User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive002

JAN 2007 - MAY 2007 - and after

Image:All-High Stadium - The Natural.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:All-High Stadium - The Natural.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. MECU≈talk 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's not my job to find a replacement image. Wikipedia policy clearly states an image that is replaceable, which is defined as possible to replace, cannot be used under fair use. Does this stadium exist? It appears to only be used to show the stadium, and if the stadium exists, it would be possible for someone to take a picture of the stadium. Also, it wasn't appropriate to revert my addition of the tag to the image description page. I have reverted your revert. Please follow the directions in the tag to dispute it, if you feel you must. --MECU≈talk 02:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1] This message isn't very civilized. Please refrain from commenting about me or others and focus on the issue. I understand your frustration as your efforts and work are up for deletion, but it's nothing personal. Follow the directions on the tag to dispute the claim. It's not me that has a problem with the image, it's Wikipedia and Wikipedia's policy. --MECU≈talk 02:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable doesn't mean that you can find a free image, or that you have to drive 1000 miles to take an image. It just means that someone could take an image that would be free, and as long as the stadium exists, that will be possible. I have reverted your removal of the RFU tag on the image again. If you remove the image a third time, you could be in violation of WP:3RR and might be blocked for such an action. Please, follow the directions to dispute the replaceability claim on the tag on the image page. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "blind alley" you are referring to. If it's the image talk page that's a red link on the template, that's perfectly normal. Until you follow that link, start the page and state your objection, it will be a red link. Just follow the directions. --MECU≈talk 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the replaceability disputed claim on your behalf. Please see Image:All-High Stadium - The Natural.JPG and Image talk:All-High Stadium - The Natural.JPG. Per your wishes, I do not plan to contact you directly further. --MECU≈talk 03:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I go through lots of images, and to make my "job" easier, I use a script called "imagedelete" which automates most of the work of tagging an image and notifying the uploading user of the tag (and, when appropriate, puts the image on an IFD page) doing 2 or 3 things for me in about 5 seconds that would take me several minutes to do, saving my time and allowing me to look at more images in the same time. While I do realize that this less personal way causes uneasiness with some users because of the impersonal nature and lack of individual treatment, of the thousands of images I have looked at and marked, I have had less than a handful of complaints; a less than .01% problem rate, which I would define as a highly valuable and successful tool. If I were to take time to treat every individual image with the time that you want me to, I would take months to accomplish the same thing I can accomplish in hours. Again, it's nothing personal and you should have simply followed the directions on the tag to make the dispute. There are other options to getting an image of the stadium. E-mailing the school and asking them to release an image under a free license, or asking other owners of images of the stadium that you may find on the internet to release it under a free license. I've done this and actually received some positive responses and gotten some free images onto Wikipedia. This page may be useful in this effort: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Good luck! --MECU≈talk 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this ruined your evening. I am not an admin, I cannot delete images. You could nominate the image yourself using {{Template:db-author}}, but it isn't required. --MECU≈talk 03:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Image talk:All-High Stadium - The Natural.JPG for my response. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look like a vandal. Please provide an edit summary when you edit.

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you don't believe in edit summaries. I actually spend less time posting when edit summaries are provided as I don't have as many diffs to check out. All the same, I am better off investing in the future and trying to get everyone to provide edit summaries.

Wikipedia already tries to help ensure you provide a summary. One of the edit preferences requires a summary when editing. Unfortunately, it appears to be satisfied by a section header name when you edit a section. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUC

I'm always worried when I provide a link to that, especially to new users. I suppose the fair use policy is just Wikipedia's way of saying WP:FU to us. —ShadowHalo 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if he/she got a barnstar for combining WP:BOLD and WP:JOKE. —ShadowHalo 11:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein

Hi Wahkeenah. I have also been scanning the Saddam Hussein talk page after noticing the edit war that is going back and forth about calling Saddam a dictator. Dictator can certainly be used as a epithet, but it doesnt have to be. It can be a fairly NPOV descriptor of a ruler's position. By all means it isnt generally viewed as complimentary, and is generally seen as something somewhat negative, but NPOV does not mean that descriptors used must carry no positive or negative connotations. Referring to someone, say John Wayne Gacy as a mass murderer isnt a violation of NPOV simply because it conveys a negative meaning, because part of who he was WAS negative. You are just being accurate, just as referring to someone else as a philanthropist isnt a violation of NPOV just because it carries a positive connotation (as long as it is accurate).

Using the dictionary definition of dictator, Saddam was almost undeniably one. I'd like to try to seek a common ground that would identify Saddam as President and Dictator of Iraq (or refer to his rule as a dictatorship) pretty high up in the article, even in the opening paragraph, and then make no further use of the term through the article. We acknowledge the fact that Saddam was a dictator up front, without calling him a bloody tyrant and then let the facts in the rest of the article speak for themselves. A dictator does not have to be specifically positive or negative. Some people around the world have been referred to as dictators, Castro, Chavez but also Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore who some described as a dictator, but most agreed he was fairly benevolent. Of course, I don't think that Saddam was benevolent, but I think we should allow the facts to speak for themselves in that sense, and I'd really like to end the stupid edit war that is going on, but I think that unless he is legitimately identified as a dictator at the outset, it will be a neverending thing of people inserting that into the article, and if its going to be there, I'd like to see it done in an NPOV way. Personally, I think we can use the term dictator just like we would use the word parliamentarian or monarch or President and this complies with NPOV as long as we don't use it as an epithet. What do you think? I am going to float this idea to a couple of other people and see what they say. I'd bring it up in the talk page, but that has gotten so convoluted I can't keep track of the discussions anymore. Appreciate your thoughts. Caper13 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

quote or no quote box

Robert Clarkson Clothier, can you take a peek in the history to see both? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC). OK, sorry to bother you.[reply]

I just wanted a third opinion to whether the article was better with, or without, the quote box. You will have to go in the history to see both versions.
I only asked because you were online, so few are online now. Thanks for the third opinion.

USGS Viewer

You have to go slow. If you click like you normally would on a program it will lock up. You have to click and wait and be patient. It's slow, but no one said working for Wikipedia would be easy. --MECU≈talk 01:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stating Country

Can I ask why you object to putting the country in a location or structure article. This is commonplace on Wikipedia, is used commonly and is encouraged as Wikipedia is not a US centric website but an international collaboration where people from all countries contribute. As for your statement that this is usually reverted I would like to know where you get this from? In my many years on Wikipedia I have added countries to literally thousands of articles with the encouragement of the community in order to tell the reader where they are as it is an important piece of information that was missing. Location articles for other countries have the name of the country in them, or if not at first then it is usually added later, so why should the US be any different? Not everyone knows all the US states to instantly recognise that it is in that country. All US town locations state the country, something which was changed to a while ago, so what about other types of locations? Ben W Bell talk 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean if I add it in again it won't be removed by yourself? I don't know about stadiums, I haven't dealt with them, myself and several others just add these details as we come across them. I spend much of my time just hitting random articles and seeing what needs done to them. Ben W Bell talk 13:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

australia & cricket

Yes, Australia can be beaten!:) They were beaten by West Indies not so long ago but then again the West Indies lost in the final to them. :( But other teams are not starting to catch up to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thugchildz (talk • contribs) 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

lol, just came accross your messsage, of course they can be beaten. Australia termed India the Final Frontier up till 2005 because they hadn't won there for 30-odd years, even then they won 2-1 after one test which India was winning was washed out. Now without their old veterans, Australia will take time to rebuild over the next few years. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 not here yet?

I know, but that is going on on all pages with moving tenants, the Yankees will be a tenant at Yankee Stadium until 2008. CollegeGameDayRocks! 17:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

test/odi/twenty20

well here's a better comparison rugby football/football is like the original (test cricket) than came ruby unioun (odi) and and rugby sevens are like twenty20 cricket. because there's something called indoor cricket already and not just that odi's aren't taken as lightly as indoor soccer mainly due to being the cricket world cup being played in odi's. twenty20 is not taken as highly as the other two and you can compare the twenty20 world championship to rugby world cup sevens.

Weird Al Yankovic article

Regarding your edit to "Weird Al" Yankovic. I understand that generally Myspace blogs are not reliable sources, but I don't think there could be a reasonable objection to cited Yankovic's statements in his own, authenticated Myspace blog as a source for what Yankovic himself has said. Please consider reinstating these citations and the material taken from them. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeopteryx

Hi Wahkeenah,

You recently edited Archaeopteryx to change the wording to read "The Berlin specimen has been referred to as Archaeornis siemensii", etc. Please don't do that. The word "referred" in this sense is a scientific term, meaning the taxon has been scientifically attributed or assigned to another taxon, not that someone has referred to it by a different name. Your change in wording changes the entire meaning of the sentence, which is why this wording has been reverted twice. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "The Berlin specimen has been referred to Archaeornis siemensii, the Eichstätt specimen to Jurapteryx recurva, the Munich specimen to Archaeopteryx bavarica and the Solnhofen specimen was referred to Wellnhoferia grandis." makes no sense. It sounds like these specimens were sent down the hall to see a doctor. You need to be less obscure in whatever point you're trying to make. Wahkeenah 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

The sentence makes sense if you understand more than one meaning of the word "refer". In this instance, it's "To assign to or regard as belonging within a particular kind or class." See Dictionary.com's American Heritage Dictinary definition #3. You would understand the difference between "hand" (as in a part of someone's body) and "hand" (as in "hand me that sandwich"). This is no different. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should say it was renamed or redesignated or some such. Wahkeenah 03:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wahkeenah, as a general rule, we don't "dumb down" articles; we use the correct scientific terminology whenever possible. There's a Simple English Wikipedia for those who have difficulty understanding some terms. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit has been reverted. As you correctly state, renaming something is not the same as assigning to a class. Therefore, it is very odd that you would edit the page to claim "The Berlin specimen has been renamed to Archaeornis siemensii", etc. Please stop editing the page this way; it's not correct and it doesn't appear you've ever edited an encyclopedia article on a biological classification before, which leads me to believe you don't really know what you're editing. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Kindly explain to this poor, "dumb" editor (and to all the other "dumb" readers who lack a Ph.D. in Biology and/or Linguistics) precisely what is going on. Are these species being renamed, or not? Wahkeenah 04:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wahkeenah,

I do not think you are dumb. Not at all. At the same time, I wouldn't dream of editing on a subject about which I know little. For example, I won't edit Wikipedia's articles on football-related subjects as I know nothing about the sport. Please note that I'm not stating you know little about the subject, only that it appears you don't know very much about the subject because of your confusion about the term "referred", which in this sense means "assigned". As I showed in a link above, the term isn't really obscure, appearing in several mainstream dictionaries, and doesn't really require a Ph.D. in biology. I don't have a Ph.D in biology yet, and don't even object to replacing the disputed term as long as the term it is replaced with is correct. You've edited the page a number of times, but none of these are correct, which is why the edits have been reverted, by more than one person. Referring the material to another species or genus is not really quite the same thing as renaming (though it does get renamed), something you appeared to understand when you wrote "Renaming something is not the same as assigning to a class." So it baffled me when you then edited the page to say "The Berlin specimen has been renamed to Archaeornis siemensii". You can see the correct usage here on the Dinosaur Mailing List archives. Please note again, I don't think you're dumb, and by the same token, I don't think a Ph.D is required to understand basic scientific terminology. At the same time, Wikipedia has long stressed the idea that articles should not be "dumbed down"; we are to use correct scientific terms. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket World Cup

Hey, from what I know you don't really follow cricket much and so I would like you to read this article and would like you to comment on it. Please give some constructive criticism and let me know what/which part is hard for you to understand and stuff that just bores you(a person outside the cricket world) and etc. so please help me out here and leave me some comments on it, thank you.--Thugchildz

thank you, you are one of the most friendly users that i have know in wiki for the short time i been here...hey thank you again but you know...cricket now has 20/20 which could be the rival you were looking for baseball in the us :) --Thugchildz

well no i wouldn't call 20/20 indoor soccer. more like rugby sevens. but one day cricket is still important cricket but not 20/20 well not yet but thing is one day cricket and test are both looked at importantly by most cricket fans/some prefer test some prefer one day both are real cricket...cricket gives you options which baseball doesnt ;) 20/20 on the other hand is a different situation because it was never supposed to be played at international level it was just suppose to be a tournament(20/20 cup in england) at the domestic level for familys that doesnt have much time but everyone else thought it was a good idea so here it is...--Thugchildz

there are clubs here but i dont really play it in clubs here. i went to ATL and my cusins friend was indian or bangladeshi im not sure but they taught me somewhat and then i looked in the internet to know more and now its like that...plus helps bit to be a 3rd gen asian--Thugchildz

Banners

Re your comment on the amount of banners on Loch Ness monster: let's start Wikiproject:banners, and also Wikiproject:Wikiprojects to organise all the banners! (and I just checked The Hulk - only two banners. That's just not trying! Totnesmartin 23:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sadr.jpg

I deleted the image Image:Sadr.jpg as it was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_January_5#Image:Sadr.jpg_.28talk_.7C_delete.29 and no one provided any argument as to why it should not be deleted. Also the image did not have a clean pedigree on its source. -Nv8200p talk 01:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late Apology

Hello Wahkeenah; I wanted to say sorry again for that discussion we had a couple of months ago on the Michael Richards Talk Page. I recently re-read it, and I believe I was extremely rude and accusatory in a lot of those messages. I hope you understand that I had been with Wikipedia for a very short amount of time when they were written. I feel terrible that I wrote those messages. This apology may come late, but after reading what I wrote, I think I should write this. I can assure you that, since that discussion, I have worked (nor argued) with other Users in various cases. I think that working with Users is much better than battling them. I hope that you accept this apology, and that we can improve the Michael Richards page, as well as others. I don't want to argue like that on Wikipedia again, as it causes disruption. Acalamari 19:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are understanding. As for my recent messages to the Michael Richards Talk Page, I'm trying to get the page protected again, as you already saw. About my Username (ha ha!), yes, I chose "Acalamari" for several reasons, and since squids are interesting animals, that is one reason why I chose the name. The "A" at the front was to make the name sound better than just "Calamari." I thought "Acalamari" had a good sound to it. Thank you again. Acalamari 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Photo reply

I actually agree with you in principle re: the free use vs fair use debate. I think that Wikipedia has taken it too far in some cases, and the demand that images be relicensed and the assumption that photographers will jump at the chance to give away their work, is frankly a little obnoxious on our part. The worst is when someone claims that you can't use a fair use image because 'theoretically' someone could go and take a picture of the subject and give it away for free (even if no such free image currently exists). As far as this image goes, I don't think its that big a deal. I don't think the bearded Saddam photo looks that bad, and while I may be unmoved at the appeals on behalf of Saddam's dignity (I really couldnt care less which photo we use) the rules in this case are fairly cut and dry. A free photo exists (never mind that it is of reasonable quality) so it can't be replaced with a nonfree image. Frankly, if the two photos's copyrights were reversed, and Throne Saddam was the free image, and bearded Saddam was unfree, I would be reverting the bearded photo. If someone finds a free alternate image to use, I doubt I would express a preference. Frankly, if I was doing this to be malicious as the other user seems to be suggesting, I would leave the photo of Saddam sitting on his throne like a potentate. He looks far more silly there IMHO. Caper13 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had that argument myself, most recently on Ann Coulter when someone found this photo taken by Jimbo Wales of all people [2] and insisted it be used in the article despite the fact it made her look like a heroin addict. I eventually found an alternate photo [3] and convinced the owner to license it according to creative commons blah blah blah which doesnt look too bad, but yeah, malicious "finding" of bad photos to replace a half decent looking promo photo happens all too frequently. Myself, I know where a "free" photo of a liberal female talk show host can be obtained, and they are using a fair use promo photo on her article page. I could go in and force delete the half decent looking promo photo and force them to use this photo that looks like the subject coming off a three day drunk, but thankfully for everyone involved, I'm not a dick. Personally I think promo photos should be fair game when they are used for their intended purpose, and yeah, there are some Fair Use zealots out there with way too much attitude and time on their hands. Caper13 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Discussion has commenced on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. As you were an editor of that article, I would like to invite you to join in this discussion so as to promote not only an informative and usefull article for wiki, but also one that covers all points of view. Please give us your thoughts and comments for format and content for this article on the discussion page. Thanks.

Mobile 01^Talk 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I think the edit war is over now and the editors have turned to discussion. You are welcome to put forward suggestions if you wish. Mobile 01^Talk 02:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the humour as we also have Mobil 1 here, we had a different slogan but I got the drift. My username actually has nothing to do with Mobil and was chosen purely by chance. I was signing up and trying to think of a username, I looked around my room and saw a sticker on my laptop which said "Centrino Mobile Technology No1 for Performance". tada!! It's a girl thing, I'm sure a guy would have a much better way of picking a username. ;-)

Mobile 01^Talk 02:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wahkeenah thanks for your comments on the Firestone article. I look forward to your future input.Travb (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response on my talk page, in case you are not watching my page. Travb (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mcdonalds

Please state a reason for your reverts otherwise they will be consider vandalism. Please read WP:VAN Planb11 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reported the above user's "contributions" [4] to admins. Wahkeenah 05:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball in Australia

Yes. Cricket is the dominant summer sport in Australia. Baseball still exists all around the country, but at it's current stage, only in amateur competitions (summer and winter), there are also yearly "semi-pro" competitions between all states called the Claxton Shield. There is news about a professional national league starting up for the summer of 07/08, so that'll be awesome if that happens. Right now the only TV coverage of baseball is on cable TV, under ESPN, Fox-sports for Major League Baseball, whereas Cricket is available on free-to-air TV with Australia being one of the strongest cricket playing countries in the world. Cricket also has a lot more publicity.

The state-based competitions in the division 1 level have some players from Canada and the US who are payed to play for clubs (as our summer is their winter, so it's their off-season), which has boosted up the standard of play within those competitions.

There are competitons all through the ages though, you can start playing in T-ball competitions around the same age as you start playing in Cricket, it's just more people choose Cricket. --Borgarde 12:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Mansion photo

Yes, that should work. As long as it's not a copyright violation, it shouldn't be deleted. Thanks. RobJ1981 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Richards

Hi! I'm thinking it may be time to start paring down the Michael Richards article a bit, as it is no longer a current event. I posted a note on the article's talk page. I wanted to get some modicum of concensus before rocking the boat. Please, weigh in! Cleo123 00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wahkeenah, I'm writing to you to inform you that based upon this spirit of "trimming down" the Michael Richards article (by completely removing Kyle Doss' and Frank McBride's views from the article) I created a Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident article. In a somewhat predictable fashion User:Kgeza67 operating under the sock of User:Killroy4 (since indef. blocked) put this new article up for deletion. Since you've been heavily involved in editing this article I was wondering if you might have the time to kindly take a look at the issues and add your views regarding these matters? Thanks. (→Netscott) 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott's statement is very misleading. All quotes by Doss & McBride were being kept in the article,(review the edit history) with the exception of one - what Netscott seems to see as their "version" of why they were "justified" in heckling. Other editors were trying to discuss this content issue with him rationally and reach a consensus. If he had been able to provide a secondary NPOV source as to the genesis of the event, I suspect that all would have agreed to its inclusion. Instead of addressing other editors' concerns, he seems to have gotten angry and started his own article. Cleo123 19:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School Days (1907 song)

Hi! Looks like our edits for this article clashed. I re-did my submission because I assumed there had been some kind of mistake by the system. I didn't look too close but it appears that you were removing the "parody" lyrics. I want to make clear that I won't start an edit war or anything like that if you do - that version and the claim of authorship appears to be original research, an unverifiable claim, etc. - but would you please not eliminate the new section headers and links I added?

Thank you for creating the article in the first place. InnocuousPseudonym 03:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing Saddles edits

Hello. I'm somewhat concerned about the back-and-forth editing of Blazing Saddles; specifically, the copy that is being removed and readded.

I'd like to see the dispute come to a conclusion, and to that end, I've initiated a dialogue at Talk:Blazing Saddles#Edit War - let's talk this out. If you could, please state your case so that we can put this little "edit war" behind us and concentrate on improving the article. Thanks! EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection Tag.

Actually, the page was already semi-protected. I simply added the semi-protected tag. Well over a month ago I saw a non-administrator add the tag to a page that wasn't even protected. He was told to remove it, and I think he did. All I did, as I said, was add the tag to the already semi-protected page. It saved other users some time. Thanks, however, for your message. :) Acalamari 03:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MTM statue image

The reason I took it out is because it doesn't look like anything recognizable. There's got to be a better picture somewhere. Clarityfiend 18:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the one at Mary Tyler Moore#Honors? My opinion: good picture, hideous statue. Clarityfiend 21:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:OzTornadoSequence1.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:OzTornadoSequence1.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Ball, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Reply To "11 Years."

Thanks for the message and the joke: I'm glad someone noticed the edit. I plan to change the number of years every February 7th (at the time of this message, it's still February 7th here where I live). I thought I'd better update it. Acalamari 03:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best decision

Are ones that involve obvious speculation that could not be verified by a reliable source, like that of "fans say this about Daniel Craig's performance," or "fans thought....'fill in own opinion here'." All in all, my edit summary was more in line of saying, sorry but we can't measure/prove that, and not saying that some OR is just OR because it doesn't have a source. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 04:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you know what I read it was I literally reading O-R, instead of "or". Wow, it's late..lol. The Anon put in a good effort, but sometimes it just gets tiring removing the same type of information from every film page. Obviously you can't expect everyone to know all the rules and regulations involving articles, or even to take the time to attempt to know them. But, it's amazing to see that people think that if they read it in a forum then it's true everywhere. Then again, there is that "if you read it on Wikipedia, it must be true" thing going around. Mmmm, what kind of world are we creating. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do)

I agree. I honestly don't really see how people can just vandalize things like they do. OR, NPOV, RS, these things aren't the same. It's ignorance, like you said, but sometimes it can be kind of grey, but vandalism is black and white and I really don't understand people sometimes. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 05:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. I think registration should be manditory. You aren't giving away your life, just your email address. In all the time that I've been a member, the only emails I have ever gotten from Wikipedia were personal emails from people trying to contact me. It isn't like they spam you or something. I think eliminating anonymous user will decrease the vandalism to pages. Talk about people that won't discuss things, you should see the debate over at Children of Men. There's edit wars, lack of respect, it's crazy. I finally attempted to put a stop to it and told the two going at it to back away for awhile. Both have their 3 reverts for the day. It's funny, because they'll talk it out, and then immediately revert each other. It's like they are saying "sure, we can talk, but you have to leave the page MY way". I understand that somewhat myself, because you don't want someone getting the upperhand, but still. When you look at it from an outsiders perspective, you see a different situation. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 05:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that would be something Jimbo Whales would have to approve, unless he's delegated some sort of committee that would take the consensus of the website. I think people have petitioned for it to no avail, but I'm not positive. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 05:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it's bad to wish so much vandalism that it forces them to take action and require registration? BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do)

Wish in one hand, revert vandalism in the other...see which one stinks the fastest. I'm off to la-la-land, where luckly I don't have anonymous users vanalizing my dreams. Take it easy. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do)

interesting?

This might be interesting. Carfiend edited a little in June 2006, then a lot July-Sept 2006, then disappeared until this month. Gravitor edited a lot July-Sept 2006, then disappeared until this month.

CarFiend Gravitor Bubba73 (talk), 04:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Anna Nicole Smith.

Hmm...Marilyn Monroe was only 36 when she died. I had to revert loads of vandalism from Anna Nicole Smith earlier. After I heard of her death, I went straight to the page, knowing there would be vandalism. I did the same when I heard about Molly Ivins. I'd say about ten or so vandals crawled out the woodwork just to vandalize that page. They caused multiple edit conlicts, including maikng decent editors to mistakenly revert each other. Acalamari 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again!

Do you remember me? ;-) Khoi khoi 09:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I used to have Empire State Building on my watchlist, back when I was Hottentot, and one day you left me this funny message on my talk page about something the Cowardly Lion once said. Khoi khoi 09:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I. :-( Khoi khoi 09:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just pronounce it "Coy-Coy". Khoi means "man", which is why some sources like Britannica and Encarta say it means "men of men". However, one user disagrees with this. Khoi khoi 10:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, another translation is "people people" or "real people". Who knows, maybe it's related to the word goy! ;-) Khoi khoi 10:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, I don't think there is a language called "Namibian". Khoi khoi 10:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken crossings

I responded to your comment. :) --Otheus 14:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raccoon

You reminded me thank you, the Wikimedia Commons contest ends in two days. That's where the raccoon lives. On my way to vote for it. -Susanlesch 17:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B.C. (Comic Strip)

Thanks for the formatting help. I'm new at this and just couldn't get things quite right. Now I know about the {{clear}} template. Irene Ringworm 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

check user request

Hi there. You might want to check out the results of my check user demand here. I am not 100% convinced that there are unrelated, as it is not that easy to prove such a connection. I suspect that the only recourse is to check the ip numbers, check the email adresses (if they added this info), and perhaps check if the passwords are the same. Numerous other pieces of evidence suggest that they are related, or at least know each other (for instance gravitor editing wikipedia policy concerning GFDL image licensing, whereas carfiend is the only of the two that actually uploaded an image) but until I see more blatant evidence, I going to work under the hypothesis that they are separate conspiracy theorists that find solace in imitating the other's bad habits. You might want to check out this tool: I've found it useful in finding similar edit behaviors. Lunokhod 12:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I am going to submit an RfC soon. In essence, from my point of view, the most important issue concerns whether the hoax should be discussed on this page, or not. If it can, then we can balance it, otherwise, the hoax proponents will succeed in using this article to make a point, which goes against WP policy. I am fairly confident that an RfC would rule in our favor, and if they do not respect this decision, I will request arbitration. Lunokhod 11:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about an RfC concerning the question as to whether the hoax should play a part in the article or not. After this, the steps I see are: Gavitor/Carfiend ignore this advice, we go to arbitration, they ignore this as well, then we block their accounts based on their blatant disrepsect for wikipolicy. I don't know if this will work or not, but I'm going to go through the process once as a learning experience just to see how everything works. As Gravitor has already figured out, I am a government agent, and I am being paid to take care of these issues. Don't tell anyone... Lunokhod 11:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independant evidence of whatever

Dude, no. I don't remember any Star Trek episodes! And I'm a little offended that you just assume I'm a Star Trek geek . . . still, I get what you're saying. But I can't let the negative stuff mire me. Besides, I'm totally doing my dissertation on all things Wikipedia, and thus counting on it to not collapse into a cistern of Paris Hilton trivia (though blonde pink heiresses do have their place), and thus, it follows, I feel compelled to do my part --while working on my dis-- to keep this from happening. Plus the topic is way cool, [re]Read the Wwired article on the hoax page for Oldberg's et als take on it as part of the social wake of disruptive innovations. I'll send you the link if you want. Numskll 05:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Numskll 05:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

I'm interested, Wahkeenah, in whether your recent revert without discussion on the evidence page reflects your considered opinion, or whether it is simply gratifying to weigh in on an edit war on with someone who you think of as being 'on your side' (or maybe in your sock drawer is more appropriate)? Do you really think that it is appropriate to clutter this list of evidence with nonsense about the hoax, when the hoax accusations did not surface until a decade after all of this evidence was collected? Gravitor 17:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confine your comments and questions to the project page. Wahkeenah 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny! Confine your responses to anything except the point! Gravitor 16:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nabors

Oh, yeah. I heard that rumor too, but rumors I hear don't go in Wikipedia. It has remained an unsourced rumor for a long darn time. Wryspy 10:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul isn't dead, really

Well, I can't believe I missed the anon sneaking back in one of those "generally believed to be dead" notes that you spotted. I don't know how many of those I've removed over the years ... - DavidWBrooks 21:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz

My problem with the image set is that it's too small to be viewable, and doesn't particularly add anything; one or two frames would be fine, and could be included in the article at a decent size. If your reason for including the set is to illustrate Dorothy's last name, a sentence or two, without the frames, would be sufficient. —tregoweth (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that she did actually stumble, and they kept it in because that made it more realistic. If an actual huge fan is blowing at you, you don't have to act like you're having trouble walking, because you will have trouble walking. :) —tregoweth (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Baltimore Oriole Stadium 1938 1a.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Baltimore Oriole Stadium 1938 1a.JPG. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles 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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bartman Scapegoat comments removed

In case you still care, the section about how Steve Bartman is a scapegoat has been removed from the Bartman page as original research. Just an FYI, CodeCarpenter 20:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gravyfiend

Regreatably, given the tag-team, no discussion revert war behavior exhibited, I think it is getting time to figure out the apropriate policies and procedures when dealing with meat puppets, though I suspect it is really a sock puppet despite the apparently separate IPs. Numskll 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing to me that you find it 'regretable' that no revert war took place. Please consider spending more time working in good faith on the article, and less time trying to game the system and troll other users into breaking rules. Thanks. Gravitor 17:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confine your comments to the project page. Wahkeenah 17:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thanks for the message, Wahkeenah. Please let me know if you see any further violations on that entry. BTW, I am not familiar with the edit summary 'rw', and I suspect there may be others like me - would you care to explain it? Crum375 21:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If 'rw' stands for 'rvv' or 'revert vandalism', then I think it's inappropriate for at least 2 reasons: 1. it's incorrect to call edits made by editors who in their own mind believe they are making an entry more accurate 'vandalism' - please read WP:VAN for more details, and the definition of vandalism in WP; and 2. even when justified, i.e. in cases of true vandalism per WP:VAN, using this summary can be misleading, since the 'w' is very unclear. Please be more discerning when calling an edit 'vandalism', as improper labeling of an edit as vandalism can be viewed as uncivil, and please use clearer edit summaries. Using 'rvv' for example would be fine, but only when you are 100% convinced it is vandalism, i.e. the editor intended in his/her own mind to reduce the quality of WP. Many thanks, Crum375 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to assure you that this distinction is not a 'technicality'. Calling true vandalism 'vandalism' and vice versa, not calling other edits vandalism, is paramount to our mission here. If I call someone who, for example, I disagree with in a content dispute, a 'vandal', it will escalate the dispute, as it is clearly wrong. All Wikipedians have some POV, the trick is to stay civil, and try to collectively aim for neutrality while adhering to our content policies. Name calling and other personal attacks, violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and does not help our cause. It sounds like you want to do the right thing, so please read up on these policies and help us make WP a true success. Thanks, Crum375 21:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

I read you used to be atheist? What is the religion you follow now? I'm curious Catherine Woods 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to reach consensus

I'm trying to keep the thre section I just started on topic. I'm addressing all the side issues brought up on user pages to allow other more casual editors to weigh in on ther topic in a way that we can begin to wrestle some sort of consensus. I'm aware of the obstactles in our way, but am trying to work within a safe framework for improvement. Please help by not including the usual suspects of tangetial topics that we all tend to fall into. I'm posting this same message on other users who seem likely to add somewhat tangential discourse to the sections named. Numskll 03:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

No, let's not put all that stuff on my Talk page. I suggest you all try to conform to WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and if needed, our dispute resolution procedures. If all else fails, and mediations fail, there is always ArbCom. Also, any clear disruption or personal attacks can lead to blocks. Crum375 04:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If mediations fail (for whatever reason), the next step is ArbCom. But you need to have a good body of evidence for it to succeed. ArbCom look mostly at disruptive behavior and prefer to avoid content disputes, so you'd have to have a good case showing clear disruption, personal attacks, incivility, etc. 'Tendentious editing' is also considered by ArbCom, especially when coupled with disruptive behavior. Crum375 05:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about, instead looking for ways to hijack process, you started editing in good faith on the talk page? Gravitor 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Gravitor

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Gravitor (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GravitorExpression error: Unrecognized word "brace".]]. -- Lunokhod 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Buck

I fail to see how saying that someone forgot someone else's middle name could be considered libelous. The better complaint would be that it's uncited. For all we know, the editor might have either made it up or misunderstood it. Wahkeenah 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier versions were worse -- I think the original intention was simply a slam against Mr. Buck (see the article history). Either or both reasons are sufficient for its removal. -- Davidkevin 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thagomizer

Hello. You've recently made similar reversions three separate times to Thagomizer, regarding the mention of cavemen with modern surnames. I know you haven't violated the three revert rule, but since this seems to be a contentious point, you might want to bring it up on the article's talk page. — Feezo (Talk) 06:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Woody Woodpecker

Jerry Beck sort of got his hand slapped for leaking the info about the Woody/Walter Lantz DVD set before Universal made an official announcement; he violated contractual terms in doing so. See his forum post here. It's still going to happen (I hope!), but I took it off because if he wasn't supposed to say anything, I don't think we're supposed to say anything (or, at least, it would help keep the info from spreading before it's supposed to, which, I believe, is what Universal wants to avoid). --FuriousFreddy 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. You can put it back if you want to. I just didn't want to jinx anything; I've been waiting my entire life for a decent Lantz video collection. --FuriousFreddy 22:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure some of the TV show segments will be there as bonus features. If not, there will be riots. --FuriousFreddy 02:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitor/Carfiend

I've decided to disengage, and just report each little disruption into the RFC. I am interested to see the outcome of it, and if the admin sits on this latest round as well. LeeG 22:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what I thought! Hopefully things will quieten down somewhat for a while so the business of actually improving the articles can proceed! LeeG 01:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a nice edit summary!

Greetings! I just had to send along a little praise for the edit summary you used while cleaning up vandalism at Toronto Maple Leafs. "Leaf it be" as a subject for a vandalism revert...it captures what's going on with a little bit of originality and character! Well done! And, also, thanks for chipping in with the vandalism cleanup! —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

hey thanks, i dont know why they are trying to hold the article back, really hard to assume good faith in these situation... All the pictures in the article passed FAC and no other pictures have been added all have fair use rationales and still you have things like this. Makes me want to quit wiki, but then again thats giving it to them so any ways was going to come by say hello few days ago but didn't have time. so hows it going?--Thugchildz 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not advertising!!!

Hey

I live in Charlotte! None of those are advertising ANYTHING!! They either EXPAND on topics briefly mentioned, or COVER topics NOT MENTIONED AT ALL!

Most of them are public utility links. Others are sites recently featured in the news for one reason or another as USEFUL!

I live here in Charlotte, YOU DO NOT!

Don't edit things you know nothing about! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.172.118.10 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You have been reported to an admin for rule violations. Wahkeenah 02:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie O'Donnell

She is an idiot and I will thank you very much to not remove others' opinions from her talk page. User:68.219.74.230 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Side Story advertising

Thank you for taking action against the people advertising that local production of West Side Story in North Carolina. No matter how emphatic and obvious the policy is, there will always be people involved with local, amateur, and student productions of shows that will try to advertise on Wikipedia. We need more people like you who prevent pages from being cluttered by self-serving, irrelevant information.--Cassmus 07:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wudup

hows it going? just came by to see whats craklin with you. anyways, you c world cups on now, but you probably knew... but good news is ireland one of the minnows and 1st time at the world cup has tied(really hard to tie in cricket) with zimbabwe, test nation (meaning one of the best cricket nations)...well at least for me its good news because im with the underdogs most times expect in football where most teams are underdogs to the PARTIIIOTSss :) . Well how it going with your baseball? I heard there's going to be or is already a Japanese pitcher or something who came in to the mlb? fill me in on that, dont really follow baseball except for if the yankees or dodgers are in the world series :)--Thugchildz 08:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed it

Rejoice, my fellow! As Carmen Electra has now a new and wonderful free image! --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppss

Sorry, I was going through VandalProof and I mistaked it for a brand new article in a foreign language, please accept my apologies in this matter! Telly addict 16:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: L.A. Coliseum and Sports Arena

The coliseum and sports arena are generally referred to as being in downtown but south is also correct. I wouldn't worry too much. I'm just waiting until the IP cools down a bit. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great... now I have the image of sea slugs having an orgy in my head... Thanks a lot! -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wc death

as far as i know, they're now dismissing the idea of it relating to match fixing. But yeah, this world cup has everything- from the biggest upsets to tragedies. But just to stick to the cricket, its been a very interesting one. Im don't know about the black sox scandal can you fill me in on that?--Thugchildz 01:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, cricket went through a phase similar to that in the '90s when indian players were involved in match fixing scandals as well, but then the International Cricket Council took a strong stand against corruption and created the anti-corruption program.--Thugchildz 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war question

Thanks for the advice. I really thought you were an admin, as much as I see your name on things. Couillaud 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piggly Wiggly

I was not questioning your concern over this matter, only your methods of drawing attention to the problem. All articles have talk pages that are used for discussing problems with the article. Failing that Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the place to raise copyright concerns. I have compared the article with the Piggly Wiggly website, and deleted all the copy/pasted text that I found. —JeremyA (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the unreferenced tag back in because, having removed the material that was most blatantly copied from the Piggly Wiggly website, it is unclear to me what the source of much of the information was. Granted, there are still a lot of facts that can be sourced to the official website, but I think that there are many that can't. Requesting that editors provide references is perfectly normal Wikipedia practice. —JeremyA (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to 24 1/2

I responded with: The 1/2 times comes from when a user put a message on my user page as opposed to my talk page. It wasn't really vandalism, so I included it as a "1/2" instead. :) It seemed better to list it as that than to list is as a full vandalism edit. Acalamari 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Apollo

Noted. Don't worry, I wasn't planning on continuing off-topic discussion/arguements after that point, since I really do want to see more information about the mounted camera. I figure any legitimate question on the talk page is something else that could probably be added to the article. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Thanks for the info! ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jarry Park Stadium

My source is the French Wiki fr:Stade Jarry. One MUST distinguish between the stadium and the large urban park of the same name Jarry Park or Parc Jarry (fr:Parc Jarry). I KNOW, because I live here. Salut. Peter Horn 03:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought Jarry Stadium, a literal translation of Stade Jarry, would have been more appropriate. It is more ellegant and would also have preserved the distinction between the stadium and the urban park. See fr:Jarry#Toponyme. Peter Horn 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name (term) Jarry Park Stadium can be found within this link: Jarry Park

Peter Horn 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Christy Mathewson Mathewson was born in 1878, not 1880 according to documents from Bucknell and reliable baseball research. Please do not change it back.

The above IP address user has presented no actual evidence for the 1878 date. Wahkeenah 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes article

You should be informed that a Canadian dollar coin is called a Loonie because the reverse side of the coin has a loon which is a bird. Steelbeard1 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Now I see your pain involving date changes. Ron liebman (talk · contribs) is even doing the same at other wikis such as here. Unfortunately records are sometimes muddy back then so sometimes it's best to explain the discrepancy like I did with this edit to Fred Clarke. On the other hand, it appears that Ron liebman is unwilling to get so specific about his sources so it could get ugly. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time today going over the contributions of the following:

...and reverting the questionable edits. Does it look like I got them all? Blocks are likely if anyone needs to repeat this effort. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball titles streaks

Could you please explain to me what false edits} I made? I had seen there were several odd edits by a couple of IPs. I then reverted to your version and cleaned up the rather ugly formatting. If you prefer the weird formatting then say so but don't put in misleading edit summaries. If on the other hand it was an error on your part, in that you thought someone was inserting the odd edits of the IPs then I think you should take a few seconds to review edits rather than a blind revert. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I see that I was a bit more grumpy than I needed to be. I was reverting a vandal. Saw they had also edited Christy Mathewson's birthday which I reverted based on the external links. Then I saw their edits to Major League Baseball titles streaks and your comments. Reverted to your last edit and fixed the formatting. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felt

Thanks, I did not take it that way, I was a tad disappointed in myself that I had not caught the previous vandalism and was wondering how you identified and reverted it so quickly. Thanks.

BrianGV^talk 13:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duke accuser photo

Hi Wahkeenah - Thanks for your support on these issues. I'm trying to see if we can come to an agreement on the photo without another heated argument; I'd value your input on it. You know my preference on it, but more important to me is that the issue is decided based on consensus, instead of depending on whoever is the more persistent reverter. Thanks. BTW, are you from Oregon? Anywhere near The Dalles? Guanxi 13:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Ron Liebman and others - The streaks interrupted by military service (paticularly involving full seasons) have been recognized by The Sporting News, which prints the leading record book in its field since the 1940"s (though they will not publish a 2007 edition) in the Record Book, Register, and Daguerreotypes. I belong to the Society for American Baseball Research, which also does. Ted Williams will have led the league in runs 5 consecutive years and in walks 6 consecutive years long after both of us are dead. But I will not revert them for now. If you don't, I will do so at a later date. It is not my own "opinion" or "manifestation, and I am not a vandal. Let's cut the crap. My "birthyears" are based on reliable sources. I am an award winning researcher who has been doing baseball research for a half century, and I have attended 34 (going on 35) consecutive National Conventions of SABR.

Then give those reliable sources. There are a lot of people spending a lot of time reverting your changes when all you have to do is give details for your references. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I was wondering if I could use the Octa-gone box you have on your userpage. Its cool. --ROASTYTOAST 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oriole_Park_z4-0160.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Oriole_Park_z4-0160.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bull_Durham_Greensboro1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Bull_Durham_Greensboro1.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help report

Please add comments: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Carfiend. I think that the evidence is pretty strong: they act in tandem, tag team, and have very similar editorial styles. --ScienceApologist 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be easier now to proceed in editting these articles. The result is one of the most lucid and level-headed I have ever seen made by an administrator. I would award the closing administrator a barnstar, but I don't want to appear to be gloating. In principle, it is a difficult thing to have users blocked since Wikipedia loves to give second chances, but it seems that this user/set-of-users has been given a variety of free passes and copious second chances that they had finally exhausted. Now let's get back to writing the encyclopedia! --ScienceApologist 11:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wahkeenah, thanks for your note. I hope that you and the other editors who work on those articles will find the atmosphere more harmonious from now on. However, sockpuppeteers often return in new guises, so don't hesitate to ask for help in the future.

As an aside, I agree 100% with resisting edit warring...I understand very well the temptation to be sarcastic and incivil to editors who act obtuse, but ultimately it's counterproductive. First of all, a lot of people with non-standard viewpoints come to Wikipedia looking for a fight, and when you give it to them, it simply encourages them to fight harder. And worse, editors who aren't involved in the dispute can get the impression that everyone's being a jerk, so there's no point in intervening. Anyway, happy editing! --Akhilleus (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hamilton death date

I see that you were involved in trying to get the correct (or, sourced anyway) death date for Billy Hamilton (baseball player) to stay on his page. You can look at the edit history for my recent attempts to get the other party to provide a real citation, which they are unable to do. I'm not sure what the next step is to try to get this edit war to stop. If you could be of any help I would appreciate it. I also left this message at User talk:Wknight94, who was also involved in trying to stop the unsourced edits. Thanks, Mattingly23 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nowhozdisiz

I just had Lou Gehrig on my watchlist and have boldly reverted his TPR edit there, without checking his other similar edits as you've done. It certainly looks like WP:OR and should be reverted across the board, IMHO Cheers, JGHowes ^talk - 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Carlisle

heres the citation if you would look on the article you would have seen it.--Joebengo 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felt

The joke being added to the Felt article is funny, but doesn't really belong in the article. I'm going to remove it again. Mark Chovain 07:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did I use the term vandal? Here are the only edits I've made on the topic of Felt: [5] [6] [7] [8].

I'd say I've been extremely civil, and assumed good faith in each and every one of those edits. I have not used the term "vandal", until this edit. Mark Chovain 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect game

Terrific work with that--always satisfying to correct the scholars. (Just want to verify--the correct Lanigan quote is "Charles Robertson of Chicago Americans," not "Charles Robertson of the Chicago Americans"?)

I'm a lifelong Mets fan, meaning I'm a Coney fan. I watched that game on television--I don't care if it was a bad Expos team, that's the single most brilliant pitching performance I've ever seen. The movement he was getting on his pitches was otherworldly.

I'm a lifelong Mets fan, meaning the notion of Yankees "karma" makes me want to hit myself with a rusty cleat. We report the facts in the game note--let the people decide whether it's karma or Satan. Best, Dan—DCGeist 09:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who ?

Who made you God? You should not think yourself so wise that you might not be mistaken, Mr. Char. NC. Afterall, you displayed all of your true wisdom and IQ in your personal comments made about several people on other pages. If you know so much and are so smart why are you using childish "name-calling" when dealing with other people? The website rules state that no one is suppose to be offensive. How can you report other people for violation of adminstrative rules when you are consistantly violating the rules by offending so many with your name-calling and insults.

And

It was advertising. How do you know who lives in the Char, NC area and who does not? User:207.144.59.134 02:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication what the above rant pertains to. Wahkeenah 03:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this was about spam reversion from March 14th-15th in the Charlotte article (see farther down the page - and at the top). Wahkeenah 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery on Flag of the United States

There was some exchange on the issue on the talk page, so the least you should do is join in. Or you should read WP:0RR, which points out that reverts should be explained. In this case, please explain why the photos are notable. Thanks for you effort! --87.189.91.236

Editting

You should make a habit of editting things about which you do not know have information. You are not an expert, not a genius, and not even a professor on these subjects. Stop infiltrating factual information with your nonsense. Good luck on one day actually having a PhD, instead of only pretending. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.144.59.134 (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No indication what the above misspelled rant refers to. Wahkeenah 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must be about the "legend" in Wicked Witch of the East that the IP address won't provide a citation for. Wahkeenah 23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take English in school? Remember "GRAMMAR".... What should never be at the end of a sentence? ... For a clue look at what you put at the end of everyone of your sentences! Go back to school and get an education before you try to educate others. Sincerely, A concerned reader

citation

There is a citation present, and published professional literature is not considered new research. Wake-up. Just because you did not know does not make it wrong. What type of satisfaction do you get from your naracistic egoisms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.144.59.134 (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please note that Wahkeenah is so unable to properly respond to the valid comments made by this user that he has made a point of attempting to change the spelling in her posting on the entire website, to try to make her appear less intelligent and her comments unvalid. Wahkeenah -- a little childish, don't you think?

Re: JELLYROLL and IP Addresses

Once again, you don't know what you are saying. Check locations of IP address, we are not the same person. We just happen to be people who share a point of view. Don't ignore facts just because they represent opinions which differ from yours. You are the reason that ignorance exists in this world - closed-minded facism. AND YES--JELLYROLL is an insulting slur... Be advised that if this is not addressed legal action will be taken against both of you. (You would think you would check out information prior to attempting to publish it, but you repeatly publish incorrect information based completely upon your opinions, which are not - and not even close to - fact.)

An offended and concerned reader and a mother (not anyone from any street!!!!)

JaneJellyRole

Oh....I get it. You and Jane are the same person! That is why she is the only one who agrees with you! That is why you think that other people run around with multiple IDs.

I work in medicine and could offer you a free referal to get the help that you need. I have many friends and associates who work on a sliding scale if money is a concern.

Best Wishes. --207.144.59.134 15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)--207.144.59.134 15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Concerned Reader--207.144.59.134 15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)--207.144.59.134 15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo! I hope yo dig my new name better - more spelled out, for those who jump to the wrong conclusions. A young nin*a from da street 15:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your name. It shows boldness of expression. Like the creativity. Take care! --MullinsLabsInc 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did the above user do to offend any of you? He is not me, never has been me -- and he is not at this IP address! Bug off, if he was, how would this address still be posting. Wake up and EDUCATE! Stop the hate! --207.144.59.134 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:207.144.59.134

I indef blocked the first account due to a poor choice in user names. However, such a block would not prevent creating a new account. I just blocked (one of) the new accounts for abuse/vandalism indefinitely. This type of block will also block the IP address, so we should have some rest for awhile. If not, just keep me posted. Rklawton 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Not the same people. Not the same location. Not the same user accounts. Not the same IP addresses. How can any of you pretend to be educated? --Mullins 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mullins 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just incase you still have questions concerning my user name being real. I'm going to give you the link to my business website. The Mullins Family has been business for many years now. We don't like being defaced or accused unfairly. I'm trying to clear to this matter up in a peaceful way, but I must warn you that if you continue to make negative comments and accustations against our name, the states could be defined as "DEFACING" and there is a high probably of it resulting in legal action. http://www.mullinslabs.com/ Peace, —Preceding unsigned comment added by MullinsLabsInc (talk • contribs)

Threats are against wikipedia policy, so I have turned this one over to the admin for him to take further action if necessary. Wahkeenah 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Too late! I've already blocked them for legal threats (whatever about impersonation) - Alison^☺ 23:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Braves Field

You're probably right - I thought the varying distances would speak to the sentance earlier in the article about the inner fences being shifted, but I can see how the numbers make everything rather cumbersome. I noticed a while ago that this data had been taken out of the article for readability reasons and I completely understand why. I just personally think that these old ballparks should be recognized as being in flux, not static "in the past" monuments. I would also think that Braves Field is a little less personal for some than Yankee Stadium. Thanks for helping out. EC2 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also had run across something earlier today, which I can't find at the moment, that says the inner wall was built in 1928. It obviously gets a way more cloudy after. Perhaps we can break it down into a few time periods, the last being 1946 or so. Just out of curiosity, what sources are you using - it seems like everything I come across is based on Lowry. EC2 02:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much

I wanted to thank you for all the help you gave me with that pile of craziness I stepped into last night. It really means a lot that you saw the situation and stepped right in to help me, especially since it was the first time I'd ever expressed concern to another editor about their user name and was kind of unsure about how to proceed. You really make Wikipedia a better place! janejellyroll 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Not ....And Neither Are U

Hey

I live in Charlotte! None of those are advertising ANYTHING!! They either EXPAND on topics briefly mentioned, or COVER topics NOT MENTIONED AT ALL!

Most of them are public utility links. Others are sites recently featured in the news for one reason or another as USEFUL!

I live here in Charlotte, YOU DO NOT!

Don't edit things you know nothing about! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.172.118.10 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

You have been reported to an admin for rule violations. Wahkeenah 02:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC) --199.4.143.83 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)--199.4.143.83 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Bold text[reply]

No clue what the above is about, but I've turned it over to an admin (the same one whose talk page the above user just vandalized). Wahkeenah 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same person, different IP: it's the one who left the message at the top of your talk page, and also left a message on my talk page too. :) I remember the revert-war several users had with this IP over the spam links. Acalamari 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you removed any, and I can't remember why the user left that message on your talk page, but I do know I removed spam links, and was given a message written with a caps-locked title. Acalamari 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously annoyed this guy. IP editor mentioned above wrote this on your talk page 10 days ago before they were blocked for spamming. There was a little altercation between you and them on Charlotte, North Carolina two weeks ago - Alison^☺ 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the vandal reverted Nackonkantari, Golbez, you Wahkeenah, myself, and Imjustmatthew. I didn't realize that IP had revert-warred with that many users! Acalamari 23:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:JoesphJobs

What do you make of this [9]? See also your talk page here: [10].

Charlotte, North Carolina.

I have removed the spam links. I viewed the differences between earlier versions to see which links were the spam ones. I have added the page to my watchlist for the time being in case the spammer comes back with a vengeance. :) Acalamari 16:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what the user does. :) Acalamari 16:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, they're back. [11] [12] I reverted the edits and warned the user. Acalamari 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Blocked again. Continuing to watch the page. :) Acalamari 21:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the recent history of the page, I was just involved in another annoying revert-war with one of the IPs. Acalamari 23:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alison has semi-protected the page. Nice. :) Acalamari 23:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie et al

Hi - yes, I agree with your analysis. I've been bumping into this same edit all over - on The View, on Barbara Walters, on Rosie.I'm not sure any of it belongs, since there seems not to be any independent reporting on this, just a press release issued by this guy. That's not a reliable source on its own - I was willing to let it be there, with an indication that it is only their own press release, but this editor keeps reinstating his wording, and adding on - I think it is out of hand. And the POV pushing is obvious, and not coming from those of us removing the material, which is why I added the neutrality tag. Will have to consider what to do next. Tvoz |talk 00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I agree with that too - except I'm a bit more skeptical about whether they'll lose interest. It seems to be, to coin a phrase, a holy war. Maybe some other voices weighing in would help, but I doubt it.Tvoz |talk 00:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha - yeah, the big bucks. That's fine with me actually - getting an admin in could help. Tvoz |talk 00:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wardrobe malfunction

Hi Wahkeenah. I just had my edits reverted by you on the Wardrobe malfunction article. I deleted a couple of items from there that I thought would be more appropriate in the Upskirt article, specifically incidents with links to images of naked celebrities. On the talk page, you didn't disagree with me that they ought to be moved when you responded. Yet, I see that you reverted my edits. Please help me understand your reversion. Gobonobo ^T ^C 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said on my talk page: Put them in the Upskirt article, THEN delete them from the Wardrobe article. And if we were talking about goldfish being listed in the mammal article, I'm sure you would like them to find an appropriate home in Wikipedia as well. As such, I'm unsure at the moment how best to insert those incidents in the upskirt article, but I remain confident that they do not belong where they were. Gobonobo ^T ^C 04:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be in a revert war with you. Let's try to work this out. What I understand you want me to do is to first put the incidents of upskirt photography of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in the upskirt article, before I delete them from the Wardrobe malfunction article. But, after I do that, you won't have objections about removing that content from Wardrobe Malfunction. Is that about right? Gobonobo ^T ^C 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:In_the_Big_Inning.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:In_the_Big_Inning.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's tagged that way, but I don't see it in the page that lists images for deletion. I think it got removed from an article so essentially it's an "orphan". Is that the reason? Wahkeenah 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bug. It's there now. Thanks for the notice. The image is no longer being used, though. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matsui, et al

I just wish he would channel his persistence into making more constructive edits instead. Neier 23:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Ron Liebman

And what is with the persistant attempt to change the birth date or death dates of major leaguers ? -- No Guru 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

united States Declaration of Indepedence

Use talk if you have something to add. At this point, where the facts of the matter have been established through multiple sources, with concurrence from multiple users, changing the title on your own without bothering to cite sources for your own contentions are dangerously close to vandalism. - MSTCrow 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - MSTCrow 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Your latest post on my talk page may be a bit too harsh towards the editor in question. I know you're a longtime editor so I won't patronize you. Just please focus on the contributions not the contributer where negative implications are concerned. i kan reed 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISU & STDs

Your edit summary on your revert was absolutely an excellent cut on the vandal. Good show! Unschool 02:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates and streaks

I guess the guy gets his rocks off rewritting articles to fit his own personal beliefs. Normally I let other people look into situations as the Victor Pellot issue, but his insistence in reverting the man's birth name without any logic just didn't fit in well with me. True, Pellot may have been known as "Vic Power" in the majors, but the fact is that his name is Victor Pellot Pove. Changing his name would make as much sense as changing Roberto Clementes name to "Bob Clemente" as he appeared in some early baaseball careds. I blocked this sock-puppet for now. Take care Tony the Marine 01:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seals Stadium

Thanks for the catch, I copied the box from another page, must've forgot to delete it. EC2 23:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert

Just don't. Not without and an edit summary and especially not when I provided a reference. Use the talkpage if you feel like asserting your personal opinions.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco RfC

Hi Wahkeenah.

I think you're one of the disputants in the "Crisco" RfC. Can you write a statement summarizing your position, including what you think is best for this section of the article, and your reasoning? Ideally it should be concise, but make clear to editors who are unfamiliar with the controversy. Please do not continue the debate in this section — leave room for the comments! / edgarde 11:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any non-standard uses belong in the article. I see out-of-context stuff get zapped all the time in other articles. However, if certain editors insist on including the sexual lubricant stuff, then it's only fair to include other documented non-standard uses as a household product. So at the moment (unless someone has messed with it), I'm OK with the article as-is and don't have anything to add to the RFC about the article. Wahkeenah 11:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. You could pretty much put that in your statement. Be advised that I'm not arbitrating, and the RfC isn't really a contest. The goal here is (mostly) to gain perspective from other editors. / edgarde 11:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, in fact, put a similar comment in the RFC portion. I don't know if I did it in the proper format. But as long as there is some balance in the article, I can live with it. However, if someone tries to revert it back to just the one isolated non-standard usage, then the editor's agenda will be exposed. Wahkeenah 11:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your willingness to offer some compromise is very encouraging. I think your recent edits are good ones — covers all the bases without giving undue weight in a short article to the unusual usage. That musketball item is pretty interesting and amusing, worth keeping in my opinion.

Thanks for getting your statement in so quickly. RfC's usually take at least a week to draw comments, so be patient with this one. / edgarde 11:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Undue weight" is probably the issue I've been arguing, I just wasn't sure what to call it. And I wish I could come up with other examples that I've seen, where someone posts something in an article A about topic B, and it gets reverted because article B is the place to cover it, with a reference back to article A. If that makes sense. Wahkeenah 12:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles are subject to different conditions, so examples outside this article aren't too useful. Wikipedia's list of policies (particularly neutral point of view in this case) would be the standard, along with WP:NOT. At some point, someone (perhaps I) will cite WP:NOT#CENSORED as reason to include the personal lubricant usage; so as long as that usage can be sourced, it probably stays in the article. But other common usages (as long as they are sourced) also merit inclusion. / edgarde 12:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Kaplan

Already noticed it. Neier 22:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, User talk:Isidore wax is back in action. Neier 23:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some have been tagged as sockpuppets; but, the list is not complete. Feel free to add to User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Sockpuppets if there are any that have been missed. Neier 22:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Released Date

Well, with all due respect, I seen these cartoons over 100 times and I identified the original animation produced at the year. Agtaz 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seen the released date on the LT & MM filmography list and other sites. Agtaz 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why's that? Agtaz 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which article did you find me on? Agtaz 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have that book. Was the book cover blue? Agtaz 00:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an administrater? Agtaz 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Cause you came on to me like that, and I was wondering. Agtaz 00:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, it's cool. I'm just checking the release dates for my art project. Agtaz 01:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case of the liebman sockpuppets

I finally broke down and notified admins about him and his various identities. If you have anything to add, please feel free. ;) --Ebyabe 22:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be another one - Evelyn m. begley (talk · contribs · count). With only one edit, it's hard to tell, but considering the edit, I think it very likely. Check it and see. :) --Ebyabe 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's at it again, as User:149.4.108.154. I've reverted his stuff and reported to ANI and added to the sockpuppet case. I like his comment on the Victor Pellot edit after I first reverted it. That's right, let's gaslight him! Though I think it's to late, 'cause I think he's gaslighted himself. *hehe* -Ebyabe 16:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He gave up for about an hour, then started again. I'm reverting up to twice, so at least I don't exceed 3RR. So until the admins step in again, I guess it's "tag, you're it!" :) -Ebyabe 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That IP got blocked, but he started on another one: Special:Contributions/149.4.108.130. And he's gettin' riled at me, if you check his edit summaries. Don't worry, I reported that too. Ron's just digging his grave deeper and deeper. Where he'll argue with Victor Pellot about his name, and Billy Hamilton as to when he died. ;) -Ebyabe 18:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check here. ;) --Ebyabe 22:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Chat

Wahkeenah, you seem to be a baseball fan, so as your friend I want to share with you the following. Two weeks ago I went on an 8 day tour upon invitation to the East Coast and took in baseball games at Camden Park (in Baltimore), Yankkee Stadium, Shea Stadium (New York) and Femway Park (Boston). While in Baltimore, I visited Babe Ruth's house. I also visited the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. In a couple of weeks I'll be heading for Georgia on another 5 day invitation and will take in a game at Atlanta. Now, isn't that the dream vacation of every baseball fan? Tony the Marine 07:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

Hi. You indicated that my posting, on the JFK Stadium page, and Shibe Park, was spam, and that I was trying to sell something. I'd like you to ponder this closely and reconsider.

The link in question (for JFK) is this: J.F.K. Stadium

This is a site about Philadelphia architects and buildings created by the Athenaeum of Philadelphia, the University of Pennsylvania Architectural Archives, and the city of Philadelphia's Historical Commission.

In J.F.K.'s situation, it includes references to original information (photographs, city records, design documents) in at least three institutions, and includes thumbnails of photos available in those collections. It also includes a link to a biography of the architects, and the state of Pennsylvania's cultural resource inventory information for the stadium.

So why is this spam?

WaltRiceJr 14:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you say there's no new information. Who were the architects who built the stadium?

WaltRiceJr 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found an official government source for that information, and added to the article. --Ebyabe 16:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Award

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hereby bestow the Barnstar of Dilligence to Wahkeenah for his persistence in keeping the Flag of the United States article free from vandals. *— BQZip01* —** ^talk 00:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern: My account has been blocked at my own request. Wahkeenah 21:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"GoodBye" article - Drama is silly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that writeup about departures, which I finally read just now... a very insightful article. Although I was angry at a specific situation that evolved into the "last straw", that was just a symptom of a larger problem... of realizing that after more than 2 years creating and editing articles in areas of interest to me, what started out as a desire to write and contribute had degenerated into spending the vast majority of my time here combating vandalism and the obtuseness of certain editors. In short, it started out as fun and wasn't fun anymore. Thus, at this point I have nothing more to give and I might as well give it a rest for awhile. After a suitable interval, if I get the urge to contribute again, I might start fresh with a new user ID and a very short watch-list, to try to avoid the inevitable frustration that came from defending too many articles at once. Thanks fer listenin'. :) Wahkeenah 04:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That essay pretty well has all the angles covered. The following fits to a fair degree, although not totally: "Most departure notes are sincere at the time they are written. The former contributor genuinely intends to discontinue active participation. But leaving is a process, not a single event. The signs of a previously committed contributor uncommitting themselves to the goals of a community are usually clear. The departure note is a step on the road, and oftentimes will be followed by scaled-back contributions and lurking." Wahkeenah 05:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lurk well, Wahkeenah, and do come back when you're good and ready. Very best wishes, --Guinnog 05:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate it. You should read that article. It's fascinating stuff about community psychology. For one thing, it says that someone who quits in anger will come back and look for others' comments. So you fulfilled that need. I know I've got some friends here. :) In general, that writeup made me think about stuff objectively (I can be just as obtuse as anyone else, don'cha know). I've been thinking that I have, in fact, had positive things to contribute: original articles, additions to existing articles, photos, etc. I'm not just some troll. The problem is when I let passion get in the way of clear thinking, which is my nature sometimes, and then I can find myself acting like a troll. I've got to fix that, or at least face it, before I start editing again. :) Wahkeenah 05:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you left - maybe see you back soon. Weatherman90 22:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Chairboy's writeup talks about scaled-back contributions and "lurking" (reading without contributing) and that's kind of what I'm doing now. My wife told me I was "addicted" to this thing, and it's true. That's one reason I asked an admin to block my account, to help me break this "addiction". But it's not easy. As the writeup suggests (although never coming out and labeling it "addiction"), it's a weaning-away process. I'm continuing to watch my bloated watch-list (especially for newsworthy stuff like the NBA and NHL brackets, which are faster to get to here than on other sites) and with the intent of only updating articles that I care most about and which have had vandalism uncorrected for some time. Fortunately, very little of that has happened so far, and already I'm spending far less time on this site than I had been. :) Wahkeenah 04:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are back soon Wahkeenah! Frankyboy5 13:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have reincarnated. This time around, I will try to stick with safe topics. :) Baseball Bugs 12:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sorry to see you leave, I hope you come back. Anyways, I was here actually wanting your opinion on the first paragraph of the intro of Cricket. Do you think it would to complicated, too much detailed for someone who doesn't know much about cricket? How should it be changed or if it needs to be changed? Again, I hope you come back.--THUG CHILD z 16:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:ITawAPuttyTat1.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:ITawAPuttyTat1.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 06:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture references to Patty Hearst

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Popular culture references to Patty Hearst, 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). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. hbdragon88 03:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AcrobattyBunny1.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AcrobattyBunny1.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. Ilse @ 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a fair use rationale. – Ilse @ 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

Well, I've gone and done it and the Aggie Band article is up for Featured Article status. Any feedback (especially support) would be greatly appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McDonalds [13]

It would appear that 4Dec2006 you entered the following.

In September 2006 Mc Donalds and all its products were classified healthy by the SAESUF foundation of health obesity. This was criticised heavily by American health nutritionists and argued that their data lacked validity.

Can you identify the SAESUF or provide some other ref for the entry? LeadSongDog 19:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		To Wahkeenah, on the occasion of Minneapolis, Minnesota reaching featured article. -Susanlesch 04:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks, folks, I'm speechless. :)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Superman Title Cards.JPG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Superman Title Cards.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 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:LA Coliseum baseball.JPG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:LA Coliseum baseball.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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question about Billy Murray

there's nothing mentioned about ghost busters or groundhog day. This are two famous films that should be mentioned. Maybe a more recent picture would be good.--Wayne Neptune 02:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Questions

Hi,

I am an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at Boston College, and I am researching the development of the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre. You were among the top 5% of contributors (either editing or on the talk pages) for that article, and I was wondering if you’d be willing to answer a few questions by email.

All of your responses and your participation will be strictly confidential. Please cut and paste the below questions and respond by email to gerald.kane@bc.edu to ensure confidentiality.

I appreciate your help on this project, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Please also let me know if you are interested in receiving a copy of the paper when it is finished.

Thank You, Gerald C (Jerry) Kane, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Information Systems Carroll School of Management Boston College 140 Commonwealth Ave 326 Fulton Hall Chestnut Hill, MA 02478

Questions: 1) What is your Wikipedia screen name? Note: optional, if you reply by email I will not be able to connect your email to your screen name. 2) On average, how many hours per week do you spend editing articles on Wikipedia? 3) Why do you contribute your time and energy to developing Wikipedia articles? 4) What types of articles to which do you typically contribute? 5) Why did you choose to become involved in the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre? 6) What was your primary role in the process of creating the article on the Virginia Tech Massacre (e.g. copy editing, fighting vandalism, contributing news, managing a particular section, etc?) 7) How was your experience with this article similar to or different than other Wikipedia articles to which you have contributed? 8) What were some of the most challenging issues facing the successful development of this particular article on the Virginia Tech massacre? 9) What do you think were some of the primary reasons that this article was successful (i.e. cited in the press, rated as a “good article” by Wikipedia standards.) 10) Is there anything else I should know about the Wikipedia article on the VT massacre?

--geraldckane 02:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is essentially spam and the user's account has been blocked. Baseball Bugs 04:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Airplane II X-ray.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Airplane II X-ray.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Bolger post mortem cartoon

You added this line to the Ray Bolger (the Wizard of Oz's Scarecrow) article: "An editorial cartoon the day after his death featured the Oz cast dancing off into the setting sun, with the Scarecrow running to catch up." I'm just curious, do you have any idea where one could find that cartoon?

AlexJenkins 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte, NC

Hello, it appears that you have some knowledge of Charlotte, North Carolina area. WikiProject Charlotte would like to invite you to join us and expand Wikipedia's information on this Carolina city/region.

I don't know any more about Charlotte than what I've posted in a few articles. Plus, I'm blocked. :'( Wahkeenah 21:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test

This has been a test. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Kmkshot.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 00:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Rubens Venus at a Mirror c1615.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Rubens Venus at a Mirror c1615.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 after seven 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 16:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FYEOgunbarrel1.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:FYEOgunbarrel1.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 06:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FYEOgunbarrel1.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:FYEOgunbarrel1.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 04:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sleeper McDonalds.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Sleeper McDonalds.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 11:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup in Minneapolis

Minnesota Meetup

Sunday, 2007-10-07, 1:00 p.m. (13:00)
Pracna on Main
117 Main SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Map

Please pass this on! RSVP here.

Spam delivered by -Susanlesch 16:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fran_Drescher_Enter_Whining.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fran_Drescher_Enter_Whining.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock?

I noticed your note here. Do you want to be unblocked? Or do you like the new name better? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ITawAPuttyTat1.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:ITawAPuttyTat1.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 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Perils of Superman Steve Mitchell Michael Fox.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Perils of Superman Steve Mitchell Michael Fox.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. Curveaway 10:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:OzTornadoSequence2.JPG

I have tagged Image:OzTornadoSequence2.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Thirdship 23:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Porky Pig

You mind stopping by this page when you have a chance? There's a dispute over how much info can reasonably be added to the page about the "Porky Pig curses" blooper without consulting a reliable source. Thanks! — Brian (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:COtitle1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:COtitle1.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 12:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LookUpInTheSky.JPG

I have tagged Image:LookUpInTheSky.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Armedanode 11:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

A photo uploaded by you has been featured on Portal:North Carolina, keep up the great work! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Superman movie vid cap1.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superman movie vid cap1.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. BJBot (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Paradise cover VHS.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Paradise cover VHS.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) 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Cracker Jack bag.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cracker Jack bag.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC) --The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Superman movie vid cap1.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superman movie vid cap1.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) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bill Kennedy in Superman 66 Joey.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Bill Kennedy in Superman 66 Joey.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) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Carmen Esquire June04.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Carmen Esquire June04.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) 03:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Superman Title Cards.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superman Title Cards.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. BJBot (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Carnation Building as Daily Planet.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Carnation Building as Daily Planet.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. BJBot (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Paradise cover VHS.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Paradise cover VHS.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. BJBot (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your sense of humor, Wahkeenah . . .

You revived a recollection of affection when I read your quotation of William F. Buckley, Jr, then chased it with a second laugh when I spotted your "Sock puppets be darned!"

{Just between you and me, though, might one not say that any spelling is not so dubious as it is arbitrary, for just the reason you cited in your own original article, eh?}

~~ Wortschätzer (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Fran Drescher Enter Whining.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Fran Drescher Enter Whining.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Fran Drescher Enter Whining.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ViperSnake151 20:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Old Grey Hare1.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:The Old Grey Hare1.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. BJBot (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Turnpike Stadium.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Turnpike Stadium.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. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Bears seasons at WP:FLRC

You are one of the leading editors of Chicago Bears. Chicago Bears seasons has been listed at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Chicago Bears seasons for removal from the set of featured lists under the WP:FLRC procedures. I am not sure who to turn to, but the original WP:FLC nominator is unable to save the article. I hope you will consider responding to the discussion page issues and save the list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:LA_Wrigley_colorized.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:LA_Wrigley_colorized.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Forbes Field aerial1.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Forbes Field aerial1.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:My Favorite Duck1.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:My Favorite Duck1.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. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Philippe Petit 740807.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Philippe Petit 740807.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. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is this baseball bugs? how many accounts do u really have —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariuschip (talk • contribs) 01:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dont u have something else to do in life outside wikipedoin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariuschip (talk • contribs) 21:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Wrigley Field 1935.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Wrigley Field 1935.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Nathaniel Greene statue1.JPG

File:Nathaniel Greene statue1.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Nathaniel Greene statue1.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Nathaniel Greene statue1.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Carnation Building as Daily Planet.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Carnation Building as Daily Planet.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. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:LookUpInTheSky.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:LookUpInTheSky.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. BJBot (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:WrigleyFieldBears.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:WrigleyFieldBears.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. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:OzYellowAndRedBrick.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:OzYellowAndRedBrick.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. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H.M.S. Pinafore

Hello. I noticed that you have edited this article in the past. I have submitted the Pinafore article to FAC. Please vote here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1 or let me know if you have any comments. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Irving Benson

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Irving Benson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No evidence of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Cheers, CP 04:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the user requested it.
(see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hereby bestow the Barnstar of Dilligence to Wahkeenah for his persistence in keeping the Flag of the United States article free from vandals. *— BQZip01* —** ^talk 00:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		To Wahkeenah, on the occasion of Minneapolis, Minnesota reaching featured article. -Susanlesch 04:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USER NAME BARNSTAR

Although this isn't an "official" Barnstar (credited toUser:HouseOfScandal), I'm giving it to you anyway. Your username is unique --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks, folks, I'm speechless. :)

NowCommons: File:West Side Park 1906 World Series.JPG

File:West Side Park 1906 World Series.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:West Side Park 1906 World Series.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:West Side Park 1906 World Series.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WestSidePark 1908-08-30-with-caption.JPG is now available as Commons:File:WestSidePark 1908-08-30-with-caption.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:West Side Park ca1885.JPG is now available as Commons:File:West Side Park ca1885.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SoxPark920904 1.JPG is now available as Commons:File:SoxPark920904 1.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hitler and Franco.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hitler and Franco.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]