User talk:Warnerhw

Response to JMU Vandalism

You wrote:

Dear Mr. Schuminweb, I do not believe that my last entry can be considered vandalism. As I'm sure you did not notice, it was placed under the heading "Unconfirmed Information"; furthermore, it was correctly cited a source officially related to James Madison University, a fact which you can not claim for yourself. I believe that you should restore my entry given these facts about it. While I understand your avid use of the Wikipedia, the policy of the website is clearly that it should not be censored. Likewise, claiming to represent the views of encyclopedic information of a school you no longer attend and have not attended in 3 years is very dangerous. For the sake of decency, we, the students of James Madison University, kindly ask you to reduce your wikipedia ego and edit only those additions that are truly degrading the James Madison University. We understand that wikipedia is very important part of your person and while it will be difficult for you to downgrade your involvement with the James Madison University entry, the Dukes internet community will greatly appreciate your compliance. Sincerely Yours, H William Warner - Current Student at James Madison University

You seem to be confusing a humor piece in the opinion section of the student newspaper with actual biographical information. The information in the article is unverifiable. I'm certain that if the claims being made were intended seriously and not made as humor, that it would have gotten coverage from other sources. Additionally, please don't speak for the student body as a whole. Speak for yourself. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think that anyone is necessarily confusing a humor piece with actual biographical information. But the comments made on the James Madison University entry are cited in a published source. It is now up to you to go through the proper channels to prove the article itself invalid. I am disappointed that you, as the objecting party, are either unwilling or incapable of undertaking the intellectual task of proving the article's accusations to be false. The task is a possible one to undertake but the process of debate over source validity is an important part of Wikipedia. I encourage you to undertake the process. Afterall, you said it was an opinion article so perhaps it should be fairly easy to invalidate. You tell me. Though I do agree with you, "H William Warner" should not pretend to speak for the student body as a whole but I do believe that you are clearly unable to do so as well since you have not been a student there for some time. Strothra

Recreation of The Adventure House

You have recently created the article The Adventure House. This was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate the article: if you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to User talk:SchuminWeb at 05:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Takeel 16:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD notice

An editor has nominated the article C.e.t. for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.e.t.. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article C.e.t. during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. --Slgrandson 18:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Game stripper.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Game stripper.gif. 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. 01:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)