User talk:Justanyone

Hi Justanyone, welcome to Wikipedia. Message for you on Talk:Electrostatic. -- Tim Starling 07:44, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Justanyone--

I liked your page on municipal government. You may not have realised that there are already pages on local government and county. I've rewritten the start of your page a bit to connect with them. Would you be able to improve the US material in local government? I've just written a bit in now, because there was nothing, but I'm only a visiting Brit, so what do I know? seglea 07:10, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I just deleted the page you created at E-God. Creating nonsense like this is considered vandalism, and will always be deleted. Thank you. Graham :) 22:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Jet engine image

I notice there is no license notice on this image:

which you uploaded. The copyright on the image itself suggests that you own the copyright. If this is the case, are you licensing it under GFDL? The copyright notice suggests you are not releasing it to the public domain. Placing a license notice on the page would clarify Wikipedia's legal position on using the image. —Tkinias 05:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Kevin,

I replaced your JPEG version with a smaller, cleaner PNG one. If you saved your version as PNG, it might even improve slightly more. You can probably easily reduce the number of colours used to 32. Either use a tool know for compressing PNG well, or use pngcrush to squeeze out the last few bits.

Thx, --branko 21:34, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

---

Doing a grand job on Jet Engine. I think Intake and Nozzle are both components. Wikiwizzy 13:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Images

I noticed that you contributed an image to Arc de Triomphe and several very nice images to Gallery of Arc de Triomphe photographs. You have also released this image into the public domain. Does that go for just that image, for all of the Arc de Triomphe images that you contributed, or all of the images that you contributed? If not, what licence are you releasing them under? - Didactohedron 07:33, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)