User talk:LegCircus

Acorn

It's always nice when these things can be resolved amicably - jimfbleak 15:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If articles are of equal status, eg US towns sharing the same name, a disambiguation page titled with that name would be appropriate. If one use is clearly more important than the others, eg Paris France, then that holds the name, while all the other uses of Paris go on the disambiguation page. Another example is Penguin.

It is my view that the large majority of people searchinging for acorn will be expecting the seed of the oak tree, so that should be the direct link, with other uses on the disamb page. It also avoids having to change so many links. [[User:jimfbleak|File:Jim.png]]

05:34, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of ACORN, and if it's normally capitalised, that distinguishes it anyway. As I indicated, and I think you agree, some articles are more equal than others, so the question is whether this is the case for acorn. Why not raise the question on the talk page for acorn to canvas other people's views and try to reach a consensus? [[User:jimfbleak|File:Jim.png]]

Seems a fair summary, let's wait and see now - jim

---

Read my response to your post on my user talk page. Thanks! Kurt Weber 19:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

VfD

It is not appropriate to remove the tag from a page going through the VfD process. Leave that for the admin who counts the vote and archives the discussion after the 5 days are over. I have restored it. Also it is not necessary to comment on the articles talk page when listing it - comments do need to go on the VfD page. Rmhermen 01:22, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

If an article survives the VfD process, we don't allow it to be listed again for several months (although I don't know if that time period was ever formalized.) Certainly it could not be listed again next week. If nothing else when articles survive the process, the original lister will learn about the standards used to judge articles on VfD but often the articles can also be improved by taking into account the reasoning presented in the discussion. Rmhermen 13:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright of ACORN article

Do you have permission to use the text you put into this article. A search on Google show at least some of it at [1] which clearly has a copyright notice on the bottom of the page. We cannot use copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright-holder (which needs to be listed on the page or the talk page). If you don't have permission this will have to be deleted. Note that copyright problems follow a different proceure from VfD. Rmhermen 13:25, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean you wrote the article at the ACORN website? If so could you add a statement to that effect on the article. I have seen some pages where the copyright bit was added to the talk page (like "I created this text which is also posted at www.xxxx.xxx and have licensed it under the GFDL for use on Wikipedia"). Rmhermen 15:42, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

re: cocaine

What did you mean by "screw up at bottom of page I can't fix it but you can"? porge 04:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine to me... possibly a browser issue? I'm using the latest version of FireFox and it appears normal. porge 23:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An alternative perspective

LegCircus,

I am surprised to find that you have voted in favor of authorizing SysOps to ban Wikipedia contributors without right of due process.

Many of the organizations you support would have a difficult time delivering their message if the authorities could declare at any time that the strong language used by their leaders constituted a "personal attack" and should be shut down.

History shows that once dissenting voices are banned for freely expressing themselves, a coercive environment is created in which prior restraint is exercised before dissenting speech is even made.

This is why most free and fair legal systems do not authorize individual law enforcement agents to unilaterally act as censors.

Neither should Wikipedia.

The answer to offensive speech is always more speech.

If you should ever find yourself outnumbered when you are supporting an unpopular cause, and find that your passionate defense of your cause is cast as a "personal attack" by unscrupulous agents, you may wish you had voted against authorizing such an easy path to censorship.

Ben Franklin said it best, “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”

Respectfully, I ask that you reconsider your vote in this matter, but if your mind is made up, I respect your decision and thank you for taking part in the process.

Sincerely,

--DV 06:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NAACP article title changed

LegCircus,

Just thought I would update you on the status of the NAACP article.

I researched your concerns about the title of the article and found that you were quite correct that the NAACP primarily refers to itself by its acronym.

For your convenience, here is the case I made for your suggested change, excerpted from the NAACP Talk page:

"The NAACP and other African-American organizations dropped the use of the term 'colored' many years ago, except for historical references. (See for example the NAACP mission statement: 'The primary focus of the NAACP continues to be the protection and enhancement of the civil rights of African Americans and other minorities.')"

"The use of the word 'colored' in the association's title is now an anachronism that is kept only to retain the identity of the association."

"Therefore, I respectfully request that the Admins move the contents of this article onto the 'NAACP' page, and then redirect the page, "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" to the 'NAACP' page."

After I poked around for a bit, the new SysOp PFHLai was kind enough to authorize the change, and explained to me how to make the change.

Thanks for pointing out a much needed change to this article.

Regards,

--DV 06:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please vote for NAACP in "Collaboration of the Week"

LegCircus,

Since you have a history of contributing to the article NAACP, please consider voting to make this article a Collaboration of the Week.

If you will vote for this article, more resources will hopefully be brought to bear to expand and improve upon the contents of this article.

I have added bits and pieces and performed some proofreading, but by myself I can only do so much. (And my primary interest is in contributing to the Video Poker article :).

If this article is selected, many more readers will peruse this article, which could be a good thing, because if even a small percentage of those readers convert into editors, the result could be outstanding.

I thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

--DV 06:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger protection

Well, I'll certainly monitor the discussion page, but I'm not sure that I want to be an arbiter in the sense of choosing which side is right about any given issues (I don't even know what the dispute is about yet). If people trust my input, I'll try to help the parties work out a mutually acceptable resolution. --Michael Snow 23:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ACORN

At this stage, I'd recommend that you get more people to look at the article by linking to it from Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If after this, you can not come to any compromise over it, you could ask for help from a mediator at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Angela. 17:12, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the harsh editing, I intend to have a good look at the article when I have time. There seem to be a lot of contributors on Wikipedia from American right-wing or so-called libertarian circles who like to insert political bias into articles. They hate articles about things like ACORN. I suggest bringing in some sympathetic people to try and restore some balance to the debate and only if that doesn't work listing it on RfC. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From little ACORNs mighty disputes do grow

Hey, man. I've been asked to look in on the ACORN dispute. From what I can tell, it looks like you're involved with the organization (I'm a PIRG person, myself, and a Wobbly), and Kurt, who did the VfD, is pretty seriously opposed. Wgfinley, on the other hand, seems to be an honest third party in this. From what I can tell, the stuff he has been doing hasn't been particularly prejudicial, and he has citations for the material he has put in about the SEIU and such.

Mainly, I hate to see this stuff escalate into folks losing their cool. I remember the hassles that ACORN went through. Please let me know, either here or on my talk page, if there are specific reasons why the material that Wgfinley is adding shouldn't be in there. Seems to me that a section on Controversies could work well. Like all the groups that organize, there are controversies following ACORN, and the leadership has done its share of unhelpful things in the past. Like I said, I hate to see this stuff get hot, so please let me know your side on this, and let's see if we can reach a compromise. Geogre 04:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Unfortuantely note headed Geogre, he went back and undid my revert and then made some more deletions. I've started a survey to try to address the issue. --Wgfinley 08:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger

Acting in response to a request from User:Stargoat, I've unprotected Henry Kissinger (after mistakenly editing it myself before seeing the protection, though all I did was add links). Just thought I'd notify those who were active on Talk:Henry Kissinger. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:53, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the article on Kissinger. I find it very frustrating to deal with people who keep reverting every change, but I'll be damned if I'll let them turn Wikipedia into a centre of right-wing propaganda. Shorne 00:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FAC page

There was some commentary on the FAC page that I'm copying this here just to make sure you see it. →Raul654 04:34, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

• Object, at this time. Wikipedia has a large amount of articles on computer related topics, and these, in my view, make up a larger percentage of the total 'pedia than is appropriate to the goal of the project. We should not highlight this higher proportion by regularly featuring computer related articles, but seek to feature those which show the diversity and full scope of wikipedia. LegCircus 20:53, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • For the record, this objection is not actionable. →Raul654 20:54, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know what that means, but if the objection breaks a wiki-code of behavior, allow me to apologize. LegCircus 16:08, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • The directions at the top of this page say: All objections must give a specific rationale which can be responded to. If nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, the objection may be ignored. - in other words, if you object to the article because it is about a computer-related topic, there's nothing that anyone can do to "fix" your objection. Therefore, your objection is invalid. →Raul654 16:33, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Prostitution

You marked the following as "conjecture" and removed it:

A significant number of prostitutes in some areas have resorted to prostitution to feed their drug addiction: they will generally not only have poor health from their drug dependency, but will be more desperate, and more willing to perform sex acts without safer sex precautions. If they use injected drugs, they may also carry blood-borne diseases transmitted by the sharing of needles.

I've moved it to the talk page for prostitution.

Romanticism

You noticed. The picture range several bells at once! I've been going through Special:Unused Images finding homes. I'm at #16272... getting a little punchy... Wetman 02:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your appreciation of my efforts regarding voter registration. I ended up expanding that, but it still needs a history section--I decided to scrap that part, just because all I know is U.S. history, and that not well. Hopefully, I'll do the necessary research soon. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:10, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger again

Please check the page on Kissinger. It just got frozen because of that impossible guy who kept reverting things and inserting right-wing propaganda over and over. Now we're being told to work out the differences on the talk page—but I've been suggesting that for days, and the right-wing wanker hasn't discussed anything. Shorne 06:22, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There was already a solution on the Kissinger page when you stepped in, and started making non-constructive comments and demands. We don't need that here. If you have a problem with VV, take it up there. If you have a problem with the the right wing in America, take it up Nov. 2. Otherwise, please start offering firm suggestions on changes to the article. Stargoat 20:31, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Awfully presumptuous of you to assume that I'm from the US and that I vote in their phony elections. For your information, every choice on the US's ballots is right-wing in my eyes.

The Kissinger page is plainly slanted. I'm trying to correct the problem. One or two people are standing in the way. Shorne 22:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to inform you that the page was unprotected after a unanimous agreement on the wording of the introduction. VeryVerily did not participate in the discussion, but he immediately came to life when I made the change that all the participants had wanted—and reverted it. Is there anything that we can do about this utterly impossible person? Shorne 05:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've had it.

I can't remain calm any longer in the face of this nonsense. VeryVerily and a few others have succeeded in turning this site into a forum for their own propaganda. They've gotten embroiled in many, many fights of the same sort (I've looked through the archives), and no one is doing a damn thing about it. Shorne 22:30, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ACORN Mediation

LegCircus, once again you've deleted items that are factual and we've discussed a number of times. You have no justification for it. You also removed this article from the NPOV tag as well, which, quite obviously is still a problem.

In an effort to get this resolved I suggest that you and I agree to have a mediator assigned to try to work this out.

In the meantime, I have added more to the voter registration issue, apparently there are new cases in Colorado.

Wgfinley 14:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger again

Just wanted to let you know that a single troublemaker wouldn't abide by the unanimous decision about Henry Kissinger. There's now a vote in Talk:Henry Kissinger on what to do. Please check it out if you have a chance. Shorne 00:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Election Get Out the Vote Effort

Hi LegCircus,

You helped me out with some articles before, so I thought you might be interested to know that there is an election coming up in December for the Arbitration Committee. If you haven't dealt with that committee before, it's a group that makes decisions when edit conflicts cannot be resolved by Admins nor by mediation.

Its important that a diverse range of viewpoints be represented in the makeup of this committee, and I think the best way to make that happen is to help to increase voter turnout.

One of the technical people on this site helped me to make a very convenient tag that makes it super easy to place this "get out the vote" banner on your user page:

Arbitration Committee Elections - December 4th-18th, 2004

Election Info — Candidates — Voting

If you support helping to increase voter turnout, please consider adding this tag to your user page, as a great many pages link to your user page. Just copy and paste the ArbComElection tag, with the pair of curly braces on both sides, anywhere on your user page, (preferably close to the top :), to get the job done.

Thanks in advance if you choose to help out.

Cheers,

--DV 17:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exciting new feature to control campaign messages

Hi LegCircus,

Well, it seems that some folks seem truly put upon when it comes to campaign messages, even to the point of not wanting other users to receive such messages.

Please vote at Software and features, to approve an exciting new feature that allows users to control whether or not they receive campaign messages.

I'm hopeful that if users are allowed to explicitly declare their willingness to receive such messages, that others will not feel quite so offended.

If you'll support this effort, I think it will go a long ways towards increasing voter turnout in future elections.

Thanks in advance if you choose to help out.

Cheers,

--DV 11:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image:Goodlife7.jpg

This image looks like a screen shot. If it is could you please go to the image description page and put where you got it from plus a brief justification for fair use (e.g. screen shot - low resolution publicity shot) and then add {{fair use}} . I'm on a mission to get people to correctly tag images. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:32, 5 Dec 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| talk)

Image Tagging

Please tag Image:Acorn action.jpg using Wikipedia:Image copyright tags as a guideline. For now, it is marked "unverified". Thank you. -Superm401 07:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wal-Mart criticism split

I'm attempting to establish an solid consensus on whether or not to split Wal-Mart and Criticism of into separate articles. See the vote at Talk:Wal-Mart. Feco 20:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm solidly against the split. The rationale for the split, if followed to it's full conclusion, would divide all of wikipedia into "happy, fun time, positive enegry wiki" and "gloomy, beware, anti wiki." Facts are facts, wiki is beautiful it facilitates the rise of facts that people care about. The fact that there is criticism of Walmart, and the facts that justify those criticism, should have a significant place in the Walmart article.

please ignore spelling mistakes

Minimum wage deadweight loss

LegCircus, you asked about minimum wage causing deadweight loss.

When a minimum wage is imposed, it raises the price of labor to the consumer. The quantity of labor bought thus falls, since consumers of labor only buy a quantity of labor such that the consumer's benefits exceed the minimum wage price of labor. There is thus some amount of labor available at a cost between $0 and minimum wage that is not purchased. Deadweight loss describes this. Essentially, people whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage might find employment without the minimum wage but will not find employment with it. The total wages paid to the entire workforce in a system with minimum wages will thus be smaller than it would be were there no minimum wage.

For the purposes of discussing deadweight loss, the minimum wage acts just like a tax on labor.

I don't think this accurate. It sounds less like a description of an economic principle and more like rhetoric. Let me dig my old textbooks out of the closet.

This statement has no basis in theory, let alone reality: "The total wages paid to the entire workforce in a system with minimum wages will thus be smaller than it would be were there no minimum wage."

Image:Acorn action.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Acorn action.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Image:Acorn action.jpg

If you want to keep the image Image:Acorn action.jpg then you need to properly tag as {{GFDL-self}} and link image to an article. By policy (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), Wikipedia is not a repository of repository of images not attached to encyclopedic content. Thanks -- Nv8200p 15:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Protest Image

I've already commented once about the rationale for inclusion of Image:A16 IMF march.jpg in Protest on Talk:Protest. It is a cross-section of what you'll find at a typical demonstration, and many protesters do use profanity as part of their signage. It is fairly common. The image should stay. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

To avoid duplicating commnents, let's take this discussion completely to Talk:Protest. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Mowie di do

Hi, this article doesn't seem to merit a speedy deletion tag. I do think you will be able to make a good case on WP:AFD if you want to send it there, however, it doesn't seem to fit any speedy deletion requirement. If you have any questions feel free to ask. gren グレン 06:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Does AARP stand for Animal Accident Recovery Patrol?

I think you may have the wrong wikipedia user. If you are sure that I am the guy hten please refresh my memory. Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 15:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Raleigh, North Carolina

Just FYI -- the new Raleigh article, which hopefully will be done in the next week or so, will include information about how southeast Raleigh is the poorer part of the city. I'm a little antsy about including the prostitution information, though, because it seems to be singling out one specific type of crime that's not particularly notable (you said it yourself -- Raleigh isn't much different from any other city in that respect). A low murder rate, however, is notable and I plan to include that. Reference San Jose, California#Law and government and Boston, Massachusetts#Law and government -- murder rates are included, but typically nothing else.

Also, per the standards set at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, ==Crime== should not stand alone as its own section. (See the two articles, both featured, above). I will, though, include it in the ==Law and government== section.

Thanks for your help. Take care -- PacknCanes | say something! 05:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Question About Copyright & Press Releases

Hi LegCircus. You asked, Can you provide indication that press release are inherently un-copyrighted? You mentioned something about US courts deciding the issue

In the United States, as in many countries, a copyright is created simultaneous to the written work. When you write something, it is automatically copyrighted. As the copyright holder, you can transfer or sell your copyright in a variety of ways. For example, you can sell "all rights," and the new owner will have the exclusive right to exploit the copyright. You can also sell limited rights, e.g. first serial rights, one-time rights, first North American rights, etc. I just wrote a magazine article, for example, to which I sold first North American rights for 90 days. That means the magazine publisher has the right to publish the article for the first time within a 90-day period, but after that, all publication rights revert back to me.

In the US, there have been several court cases where companies issued press releases and then tried to control their use ex post facto. Thereafter, all or part of the press releases appeared in articles critical of the companies in question. The companies attempted to claim their copyright in the press release was violated; however, in each instance, the court held that the company issuing the original press release had granted all rights to any user in perpetuity by issuing the press release, thereby releasing the material into the public domain and beyond copyright protection. I don't have a cite on these cases, but I'll try to chase something down for you and also add it to the press release/copyright "talk" page. Regards, David Hoag 19:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Mitford jessica.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mitford jessica.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read 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, please check 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. Thank you. Longhair 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Velotype.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Velotype.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 you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read 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, please check 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. Thank you. Dethomas 00:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Goodlife7.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Goodlife7.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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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. meco 13:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Barberspole.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Barberspole.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Query on your minimum wage contributions and Debatepedia.com

Noticed your good contributions on the "minimum wage article". A number of wiki users have been working on a similar article on Debatepedia.com - Minimum Wage in the United States Debate. Thought you might be interested. Loudsirens 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Republican candidates for President

I noticed your list of presidential candidates. Ron Paul seems to be missing. He's raised the fourth-most amount of all Republican contenders and the second-most in New Hampshire.--Gloriamarie 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:ACORNlogo.gif

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:ACORNlogo.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 11:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Debatepedia, Affirmative Action

I saw your edits on the Affirmative Action page on Wikipedia, and was curious if you'd be willing to help out with Debatepedia's Affirmative Action debate page. -- Debaterx (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)