User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2007/01

Assistance with an inadvertant WP:BITE

It seems you had good intentions, but I think you inadvertantly bit uioh (talk · contribs), and I was wondering if you could talk to him to smooth things out -- he seems to mean well at first glance but I didn't look at his contribs. Just H 01:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

In recognition

Moved to User:King of Hearts#Barnstars. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

contradiction

please do not vandalize. click here to vandalize. huh?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.30.4 (talk • contribs) 22:30, January 9, 2007

It means that you should not vandalize my userpage itself, as there is a page devoted to vandalism (follow the link). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rottentomatoes Logo

Hi, I submitted the picture of the Rottentomatoes logo for the Rottentomatoes Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_Tomatoes I see that I need to make sure the image is not included in the public domain. Do I simply post our license agreement on the photo page?

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhanagan (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, "used with permission" images are not allowed on Wikipedia; the image must remain as copyrighted "fair use" since it is a logo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Benepath

Dear Sir,

I have used wikipedia as a resource for several years and I truly respect it as a legitimate source of information. I had no intention of trying to create a piece that was blatantly marketing and as soon as I saw the warning - I went in to recreate it to make it more of an informational piece.

I have rewritten the article to only reflect the facts about the company Benepath. Benepath has developed a very unique business model, which would be of interest to people looking at different business models and of no interest to people looking to buy health insurance. Their use of virtual pbx, internet crm, voip and an ecommerce platform is the only example of a completely distributed workforce to serve the health insurance market.

If you still believe that the way I have rewritten the article is spam, please help me understand why and what you would want to see to allow it to remain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clelland green (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

deletion of Core Knowledge

You deleted the article "Core Knowledge" citing CSD nn. Core Knowledge is the first project of its type and magnitude in Australia, which was not mentioned on its article (as I felt that would sound very much like a promotion statement). In any case, as has been recognised by South Australians and SSABSA (the Year 12 Board of Education in SA), Core Knowledge's gathering of such a large proportion of the very top students from secondary schools (many of them), funnelling the majority of academic achievers into a project of this kind, is newsworthy. It is not simply a few of these achievers, as can be seen from the statistics on the page you deleted. Furthermore, on the wiki page for "South Australian Certificate of Education", Core Knowledge is referred to as a unique collective of former top students who have undertaken this project, as I described, the first of its kind in Australia.

The Core Knowledge series is now considered the staple source of Year 12 resources by many schools in South Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.212.149 (talk • contribs) 02:33, January 18, 2007

Open Window Software

I was in the process of completing the entry for Open Window Software and found that it had aready been CSD'd?? I'm assuming nn company means 'not notable'. I read the rules on Companies and certainly our company has been written about in independent publications, received awards for its products from prestigious bodies and been present and recognized in its market area for a number of years (15 AAMOF).

I reviewed other companies in the Educational Software category and, while we're no Broderbund, we're certainly as well known as some of the other entries in the category.

Would you please restore the entry and let me finish it properly?

Thank You,

Dick Bryant President - Open Window Software —Preceding unsigned comment added by DickBryant (talk • contribs) 21:16, January 31, 2007