia and I feel that images ought to be held up to the same verifiability standard as claims in articles, that is there should be a minimum standard of sourcing - at the very least the year and name of photographer and copyright holder (or archival collection) should be given. Listing a webpage as a source is certainly not adequate sourcing. You are certainly not singled out here - if you go though my list of contributions you'll see that I do root through image categories and list cases on WP:PUI or in clear-cut cases on WP:CP.

What I did notice is that some of your early image uploads are poorly sourced - Image:ErnestGellner3.gif has as source a now defunct wepgade at the Universidad de Chile. Those need fixing.

Regards, Dr Zak 14:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)