User talk:Praxedis G: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:04, 17 April 2007

A welcome from Master of Puppets

Hello, Praxedis G, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Simplified Ruleset
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

P.P.S. For creating/editing articles, the best source is the link above; or just click here. I won't cram up your talk page too much, so if you have any specific queries, I'll answer them to the fullest degree possible. And again, welcone!

--MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 06:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome from me as well. I'm glad to see another New Orleanian making contributions to the articles here. Good work starting an article on the New Orleans mayor's race. Note that article titles here are case sensitive; I took care of changing it from "New orleans" to "New Orleans". Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Infrogmation. Nice to see another New Orleanian on Wikipedia. Thanks for your edits to the New Orleans mayoral election, 2006 page; it's a lot cleaner now. I was trying to figure out how to fix the capitalization, but it looks like you took care of it. I'm still new, so I've got a lot to learn. Thanks again..... Praxedis G 17:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Landrieu

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." --Phronima 17:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Maestri.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Maestri.jpeg. The image description 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.

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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Lengthy quote sections don't belong on Wikipedia, they belong on Wikiquote. I'm not sure if that part of the project has a Huey Long entry yet - if not, you should make one. DS 22:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana politics

Thanks again for your fine edits. Might you consider giving the Rob Couhig article a once over? I think one editor's substantial additions have sounded a bit much like advertising material. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the Jindal talk page.

Just curious as to what information you have gotten from the unlinked reference, and the necessity of having an unlinked reference if that material is available from other sources. Have a good day! DanielZimmerman 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Foster Campbell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Foster Campbell.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:

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. 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

umm...

I did and you haven't... - Comedy240 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Walter Boasso.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Walter Boasso.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. MECU≈talk 23:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:McKeithen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:McKeithen.jpg. The image description 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.

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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A strange accusation of vandalism

Warning

{{subst:uw-vandlism4}}|Louisiana Gubenaturial Election 2007, stop debolding Jindal's polling.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Louisiana gubernatorial election 2007, you will be blocked from editing.

(this unsigned comment was left by Politics rule)

You've apparently sent me a warning about vandalizing the Louisiana gubernatorial election, 2007 page. I created this article, have made substantial and repeated contributions to the text of the article since creating it, and have been writing and contributing to articles on Louisiana politics and history for over a year now. I've never been accused of vandalism before, so your 'final warning' is a first. If you don't like my edits, please have a discussion with me on the article's talk page or elsewhere; don't wrongly cite me as a 'vandal.' I'd like you to retract your warning, or at least make a note on my page stating that the warning was an error.Praxedis G 14:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, I found that my accuser - Politics rule - also accused someone else of vandalism yesterday on the James Bourne page. 'Politics rule' accused another user of vandalism for removing a speedy deletion template 'Politics rule' had placed claiming the article was short or out of context. It looked to me like the tag was inaccurate and rightfully removed, but PR accused this person of being a vandal. After discovering this, I'm pretty sure now that both accusations are frivolous and should be removed. But I'm trying to assume good faith; it looks like this user is fairly new to Wikipedia, and he might just be misunderstanding what constitutes vandalism and how to use templates. I'm reluctant to remove the warnings myself; I'm not sure it would look kosher. Is there something I can do about this? Praxedis G 15:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I warned Praxedis G of vandaliasm. i apoligize. just saying that he has debolded Jindal's points in polls three times. plese respond y u keep donig this. p.s. the others i warned were rightfully done.=) sorry Politics rule3:27pm EST.- 17 april 2007

Alright, I accept your apology. Just a word of advice, though, and please take this in the sense of being constructive criticism, rather than rudeness. I looked around and found your other warnings of vandalism to Professor Plum and the James Bourne editor – (I don’t remember his/her name at the moment). I think you're jumping the gun on declaring people to be vandals. ProfessorPlum didn’t even make an edit to the South Dakota election page; he left a comment on the talk page. He might not have been diplomatic, but the talk page IS an appropriate place to discuss an article. That’s not vandalism. If at all possible, you should try and resolve your differences with other editors amicably rather than just declaring them to be ‘vandals’ right off the bat. I notice you’re fairly new to Wikipedia; I just think that’s a bad habit to be getting into. You’ll have a lot more luck in your relations with other editors if you try to keep things civil. Use vandalism accusations as a last resort. Praxedis G 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 ::On further investigation, I found that my accuser - [[User:Politics rule|Politics rule]] - also accused someone else of vandalism yesterday on the [[James Bourne]] page.  'Politics rule' accused another user of vandalism for removing a speedy deletion template 'Politics rule' had placed claiming the article was short or out of context.  It looked to me like the tag was inaccurate and rightfully removed, but PR accused this person of being a vandal.  After discovering this, I'm pretty sure now that both accusations are frivolous and should be removed.  But I'm trying to assume good faith; it looks like this user is fairly new to Wikipedia, and he might just be misunderstanding what constitutes vandalism and how to use templates.  I'm reluctant to remove the warnings myself; I'm not sure it would look kosher.  Is there something I can do about this? [[User:Praxedis G|Praxedis G]] 15:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I warned [[User:Praxedis G|Praxedis G]] of vandaliasm. i apoligize. just saying that he has debolded Jindal's points in polls three times. plese respond y u keep donig this. p.s. the others i warned were rightfully done.=) sorry [[User:Politics rule|Politics rule]]3:27pm EST.- 17 april 2007
+::*Alright, I accept your apology.  Just a word of advice, though, and please take this in the sense of being constructive criticism, rather than rudeness.  I looked around and found your other warnings of vandalism to Professor Plum and the [[James Bourne]] editor – (I don’t remember his/her name at the moment).  I think you're jumping the gun on declaring people to be vandals.  ProfessorPlum didn’t even make an edit to the South Dakota election page; he left a comment on the talk page.  He might not have been diplomatic, but the talk page IS an appropriate place to discuss an article.  That’s not vandalism.  If at all possible, you should try and resolve your differences with other editors amicably rather than just declaring them to be ‘vandals’ right off the bat.  I notice you’re fairly new to Wikipedia; I just think that’s a bad habit to be getting into.  You’ll have a lot more luck in your relations with other editors if you try to keep things civil.   Use vandalism accusations as a last resort.  [[User:Praxedis G|Praxedis G]] 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)