User talk:Tom

Please click here to leave me a new message, and I'll respond soon. Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Barnstar awarded to User:Tom

		The Special Barnstar
		This Special Barnstar is awarded to User:Tom for his diligence in dealing with my unique wiki-point-of-view and guidance in my wiki-development Sallicio (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

Lustrium

I have come accross a new metal 'Lustrium'. Need more info on the composition and properties. Could not fins anything on this on Weikipedia. Can you help me on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.96.68 (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Maryland State Police patch.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Maryland State Police patch.png. 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. BetacommandBot 02:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Image

I have emailed to permissions@wikimedia.org, and they have acknowledged the receipt of my correspondence. Is there anything else I have to do? Borisblue (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ticket number is Ticket#2007111910015184, if that helps . They sent me the receipt on the 20th. Borisblue (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Davidbrinkley.gif

I have tagged Image:Davidbrinkley.gif as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rettetast 21:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary Information

Tom, I appreciate the picture of the cruiser and the sub-titled sections. However, let the readers decide what is unnecessary. If you remove everything "YOU" think is unnecessary information, we might as well delete the whole damn thing... to some people, the PGSO as a whole is unnecessary and is hogging precious cyberspace. If the information is inaccurate or defamatory, then change it or delete it...otherwise LEAVE IT ALONE. I would also appreciate it if you would let us honor our heros WITHOUT DELETING THEM. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallicio (talk • contribs) 05:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Take your own advise. Again, you still refuse to understand that you are not the alpha and omega of Wikipedia. YOU need to understand that your job is only to monitor false, defamatory, or vulgar remarks. Now, OBVIOUSLY there is no penalty for being a meddling, busy-body on Wikipedia, but I would emplore you to respect what other people have written and leave YOUR opinions and feelings OUT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallicio (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* WHY do you feel the need to take out information just in spite? Why do you care? Just because you are an "admnistrator," does that give you some kind of superiority complex? Do you have NOTHING better to do? The reason I am so passionate is because it took me a long time of trial and error to make the page look nice. Then "you" come through like an ignorant, arrogant tornado and just because "you" don't feel information is relevant, you delete all of the work that I put in so EVERYONE can enjoy the page (yes, I know it is no longer mine once I write it and I know this isn't a democracy so no need to beat a dead horse). I can understand if it was poorly written, defamatory, untrue, or any number of other things. And don't forget that your "administrator" status is not divine in origin. Any moron kind be an administrator...this is nothing different than being good at a video game and learning the rules of the game. Why "threaten" me with expulsion? Because I have a difference of opinion and am not afraid to voice it to wiki-bullys? OR perhaps, because you know you are actually wrong and the easiest way to deal with it is to conduct an unwarranted expulsion? I'm just waiting for you to delete these comments so no one else can see it. What you are doing is very immature and juvenile, and not the way a responsible administrator should be acting. I would like to resolve this, because it is becoming very annoying. I would be willing to collaborate for a final edition that can be acceptable to both of us. (Even though unless you are or have been the police, the subject matter is irrelevant to you and would be nearly impossible to discuss without a common frame of reference) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallicio (talk • contribs) 22:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever, dude. You win. Do what you want. Tear it up. This is why Wikipedia will never be taken seriously. Sallicio (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Sallicio

Gerald Gustafson

Just let you know this is up for DRV. Your input would be very useful. RMHED (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I put this up for DRV because I felt it was unfair. Please reinstate the article (reverse your deletion) and I will request that the matter be dropped. Apparently, your deletion of materials is not only disputed by me but by many others as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdsbassist (talk • contribs) 17:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

• What's a black-listed hyperlink, and how do I rid myself of it? Sallicio (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Sallicio

• from user: Tedickey. I tried to respond to a comment he left on my talkpage (see my talkpage). anyway I'm done talking to him Sallicio (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Sallicio

• many thanks! Sallicio (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Sallicio

Eastern Shore natives

why was that category deleted? WillC (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

i disagree....people from there identify with the ES. but whatever. WillC (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Scarface.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Scarface.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Living people and template

I will definitely refrain from removing the Living People category in the future. However, I will have to respectfully disagree with your comments about the use of the Maryland Government Branches template. This was designed by and to be used for the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maryland. It is a quick link to the branches of the state government, of which each elected official is or was a part. I find that not only does it add referential value, the splash of color gives the template a more interesting and professional appeal.Wallstreethotrod (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Zinni

Come on, you can't seriously consider to replace the image of a four-star general, showing him as CENTCOM commander with much more decorations, with an image where he only was LtGen just because the resolution is a little bit higher!?!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudevsq (talk • contribs) 09:48, December 24, 2007

Hey, sorry! I think I finally understood now! Again sorry, and have a nice day! claudevsq (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I finally figured it out! I guess we learn new things everyday... THANKS AGAIN! claudevsq (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Governor Photo...

The website has a copyright but does not own the rights to the photo. The photo is clearly his official governor photo. The reason I put the federal gov tag is because I couldn't find anything related to state gov use but I am sure its in the public domain as he is a public servant and it was mandated by his office.

Jeremy221 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the photo is in the public domain. I am sure it was commissioned by the Arkansas Department of State and their website doesn't even have the photo anymore. I highly doubt they care. Check it out:

http://www.arkansas.gov/

Merry Christmas too.

Jeremy221 (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The photo is good because it has Huckabee with the red Arkansas flag which is very visual and says without writing Huckabee is governor of Arkansas. I read the article a few times and it took me a while to remember he was governor of Arkansas and not Missouri or some other state. If I saw the picture I would have undoubtedly remembered he was gov of Arkansas the first time around. As for the copyright, the federal gov has congressional portraits that are in the public domain and Huckabees portrait is the same so I am sure its free. If you type in "Huckabee governor" in yahoo search the picture is everywhere. Arkansas.gov has a general copyright for protection but its not extended to the specific photo. We are dealing with the gov here, not Corbis or some other photo provider. I wouldn't delete it but if you must do it. Arkansas.gov lists their copyright policies here:

http://www.arkansas.gov/search/arportal_search.php?words=copyright&Submit=Go%3E

but I am not in the mood to look into it. Its too much of a hassle to ask permission for a photo they use without even specifying its status.

Jeremy221 (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

Could you do me a favor and check out the history on the page Maryland State Fire Marshal that I created. User:VivioFateFan put a Copyright Infringement warning on it and it says that an administrator has to resolve the problem before it was deleted. I already deleted it before I read that part. Oops. Everything that I copied was from Maryland law, documented as such, and was public information. What was the problem? Sallicio (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Sallicio

So, do you know the specifics for citing laws in an encyclopedia? It's hard to put a law into one's own words. The thing about the law is, it either is or it ain't...no gray area. Thanks! Sallicio (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Sallicio

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cops Logo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Cops Logo.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 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

PGSO Impala

Hey, just FYI, did you put the picture of the PGSO Impala on the Chevrolet Impala link? If so, just to let you know, that is actually just a civilian model with Sheriff marking on it. The police package models have dual exhaust in the rear and don't say "Impala LS" rather just "Impala" on the trunk door. If you have a picture of one with a light bar- those are all police packaged (but they are starting to put lightbars on those slick-top civilian models, too). Sallicio (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

• Oh, sorry. I'm not good at uploading photos (my wife does all that). All I'm good at is creating articles, subseections, and refs. Cheers! Sallicio (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

Fair use rationale for Image:Homeworldbox.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Homeworldbox.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hw2box.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hw2box.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 19:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

I hate to keep bothering you with questions, but could you tell me what the deal is with the AA County, PG County images? What says that I can't put them on my userpage, but I can put other flags, city seals, etc on it? Also could you look at the "editing userpages" subsection of User talk:Hammersoft and tell me what you think? I've looked into the history of User:Hammersoft and he seems to have a pattern of instigating hostilities and snide remarks. I have tried to follow your advise but this guys seems indifferent to anything outside of his agenda. I didn't see him doing anything wrong (per se) but he seems to be enforcing rules that just piss people off (sort of like the police...we have something called "police discretion" where we can pick and choose the laws to enforce or let people go; I can either let you go with a warning or write you $700 in citations, 3 must-appears (i.e., citations where you have no option but must go to court), and impound your car and have you walk home. Either way, we are lawful in our actions, but is it NECESSARY?). Just let me know what you think. Thanks so much! Sallicio (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

Speedy deletions

It's me again! Can you tell me what is wrong with this article: User talk:Sallicio/Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence? Is it a blatant candidate for speedy deletion? If so, wouldn't it be a quick fix...or am I just way out in left field with this one? Thanks! Sallicio (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

• Question, I was looking through User:Andrew c's (an admin, btw) list of creations. I came about Reparation (Catholic Church) and noticed that it seemed to lack appropriate references (with an exception of a notation of the Catholic Encyclopedia). Being a fellow Catholic, I looked it up in the online version. As I was about to put a reference in, I noticed that some of the text was verbatim and not in quotes or noted as such. The online reference is [[1]], his text is at Reparation (Catholic Church). It just seemed like plagiarism to me...maybe I'm wrong. Thanks. Sallicio (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio
• We can quote public domain information without citations or references? What about the law question that I had a while back? Sallicio (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio
  • ...I'm back, had to pull traffic. Anyway, look up to the section of Copyright Infringement. When citing laws, you said to paraphrase whenever possible. I'm still stumped on how to paraphrase a law. (e.g., if I am talking about the traffic article, "Transportation Article: Section 21-902 (a)(1), "(Driving, Attempting to drive) veh. while under the influence of alcohol is a must appear citation that could carry a penalty of...blah, blah"...how would one paraphrase that?) I don't think it's in the public domain, per se, but paraphrasing would be impossible. Sallicio (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

Thomas Carr (paleontologist)

Hi, I saw the notability template you left on the page I wrote for Thomas Carr (paleontologist) so I made some changes to the article to explain his notability. A more thorough discussion (including some original research... a Google Scholar search) is on the talk page. I think he easily meets criteria 3 and 6 on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and would meet 1 also, except I don't have anything in print to prove it. Sheep81 (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Siljander

I strongly object to the deletion of the link which explains what Siljander's religious beliefs were in 1986. If you can find a better source which contains the same information, then do so. But it boggles my mind why you would want to keep information which is essential for trying to understand the subject out of wikipedia. RobRedactor (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Messing with Article on John Kimble

I have read that you are from Maryland. I also have no idea which political party you are a member of but I would appreciate it greatly if you would leave the article I made on John B Kimble alone. He is noteworthy and a Congressional Candidate. Now if you want to mess with all other candidates that is fine and dandy. But since you are in Maryland it does seem to be a bit weird. With the primary in a few weeks it seems that you may work for one of Mr Kimble's competitors.Thanks