User talk:Jbolden1517/Archive2

Anonymous Contributor on EN Page

Who is the IP who made new revisions? Isn't the correct procedure to jump into the Talk Page first before making changes? Thanks! Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 04:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't OK those changes, but didn't know if they were wrong or not. They also had nothing to do with the you vs. Blueboy battle and it was an IP not a user so I just let it go. Feel free to revert, partially revert or keep. jbolden1517 ^Talk 11:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 203.124.2.7 (talk • contribs • blocks) is registered to Singnet, an ISP owned by Singapore Telecommunications Ltd and is shared by multiple users. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info! Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 06:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Canadian

It is ok to get involved with editing the article? I stayed out of doing any edits, period... to show my neutrality. I am afraid that reverting the article would cause some-one to accues me of being on "the other side". How do I avoid this... I am not going to revert anything until I understand how to respond to these kinds of accusations... I don't know what to do if my netrality is put in question. Help on either would be very useful.

Forgot to sign. Eagle talk 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC). Please post on my page, as you did last time:)[reply]

Perl Mediation

I see that the Perl mediation is now closed and that -Barry- has demanded the return of all of his edits and that the content dispute should be resolved by Arbitration Committee. This is rather disappointing. I'd hate to see the Perl page ruined due to the actions of two bad apples. Where can a new mediator be requested?

I think it's best to wait until Pudgenet's RFAR is concluded before appointing a new mediator. Ideogram 13:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since, as -Barry– has said, the RFAR has nothing to do with Perl, and I have not edited Perl since a week before mediation even began, and two or three weeks before the Perl page was "protected", I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Pudge 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may also wish to correct the mention that Pudge identified -Barry- as Wassercrats. -Barry- has self-indentified himself on several occasions. Steve p 13:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting!
Hello Jbolden1517/Archive2, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the removal of comments

Uh, you recently removed the comments of User:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake from the Medcab talk page. Everyone's opinion is valid in this discussion, whether people have not had extensive mediation experience or not. Even if someone hasn't mediated before and was simply a disputant, their opinion would be valid as it would show how someone's view of the current mediation process is. If you don't mind, I think it's best if we leave the comments there as they don't hurt the discussion in any way. Cowman109^Talk 02:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mind but I won't re-delete if you want to restore. I think we need a real conversation and "I don't like formal" over and over and over again doesn't do anything, and it shouldn't be encouraged. If people don't feel welcome to make stupid comments, good. But I'm meaner than you are :-) Besides I think he's a good example of what I'm worried about in terms of right for random people to "help". So go ahead and restore. You can be the good cop. jbolden1517 ^Talk 02:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. A nice way to balance things out. :) Cowman109^Talk 02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh ooh can I play? I want to be the REALLY BAD COP. Ideogram 02:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely starting to like you :-) :-) jbolden1517 ^Talk 02:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowman probably thinks you're leading me astray. Ideogram 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...you don't own a whip and handcuffs, do you? ~Kylu (u|t) 01:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm married doll, otherwise I'd take you up on the offer :-) jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh poor little innocent me, fallen in with these WICKED WIKIPEDIA folk ... Ideogram 01:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reopening archived case

I need to reopen an archived case. Do I just cut and paste the entry from the archive back to the cases page? Ideogram 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Flag it as "reopened" in description. Make sure to check for any "closing out comments" and make sure the talk page reflects your changes jbolden1517 ^Talk 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which talk page? Ideogram 17:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page for the article jbolden1517 ^Talk 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wimpy....

Understood. I will do as you suggest. Thanks for the advice. Eagle talk 18:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note... thanks for bringing up the deletion issue agian... Now User:Canadia is asking how do it. (thus bringing up an old debate.... especially after the productive critisism above). Eagle talk 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To start an AFD he needs a user name. The goal is to get him to be an account not an IP. Then he needs to make a case for deletion (under what criteria).... You'll move from a bunch of IPs arguing back and forth to a bunch of real accounts having to make verifiable statements of policy regarding criteria for deletion.

The goal is to achieve consensus. A quicky agreement that some people hold to and others don't won't hold more than a few weeks.

19:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism Mediation

		An Award
		Regardless of the lack of a positive and consensus-based outcome, I do want to thank you for your time and effort in helping the various editors. Your efforts are appreciated even if the results are not necessarily pleasing to everyone. Thanks! -- Avi 14:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Avi. I am feeling a bit bad that we cannot come to some conclusion. I actually do not have enough time to dedicate to the subject and so all I can deliver to support my claims is my emotional personal POV. And I am sorry for that. I don't feel however, that either side is willing to let this article rest. I may or may not return to the Messianic Judaism page. I do know that, to the goal of those that are so-called anti-missionaries, the page in its current state could not be used by any MJ as a definition of who we are as a people, neither what we believe. So at this point I feel as if they've won. Anyway, thanks for your attempts, JBolden. Perhaps amongst ourselves one side or the other will break and something will subside. G-d's will be done. Rivka 17:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Taiwan

Hi. I left a message on Cowman's talk page, but I remembered that he is busy in real life, so may I please ask you your opinion?

Absolutely.

As a brief backgorund to the case, user:Nrtm81 wants the portal to be named Portal:Taiwan, whereas User:Chiang Kai-shek thinks that may be too political, and wants to make sure that there is no confusion that Taiwan isn't a country in it's own right.

Nrtm81 has now said "I better not keep considering things. My stance is Portal:Taiwan, no compromise on the name of the portal". He also said "Maybe it was my mistake to ask for mediation since I didn't want a change in the portal name" because of this I feel that this line of mediation has hit a dead end. I wanted to know wheather I should refer this case to Med Com, remove my comments for ArbCom, and let them deal with it (though they can't decide it's name, which is what Ntrm81 wants) or just leave the case open in case anything changes? An RfC has been filed, but so far there is no response, so I'm not holding my for any other user to come up with a compromise. As this is my first case, I would be really greatful for any help or advise that you can give me. Thank you very much. Yours, Th e Halo (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you picked a tough first case. First off your comments to arbcom are not unreasonable, that at the time the move to arbcom was made it was premature. There obviously was not enough conversation on this issue. So so far I don't see anything wrong with your actions. I don't think you should be deleting comments after judges have voted. You considered yourself a party to the dispute at the time I think you should stand by your words.

Next on the issue of resolving this you can't. There is a very high probability that sometime over the next 50 years millions or tens of millions of people of people are going to die over the issue of whether Taiwan is a country or not. You are not going to get them to agree on the underlying issue. Where you might be successful is getting them to divert the issue. The portal is about "the territory referred to in the west as Taiwan" or "the territory its residents used to refer to as Taiwan" or... some sort of neutral language. So I think mediation could work here to solve the naming issue.

There is a policy issue here, as everyone is mentioning. that is what to do with political entities whose legality is disputed. That's a great way to solve the problem and you are unlikely to be able to have any effect on moving this issue forward.

My recommendations are:

stand by your comments to arbcom
offer to attempt to mediate a compromise at a later date if they are interested
offer to pass your notes up to medcom if they would like to go that route

jbolden1517 ^Talk 12:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I have struck through my newest comments on the ArbCom. I didn't think of it at the time, but you're right, it looked amatuerish making new comments from a changed POV. I shall also complete your other suggestions as regards an offer of further mediation and passing my notes up to Medcom, if they want. Agreed that it was a tough first case btw :) !

Once again, thank you very much for your advise. I only hope that the next case that I'm on is easier. Yours, with thanks, Th e Halo (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Mediation

Please see User:Roydosan Westminster mediation. Hope this is acceptable to all parties. Roydosan 09:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSICOP mediation

Thanks for your time and efforts in mediating the CSICOP edit dispute. KarlBunker 14:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I appreciate your efforts in bringing some closure to the CSICOP problem. It is because of work by people such as you that WP is such a marvellous resource. Maustrauser 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. That's really nice to hear :-)

But meanwhile, Davkal is back. Do you have some mediative input or question for one or both of us to respond to? --KarlBunker 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, teach -- the kids over in Talk:Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal are at an impasse over a point and could use some input when you have a chance. Most of the pertinent discussion is contained in this section. KarlBunker 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TERRORIST USERNAME

Why is a Wikipedian permitted to use a terrorist username (User:UpTheRa)?? In case you did not know it, "Up the 'Ra" is a pro-Irish Republican Army slogan.

This is in violation of Wikipedia rules barring "provocatine" usernames.

Why is this tolerated?? As an American, I am offended, particularly given the consensus that has emerged post-9/11. If I used an offensive term for a username. I have no doubt I would be blocked immediately.

Thank you for your attention.

Gary 19:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving?

(Left this message on Talk:Every Nation) Well done for all your hard work on this article. Sorry to see you go, as your commitment was a great asset to Wikipedia - I'm sure I won't be the only person to ask you to reconsider packing up for good...? David L Rattigan 08:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Jbolden1517 leaving announcement

[Moved from user page]

Well I've had enough. I came here to work on a free encylopedia but the politics of wikipedia make that impossible. I think its time to find another hobby. I'm sick and tired of day after day having do deal with cruelty that undermines every attempt to do good here.

To those of you I was mediating for that I'm dropping your cases, first off I'm really sorry. I loved mediation and I loved helping people resolve their differences and watching how much articles could improve once the editors started working together rather than againt one another. I really don't know what to tell you in terms of getting a replacement mediator. Mediation cabal is unlikely to give you the depth of commitment you need for most of the issues I took. Mediation committee is similiar to what you are used to, but I don't know that they can or will handle the extra cases. On balance that's where I would recommend you go. If I knew where to get good mediation I probably wouldn't have to leave myself. (Jbolden1517)

Well I think that is a great shame. Can you not simply take a Wikibreak and come back. Work on your own for a bit. Ignore those giving you grief. I have only seen what you have done on the CSICOP article and I have to say your work is very much appreciated. Take a break. But do come back. Maustrauser 00:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. I want to thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for your commitment to upholding wiki policies and guidelines and ensuring fairness in the ongoing Every Nation mediation. Your efforts have gotten people from polar opposites working together to make a good article. Without a doubt, you will be missed in the Wikipedia community and I am sure all your contributions are appreciated. Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 08:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. I second Maustrauser's comments. I for one appreciated your committment to neutral and fair mediation. Hope you come back. Roydosan 08:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although Roydosan and I have been in dispute with each other, it is a tribute to J_B that we can wholeheartedly agree on his fairness and wisdom. Good Luck. 09:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I never really saw eye to eye with your views or approved of some of your mediation methods but I am truly sorry to see you go (and of course apologise for anything I might have said that caused you to decide this). The great thing about wikipedia is that you come across people with different views to your own and it is nice to debate and interact with them all.

You have - as has been noted on the medcab talk page - put alot of effort into the mediation cabal and it is much appreciated by the people you have helped I am sure.

I suspect one of the main reasons behind your departing is over this fuss about the medcab co-ordination and if so then it is a shame that it has come to this. I am sure it was no-ones intention to see you go.

So if in the future you decide to return (having had a break from all the poitics) then I am sure I and many others would welcome your return!

Good speed -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)^talk 18:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching

Hey, sorry to see you seem to have left :(

I was coming by to ask if you still wanted admin coaching. Well I guess the answer is no for now, so I've removed your request from the list. However, if you do decide to return (please do!) feel free to add your name (without having to wait again) to the "Unassigned" section of the coaching box, and you'll be assigned a couple of coaches as soon as they become available. Let me know (on my talk page) if you have any questions. Cheers, Petros471 17:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Theta Beta Potata

This article was first started by me and was deleted back in May '06. I was reading the punk house article and saw that the link for the TBP article was no longer red so I clicked on it and there was an article back up, started by another user. I dont know who started it because, it was deleted soon after I saw it. The decision made in the "Article for Deletion" debate should be reconsidered. The article is about a punk house not a fratenal organization. It seems that the debate, run by User:ChrisB and results were reported by User:Mailer Diablo. I will post this on their talk pages. This is the first time I have requested a deletion review so please let me know what else I need to do. If there is anything. I am on wikipedia frequently and I want to learn. Thanks. Xsxex 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Tina 800x600.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tina 800x600.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands 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. 23:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

resolved jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions

I don't have time at the moment to dig through the diffs, but if you think there's cause, I recommend that you go ahead and file a 3RR report. Instructions are here: WP:AN3RR. Let me know if you have any questions. :) --El on ka 18:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about you create the report on a subpage in your userspace, and then I'll file it. --El on ka 18:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure two examples:

Base version of gnostic gospels paragraph has link to wikipedia article [1] Reverts: [2] [3] [4][5][6]
'Path is to be found within not without". Base version [7] reverts: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

jbolden1517 ^Talk 18:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just in case you're interested

I noticed you've met User:Anacapa. This user has a history of similar behaviour on the site. If you'd like to contribute t the discussion I've opened a WP:CSN about them. I have requested a ban for complex disruption over a period of months. If you've anything to add, whether you agree or not, you might like to have a look at it--Cailil ^talk 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to the report Jbolden1517. I found more different diffs from that new IP that link to Anacapa's over all behaviour and style, so I've added that to the report --Cailil ^talk 22:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Double deletion

Deleted. In the future, you can tag pages like that with {{db-xfd}} and someone will come along and delete it. Thanks for pointing it out. :) --Core desat 15:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review

Hi Jbolden1517,

Thanks very much for the review. I had a question. In the "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" section, I think "Religious figures and leaders" would be a better place. Would you please let me know what you think. Thanks --Aminz 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and GA review. I also updated the counts [13].

I understand your position. While the stories around Ishmael are widely considered as legendary in academia, it is not improbable that the person of Ishmael existed. I was able to find academic sources on Isaac#Academic_view but couldn't find anything for Ishmael though I think these two should have a similar story.

I think placing the article in myth section is following an academic point of view, but after all it is a POV. Further, we can never know what really happened about 3000 year ago; much of what is argued in academia are nothing more than probable speculations. On the other hand, Ishmael being a "Religious figures" is everybody's POV I think. --Aminz 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA tag

I see the use of this tag as an affirmation that the candidate either fears criticism or dislikes the consensus-building process, both of which are an every-day part of being an admin. Your comment here seems to indicate same. If you are afraid to put your reputation on the line and open yourself to public criticism, adminship might not be for you. You are, of course, still free to nominate yourself at WP:RFA. Kafziel ^Talk 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Newspapers.jpg

Hello. I have clarified the image description. I also explained on the talk page why I think there should be a logo tag. Best, nadav 05:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re your note

Hi Jbolden1517, thanks for your note. I don't know if arbcom is the right venue. There are 2 admins, User:Coelacan & user:Durova who know the background of this case and have help me when it was at the community sanction noticeboard. I've been keeping them up to date (and probably bugging them too) with Anacapa's activities in gender studies articles, if you'd like to drop Durova a line on her talkpage she might be able to advise us on the best course of action.
There has been resistance to banning because Anacapa hasn't been blocked. IMHO if action is taken against Anacapa it will be a warning and or atmost a temporary block. Thanks again for your comments--Cailil ^talk 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jbolden1517, I don't like disjointed conversations either - it gets confusing - we can talk here and I'll watch this page. I talked to Durova earlier and her advice was to warn Anacapa for NPOV at least for their last edit to feminism. I'm going to do that. I think it would be best if you tell Durova about the situation on shunning yourself as you were the one involved there. My comments to her are here--Cailil ^talk 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westgate-on-Sea GA review

Hi. Some images have been added to the article and the article has been renominated for GA. Would you considered taking another look at the article sometime? Thanks. Epbr123 00:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAC backlog elimination drive

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 01:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to move Jesus Christ as myth to Jesus-myth hypothesis and vice versa

Done, including their talk pages. Anthony Appleyard 05:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to determine what gave each of you the right to do this without contacting long-time editors? It appears it was an attempt to move the POV of the article so that it would suppress the whole hypothesis (including using the word hypothesis). A full accounting of your reasoning would be helpful. Orangemarlin 16:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general policy on wikipedia if you want to overhaul an article is to start discussing it on the talk page and see who shows up. When we started discussing this I was surprised that SOPIHIA didn't reply (I generally saw you as having not been interested in structural issues, as much) but she was under no obligation to reply. Other people like Paul and TJ were long time editors. So I don't think there is an issue of "rights" here at all. Now I am genuinely sorry you are upset about the split and felt that you weren't consulted. If you would be interested in a good faith dialogue about where to go from here I'd be happy to start discussing it but so far you haven't shown any willingness to have one.

The article used to be called "Jesus Christ as myth" BTW so your theory of our intentions is incorrect. jbolden1517 ^Talk 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AMA

Hi J, I'm working on this part-time but I would be the person. As per the policy on historical, all we need to do is do a little advertising and get people back at it. Actually, I don't even think it should be considered historical because there's been still quite a bit of action happening. (more than some other groups)(ie:WP:EA)(but that's another issue which I've decided we're not going to fight). I think we should advertise! Promotions,... promotions... and promotions... 3 phase marketing plan... implemented at striking 3 different levels. (give me an email and we can discuss this!) Anyways, one of the first things, is to announce vacancy position of coordinator (or should I say scapegoat!) (ie:"an election for new AMA coordinator or coordinator office.") Thanks for the message. --CyclePat 07:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus myth hypothesis

Thanks for your posting. I am sorry but I cannot see through this by using the history as the differences are too broad and too over the place to make the issue clear. If you would, could you please post your concerns clearly on the article talk page. (If you haven't done so already, I haven't yet looked. If you have, please ignore this.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR notice

Please be aware that you have now reverted the page Lolita (disambiguation), in whole or in part, three times within the last 24 hours. Please consider discussing outstanding issues with other editors instead of violating Wikipedia's 3RR policy, and please do not characterize content disputes as vandalism. --Muchness 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on his page. He's miscounting. jbolden1517 ^Talk 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was not miscounting, you had performed 3 reverts on the same page in 24 hours. You have now violated 3RR, and your page move was disruptive and probably a violation of WP:POINT. You should move the page back and revert yourself, or else you will likely be blocked.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are off by 1. #1 and #2 in his report don't match (they aren't the same version of the article). Anyway I'm out of reverts (I didn't go over) and its two against one so not much more I can do today. And the page move was a direct response to your claims that all disambiguation pages are under MoS. If we want to actually consider what Fateclub was saying about David then fine. But the move is a direct result of your interpretation of policy. jbolden1517 ^Talk 03:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the noticeboard, a revert is a revert, whether it's in whole or in part - just adding some new content doesn't mean it's not a revert. If I hadn't been involved in the discussion I would have blocked you myself. Moving the page to prove a point is silly. Seriously, please revert yourself, or you are quite likely to get blocked.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've done as much unreverting as I can. (I'm not an admin so I can't revert the page move). Lolita disambiguation is back to your version. I still think I didn't violate but its borderline so.... jbolden1517 ^Talk 03:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can "ask" for the page to be deleted by putting {{db-author}} on the page, then it can be moved back. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

You supported my candidacy in my recently completed request for adminship. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified.

Regards, WilyD

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Connectedtext-diff.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Connectedtext-diff.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 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 03:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Pagels.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Pagels.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 {{di-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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --El on ka 02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Caldera-logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Caldera-logo.png. 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. MER-C 10:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus myth hypothesis (again)

Please see new developments at Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#A_technical_problem, which IMO are in danger of running in circles again with the title. Hope you had a fruitful or otherwise enjoyable summer. ... Kenosis 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Tasha 800x600.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tasha 800x600.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 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Tasha 800x600.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tasha 800x600.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 23:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Jenny 800x600.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jenny 800x600.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 23:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I fixed the rationale problem with the above image - the bot is looking for the article in which the image is to be used per WP:NFCC#10c. Hope this helps with the other images. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What we really need is a template, copyright used with permission. jbolden1517 ^Talk 20:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Connectedtext-tree.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Connectedtext-tree.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 07:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kit 800x600.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kit 800x600.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 22:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Voodoopad.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Voodoopad.png, 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. ViperSnake151 21:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Sophia.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Sophia.jpg. 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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Sophia.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sophia.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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusjih (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your note at PUI, Wikipedia only accepts images where the license permits commercial reuse and derivative works. The text of the permission on the image description page specifically disallows commercial reuse, which is not permitted. If the copyright holder is willing to provide the image under a free license, such as the GFDL, please have him/her send a letter of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. You can see a sample letter of permission at Wikipedia:COPYREQ#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. If he/she is not willing to provide it under a GFDL-compatible license, it's not considered a "free" license for Wikipedia purposes. Commons:Licensing gives more details on licensing information. --B (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd XMonad AfD

Hi: you previously contributed to/edited the 1st AfD discussion about XMonad. XMonad has again been nominated for deletion; as you previously edited, I thought you would like to know. (I have also contacted all the other non-anon editors.) If you no longer care, please feel free to ignore this. Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 02:03 24 December 2007 (GMT)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ND1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ND1.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) 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lineo-Logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Lineo-Logo.png. 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) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Penguin-Outline.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Penguin-Outline.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Pagels.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Pagels.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Aeons.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Aeons.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.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. O sama K 12:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jbolden1517/Acharya

Hi there. I have userfied the deleted content per request - link above. Be mindful that this was deleted as the result of an WP:AFD so you will need to make sure that the core issued raised during the discussion are resolved in any future recreation. We also need to think about GFDL should any of the deleted content be sued in a new article - my suggestion would be that if and when you recreate it (and it is not deleted!) then we simply restore the deleted revisions from the original so that all the prior authors are correctly attributed. Good luck! Nancy ^talk 15:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]