User talk:Alight

Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. You can sign your name with ~~~~. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:

Have fun! --Jiang 22:11, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Woa, great photo (Image:ChessSet.jpg) that you took. --Menchi 03:01, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images[edit]

Hi. You uploaded Image:Cribbage.jpg but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags for more info. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 20:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

WP:FPC#Bee Wings[edit]

I still don't agree with you, but I'd still like to thank you for replying to my request. :) Mgm|^(talk) 20:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Commons?[edit]

Hello! Can we upload these (C) images to commons? --Sheynhertz _געשׁ״ך 14:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Brandeisians[edit]

In your edit to the list of notable Brandeisians, you removed two people with the comment "... not notable, else would have own Wikipedia articles." I don't have an opinion about whether these two people are notable, but I did want to point out that many Wikipedia articles start as red links from elsewhere; in fact, many of the articles I've created started as this kind of link. In other words, your argument about notability doesn't follow how the Wikipedia works, and you ought to have other reasons for feeling that something is not notable before you remove it. --Zippy 04:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this happen again. It seems to me, on the face of it, ridiculous to remove people solely on the grounds that they don't have wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is a work in progress and many things are missing. People sometimes find out what's missing, and contribute, due to redlinks. What sense does it possibly make to circularly claim that because they're not in wikipedia already, they're not notable?Cos 05:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to realize that when you remove notable people from the listing, and make statements like "cohen is not notable', you are both defaming an individual, and alienating that person as a donor to Brandeis University. Nathan Cohen is indeed listed in wikipedia, under 'fractal antennas'. If you use this false assertion again, it will likely create a formal dispute against you--formal as in legal. I urge you to correct your error less it be interpreted as being of 'intent'.

Note that one of the notables removed was quite notable (most economists would agree): http://www.iie.com/publications/author_bio.cfm?author_id=47

I would love to be able to "correct my error" however, you both seem to have done it for me and since you are editing anonymously, I can't contact you. Regards, Alan Alight 13:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incongruous reference[edit]

The quotation from the reference, "Brandeis, a nonsectarian institution, was founded in 1948, by American Jews seeking to establish a university free from the quotas that Jews faced at elite colleges," is highly relevant and is needed to support the statement in the article. I agree that the article itself has a title that's irrelevant and might lead one to question my motives in citing it... but I couldn't figure out an appropriate or honest way to cite it without mentioning the title.

I'm going to try abbreviating the title to "Brandeis pulls artwork..."

I do plan to look for a less "incongruous" reference. But Brandeis' origins as a response to discrimination are important to mention, just as are Boston College's origins as a response to anti-Catholic discrimination, and the Brandeis website tap-dances around this and, it seems, a number of other circumstances connected with Brandeis' founding (its connection with Albert Einstein, for example).

I am not a pro-Palestinian NPOV warrior, if that's what you were thinking. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: spam[edit]

Regarding edits made during October 30 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory 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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BattlestarWiki is a wiki and covers stull Wikipedia cannot, a.k.a relevance. Scifipedia is ran by the official Sci Fi channel and hence is official as official can be, a.k.a relevance. The commercial link I obviously missed, but of course im only human.. - Your link is just a non notable podcast that maybe gets 1 listner a week and hence does not meet wiki link gudielinks. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't contribute positively without trying to censor everything that you yourself did not originate, please mind your own business, Matthew. Thx. 24.242.148.169 03:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BSG link[edit]

Your neutrality is effected, and asking somebody to do it is just meat puppetry.
Your link is non-notable and non relevant to the article, if it was official then maybeeeee it would have a tincy bit of relevance.
Your link has been removed before.
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised, Matthew Fenton apparently has delusions of ownership of several Wikipedia articles. For some reason, he thinks he is the Be All and End All of any dispute over articles and entry editing, and has no problem trying to force his views down everyone's throat. If anyone's guilty of disrupting actions, it's Matthew. Stick to your guns, reverse any unwarranted, wanton edits he makes at least once a day, and eventually he'll get it through his head that he doesn't own Wikipedia. Not by a long shot. 66.90.151.114 07:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Matthew Fenton[edit]

Does Matthew have some sort of godhood delusion? 24.242.148.169 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service[edit]

Thought you might want to know about this, it has the same goals as Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but is better organized. --Gphoto^talk 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brandeis gosman.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Brandeis gosman.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. Chowbok ☠ 20:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More replaceable fair use images[edit]

—Chowbok ☠ 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Images[edit]

I believe you have me confused with someone else. However, you should post the information you told me on the image page itself. If it is already there, I apologize for missing it while going through the images. You can restore the images into the articles by reverting my edits. Sorry for the error, if any. --MECU≈talk 22:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandeis images[edit]

Hi, can you elaborate on the permission you received from Brandeis? Ideal would be if you could post the e-mail(s?) on the image talk pages. If they've released these images under a free license, I would be happy to remove the RFU notices and get these off the chopping block. —Chowbok ☠ 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard back from you on this. I'm going to re-nominate these for deletion if you don't write me soon. —Chowbok ☠ 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to nominate these for deletion again. This is getting ridiculous. Anyone could just go to the same spot and take new pictures, there's no reason why we have to wait for weeks to get permission to use these. —Chowbok ☠ 01:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brandeis shapiro.jpg[edit]

This image was deleted because it was marked as {{untagged}} for more than seven days. This makes it a candidate for speedy deletion as per criteria I4 of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion.

Despite you hostile accusations of vandalism, I have restored the image. Please add a copyright tag to it. Failure to do so will result in the image being deleted again. If you do not know what copyright tag to add, ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --TheParanoidOne 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Brandeis shapiro.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Brandeis shapiro.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't think you're being dishonest, but you may be mistaken. A lot of people get this stuff wrong. It's very confusing.

2. If you're claiming an image that doesn't belong to you is GFDL, you have to present evidence it's so. That's not just to please me, it's standard practice.

3. I don't. It only seems that way to you because you pay more attention to this image than to ones you didn't upload. Look at my history; I've nominated hundreds of photos for deletion.

4. Well, yeah. If I (or anybody) disputes something, doesn't that automatically mean it's in dispute?

Why don't you just post the e-mail? If you have a note from the guy saying they release the image under the GFDL, I'll drop the whole thing. Wouldn't that be easier than spending all this time fighting with me?—Chowbok ☠ 03:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to drop the hostility, it gets us nowhere. As I said before, I don't believe you're lying, but rather that you might be mistaken. When I post an image from Flickr to here or Commons, I have to point to its original source to show that it has truly been released under the license I said it was. I don't take having to do this as a personal affront or a reflection on my character; I simply understand that mistakes get made and its good to have more eyes on something. Please don't be offended that you're being held to the same standard that I or anyone else is. —Chowbok ☠ 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're not willing to discuss this in a civil manner. Speculating about my motives and character is quite unseemly and hardly productive to our goal here. Please let me know if you change your mind later and are willing to limit our conversation to the issues at hand. —Chowbok ☠ 18:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't once called you a liar, in fact I've said the opposite repeatedly. I don't think your e-mail counts as a "private" correspondence when you made it clear that you were writing on behalf of Wikipedia. And there are other reasons why we'd want to have the e-mail. Suppose somebody else from Brandeis says "No, we own the copyright on this and it's not GFDL". If we have the correspondence available, we can point them to that.

Anyway, if you're still nervous about posting the e-mail publicly, how about this for a compromise: forward it to <permissions@wikimedia.org>. That way, it won't be available to everybody, but Wikipedia administrators will still be able to refer to it in case of a dispute. How does that sound? —Chowbok ☠ 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try to post to my talk page at least once without accusing me of something? You never told me you had forwarded the e-mail to permissions. That's fine then, I'll see if I can get somebody to follow up on that. —Chowbok ☠ 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandeis Student Life[edit]

I've seen you've edited the student life section on the main Brandeis page to remove reference to greek life on campus. Would it be more accurate to state that while the school doesn't recognize them, that certain organizations claim members there? Jihad cowboy 18:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, otherwise it can get carried away. The article is about "Brandeis University" which operations as an institution. If a bunch of students (who just happen to attend Brandeis) are involved in some off-campus activity, it's not really about "Brandeis University" anymore. Where do you draw the line? If a bunch of kids get together in a restaurant each week, does that make them a "Brandeis Dining Club." Alight 20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous things on the page that do not have to do with University itself, but historical and communal aspects. The fact that for 2 years there were Greeks on campus prior to the University's removing them (1986-1988) would at least justify a mention in the historical section. Also, student life is not just a discussion of the school sponsored activities, but the lives of the students. If there was a dining club that attracted nearly 10% of the school, I do feel it should be listed. Jihad cowboy 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is an article on Brandeis University, and this section is a description of student life on campus. While the school itself does not recognize the fraternities and sororities, when a sizable percentage of the student body participates in it, and a large portion of the social scene on campus is driven by it, I feel a mention IS deserved in a description of the Student Life. To return to your question of a dining club, if and when several hundred students come together to organize dining trips as a unit, then I would say they should be listed as a part of student life. Jihad cowboy 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UAA logo.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:UAA logo.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut county photo requests[edit]

I saw your name at Wikipedians/Photographers. FYI, the photo requests at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Connecticut have been sorted into Counties to make it easier to locate the place of the requested photo. GregManninLB (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BrandeisUnivSeal.gif}[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:BrandeisUnivSeal.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. 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 escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our 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) 13:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Brandeis Ollie.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Brandeis Ollie.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandeis greek life[edit]

I'm not going to revert your recent edit as the info you removed is unsourced but I disagree with your stated rationale for removing the information. It's short-sighted and narrow to think that only university-approved activities or groups are the proper subject for an article about the institution and its student life. I understand that we have to draw a line somewhere but I think you've drawn the line too close to the institution in this instance. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the top line of the article List of Zeta Beta Tau chapters and colonies. It states: "The following is a list of campuses with chapters and colonies currently recognized by the Zeta Beta Tau national fraternity." The chapter at Brandeis is recognized by ZBT National and that is why it is on this list. Your football analogy is not relevant because a group of friends playing football would not be recognized by any significant national organization. -Drdisque (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La[edit]

Lines like "The book outlines a method of natural appetite suppression which can lead to substantial weight loss" helped make the article into an ad for the book/diet. I did not make the original nomination for deletion; that was done by a user with the IP address 67.189.175.13. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Brandeis Ollie.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brandeis Ollie.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]