User talk:Zache

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Welcome!

Hi, Zache, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the collaborative encyclopaedia that anyone can edit! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We'll certainly be looking forward for your contributions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:



I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. And, the most important thing:

Have fun!

Sarg (Talk)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Shotcode_df8475d8b218.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Shotcode_df8475d8b218.png. 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. 12:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Factbook

Thanks for putting back the links! I must have deleted them by mistake! That will teach me to edit the wiki in the wee hours of the morning! - Thanks, Hoshie 18:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: PHinn

Hi, you marked PHinn article with stub-tag so it would be nice to know what you think that should be fixed. References are simple one, but what else? aka "If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)" --Zache 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just pretty short. Any information you could add about him would be great. And the one section is about the website, not the person himself. It should be reworded or removed. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the good girl

If there are no reliable, third party sources on a topic, we shouldn't have an article on that topic, because we can only be as reliable as our sources. It still just looks like a pile of hype, from their own site, press releases and digg, which is an unreliable user-submitted news site and doesn't do any research or editorial control of its own. the article's looking awful shaky right now, like a promotional puff piece. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TheGoodGirlCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TheGoodGirlCover.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. ShakespeareFan00 09:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

CC-NC-ND is Wikipedia-Unfriendly. For upload purposes it should be treated in my opinion no differently from an ordinary copyright.ShakespeareFan00 09:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheGoodGirlCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheGoodGirlCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oink

A couple of things re: your recent edits to the Oink's Pink Palace article.

  • First, thanks for adding the link to the Wired article. It seems pretty accurate and it's great to have more reputable sources in the article.
  • Could you clarify what you mean by the sentence: "Compared to other bittorrent trackers at the time it's userbase was balanced to music fans and music professionals" in the Oink's Pink Palace article? I'm not sure what it means.
  • I took the advice on your userpage and did a bunch of copy-editing to your recent edits.
  • Could you be a little more cautious with your edits? Both of your main changes have added good info, but much of the info was already in the article in different places, and it was already copyedited.

MrVibrating 13:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for fixing my english. And then answers:
  • Could you clarify what you mean by the sentence...: I tried to say that the general profile of users of OiNK weren't really same as warez people generally. Different type of people used Oink than is using sites like The Pirate Bay or Mininova etc. In example if Pirate Bay dies nobody from music indystry will come and cry after it, but for Oink there is multiple music professionals writing that it is loss that it died.
  • Could you be a little more cautious with your edits?... I noticed that there were changes after me and my edit was on purpose. Also, i thinked that somebody would undone my edit if it sucked, but generally i think it's better for future edits that there is different sections for what the site was and for the news debate. So that was my reason for the rephasing the content.
--Zache 13:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:OiNK.me.uk-1.1.2006.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:OiNK.me.uk-1.1.2006.png. 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 13:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

What do you mean here by "blatant deleting edit"? I wasn't trying to hide anything, so of course it was "blatant". And it was "deleting' since I removed a bunch of marketing-style language. This is an encyclopedia that requires verifiable facts, not a promotional brochure full of rhetoric. Please assume good faith. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

About that you didn't try to fix marketing style language, but just deleted it. I can agree with you with the style of the language, but not with that you just deleted all info about what kind of content site has. Only words you left to do that was "pornographic or erotic" which is for porn site pretty much same as you described Seinfield with word Sitcom and removed everything else, because there isn't direct ref in the article (although there were ref to ASS review, but it isn't really my point)--Zache 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abbywinters.com 'Description of content'

Hello. Firstly, thanks for defending the article. In the Description of content section, I was going to rephrase the second pargraph to improve its grammar. What did you mean exactly by "images of details"? Bitwiseb (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried kind of to sum next: The site is known to have lot of single thing photos, like photos of breasts, faces, legs, cunts etc etc... and which are collected to something what She's so fine describes: the material itself is of very high technical quality, the indexing and cross-referencing of the articles is of near-obsessive minuteness. --Zache (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oink: Music Professionals

The source only describes one music professional, Trent Reznor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.34.61 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but its kind of common knowledge that Oink was balanced to music people. Anyway, from the article there is link to Jace Claytons and Rob sheridans writing about Oink. Outside from article there were discussion around Idolator (after one idolator writer were kicked out from Oink) about music journalists beeing users of Oink. Also some of prereleased music weren't scene releases and were from music indystry workers. I too drunk (happy new year btw) to ref those later ones because its more or less own research, but Jace Claytons, Rob Sherdidan is clear thing. --Zache (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:The_OiNK_Top_10.jpg

heh, I just noticed this in a bout of random clicking on wikipedia... You know, buy uploading this screenshot, you could be percieved as a user or a friend of a user on OiNK and therefore admitting to committing the crimes of pirating music. But, as an ex-member myself, who cares? Just thought I would point that out and get back to my random clicking. DemosDemon 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revealing identity

With reference to Abby Winters: Fictional I agree about not revealing an identity which someone wants, for their own reasons, to keep private. But it would be fairly difficult, using these pages, to discuss it and keep it hidden! Perhaps email me via my userpage? Soixante (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind of impossible to keep it hidden. Anyway i don't know who she is nor didn't find anything intresting (or least anything what you haven't found through usenet anyway) although i suspect that AW is internet pseudonym of somebody who is nerdy and lot more gender ignorant than what we are :). --Zache (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Moved rest of talk to the Talk:Abbywinters.com --Zache (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lapsiporno.info

Hey. I sort of agree, but let's see how big this thing gets first. Maybe the website needs a separate article anyway. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you got on Digitoday. Maybe the Finnish media is slowly picking up now that even Iltalehti is writing about it. Prolog (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Oink's Pink Palace. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, can you tell me how those two links were Spam by your own words not by some template? Do you actually think that they were survived when site was on the news if they were spam. Ok, the youtube link were pretty funny, but if you watch it is genuine oink song at the time when site did go down. --Zache (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure. My analysis was posted at WP:ANI#User:Phantomia on Oink's Pink Palace and it was listed for blacklist inclusion.
Per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, the web-site --
# Does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article;
# Is mainly intended to promote a website;
# Is a link that requires payment or registration to view the relevant content;
# Is a link that is inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser;
# Is a link to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Note that the official web-site contridicts those that were listed as spam.
Furthermore, Youtube videos are not reliable sources. See WP:RS#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, oink.pytalhost.com is clear so no more about that. About the other two links what you removed.
  1. Teh Paines blog. I was editing the article after the raid happened and the site was closed and Paines blog were added to the article because it was commonly agreed that it was credible (there were couple other credible blogs also). AFAIK. the Paine was one of the inner core admins of the oink. Second and more important reason was that teh Paine's blog didn't push any agenda, but it merely killed hoaxes and rumors. I think that this second reason is why it should be in the article.
  2. the Youtube video: It doesn't matter if Oink song is reliable source or not. It is not used as source. It is commentary about the closing the Oink. I don't really care if this is in the article or not. It just is something which is nice.
  3. WP:IGNORE, You know, the rules are here to make Wikipedia better. Not as the holy bible, which we should blindly follow --Zache (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)