User talk:Webucation

TheRingess 06:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Jarkko_Ruutu.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jarkko_Ruutu.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 06:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Alexauld.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Nicholas Rockefeller[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Nicholas Rockefeller, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. KenWalker | Talk 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily removed the tag, but the article will surely end up by being deleted in a few days if you do not immediate write this is a more encyclopedic style with less use of his name, make links to all organizations mentioned that have WP article, and provide some third party sources--there should certainly be newspaper articles. and, in particular, give a source for Council of Foreign Relations. (& related Rockefellers should be mentioned & linked , if part of the family, as seems likely. DGG 20:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Alexauld.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. --Hetar 09:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Nau flag.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nau flag.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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:

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. 23:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Warshack test[edit]

Hello Webucation, and thanks for returning to Wikipedia. I see you've created a Warshack test page, but apparently there is no evidence that such a test exists. Are you sure you're not referring to a Rorschach test? --Nehwyn 07:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Owldollar.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Owldollar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Pristine big.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Pristine big.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Supreme Court[edit]

did you see my answer? Deror 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Counter forensics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to provide more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately, and also put a note on Talk:Counter forensics. An administrator should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 1 under Articles. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such material.Diez2 22:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microtargeting--source[edit]

Hello Webucation,

You created the above article and gave the source as "Washington Post article." However, the link goes to [1] and I cannot find any indication that the article originated in the Post. I am expanding the article in today's WSJ. I would like to keep the citation as a Post article if possible. Could you tell me what the Post cite would be. Thanks, JChap2007 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Bailey[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Nay Bailey article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I irrevocably release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Shell ^babelfish 09:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry promotion[edit]

I have reverted several of your additions such as this due to the fact that the freemasonrywatch.org site gives no proof. All it does is make a lot of claims that need backing up from a more reliable source. By mistake I did not notice that you were also linking to this site as well and removed some of them. I have since restored those links. Cheers.CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Icke, Protocols of Zion[edit]

Hi! I'm wondering why you have deleted the term "antisemitic hoax". The Protocols are definitly an antisemitic hoax (see: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion). So why that shouldn't be mentioned? Crypto-ffm 10:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian development fund[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Asian development fund, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Jsteph 10:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God[edit]

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. JuJube 09:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to create an encyclopedia here. It is obvious that not everybody shares your view that God cannot be drawn, or that image would have not been created in the first place. Wikipedia is not a tool for advocacy, and must be treated as a neutural source of information. If you continue to to remove that image under the reason you specify, you may be blocked for vandalism. --w^L^{<speak·check·chill>} 08:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to block you. I'd like to know what you would like to get out of all this? The image only shows an example of how a certain notable painter imagined what God looks like. How couldn't that be neutural. If you go further down the article, there's an image of the sky with a caption about God. Would that be a better choice instead of the painting? --w^L^{<speak·check·chill>} 09:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to open other opportunities to help you, but there's obviously a conflict of interest here. Therefore;

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia
You have recently removed content from Wikipedia without reason, after having already been warned about such behaviour. This is now your final warning, and any further vandalism will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

--w^L^{<speak·check·chill>} 09:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Freemasons Category[edit]

I notice that you have added many provincial premiers, particularly in British Columbia to this category. Is this verifiable? Can you indicate the source of this information? Also, would it be possible for you to use edit summaries so that when we see your edit in a watchlist, the nature of the edit is identified? KenWalker | Talk 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That website looks like it covers it. I suppose it should be added to each article. Interesting stuff.KenWalker | Talk 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:1306.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:1306.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Jrotman.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jrotman.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Melrose Lodge No. 67[edit]

An editor has nominated Melrose Lodge No. 67, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melrose Lodge No. 67 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 11:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Melrose Lodge No. 67. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Remove AfD Notices== ==Please do not remove[edit]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Macmil.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Macmil.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nicholas Rockefeller[edit]

I have nominated the Nicholas Rockefeller article for deletion. Before doing that I removed the somewhat strained suggestion that he is a member of the Rockefeller family and the unsupported suggestion that he is the "Nick" Rockefeller that Russo is talking about. People will no doubt be coming to WP to find out who this guy is. The truth is, we (WP) don't know.--Thomas Basboll 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy realism[edit]

Please stop editing categories to read "conspiracy realist." This category does not exist, so it creates a redlink. In addition, it is ignoring editorial concensus. Conspiracy Realism seems to be a neologism and the article has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome, as I've already told you, to discuss this on the AfD page, but please stop editing other articles to insert this term. janejellyroll 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you are in danger of violating WP:3RR on Alex Jones (radio). Please be mindful of this. janejellyroll 02:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Conspiracy realist[edit]

An editor has nominated Conspiracy realist, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy realist and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 09:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]

Regarding reversions[2] made on February 12 2007 to Alex Jones (radio)[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 11:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemason[edit]

It was a community decision made here. >Radiant< 12:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of We Are Change[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on We Are Change, by Shadowlynk (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because We Are Change seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting We Are Change, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1306.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:1306.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Is it possible to find some more sources of information on this topic John Linn (Royal Engineer)? It is tagged with a notability tag, and there are currently 31 articles in the scope of wikiproject Canada which are tagged with notability concerns, so I am contacting anyone to see if the quantity of notability concern articles can be reduced, and quality increased. For more help see this note or the article talk page for a current discussion. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Owldollar.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Owldollar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pristine_small.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pristine_small.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2008 (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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]