User:PEAR/header

Thanks for uploading Image:Bunky.png. 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. 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop changing dates to add ordinals, like "22nd" or "15th". There's no point to it, the software does that automatically when needed. --Golbez 06:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it does. When the software sees "[[September 22]]" or "[[22 September]]", depending on the settings used by the user, it automatically renders it as "September 22", "22 September", etc. so if on a British article it has "[[22 September]]", to me as an American it displays as "[[September 22]]". The ordinals aren't used, firstly due to the date format, and secondly because I think they break this automatic rendering. --Golbez 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Do I know you? --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me what you are trying to achieve with this edit? It seems pointless, but maybe I have missed something? Thanks, Gwernol 16:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it just seems that you could write a little more if you want to do that, since a brief "Hi" could easily cause confusion (see above, for example). Thanks, Gwernol 16:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a userspace template would be a great idea. Best, Gwernol 16:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome :-) Generic Character 18:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. dto 19:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually a good idea to have some idea about the people you welcome, such as what edits they have and if they are blocked. You just welcomed an already indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of a persistant troll. --pgk^(talk) 19:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also unusual to welcome IP addresses and certainly not in bulk as you seem to be doing. IPs are often dynamic so the message you leave may not be received by your intended target. --pgk^(talk) 19:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you're missing the point a bit, if we wanted we could get a bot to add that to every user page or add it to the MediaWiki text on page spaces, welcome messages are however supposed to be a bit more personal than that and added when you see someone making useful contribs but notice they haven't yet been welcomed. Of course you are welcome to do it, but it seems a waste of time to just blanketly do it, not to mention instances like above where you welcome those already blocked, long term vandals etc. etc. --pgk^(talk) 19:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PEAR, I'm a little concerned about your category: Category:Welcomed by PEAR. I'm curious what you feel its purpose is. What use would others on Wikipedia get from this category? I suggest you take a look at WP:CG for some guidelines on categories. It is highly likely that this category may be removed unless you can justify its useful purpose for editors on Wikipedia. Metros232 19:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the category page, edit it, and include this tag {{db-author}} it'll be speedy deleted (people will still be listed in the category until you clear their names out...but the rest of the category wouldn't exist). And I'm sorry you feel that you've had negative experiences with admins around here...I'm not an adminstrator myself, but I tend to like the admins around here. Metros232 20:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? It's just harder to read for those who are unsure whether you meant it to be YMD or YDM format, and it's ugly.

--PEAR 16:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of point. First of all, your edits disabled date preferences by putting them in a non-standard format, whereas I re-enabled date preferences. If you have date preferences enabled, you will see August 13, 2006, or whichever format you prefer, even if the text says 2006-08-13. Second, in my opinion, YYYY-MM-DD is beautiful, and Month-Day-Year is ugly. No one will think YYYY-MM-DD means YYYY-DD-MM - nobody uses that - but a lot of people would mistake numeric MM-DD-YYYY for DD-MM-YYYY. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-13 22:54Z

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! You recently added an external link to an internet forum in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on external links for more information. --Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could have been mistaken (my apologies if I was), it was a recent edit to George H. W. Bush. By the way no need to call someone an idiot in an edit summary.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about this category. It doesn't seem that you have reliable sources for asserting that the people you have tagged with this category are in fact members. As noted in the Bohemian Club article, the only supposed membership list is not reliable. In particular with information about living people we are particularly careful to ensure that all information included in Wikipedia about this is properly sourced and fully verifiable - please see WP:BLP. You need to provide reliable sources for the inclusion of people in this category or remove it. Thanks, Gwernol 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the two references you have provided so far hold extreme points of view and cannot be considered reliable sources. Unless something better can be provided (and very soon) the list on the Bohemian Grove article must be removed as must the category. Sorry, Gwernol 23:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, if someone wrote "Bush is the greatest guy and he's done lots of good things for America & the world" I wouldn't ask for a source. I'd remove it immediately as personal opinion. I don't know if you noticed but we just had an election in which the Republican party was decisively defeated, so your remark about "dictatorship" is both incorrect and highly revealing of your personal bias. If you are not able to adhere to our most central policies like verifiability, perhaps it would be best if you did not contribute. Wikipedia is not and never will be a platform for you to express your political opinions. Its an encyclopedia that must be written from a neutral point of view. If you can't work within those rules, there are plenty of free web hosts available to you that you can use to promulgate your opinions. Thnaks, Gwernol 23:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, fyi, I've nominated this for deletion discussion. I think the category would be fine if there was much more reliable multiple sources for the list but Bohemian Club#Selected club members doesn't give any reliable sources. thanks Bwithh 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read our guideline on reliable sources which tells you what you need to do. You must provide verifiable reliable sources when dealing with information about living people. If you continue to ignore this I will block you to prevent you further damaging Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, PEAR! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. You've received this warning 1 times. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, and try to reinsert the link again. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 03:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shadowbot; however, this was a legitimate edit.

--PEAR 03:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me about the problem. That edit was accidentally reverted due to a problem with the blacklist rule that we were using. I've corrected the problem, so hopefully it will not happen in the future. Thanks! Shadow1 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bunky.png. 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:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. 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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 19:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pear! Just wanted to let you know that you may want to consider adding a reason to your vote on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex and Shopping discussion. A simple yes/no vote has less impact than one that gives the reasoning behind the vote. Check out the recommendations at WP:AfD - Before nomininating for a primer on how these things work! Also, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page! – Dreadstar † 17:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip --PEAR (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! – Dreadstar † 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do seem to be doing this rather a lot. Just putting Keep or Delete "per nom" or "seems notable enough to me" does not give the closing admin a rationale on which to close the discussion. AFD is not a vote after all. The most common reason things are kept or deleted is because they either meet or do not meet the notability guidelines. Generally, something is notable if is covered in multiple, nontrivial sources that are independent of it.

I would also recommend that you contact the admin who protected your talk page and try to get it unprotected, rather than creating a second talk page.

Cheers, ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:PEAR has been unprotected. --Yamla 21:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. --PEAR (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Unfortunately the fact a website has content, seeks donations, and sells stuff is hardly notable. In fact it is advertising. And no, I don't have to discuss removing advertising. Sorry about the headings. It was late, and when I checked I actually thought you had added material in the meantime. --Michael Johnson 22:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please change your nomination on the AfD for Big Brother (UK) Quotes, as it fails to comply with the above policy, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip neighborino, I changed my my comment. --User:PEAR/sig 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be a nervous pervous (:-P), but you've broken another guidline-WP:PERNOM. You'd better change it again. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read “Wikipedia:Signatures — Transclusion of templates”. —SlamDiego_←T 19:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --PEAR (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PEAR,

I just deleted your sig subpages for you. One thing that you might want to remember — and this applies to tagging templates for deletion in general — is that you should wrap the speedy deletion tags with <noinclude> ... </noinclude>, so that pages that are including those templates don't show up as speedy deletion candidates, too. — TKD::Talk 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --PEAR (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add an "unreferenced" tag, and a dozen {fact} tags, to Charles Coughlin? There a many references listed. Have you reviewed them? Is there some reason to doubt that the listed dates of brith and death are incorrect? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to add a citation for them. --PEAR (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the citatins we already have? We don't usually add citations cites for birth and death dates if they come from one of the sources for the article. Please make a reasonable effort to check for problems before adding swarms of {fact} tags. I'm going to remove the tags that don't seem serious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not me that uploaded it, but a friend. Is that not the coolest statue? Glad you like it too. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Conspiracy bill front.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 14:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]