This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alexia Death (talk | contribs) at 13:07, 18 September 2009 (→Your post to User talk:Jimbo Wales). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:07, 18 September 2009 by Alexia Death (talk | contribs) (→Your post to User talk:Jimbo Wales)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)User talk:Alexia Death/Archive1
| This is Alexia Death's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Merry XMAS
asking for an interview
Hello Alexia! I'm a research student currently working on the power structure of Misplaced Pages. It looks like you have a very critical view on how the things have been done, and your point is interesting me. Could we talk together about that in a time? All Best, Sylvain
Pics
Hey, could you upload some of your pics to Commons? Right now, Sõrve säär picture can't be used in other wikis. Avjoska (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Mindflayer.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mindflayer.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Your post to User talk:Jimbo Wales
Per my comments here I have redacted your post to Jimbo's talkpage. I have noted Newyorkbrad's request at the ArbCom page that participants to the matter should refrain from acting without due consideration to the sensitive nature of the matter, and it is my belief that your question to Jimbo fails that test. Your comment remains in the history, so Jimbo is easily able to review it and decide to answer if he chooses - but it is my belief that he will not do so under the circumstances. I strongly suggest that you constrain yourself to commenting on this matter only on the ArbCom pages relating to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- It was posted in good faith that such an important issue needs his attention. I do not agree with your rationale that he should be somehow protected from this nor do I accept your authority to make such a decision. However I will not restore the comment, because it would be quite pointless. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)