User talk:Eaefremov

Juan Román Riquelme

Done. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MindManager

Hi, Thanks for your comments about my changes to the the MindManager article. I will take these comments on-baord and as soon as I get some time I will have another go, if that is acceptable. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyroneking (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weeds / Weed (disambiguation)

Hi, I took a quick look at how many of the options on the dab page could actually appear in plural, and it is basically just the unwanted plant. Furthermore, a look here should convince you that almost all pages that link to Weeds actually mean to link to Weeds (TV Series), with the exception of a couple, which I will fix. eae 06:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Redirecting Weeds to Weeds (TV series) contradicts our naming conventions (because this renders the parenthetical disambiguation unnecessary). The correct course of action (assuming that Weeds should be used for this purpose) is to move the actual article to that title.

2. Internal links are not the only consideration. Links to Weeds intended for Weed are relatively unlikely to exist and easy to repair, but it's likely that many readers (particularly those unfamiliar with our naming conventions) will attempt to reach the Weed article by typing "Weeds" into the search box (because plural references to the plants are extremely common). —David Levy 07:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not "move" a page by copying and pasting content. This breaks the revision history, which is required for compliance with the GFDL. If you wish to rename the page, please follow the instructions from Wikipedia:Requested moves (as advised above). Thank you. —David Levy 06:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. ➪HiDrNick! 03:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eaefremov, thank you for your message. I apologize if my warning you and not warning ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs) appeared to be one-sided; it was not intended to be that way. ILike2BeAnonymous already had been issued a WP:3RR warning earlier (diff), so reminding him of the rule would have been redundant and unnecessary. Had he continued to revert, he would have been blocked from editing with a quickness. I don't doubt that you were making a good-faith effort to improve the article, but revert-warning over any change is not the way to do it. Constructive discussion on the talk page is best. Still, I see where you would be upset, and will try to be more even-handed in the future. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 00:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BestofHendrix.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BestofHendrix.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 (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public-domainness of USSR materials

{{help}} Why is the option "was made in the soviet union before 19xx" no longer available when choosing licensing? Is that material not considered public domain anymore?

I don't know why that particular option is no longer available for licensing, but as for what falls into the public domain, see this table. You'll probably get a more informed answer to your question if you post it on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. SWAdair | Talk 08:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smena

I completely agree. Let's move it. If you don't mind be my guest and do the honours. Even the Russian article on Smena is titled Smena (fotoapparat) and includes all Smenas. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Now it fits much better with the Russian article. I'll try to find a few citations as long as I can navigate through Russian websites in due course. Hopefully they will have some English sections. Goodbye for now. Dr.K. (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You can change it as a redirect if you want. Спасибо. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Huckabees

I meant to say that reference #1 is not a blog, not reference #3.

I said that the film is *usually* pronounced I Heart Huckabees, implying that is is sometimes pronounced I Love Huckabees.

You asked for references, to show that it is sometime pronounced I Love Hucakbees all you have to do is a web serach for "I Love Huckabees" and you will find many hits showing that indeed it is sometimes pronounced this way. Any of those web hits suffice, blogs or not, as all I am trying to demonstrate is that some people pronounce it differently, and a blog is adequate fo rthis purpose.

I pronounce it I Love Huckabees, my friends pronounce it I Love Huckabees, why is that so difficult for you to accept?

Do the web search and see for yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.253.117 (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs don't suffice for anything on Wikipedia. They're not adequate for any purpose here.
I didn't erase the first reference, which isn't a blog, I erased the two that are blogs. You should really look at the diff of an edit before using the "undo" function.
You should really have an account on Wikipedia before you start posting on user talk pages. That way you're not hiding behind your IP and therefore waiving your right to credibility. EAE (Holla!) 20:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users are not required to register an account. Do not misrepresent Wikipedia's policies like this. All user's contributions are welcome, and it is highly inappropriate to insinuate otherwise in order to discredit or intimidate someone with whom you have a disagreement. Further, sources that call themselves "blogs" are sometimes adequate, if they are subject to editorial review (see the section below by riffic). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how Cheeser1 purports to give a direct order to EAE by writing: Do not misrepresent Wikipedia's policies like this. I wonder if there is a Wikipedia policy that entitles one user to give military style order to another user. Is that considered civil? Are some more equal than others? --Achim (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually an entire set of tools to do so: User:Black_Kite/Toolbox. Stop Wiki-stalking me. If you jump into one more situation to continue your WQA-retailation, I will report you for harassment at the ANI. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blogs as reliable sources

I replaced the link to Wired's blog with updates from the Hans Reiser trial, which is perfectly acceptable according to WP:V "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. [1] riffic (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dark Knight

Hi, just to let you know that the lead section of an article is supposed to be a mere summary of the the article content. As per WP:LEAD, facts stated in the lead do not require citations if citations for the same information exist in the main body. The facts you tagged at The Dark Knight are all properly cited. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reggae Rock article

Someone took down your deletion proposal on the Reggae rock page. Check out How to list pages for deletion for a different way to nominate an article for deletion. It's a bit more complicated, but nobody will be allowed to just remove the proposal without it being debated by other editors. Spylab (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Black Gold (Hendrix album)

Hi there, I have been doing new page patrol and came across this article you created. It does not have any references and, as such, my inclination would be to send it to Articles for Deletion, as the subject matter is somewhat controversial; however, I thought I would ask if this just happened to be an article you started work on but never quite finished up first. If you can reference it (say in the next week or so) then we can both avoid the AFD stuff, which is an ideal situation because it would mean we had another interesting quality Wikipedia article. I'll keep an eye on the article, or feel free to touch base on my talk page if you'd like. Risker (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Lomography"

Hello. Mind popping over here? Thanks! -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorodki

Hi! I uploaded to Commons the rest of Gorodki patterns. Please have a look/use. [2]--Begemotv2718 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Gold (Hendrix album)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Black Gold (Hendrix album), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Black Gold (Hendrix album). Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]