Zeeboid,
I hope you don't mind my contacting you but it is urgent. I just got this message from UBeR, he is being attacked by William Connolley & co. and needs our help:
Hello, friend. I'd like to inform you of the attacks and claims made by Raul654 to the administrator noticeboard regarding my actions. I whole heartedly believe my actions are just and warranted. Please review the current situation. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
We should write our views of the situation with the proof to show the degree of frustration which Uber and we all are suffering. If we cannot save Uber from this injustice, WMC and company will simply extend this witch hunt to all who do not support their POV.
Thanks, -- Brittainia00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on comments you've made on the Global Warming Talk Page, I thought you might be interested in having a userbox on your user page that expresses your skepticism of anthropogenic global warming. It looks like this and will also add you to :Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming]]. If you're interested, put the following on your user page:
One of your userboxes say you are a broadcaster. Are you a broadcaster for Race to the Right, by any chance, along with Tony? If so, are you in the St. Cloud area at all? ~ UBeR23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For always seeking balance in the face of systematic attempts to thwart your efforts, you are hereby awarded the Resilient Barnstar. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Whats not Civial about that edit? Even if it was not cival, which it is... You are the LAST person to be talking to anyone about Civality.--Zeeboid19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In recognition of your defence of NPOV and fairness. When one man stands tall, the backbones of all others are stiffened. Remember you are not alone in believing Wikipedia should be free of censors and bias. Good luck & many thanks. -- Brittainia03:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful not to overwrite or delete others' comments as you recently did on the Apple, Inc. Talk page. I'm sure it was accident but please be more careful in the future. Happy editing! --ElKevbo23:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article you are. Vote to delete this nonsense here. Quite obviously the article violates notability (a few journalist may have classified it as such), NPOV, verifiability (few sources actually concurring with the article), and POV forking. If you wish to disregard those who disagree with you, fine. Labeling them as conspiracy theorists is nonsense. ~ UBeR05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WMC, I did not rev a copy violation, I reverted your removal of something that is under discussion, -you are correct. My apologies. and you are POV Pushing - no William M. Connolley17:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies accepted, but I am not the Environmental Activist editing to mantain my views on environmental sites remember. I am just an Electronic Medical Record Training Consultant who's outside views when it comes to this stuff are far less Bias. Its quite odd how everything that is submitted that could detur from the GW Cause is rejected by you and your group, yet things that support you and your group's cause are taken in and defended. As an Environmental Activist, and someone that makes money out of Environmentalism (Climate modeler) you can understand your own Bias when you see it? Perhaps not.--Zeeboid18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zeeboid. I am writing to you because you recently voted for option 2 in the "straw poll" at Global warming. We are currently pursuing a mediation request related to this exact topic. We could use some input from some concerned people like you. Please feel free to visit the page, and to post some comments and support for our side. You can visit the request at this location: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-25_Global_warming. Thanks for your help. --Sm890020:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap...If I posted on y'alls User page for every unanswered question, unexplained rv or insufficient reference to a nebulous guidelines I would be posting on y'alls User pages 30 hours a day, 10 days a week, 60 weeks a year to MAYBE keep up. Besides, I took the use of "some" as intended to prevent the description of a problem, while accurate, from tarnishing the impecible reputations of one or more editors and/or admins; however, the issue itself needs to be brought out and discussed. Leaving the identity out prevents those who are incapable of keeping the focus on the topic at hand from trying to shift focus to others. Kind of helps minimize the 'kill the messenger' M.O. that some editors and/or users have to "defend" (or deflect) each other.
No, Tony, I'd say thats pretty accurate. And Stephan... I am using the timeline to answer questions used by this question here[2] that went unanswered.--Zeeboid20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list for me, Nethgrib, any Science that had a "Scientific Consensus" before this "Global Warming" thing?--Zeeboid19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, it is acceptable to delete other's comments on the talk page without any discussion or explanation? I'm learning more about the Wikipedia culture everyday. -- Tony21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
+ ::::::::It would appear William realy does not this question asked, after removing it twice from this page. Could you please cite for us the WIki policy you are refrencing? Also Could you answer it for us, William, you know... from your neutral point of view? Could you list for me, William, any Science that had a "Scientific Consensus" before this "Global Warming" thing?--Zeeboid21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You banned Tony and I for WP:SOCK here[8] and I need to know a few things.
I am looking to find out form you what the accaptable amout of time for two people who know eachother is to vote on the same topic as I can not find a polocy that voting within 5mn of each other violates. I don't want to break policy in the future, and not to break policy in the future, I need to know spicifically what I violated. What specifically warranted the block? you listed the polocy, but didn't go into it any more then we admited to know eachother. I just want to understand better here, as from what I understand from the info listed, we were banned from voting within 5mn of eachother.
Also You claim to have given us time to defend ourselves. How much time...where was the 'here's the charge' diff and how much time until you blocked us?
I just want to understand EXACTLY what you blocked us for. If it was for voting within 5mn of eachother, then how long is needed for two people who know eachother to vote on a topic, and where is the policy that lists this? It is not clear when there are different reasons given in different locations by you.
Hi Zeeboid! Just wanted to thank you for backing me up a while back at the Global Warming talk page a few days ago. It's nice for a person when their efforts get noticed, especially since I was specifically trying to be positive to everyone there, not just those in agreement with me. So I really appreciated you backing up my efforts to try to promote some inclusiveness. So thanks. BTW, it does seem like things have improved steadily there recently. I feel this is due to the efforts of everyone. So thanks a lot. Please feel free to email or write anytime. See you. --Sm890000:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added clarification to my final response on the case page. Please let me know if this is to your satisfaction. Arkyan • (talk)16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only reflect the treatment given. You demean at every turn, and I reflect that, though more blunt. If you want to be one to breach about being civil, you need to start being civil.--Zeeboid16:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please self-revert on the Article as you are now above 3RR when counting in the WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT revert. Since you are aware of these policies - there should be no excuse not to do so. --Kim D. Petersen21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zeeboid has clearly made three reverts, not even counting his self-revert. You're mistaken, Mr. Petersen. ~ UBeR22:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zeeboid... Just to let you know that I've voted on the discussion to keep the "Exposed: The Climate of Fear" article that you have written. Your discussion page is on my watchlist after seeing your input in the Apple computer related articles. I have to say that you should get a barnstar for sticking to your guns and fighting to keep unpopular but relevant-to-a-comprehensive-view information on Wikipedia. I don't know if you are familiar with the politics of Quebec, Canada in reference to laws restricting the use of the English language and access to English schools but you may find the heated discussions on those pages (such as the "English-speaking Quebecer" article) interesting. Keep up the great work! CWPappas17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, i'll check that out. Thanks for the koodos, it takes alot of energy to try to keep others from limiting conversatoin.--Zeeboid17:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. GreenJoe19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No more then 3 have been made in a 24 hour timeframe.[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
I expect no less. It's every editor's duty to be vigilant. I didn't block you, I'm not an admin and don't have that authority. I apologize for giving you the impression that I did. I didn't read the template message. It's my fault. GreenJoe19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries mate, by your apology, I can see you are a reasonable person. why not us discuss this reasonably?--Zeeboid19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
3rr Was not broken by either GreenJoe or I. Neither of us reverted more then 3 times within 24 hours.
Decline reason:
I don't even want to count your reverts. 3RR doesn't mean that you can revert 3 times a day. You clearly edit warred, and have been legitimately blocked for it. MaxSem14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Thats correct. the article contained the same opening since 26 April 2007, only for it to be removed with trivial explination by you and others, allong your typical "supportive of Global warming" party lines.--Zeeboid17:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Z, but I believe that this block was fair and justified. I think that the article as it stands now is a fair compromise, and you and GreenJoe edit warring isn't going to make the article any better. How can you accuse WMC of pushing POV with this block when he blocked GreenJoe as well? Oren022:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its their defense of the "Controversial" title for TGGWS yet the removal of the "Controversial" title for AIT that I thing is BIAS. I am just looking for constancy, but not finding it. A movie that is claimed to be in the same field as “nazi propaganda” by some is obviously controversial.--Zeeboid15:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Intrestering, nope... not seeing anything on there that says vandalism is not "COI edit waring." car to educate me?--Zeeboid15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Exposed: The Climate of Fear. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors.
-wizzard2k(C•T•D)15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zeeboid, this block had one purpose which has come clear recently. The pot calls the kettle black and punishes the kettle. While both were in the wrong only one will have a punishment on the record. And for the rest of the kettle's existance baseless blocks will be made against it using the previous fabricated blocks as proof of a pattern. Hypocrisy? Sure, but when a pot's congregation has its crusade there is no principle that is held to.
Beware, Zeeboid. They will continue blocking you for imaginary reasons and your future efforts to have the blocks undone will be denied by people who are too afraid to take a stand for what is right.
And honorable people know that every single name thrown at you, every single accusation levied against you and every single whine uttered about you is a reflection of the source's own actions. You are no different from them except they have power that they abuse and you are their current target. You are not the first they have retaliated against and you will not be the last.
I know you have an interest in global warming. As you may know, there are serious problems with the temperature record being biased by UHI or similar warming biases related to land use changes, etc. ClimateAudit.org is organizing an effort to photograph sites. Understanding the issue will help you be a better editor and improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on AGW. If you are interested, you could be a part of the effort. Please take a look here. [12]RonCram05:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you a few links that will speed you along when you find the time (if you can). The effort is led by Anthony Watts, a regular contributor to ClimateAudit.org. Some of the pictures indicate that increasing temperatures are probably a result of changes at temperature stations. The website is here. [13] Steve McIntyre fully supports the effort. [14] And so does Roger Pielke Sr. [15]RonCram07:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your kidding right, this comming from a guy who did this?[16] I would like this to be challagned.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
POV was not my intent, I was following what other editors were discusing[18][19], Also for this editor to block me for "pov Pushing" i take great offence to, as not only do his edits show a great amout of POV[20], but he has also blacklisted a site that I work with under the false premise of an attack site[21], dispite MetaWiki's guideline of "Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam." I feel that this editor is too close to the Global Warming topics to be rational in his actions, as this block shows, and would like to request that this block be removed.
Decline reason:
After looking into the situation further, and discussing it with the blocking admin, this appears to be a recurring problem. Please, take this time to review policy and when the block expires, participate in the ongoing discussion found on the article's talk page. - auburnpilottalk20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The reason had nothing to do with recurring, however, i was blocked for POV Pushing, while in the article the blocker is guilty of the same offence, yet remains unblocked. Also, this is the first time in the history of this article I have reverted anything, which can not be said for Raul654. I don't understand how it can be a recurrin problem, if I have never done it before on this article.--Zeeboid20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was blocked[17] when removing the word "controversy" [18] from the article on TGGWS, after noting comments about the word "controversy" on AIT, and how inapproperate it is to list controversial in the way that it is [19], while the reason for my block is POV, dispite the blocker committing POV far worse [20] on the same article.--Zeeboid20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also looking through Wikipedia's policy on Blocking, and can't find POV anywhere as a reason to block someone...--Zeeboid20:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can not find anywhere in the policy that says my block shoud stick. the closest would be revert waring[21] but i have never edited this page before.--Zeeboid20:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree this block is completely unjustified. There are several editors who disagree with "controversial" in the opening sentence, a position which was confirmed by RfC on the An Inconvenient Truth article. Iceage7720:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iceage77 - a consensus has been established on this (here) - as has been stated on the page (a few times i believe): if you believe that a new consensus exists now: establish it.[22]. Second: Please consider AIT and TGGWS as seperate articles - they are not the same. One is an academy-award winning documentary - and the other is a TV production. Just as the wording for Star Wars and Battlestar_Galactica_(film) (or even Plan 9 from Outer Space) shouldn't be compared. (yes they have quite a bit in common). You don't like controversial? - then establish consensus. --Kim D. Petersen21:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few observations about this pathetic display of a block. AuburnPilot asked for justification for the block from Raul654. The response given to justify a block for a "ridiculous edit" of removing the word "controversy" in accordance with an RfC suggestion was:
Blockee is an anti-science pov pusher on global warming topics ("anti-science" being a matter of opinion, iow a POV)
Blockee has been blocked for POV pushing. (objective review of the blocks would review that 3 of the 4 were dubious at best, and in the 4th it was justified but the blocker was also completely out-of-line)
Article's subject is "a propaganda peice" [sic] (POV about an article given by blocker to justify blocking someone for POV edit on the same article)
Article's subject is "a polemic". (POV about an article...see above comment)
Edit by Zeeboid was predicted by blocker's colleague (this is either unnecessary information or the premise is that since blocker's fellow guardian of article content predicted the edit must be a blockable offense)
Edit doesn't stand the "laugh test" (where is this laugh test so others can apply it? the edit in question is identical in alleged POV-pushing to one made by the blocker on the same article 2-weeks prior. It seems that a "laugh test" requires a POV by the tester)
I just wanted to point out the fact that the justification for blocking someone (for a "ridiculous edit" that failed some imaginary "laugh test" for POV-pushing) was purely POV regarding the editor, the article, the subject matter and filled with weasel words as well. -- Tony G21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Zeeboid agrees not to edit the article for what would have been the duration of his block (call it a self imposed block) and instead contributes to the discussion, I'm willing to unblock him so that he can participate. - auburnpilottalk21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes, Kim, this is handled above in #2 under one of the 3 "dubious at best" blocks. thanks for your quick comment and of corse, your objective comments.--Zeeboid14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't matter much anyway, as the practicality of my offer has just expired. Sorry, Zeeboid, but much to people's surprise, some of us admins actually have a life. I'm off for the night, and will not likely be back online until late tomorrow. Obviously if I'm not online, I can't unblock your account, regardless of your decision. - auburnpilottalk22:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AuburnPilot, if the offer still stands, i'm game. Sorry for the late reply I was kind of doing that whole "life thing" you speek of. --Zeeboid13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for you here, Kim.
Is it possible for a concensus to change?
How many votes are needed for a majority to be a concensus?
What is the "time limit" on a "concensus" vote
That vote link you speek of, even though wikipedia things voting is evil, seams to have the "yes" and the "No" people saying the same thing, calling the film propaganda... I guess I would love an explination of someone as wise as you to tell me what the "yes" and the "no" stood for... from what I can tell the poll was for the inclusion of the "polemic" quote, not the use of the word "controversial"--Zeeboid14:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - let me try to answer then:
Yep - it certainly is. Which is why i've asked this on the talk page:
UBeR if you believe the former well established consensus has changed - then submit it for a vote. The last time it was 2:1 for controversial + polemic somewhere in the lead.[23] I could understand if we were talking about something that happened a long time ago - but that vote was only 2 months ago, as you know since you took part. There is no particular reason to just change it without checking for such. I'm all in favour of a vote - and i may even suspect that the interest in this film has fallen so much that the outcome might be different. --Kim D. Petersen 00:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No timelimit - a consensus stays until another consensus arises.
You are being rather dense here... The exact question was "All those in favour of "controversial documentary film", with the "polemic" quote somewhere in the lead, say Aye. Those opposed say Nay"
I notice you have expressed an interest in logic. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well.
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your comment [24] at the Climategate talk page. Earlier, I started this thread higher up on the same page. Please look it over. I think most people agree with you on the use of Op-eds (we have them in the article now, I think). We might be able to makes some progress if we're careful, and that would be best of course. Thanks. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from drive-by tagging. No case was made for a POV tag. If you want to add the tag, make a case. No case was made for a merge. If you want to add the tag, make a case. I asked that you do so on the article's talk page, but since you don't seem to be reading that page, I thought I should mention it here. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Climate change denial. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. I see 3 reverts in the last 3 hours. One more and your gone, whether or not the tag has merit. — Arthur Rubin(talk)18:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which one are you talking about, Zeeboid? If a case was made for the merge, please point to it. As for the NPOV issue - no case was made. You should read the section. Nowhere did Ling.Nut explain how the article violated NPOV. No specifics were given. And even if specifics were given, that would still be beside the point, because there was no discussion of these (non-existent) specifics, there was no failure to address the specific issues. No discussion, no impasse. No impasse, rationale for a tag. You aren't a newbie any more. Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Purple98ta.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.pontiacpower.net/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sreejith K (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Cadillac CTS-V Wagon.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cadillac CTS-V Wagon.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. GreenJoe 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No more then 3 have been made in a 24 hour timeframe.
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
wikimedia.org.
