Hello there! I will reply to (most) messages in this page, so if your looking for a reply to your messages, check back here! --</post> Geek45 (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Safari For Windows Final Release.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the right track; what article did you want to use it in? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I'm illiterate; real answer coming momentarily. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The first thing you need to do is tag is tag it with ((Template:Non-free software screenshot)) (this will identify at as a copyrighted image; statement of copyright status is the major thing currently missing from that page). You should also add ((Copyright by Wikimedia)), since the image includes the Wikipedia logo, which is copyrighted. Next you have to expand the fair use rationale a bit; I think your "description" and "purpose of use" fields could use some expansion, and three of the fields are all together blank. From there, you need to put it into the article, since all non-free images run the risk of being deleted unless they're actually used in an article. Please let me know if you need help with any of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the resolution is too high; if you can, reduce it to no more than 200 px per side and then re-upload; otherwise you can tag it with ((Non-free reduce)), and somebody else (probably User:Melesse) will do it for you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the faulty tag; I've replaced it with the correct ones. As an unrelated note, when you add a note to a talk page (as you did to mine), you should do it at the bottom of the page. Cheers, welcome to Wikipedia, and please let me know if there's ever anything I can help you with. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Unrelatedly, I see you're looking for adoption. May I offer you adoption (feel free to say no for any reason)? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, you still need to put that image in the Safari (web browser) article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I took this screenshot of the Safari Web Browser for Windows to show the differences between the final release and the beta. I made the screenshot myself and am having a little trouble with the copyright stuff. please go to my user talk page with a reply --</post> Geek45 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest taking a screenshot of the browser showing a Public Domain web page, or no page at all. It would make the licensing stuff a lot easier. Replying on your talk page as well. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Rat's suggestion, Safari is a copyrighted browser so the only practical way you can use a screen shot from it is under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Using a screen shot specifically to illustrate a technical difference between versions of the browser would seem to qualify, so you need to do two things:

1. Add the tag ((Non-free software screenshot)) to the licensing section of the image page
2. Copy/paste/fill out the Fair Use rationale template from here

That should do it. -- Hux (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having posted the above, I see that you've already done what I suggested. However, the web page you chose was the Wikipedia front page, which contains the Wikipedia logo which, somewhat paradoxically, is not a free image, hence the warnings you're now getting on the Safari screen shot image page. I'd advise that you upload a new version that shows a screen shot from a completely free web site (e.g. a different Wikipedia page that doesn't show the logo or any other copyrighted image). Hope this helps! -- Hux (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. The first thing I always do is ask my adoptee to elaborate a bit on what he/she wants to accomplish on Wikipedia. So, um, what do you want to accomplish on Wikipedia? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works. The thing is, what constitute "basics" depends on what you want to do. Odds are that once you've been here six months you'll still be missing some pretty basic pieces of knowledge. If you're interested in article creation, you should really read WP:N at some point so you can make sure that you're creating articles that are unlikely to be deleted. Besides that, for learning about Wiki markup you should consider creating a personal sandbox to experiment in; to do so, just click on the following redlink and start fooling around: User:Geek45/sandbox. You're correct that (most) html doesn't work here, but Wikimarkup is a pretty intuitive system anyway.

You can always ask me any specific or general questions you might have about Wikipedia. I'll also keep an eye on your edits and provide feedback as appropriate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Safari For Windows Final Release.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) 12:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - you can go delete the tag now. Also, I see you're using the image in your sandbox. You'll have to stop doing that, as non-free images can only be used in articles (not in user space, etc.). I see you were only testing image markup in preparation for putting it in the article, so no harm done; just be warned that if you don't remove it yourself, somebody else might come along and do so. As for your userpage, making things look pretty is probably my weakest area, but I should be able to help anyway; whatabouts are you trying to do with it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and grouped your existing userboxen (that's the approved pluralization around these parts) together. You can mess around with the parameters to change alignment, colour, etc.; if you're fluent in html it will probably come pretty easily to you. As for adding more here's a directory of existing userboxen. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually a Flames fan or are you just trying to raise my ire? Also, I should have told you this earlier, but I'm going to be out of internet contact this weekend, so I probably won't be back on here until Monday sometime. In the meantime, don't be afraid to be bold! Or, if you're afraid of doing that, you could just add ((helpme)) to your page (along with an explanation of what you need help with) and somebody will come along to help. Or you could visit the help desk. Point being, you should be fine without me for two days. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll forgive you for being a Flames fan, unless they actually beat the Sharks, in which case my bitterness will make me hate all Flames fans. Feel free to report me for violating our civility policy for that one. Anyway, I'm back now and happy to help you out with anything; for starters, have you created a watchlist yet? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question (and welcome back from your absence). There are a few ways of classifying users. The simplest is by technical privilege set:

• Unregistered users (also known as I.P.s, since they're identified by their I.P. address rather than by username) are able to edit existing articles, but that's about it. However, if they register, they become
• Registered users , who are also able to create new articles. After four days, they become
• Autoconfirmed editors, who are able to move pages and edit semi-protected articles as well. Up until now, it's been a linear progression (you start as an unregistered user, then you become a registered user, and then you become an autoconfirmed editor). For the other designations, that's not the case, and your privileges can be mixed and matched.
• Administrators (also called sysops - generally, "sysop" is used to refer to technical privilege set while "admin" is used for status within the community, although the terms are technically interchangeable) are experienced editors who are promoted via the Requests for Administratorship process (the technical job of promoting them is performed by bureaucrats, who we'll meet momentarily). They have a variety of additional privileges, the most significant of which are the ability to delete and undelete pages (and view them while they're deleted), the ability protect and unprotect pages (and edit them while they're protected), and the ability to block and unblock users. It's important to note that the exercise of these privileges is not arbitrary, and there are policies governing when each may be used. The Administrator privilege set comes equipped with the rollback privilege, which we'll cover in a moment. There are currently 859 administrators (although not all are active, since adminship doesn't expire), of which I'm pleased to be one.
• Bureaucrats are experienced editors (in practice, experienced admins) who are promoted via the Requests for Bureaucratship process. Their only additional privileges are promoting users to be admins and bureaucrats - which they can do only in accordance with community consensus as expressed at Requests for Administratorship and Requests for Bureaucratship - designate bot accounts (i.e. decide which accounts have a B show up next to their edits in edit history), and renaming users. There are, I believe, 26 bureaucrats at the moment.
• Rollbackers are a new privilege set. The only privilege is comes equipped with is the ability to rollback edits, which is basically a one button revert of all edits by the most recent editor of a page. So, for example, if I go and vandalize a page ten times, all ten of those edits could be undone with one click of a rollbacker's mouse. Rollbackers are promoted by admins, and there's no fixed process for how it should be done. I'm not sure how many rollbackers there are, but I assume the number would be well into the four digits.
• Checkusers are editors who are able to perform checkuser requests, which allows them to see what I.P. addresses a given account has edited from. This is used primarily to identify abusive sockpuppets. Checkusers are promoted by the Arbitration Committee; unlike the previous privilege sets, checkusers must be at least 18 years old and must confirm their real life identities to the Wikimedia Foundation Office. There are currently 29 checkusers.
• Oversighters are editors who can "oversight" edits, which is basically a super-deletion such that not even admins can see the deleted content. It's used mainly when people put serious privacy violations into their edits. Oversighters are also promoted by the Arbitration Committee. There are currently 31 oversighters.
• Founders are editors who founded Wikipedia. I have no idea what technical privileges are in this set. Although some contend that Wikipedia actually had two founders, User:Jimbo Wales is the only editor with this set.

All of the above are project-level privilege sets, meaning that they apply only to English Wikipedia (and not to German Wikipedia or English Wikiquote or Spanish Wiktionary or whatever else). There's also a designation - Steward - that applies across all Wikimedia projects. Stewards can change any editor's privilege set on any project, although generally they only do so where no other means to change the relevant privilege set exists (for example, Stewards don't promote admins on English Wikipedia, since we have Bureaucrats for that). Stewards are elected annually by their fellow editors.
Besides the above privilege set-related classifications, there are some non-technical privilege sets (i.e. there's nothing special about these users' accounts, but there is something special about the power they wield within the community). The most important of these is the Arbitration Committee, whose members are elected by the community (or, more technically, appointed by Jimbo on the recommendation of the community) once per year. ArbComm is essentially the Wikipedia judiciary, and makes rulings on user conduct issues (not on content issues, which are left for the community to hash out via the consensus process. Some members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees - which retains all legal and financial power for all projects - are also elected annually by the community.
Part of your question was "which has more power over the other". In general, and except for the exceptions I've listed above, user classes don't have power over one another. For example, if you think a sentence in an article should read one way and a bureaucrat thinks it should read in another, he/she doesn't have authority to trump you. Of course, there are policies in place, and any editor has the authority to trump any other editor's actions if they are doing so in a fashion mandated by policy.
I hope this explains some things, and please let me know if you have any other questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, a general lesson: to transclude a template into an article, use the following: ((TEMPLATE NAME HERE)). If you want to substitute a template instead (which basically pastes the template's code into the article, such that any future changes to the template don't affect how the template appears in that article), use ((subst:TEMPLATE NAME HERE)). The template you want in this case is ((POV-section)). If you wanted to claim that the entire article was biased, you'd use ((POV)). In general, you can find templates for this sort of thing in Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates. Finally, when you add these templates to articles, you're generally expected to briefly explain your concerns on the talk page. I hope this helps! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you're around again, and just wanted to remind you that I'm around if you ever have any questions, though I've changed my user name from Sarcasticidealist to Steve Smith. Steve Smith (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view on the beta layout (and pretty much all other aesthetic questions). Steve Smith (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make indents...

::...like this (the more colons, the greater the indent). Steve Smith (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on Commons should be free to use. There should be a tag on every media page on the Commons indicating its status, which will either be public domain (in which case there are no restrictions at all on its usage) or released under a free license (in which case, depending on the license, there could be restrictions such as the need to attribute the media's creator and/or the need to release any derivative works under an identical license). Steve Smith (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet - I've done NaNoWriMo the last four years (in May or June, though, since we students find November a rather inconvenient time). Batting .500. It's a great experience. Steve Smith (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — ((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c) 05:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]