User talk:Bluedemocrat

License tagging for Image:Creed1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Creed1.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:2009 NJ Gubernatorial Republican Primary.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:2009 NJ Gubernatorial Republican Primary.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:2009 NJ Gubernatorial Republican Primary.png

Thanks for uploading File:2009 NJ Gubernatorial Republican Primary.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Mike-quigley1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mike-quigley1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

Hey. How do you create your own state election map? Please answer me on my talk page ASAP. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Vote-by-mail.gif

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Vote-by-mail.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. لenna vecia 14:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the above image is blacklisted, which means the url cannot be added to Wikipedia. When you encounter such an error, you should abort the download. The image you uploaded is not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Please do further research into our image policies before uploading any more images. Thank you. لenna vecia 14:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and California's 10th congressional district special election, 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on California's 10th congressional district special election, 2009. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. – Zntrip 05:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California's 32nd congressional district special election, 2009 infobox

Taking 5% of the vote from the 62% that Judy Chu got can hardly be considered significant by any stretch of the rational imagination. Simply taking away votes is not a valid excuse. What the infobox does now is offering undue weight to the Libertarian candidate when he did not influence the election in any meaningful way, shape, or form. --kur ykh 07:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No its didn't alter the outcome in this race, but 5% for a third party is a very good showing, and it worth highlighting. I will point out the third party banner has been in that info-box for months, I would know sense i have been keeping that article up-to-date for most of the general election. Then you come along and suddenly decide the third party shouldn't be there, were were you 2 months ago on this? As far as i am concerned, the third party has been there all this time, and should remain there. Bluedemocrat (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you own the article now? I don't have any say in editing the article, because I only came today? How condescending of you. You allude to your amount of sense; since when did I attack your intelligence? U.S. third parties getting 5% of the vote is not a very remarkable showing; go take a look at a few of the congressional district articles for analysis. Simply because it was there for two months does not mean it gets a blank check; nothing in the article is sacred. I also find it funny that you tried to call me out when I said the info was "distracting by my definition," whatever that means, but your own final words of the matter include "as far as i am concerned," followed by essentially saying, "keep it because it's there." You decry other people's use of their own opinion (even when they back it up), only to counter it with your own flimsy one. --kur ykh 08:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is what makes you think you have the right to just delete candidates from the infobox. Why not start a section on the discussion page, asking "hey, should this guy be in the infobox" That is how other similar matters have been handled in these articles. But no, you took it apon yourself to sweep in and say "i know whats best for the article" -- Hell start a section in the discussion section, if most agree with you... then i will concede the point. But until there is a consensus from multiple individuals, then I don't see how you think YOU own the article and can just start deleting stuff from the top of the page. Bluedemocrat (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I own the article now? Me leaving your last revert intact and starting a discussion with you is now me owning the article? Seriously? I, as an editor on the same footing as you, with good intentions, can edit any part of the article, as can you. I don't need your approval in editing anything, just as you do not need mine. In case you haven't noticed, one other editor (Zntrip) agrees with me, and we haven't agreed on every single issue. Why must I, or any other editor, ask for your approval to change anything substantial on any article? Who are you to demand such treatment? If there is disagreement on an issue, fine. We can hammer it out amicably. But don't dare try to invoke the seniority/experience argument on any editor. --kur ykh 08:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why you think i'm saying i outrank you. What i am saying is that you felt something was wrong in the infobox. Now, sense its a fairly noticeable edit (as compared to editing a sentence) its something that should be discussed in the "discuss" section before action. But that's fine, you took it out, i undid the edit. But rather than you making your case then either on the discuss page or my talk page, we engage in this big edit war over it for a couple rounds. and NOTHING productive was accomplished. We both end up wasting time on the computer. No you do not need my approval. But protocol would dictate you'd take this to the discussion page if you cared that much.

By all means, if you want to edit it again, go ahead. Don't be surprised if I edit it right back. No i am not above you, but you are not above me. If you care that much, start a section in the discussion, and if the consensus in on your side, then people who disagree (like me) wont keep editing it back. That's how debates get resolved on this site.Bluedemocrat (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I eagerly await a response to my very first post here, and this time I hope we both will stop laboring on who owns what. By the way, we can discuss here or discuss there; it doesn't really matter. --kur ykh 16:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Mike-quigley1.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Mike-quigley1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US House Healthcare map.png

Did you retain a SVG version of File:US House Healthcare map.png? — C M B J 05:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, when i saved it from Fireworks.. it seems to automatically save as PNG.... i'm not really sure of the differences anyway.

PNG images are of a fixed resolution, whereas SVG images are fully scalable. SVG makes all the difference in the world when it comes to intricately detailed maps. — C M B J 06:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm interesting.. i'll have to look into that for the future. these maps aren't something i normally do.. but with this important bill... i just had to do it.

File copyright problem with File:Arkansas Democratic Primary Runoff.svg.png

Thank you for uploading File:Arkansas Democratic Primary Runoff.svg.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arkansas Democratic Primary Runoff.svg.png

Thank you for uploading this media, It would be appreciated if you could add :

1-2 paragraphs explaining what is shown in the image.
Sourcing for the dataset shown
Sourcing for the base map used.
An explanation of how this image falls in the public domain.

As well as helping those categorising the image, it will help place the image in context and allow other users of the image (including academics) to make better use of the image :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rick Minor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rick Minor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Minor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Horologium (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]