User talk:Alvis

RE: Gilman and New quad

I didn't upload the new quad image, but the Gilman one was a mistake that I hadn't realized. I changed it to fair use.

RE: Gameboy Camera intenals.

No problem about the technical page. I didn't think anyone would be that interested. The hardware is after all, 8 years old or there abouts.

I used mainly google to find the info, re wrote a lot of the information I found in the sources, chucked it up on Wiki in the hope no one would shoot it down for plagerism.

Glad you liked the article - it was my first full fledged wiki entry.

I was going to cite a notion to merge the internal page with the GameBoy Camera page but decided against it as the usual page I thought would become to long.

Ive also added a bit more info to the GBCamera page itself, but you proibably know that already (mainly about the printer to be exact)

Thanks again for the positive feedback, crazyman50000

Discussion of Alvis's edits

Hi there. Are you still interested in mediation on this article or should I consider the case closed? Just let me know here, in the article, or on the mediation page. [1] Thanks and have a great day. Tsetna 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update: I've closed the case, since there has been no discussion. Tsetna 00:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:King_Alexander_assasination_corected_aspect_contract_and_sharpness.gif. 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:

• 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. 07:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - it's generally considered bad practice to refer to fellow editors as a "moron" - it causes bad feelings and all sorts of problems - and it's just not nice. --Charlesknight 09:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, as soon as morons stop editing, I'll stop calling them on it. Deal? Alvis 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said in the MJH article "m (revert - not your call to correct language on a talk page, Lost Boy)"

Oh yes, it is. Wikipedia is not a pig stable but a place for mature individuals. Look what happens if you let folks run around wild, like, in "Kazakhstan".

'nuff said. Greetings, Lost Boy 11:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain the problem you have with the screenshots and aspect ratio. Those images were not badly distorted. I am not aware of a Wikipedia policy about this. Thank you Tonicthebrown 02:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a policy; I pulled them because they looked a little rediculous - you can't see how compressed they were? If you have the original screengrabs (my DF disc is scratched up) I'd be happy to show you how to convert them so they upload properly. Alvis 08:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the Probe droid and Dark trooper images were satisfactory. I agree the stormtrooper looked a little shortened. I think that for the purposes of Wikipedia the images will suffice. Let me know if you strongly disagree. Thanks Tonicthebrown 10:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a STRONG disagree, but why not make them a little more accurate? Since the original game was displayed in 4:3 at 320x200, when displaying on a modern screen with square pixels, the image should stretched by a factor of 1.2 vertically to compensate. You can do in in Photoshop in the Image Size box by using a 120% multiplier and unchecking "constrain proportions" Alvis 11:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I can't see that you have any PFP pedigree. The article is linked six ways to breakfast to other Wiki articles concerned with the category. I object to this sort of nitpicking especially by the uninitiated. You could seek out written proof that the Pope is catholic too and I'm not sure what it would add to things. If you thought anything were demonstrably wrong, that would be a better place for you to start. Meanwhile, suffice it to say that I have developed such products, fire tested them, installed them, sold them, sat in on committees about firestop test procedures in Europe and in North America. Where does your expertise come from? Achim

I'm an expert in weeding out original research from articles. People who think they're experts tend to add facts that they're just SURE are right without providing proper citation. No matter how smart you think you are, you need to provide citations. Linking to other wiki articles isn't sufficient, as it leads to a circular chain of verification. I'm keeping an eye on your future edits to make sure you play nice. Alvis 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeky bugger aren't you? Say it to my face. Are you sure you want a war like that? Have me check on your stuff too? Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. --Achim 06:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you were right about the session ID. It's tought to find a third party reference on the stuff without blatant linking to a manufacturer (advertising). But just what do you want to see citations on? I'll put it it if I can find it, but the pix and the wiki-internal links are fairly self-explanatory. What is it apart from the little anonymous trip you apear to be on, that you are not buying factually on the subject matter? --Achim 06:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with any of my edits, feel free to address them on their appropriate talk pages. I simply won't stand for the great number of articles you add to using what appears to be professional experience alone. If you have all this information to add, write a formal paper, publish it free online, and then cite that. Just don't add new information to wiki that can't be verified externally. Alvis 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alvis. He does seem to think highly of himself, doesn't he? I've seen him make similarly condescending (read: snotty) comments to other editors on various talk pages. Noclevername 06:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Check the Talk:Transhumanism page for more on my issues with his reverts to your contributions. Alvis 08:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just reminding that you should add new comments to the bottom of talk pages per talk page guidelines. I moved your comment on Talk:Export of cryptography. Happy editing! -- intgr 07:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for catching the error in the first place. 128 MiB, when the whole SNES address space is only 16 MiB, what was I thinking? BTW, we're having a discussion on the SNES talk page you might be able to contribute to. Anomie 19:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alvis. I appreciate what you're trying to do by adding tags to a number of pages. Still, I just wanted to let you know that it kind of seems like drive-by tagging that doesn't really contribute to the content of those articles. Thanks, and happy editing! --Alan Au 00:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contribute to articles by removing unverified material, but thanks for your concern. Alvis 02:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Eyelashsurgnocred.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a good product, isn't it? Can't get all 13 flavors here in Ohio, though. Badagnani 06:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never tried it before a few days ago but this Old Bay die-hard wanted to try something new on his salmon. Best is using a little of both seasonings. Alvis 06:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reply. ehudshapira 15:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Paulson books make that statement (they're the first 2 in a planned 3-part series). I have them right here in my office, I use them for one of my work things. I will rewrite the book references to cites and cite that section, but those are the cites. Georgewilliamherbert 07:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really do appreciate you citing this passage. I mostly just find places where WP's lacking, but anyone who fixes those bits rather than just identify them gets my thanks. Alvis 07:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I tend not to over-cite to start with, but i can see that it's something people might want sourced. No big deal. Fortunately reference material I have on hand rather than have to go to a library for or somesuch. I've done the cites in the article now. Georgewilliamherbert 08:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the discussion on the subject page Fireproeng 01:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Talk:Backmasking#Controversial_topic. Thanks, Λυδαcιτγ 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some questions on your tags. Would appreciate some thoughts. Elf | Talk 16:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no userpage nazi, and I hate it when people without a sense of humor come knocking around other's pages chiding them for violating WP:USER. But the stream of offensive epithets on your user page is unacceptable beyond just WP:USER. Would you consider toning down the perjoratives? VanTucky ^(talk) 05:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to worry about it. Alvis 05:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, VanTucky was just asking nice.... but this is not optional. Do something about your user page. It's a violation of a number of policies (WP:CIVIL, WP:USER) and cannot remain the way it is. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For serious? I didn't realize acid-washed jeans and plagarism were such delicate issues. Alvis 07:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe the gay-homsexual part could have been offensive for any gay user that read it, to be honest I actually found this kind of funny when I found it up on the admin noticeboard, nowadays people report everything when the best thing is to explain policy from the begining. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; frankly, taking the time to defend sarcasm just isn't worth my while when there's so much else on WP that needs to be dealt with, so I changed the page to shut the whiners up. Alvis 08:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have completely missed the point of the cited policies. Calling me a "whiner" is an even worse breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. VanTucky ^Talk 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing your user-page. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, son. I'm not calling YOU anything, VanTucky. Alvis 08:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well the wikipedia guidelines say:

Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged

So this implies that citations are not needed for material which is not controversial and is unlikely to be challenged, or material that would be considered "common knowledge" in the relevant field. While you are performing a valuable service in deleting content of dubious validity and asking for citations where citations are needed, some of your edits are unnecessary and unproductive. For instance saying that a citation is needed in the article about Propylene glycol dinitrate where it says that it smells unpleasant, or in the article about J (psychedelic) where it says that it is a "lesser-known" drug. There are unlikely to be any citations available for these facts; any chemist working with propylene glycol dinitrate will attest to its unpleasant smell, but this is not such an important feature of the compound that papers will have been published about it. Similarly with the drug "J" (better known as BDB), this drug has a limited history of recreational use but has very little published material about it; by definition it is thus "little-known" and it is quite unnecessary to ask for a citation proving this fact. As someone with specific qualifications and experience in the chemistry/pharmacology field I feel that your edits to these articles were superfluous and excessively pedantic.

Meodipt 11:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki's not based on what users with expertise believe to be true, but what's citable. If the material is factual, there should be a reference work that exists somewhere for it. If it's something that seems like a personal opinion ("this stinks", "this is obscure" vs. "detectable at X PPB with a Y-like odor", "DEA Microgram reports LEOs having X encounters with Y over the past five years"), I have to tag it, lest WP end up a mix of hearsay and original research. I won't go and remove such information outright, because there most likely IS a citation somewhere, but if I get a bad feeling (that for example, one editor never heard of a substance him/herself and then labeled it as obscure) - well, better tagged than untagged. Alvis 03:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't been sitting right with me. Per your own quotations, Meodipt, "attribution is required for... material that is challenged". Once it's "citation needed" tagged, it's been challenged and, as such, REQUIRES attribution to a reliable source. WP is lenient about requiring citations for first-round edits, but if ANYONE suggests that the material may not have support, a citation is NEEDED for its further inclusion in Wikpedia. Alvis 05:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that you just slapped a fact tag on a statement that people's heads don't explode by themselves? :/ --Kizor 04:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any. You don't know of any. But wiki needs citations, not common assumptions. And yeah - I know it's a little silly, but the whole article is based on this being an event in fiction that has some sort of meaning behind the action. Somewhere, it needs to be established that this is NOT a natural occurence. We ALSO can't assume that WP readers take this for granted. Alvis 04:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:KaiLEXX.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if anyone's checking on responses to a bot's comments, but if so: I added this image to the page Kai (LEXX) eight months ago but it has recently been removed by the anonymous editor at 24.21.94.70 who did about two dozen edits to the article in the course of a day. If the article is fine without the image, I have no objections to its deletion. Alvis 05:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice from your comment on the Boys of Summer talk page you were an extra on that episode. I don't suppose you can ID any of the season 4 actors who played these characters?

1. Lieutenant Hoskins
2. Herc's Partner
3. Ed Bowers - Property Developer
4. Tote (Stanfield Soldier)
5. Lex
6. Reesy

--Opark 77 10:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only worked with the other extras in the hardware store scene, and hung out with a few random schoolkid extras while waiting for call. Felicia Pearson (Snoop) was the the only main player on the set with me. I did get a chance to talk with Domenick Lombardozzi (Herc), Sonja Sohn (Kima), and Andre Royo (Bubbles) at a charity event at The Brewer's Art [2] a month or two prior, but didn't know anything about the forthcoming season at the time to ask them about then. Alvis 07:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I notice you've made a substantial number of edits that involve the placement of citation tags. However, some of these seem a little excessive; not because the citations aren't needed, but because you've added more tags than necessary. For instance, multiple tags in one sentence is overkill (e.g. [3], [4]), and makes the article much more difficult to read. In these cases, one tag is more than enough to indicate that the sentence in question is uncited. (In all likelihood, if a source is found, it's going to be a single source for the entire sentence.)

Please don't let me put you off adding the tags, however; it's an important aspect of Wikipedia!

Best regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 13:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the concern, but I disagree. When I don't mark every questionable fact in a sentence, as soon as an editor finds a citation for one, he/she removes the cite needed tag, even when that citation only deals with a small part of the tagged passage. Alvis 01:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And instead of slapping "citation needed" on a phrase like "best known as", as you did in the KUSS article, wouldn't it be better just to reword it so as to not need a citation, for example, to "also known as", which would then be a fact easily verified by going to the station's own web site? DHowell 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would be assuming there's no cite available for the statement. I like to give the original editor the chance to come up with one before removing the statement. Alvis 02:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you added ^{[citation needed]} tags to many sentences in Fisherman's knot.

Do you have specific concerns? The article references (and always referenced) this knot's entry in the Ashley Book of Knots; see the infobox on the right. I am not sure that any reference exists with more authority, and my ABoK confirms everything in the article.

Fine, but you NEED to properly cite the pages and passages for those statements. I don't have this reference book, so I can't confirm anything. Alvis (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm not sure what you would like me to do. Would you prefer to have an inline cite of the ABoK, instead of the ID number given in the infobox on the right, which is linked to a page that specifically discusses this book? I'm not sure that adds extra information, but I certainly would not object to you making that edit. Otherwise, is there a reason to keep the ^{[citation needed]} tags?

And the Ashley Book of Knots is organized by knot number; these will stay constant across editions, while the page numbers might change. The original editor (not me, by the way) correctly chose the more useful and standard reference.209.130.150.117 (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask you to add it as a formal reference. As is, it's just an external link.Alvis (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I am not sure that it is most useful to add ^{[citation needed]} tags, unless I suspect that a fact is actually false. Time would be better spent adding references, or identifying Wikipedia's (many) real inaccuracies. 66.235.32.18 (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opinion, but you're way off base: Wikipedia requires citations. Truth isn't qualification for inclusion; citation is. That's one of the core operating policies. False or not, uncited claims must be tagged as such. Readers need to know that the information found here is based on external, reputable facts, and need to understand that they can't just take Wikipedia's word on anything uncited. Articles that aren't supported by reliable citations must be marked as such. Alvis (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that citations are essential. I don't see what indiscriminate ^{[citation needed]} tags do to improve this situation. Anyone can look at a passage, and observe that a sentence does not contain an inline cite; they will do this with or without the tag. It would seem more useful to me to actually add the citations, and not just ask other people to do so. 209.130.150.117 (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, adding citations would be preferable. But I'm lazy, and this is what I do to make Wikipedia better. A ton of cite needed tags is better than none at all, though actual citations are better than both. Alvis (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's more work to find citations than to ask for them. I suspect that you would encounter a much more favorable response if you spent time on this more difficult part of the task.

I've removed the cn tags from Fisherman's knot. I didn't add a <ref> to the Ashley Book of Knots; that seemed redundant to me--every knot page would end up with that same reference, since the infobox for knots always mentions the ABoK number. I would certainly not object if you would like to make that change, though. 66.235.32.18 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A ton of cite needed tags is better than none at all". I disagree. A ton of cite needed tags makes the article unintelligible. I draw the conclusion that it is unintelligible first from my own experience in reading articles you have edited and secondly from the sheer amount of outcry that is apparent in your talk page. The argument here is not over the need for citations, indeed, a well cited article is certainly much better than a non cited article, but an unintelligible article is worthless. While indeed you might be making Wikipedia better by (to use your words) lazily placing a ton of cite needed tags, you're making it hard to understand and damaging the work of other, less lazy Wikipedians who are writing articles. An article does not have to be perfect and comprehensively cited before it may be understandable. How about this: Limit yourself to one cite needed tag per paragraph. If the author finds a cite that still leaves some part of the paragraph uncited, only then place another cite needed tag in the paragraph until, incrementally, every phrase in the paragraph links to its respective cite. IMO this over-cite-needed-editing is doing more harm than good and your justifications of it throughout this talkpage are reminiscent of WP:LAWYER. For instance, consider your claim that "Once anyone tags the passage, it HAS BEEN challenged". This claim totally undermines the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence as in this view the mere act of adding the tag is enough in of itself to live up to the demands of the guideline. I read this guideline as requiring cites for facts "challenged or likely to be challenged" by an outside source, and in this view that your challenges are a form of original research. Otherwise, a vandal, wishing to harm Wikipedia could follow in your example, mark every single phrase in Wikipedia with a site needed tag and that would be enough to live up to the guideline DuckeJ (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I can't help but notice that you are adding excessive ^{[citation needed]} tags throughout several articles. Yes, there are some things that need citations. However, what you are doing is not at all contributing to the article itself. If you are so concerned about the citations, take a few extra moments to actually find the information on a relevant website, and add the citation itself.

Also, please refrain from adding more than one ^{[citation needed]} tag to a single sentence, or adding ten or twenty to a single section of an article. It ruins the readability of the article, and citing a source for every single little idea in an entire article is ludicrous. If you feel that the article needs many more citations, simply add the relevant template about citation to the top of the article, or comment about adding citations on the talk page. -Rycr (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where there's a statement in Wikipedia that reads like an opinion, it's any editor's duty to mark it for needing citation. As for multiple tags, as I've already explained on this talk page, "when I don't mark every questionable fact in a sentence, as soon as an editor finds a citation for one, he/she removes the cite needed tag, even when that citation only deals with a small part of the tagged passage." Multiple tags point out multiple independent facts in need of citation. I'm just trying to make sure that all of Wikipedia is cited and there's no original research. Alvis (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've recieved numerous complaints about you putting {{fact}} tags on statements. That's fine usually but you're doing it way to much. It's alright to assume things. Every single sentence doesn't neeed a citation, just the things that aren't common knowledge or might sound wrong. I mean, you once put a citation needed tag on a sentence saying that people's heads didn't explode on their own. That's obviosly true and doesn't need a reference. A better way of going about this would to be to find the references yourself. Do a google search, or use google scholar. I also suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

There are some things that are unlikely to be challenged, and thus don't need citations--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just had a crazy idea...I'm working on History of Science, trying to find references etc. an it's hard work. While adding {{fact}} tags everwhere can get a bit irritating for people, you might want to do it there, then I'll know what needs sources, Thanks! :-)--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once anyone tags the passage, it HAS BEEN challenged.Alvis (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That actually sounds like a good idea. I'll give the HoS article a read through. Alvis (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sounds logical but people don't seem to like you for it...thanks for HoS anyway, Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate your help in making Wikipedia a more reputable source by ensuring it is properly cited. However, it would be even better if you consider adding sources yourself rather than just {{fact}} tagging, this way Wikipedia can improve even more. If you need any help with this just ask. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I'll just stick to tagging. It's not glamorous, it makes people who would rather be laissez-faire about sources hate me, and it makes articles look odd. But yeah, it's just that important. Alvis (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try adding sources from time to time? If you won't who do you expect to do so?Geni 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said, "no thanks". This level of harassment is wholly unneceessary. Do yourself a favor and go after the editors who don't provide sources in the first place. Don't shoot the messenger who is just pointing it out. Alvis (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Armycannabisshotgun.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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 non-free media 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. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'am ther uploader of this image. Just three points about:

1) The screenshot came not from a clandestine source; even if a PIRA propaganda film, this is an original production from a Television Française team working in a documentary in Northern Ireland in 1994. (See the rationale).

2) Sorry, but I don´t understand the relationship between the re-sizing of the image I've made and your doubts about the claimed source; I simply printed the screenshot from the video, scanned, resized, and enhanced it using a version of Corel.

3) There is a makeshift video by an user of YouTube were you can clearly see the watermark of Television Française. Unfortunately, I don´t remember the link right now.

DagosNavy 23:08, 09 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video has a maximum resolution. In zooming in and showing it this large, the vast majority of the pixels in it are just guessed at by your computer. It no longer accurately reflects the original source. Alvis (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the reference which you deleted from Gregorian calendar. Perhaps you read the reference a little too fast. The Merriam-Webster site defines Common Era as CHRISTIAN ERA, thus establishing that they mean the same thing. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I misinterpreted their use of a colon as linking to related articles, rather than another definition. My apologies. Alvis (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no, I don't have anything better. I guess we should just replace it with the low-res bitmap then, unless I suddenly gain marvelous vector drawing skills and redraw it myself. --Rpresser 17:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'll see if I can find an HD copy of the film (if there is one) to see if I can get a better raster original to work from; maybe even try tracing it for another vector getting some of that fine detail. Alvis (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stop writing shit in this article without a citation for it," is piss-poor netquette. Take a moment to read this: Calm down. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mercuryswitch2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 non-free media 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. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alvis. I don't disagree with the need to put {{fact}} on various statements in the Akita Inu article. The article needs citations. I did want to take issue with something else in your edit summary, however. How do you expect to describe a dog's behavior without using words like "stubborn" and "bored"? I own an Akita -- let me tell you, he is stubborn, and he does get bored by certain activities. So do my other two dogs. I don't think it's anthropomorphism, which is the application of uniquely human characteristics to nonhuman beings. Are you suggesting that only humans can be bored or stubborn? I'm not saying my Akita's behavior is representative of all Akita behavior, nor am I suggesting this is a citable source. My point is I don't understand how you expect to describe the behavior otherwise. Camanda (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect to find useful citations for these behaviors, as written. It's impossible to describe dog behavior in human emotional terms while also having citations that would stand up to scrutiny. A lot of these Wikipedia dog breed articles are full of this sort of thing. I'd certainly welcome any good cites for what I've tagged, but right now it's a cesspool of what editors have assumed their pets were "thinking". I'm hoping my tags will prompt rewrites in neutral, citable terms (the dog does X when Y, Z% of the time). Alvis (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Alvis, what gives with this unhelpful citation mania of yours. Your edits of ghost net are is perilously close to vandalism. Use some common sense and stop this nonsense. You clearly didn't even read the references already provided for this article. This is an annoying waste of time. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were requesting a citation for an uncited statement. You are NOT to remove such tags without providing proper citations. The way you're reverting me without explaining why and the tone of your last message are uncalled for and are in violation of wp:civil. References are not citations unless tagged as such. Challenging uncited material is not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. It's what Wikipedia requires to make sure there's no original material. Please continue this discussion at Talk:Ghost_net#Citations_needed Alvis (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alvis, I usually disapprove of your citation mania, but this page seriously needs some ^{[citation needed]} tags to be added, I don't suppose you'd mind taking a look sometime? Meodipt (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space, re: [[5]]

"In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission."

I'm a bit pissed off that you saw fit to undo a two-year-old edit to my user page that I decided to keep up there. It's really not one user's place to undo edits of another's page when they're not patently objectionable. Alvis (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alvis,

I didn't mean to disrespect you. By chance I stumbled upon your user page and when I noticed it wasn't been edited since 2007, I figured you were retired or never noticed. Sorry, I should've been more thorough before editing. I just though it was odd that an unknown IP left a message at your user page, instead of your talk page, complimenting you on how your user page is so neat and tidy and thereby undoing the tidiness of your user page itself! I am well aware of that Wiki guide line and that's why I hit the undo button. Again, my apologies. --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 09:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I appreciate your candor. No worries! Alvis (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:PolydactylMittens.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 file. 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. ww2censor (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]