![]() | Scam Watch Warning: There is an on-going scam marketing the creation, improvement, or protection of Wikipedia articles. See this scam warning for detailed information.If you've been scammed please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam. |
Directory | |
---|---|
User space: Home | Talk (archives) | Sandboxes: General 1 · General 2 | Smart questions · Cluebat | |
Software: Test account | Wiki.java | Servlets | |
Links: WikiProject Spam · Spam blacklist: local · global · XLinkBot | Copyvios | Contributor copyright |
Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless there's a better place for them. Please read the following helpful hints before posting:
![]() |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
My edits on the proliferation page are not vandalism, they were done as part of an ongoing discussion we've been having on the discussion page. These changes have been in the works since March. Please read the discussion page before you start undoing edits. CP Guy, July 17
PLease please use Template:Filmrationale for film images without a rationale. It will save everyone a lot of trouble. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 10:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wow you seem to be having a bit of a marathon today!!!!! Are you checking every image on wikipedia!! If so I congratulate you. Admittedly the last two images are of living people -so I can't really justify fair usage unfortantely as they are replaceable -I uploaded these a long time ago when I wasn't aware of the image policy ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 12:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Look I'm not going to be going through my images before you get to them. If you want to waste your own life checking every image uploaded by me and everyone else then be my guest -good luck to you – it is a task that needs doing -I admire you for undertaking such a large scale task such as this but you've got along road ahead of you if you can't tag the film images accordingly. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 12:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
editRegarding the two illustrations you have questioned, I have re-uploaded the images, this time adding the fair use template explanation rationale. (Perhaps clumsy, but this was the only way I could think of to make the changes necessary to address your point.)
In general, the images were both originally promotional material placed in newspapers by the American Broadcasting Company in the Albert Lea Evening Tribune, promoting broadcasts to be held on each of the nights in question. The first (1945) image was meant to illustrate a point made in the article, as to when and how ABC promoted its name change from "Blue Network" to the "American Broadcasting Company." The second (1947) image was meant to illustrate a point made in the article, that ABC was still using "Blue Network" in its promotional materials two years after the official name change. As such, both images are not easily replaceable for the points they make, and are in both cases highly unlikely candidates for use as derivative work templates (neither carries an official ABC logo, for example; indeed, the 1945 illustration carries no images whatsover).
Hopefully, this will clear the illustrations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric O. Costello (talk • contribs)
I admit that I am slightly flummoxed as to how to edit the image page in order to put in the proper coding, as it is not readily apparent how to do this on the image page. Eric O. Costello 22:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I should add: any suggestions as to how to edit it properly? Eric O. Costello 01:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hello, and thank you for your assistance. Please review File:42nd district title thumb.jpg to make sure that I provided sufficient explanation/rationale. Cheers, --wpktsfs 01:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am interested in your decision to focus on the 2006 Fresno State Media guide cover for deletion. I used the UC Berkeley 2004 post-season media cover as a model and based my use of the Fresno State guide upon what I had assumed was a correct image fair use from that image. I understand in your deleting the Fresno State image so long as the UC Berkeley image to which I have now referred you is similarity and fairly treated in its deletion for being an infringement upon the rules and stipulations of Wikipedia you carefully Sheppard. As I am unsure as to the proper procedure for making the Fresno State media guide image up to code, having only recently been made aware that it was improper in the first place and being unsure as how to fix it to match your standards, I would only request that similar consideration be taken to delete like images that are also not up to Wikipedia's fair use standards. This equal treatment should (one would imagine) apply to other like images, such as the aforementioned image which I used as a model thinking that it was itself a correct usage of the fair use standards, being "a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." Since the copyright is listed right there, I am uncertain as to how to fix it to make you not delete it but you seem certain to do so in any event. Keep up the good work pointing out what is wrong with people's images. -- Intrepidsfsu 09:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
My apologies on the image you marked as unquantified fair use. The image that was there was taken from a 1998 Media Kit, which was previously available on the web at www.ukathletics.com, however, it has since been removed. As I could not find another version of the media kit, I replaced the image with one that is from a media kit still available on the web. Additionally, I placed my rationale on the image page. Please let me know if this does not satisfy the requirements for you. Thank you for the warning. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) – talk 18:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
MER-C, I am puzzled by your tagging the aforementioned image since it includes fair use rationale in both the file history and beneath the license tag. The image was made available by the Aga Khan Development Network as part of a with accompanying press release as part of a promotional press kit and is available for publication and use. If I am missing something in my rationale, please let me know, and I would be happy to ammend it. However, as it stands, I have removed your tag as I believe it was put there in error. Rgeards -- Aylahs (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I suggest you delete that image, as a reasonable fair use rationale can't really be written. Might be difficult to find a free replacement because of the rarity of the Altair though. Thanks — Wackymacs 09:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I do not see this image as irreplaceable. If you wish to replace or delete it, be my quest. Shaneymike 13:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
editThanks for the note about this image, Mer-c. I actually reset the image which was uncompressed, badly colored and too dark from another image, and obsoleted the first one (Astro_boy.png). The image is from a music video by the group "Zone" from Japan, who produced the closing title music to the Japanese remake of Astro Boy in 2003. I will track down from Zone's website who the agent and holders are of the copyright and list this in the image as soon as possible. Could you please hold off from deleting it, since the website is in Japanese, and my Japanese sucks. I can get the information you have requested, just not quite as fast as you have asked for it! Regards, and thanks. Thor Malmjursson 12:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
MER-C, you claimed that the Shokaract image I uploaded did state its sources. This isn't correct: the description clearly reads that the image is from BotCon and Hasbro.
Please read it and explain why you don't think it is adequate, rather than saying there's none. it was the only text on the page so I don't see how you could have missed it!--Jaibe 15:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your notice I uploaded it with "press release from 2012 olympics for editorial use" by way of rationale – presumably a more strict (and lengthy) rationale is required. Could you point me to an example – essentially it's a press-pack image, so should be ok – no free alternatives will be available, because it's not been built yet and anything else coming from the architect's studio will be copyrighted, it's used in the Aquatics Centre (London) article to illustrate the article. Would it help if I reduced the size? I'd be grateful for any advice. cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 15:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
What would be a preferable fair use rationale? Pepso2 10:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
(Text of {{di-replaceable fair use-notice}}).
I just saw your note. Did you find an alternate image or are you over-jealous in your search? I was requested by Andrew Peterson's agent to upload that image. As for switching, I doubt they would agree while there was some possibility that the image could be misused. Will (Talk – contribs) 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I got formal permission from the original photographer, so I pasted the email into the discussion page and changed the license to GFDL/BY-SA. Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have secured permission of rights usage for this image per your request. Iamvered 15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
In response to your notice, I have no idea where the image came from. As you'll see in the big caution banner at the top of the talk page, I only scaled it down and the old version was deleted. 17Drew 21:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hello, and thanks for the comments. I have made changes as specified, but I would like to give you some background information about the images I use.
I have written, among other publications, two books on Greek industry where I have published several images which in most cases have been provided to me by the manufacturers themselves. When I uploaded them, in some cases I chose "promotional" to indicate that the images came from brochures (extremely rare today). Truth is that those images can be freely reproduced as this has been allowed by the manufacturers, but as I cannot "prove" it, I choose a tag like the above. These pictures are actually invaluable, as they provide a lot of information. Skartsis 09:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure I understand what you are wanting. The images came from the WZVA and WGTH websites respectively. Who created them, I guess the station. - NeutralHomer T:C 11:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi,
In your robot message you claimed that the creator of the content was not specified. This is not true as both photographer and source were provided, so your tagging was in error.
Also, I would like to point out that the fair-use policy regarding what Wikipedia calls "non-free images" allows exceptions for bands that are no longer active, since a free alternative is far from likely to be created. This exception also reflects the other image you tagged, File:Bgang98c.gif, as well.
-- CJ Marsicano 12:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
RE: Hi! I recently received a tag requesting information on an image file uploaded to Wiki. I tried to upload a new version including the rationale template, adding the necessary information on this image file. When I completed the edit, the rational template and Copyright tag did not appear as they normally do. The rationale went into the edit text/history summary, but the changes were not visible. Any advice on what I should do? Or can the image be deleted entirely, that way I can reload the image from scratch using the templates from the start? Thanks in advance for your help!
6:30 AM, 8 August 2007 -Rachael
I have warned 124.177.47.233 about their removal of content from Welding, just in case they get a bit confused about having their edit undone. Just thought it would be better to do it sooner rather than later, but in hindsight the phrase 'trigger-happy' springs to mind :-]. CarrotMan 11:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just a reminder that HagermanBot archived several Talk page entries that you had presumably not yet seen, including mine. When you get a moment, a reply would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Jouster (whisper) 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi MER-C, you wrote on User talk:Gregs gunners
'This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Mars, you will be blocked from editing. MER-C 09:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)'
This is just to let you know that Gregs gunners vandalised Destructive cult at 09:24, 1 July 2007. I have reverted this vandalism EmmDee 22:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
for defending my user page, much appreciated. KOS | talk 13:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
....for your faster-than-light-revert of my userpage. Much appreciated. CIreland 09:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
for cleaning the muck off my user page. --Michael Johnson 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for helping out on my talkpage. Where the heck are the admins, anyway? There's a huge backlog at AIV. Gscshoyru 12:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
It would be more helpful to post these on the talk pages of articles that use the images, rather than on the talk pages of the users who uploaded them. The article will obviously be watched by anyone who maintains an interest in the topic, while there is no reason to think an uploader necessarily remains interested, or even active on the project. Thanks, Postdlf 06:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am currently not involved in editing of the WP. Please stop posting long messages on my talk page. Instead, post them on talk pages of the corresponding articles. Perhaps someone will choose to defend them and give "rationale" even though I was careful to explain it all on the discussion pages, but it seems you are not reading them... Mhym 10:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just wondering how you assess Snom as not-notable? Is it merely that you have not heard of it? or is it that when I created the page, that I did not change the edit summary from the default? Karl2620 12:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I hope this revert by you was done in a state of absentmindedness, and that you will revert yourself. __meco 10:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to recommend the image for deletion if you feel it is not appropriately documented. Your posting on my journal was not helpful as to how to make the image acceptable, and I am not certain as to how to make the image meet the standards that are not (in my opinion) well articulated; the image comes from a promotional gallery, as stated on the page. The recommended Wikipedia pages to explain how to do this appropriately are incomprehensible.Transcendentalstate 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Regarding File:Lyndon B. Johnson taking the oath of office, November 1963.jpg versus File:Lyndon B. Johnson oath of office November 1963.jpg ... did you check the usage on the commons before switching the names around? The one you replaced is already used widely across various projects. There is only supposed to be one copy of the photo on the commons, and you went and loaded a second. I'm confused. I've gone ahead and loaded your version under the other name (and changed the names on as many of the artilces as possible. --evrik (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just to notify you of one of those occurances when two different people post a warning to a vandal at exactly the same time. It's just happened now. It's not a big issue at all, but I thought I'd inform you just incase you wondered what was going on on his talkpage. With regards, Lradrama 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
When I added the image, tags were considered appropriate Fair Use rationale. That was why the tags were created in the first place. I get annoyed when people, instead of improving Wikipedia directly, decide to nag other users about their past improvements. If deleting the image improves Wikipedia, delete the image. If adding a fair use rationale improves Wikipedia, add your own fair use rationale. Please don't nag me to make improvements that would like done. --Dystopos 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi. You nominated File:Amstrad CPC Advert.png for speedy deletion under criteria I2: corrupt or empty image. I've turned this down, as the image is working fine, and isn't on Commons, so it isn't eligible for deletion under that criteria. Mike Peel 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading File:SpamOnWikipedia.png. 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 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why are you attempting me for spamming while you storer inproper information on pages abouth other subjects. Only because many people surch for thet names ?
Sinds when is a 250F Accross, à GSX_R250 ??? So, stop yelling to serieus people and start filling in the pages with REAL information !
For Youre information.....
The GSX-250F belongs here Suzuki Across
no haertfeelings ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterGSX-R (talk • contribs)
This category is again nominated for discussion at user categories for discussion. Since you contributed to the last discussion, you may wish to say something in the current one, which was started on 8 July 2007. This is a courtesy notice I'll be leaving for everyone who contributed in the last UCFD nomination and not in the current one. BigNate37(T) 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm a bit confused why you think this has an empty description page: It's transcluded from the Commons. I've updated it to the standard template, but it always had a description. Adam Cuerden talk 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
While I understand adding links to LiveJournal communities may be against wiki-policy, as far as I can tell the link was to a "Cape Wrath" fan group, so I don't think it qualifies as vandalism. --DrBat 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you have uploaded images that are orphaned or have some other problem. Can you delete them yourself or do you have to wait for speedy deletion?
Thanks! Professor Davies 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please note that User:МЕЯ-С may be a vandal impersonating you. Just thought you should know. --Evb-wiki 12:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I saw you had a java code for working with the query.php. Can you update it to use the new mw:API? Thanks!! --Yurik 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Instead of telling me why my photos are no good, how about trying to fix them yourself?
NewYork1956 05:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Your ramapant tagging of episodes of American Dragon: Jake Long episodes was a rotten thing to do!! ---- DanTD 00:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I got your message and I appreciate your vigilance. Just to let you know, I do not think that the BR Review is in violation of this policy -- we are adding legitimate links to entries, links to appropriate and often very important articles that have been published in our pages.
Again, though I understand why the policy is in place, I do not think we are abusing anyone's trust by adding helpful and major articles to appropriate entries. (Cf. Cass Sunstein, Rick Perlstein or Judith Jarvis Thompson).
Thanks, and let me know if you have any more questions,
Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.13.179 (talk • contribs) 16 July, 2007
Hello again,
I noticed that nearly all the links I have added to appropriate entires have been removed. Again, I appreciate that judicious editors like yourself are keeping an eye on Wikipedia so that it doesn't turn into a giant advertisement. However, after reviewing the conflict of interest page I think you've overstepped your authority here.
The worry about conflict of interest seems to be in keeping up the integrity and the quality of this service. The main threats to those two essential features of Wikipedia are inappropriate additions to entires -- "When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference."
But by adding, for example, a link to Susan Moeller Okin's "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women," originally published in the Boston Review in 1999, I have by no means lowered the quality of the entry. In fact the entry is certainly lacking if it does not provide a link to the article which it already references. It's a ridiculous oversight in the name of "the rules," an overzealous excess, I think, to blindly delete helpful and appropriate additions to entries (i.e. Stephen Walt) that could use more external links.
I should mention, though being from Boston you probably know this, the Boston Review is no New York Times -- not even a NYRB. It's a small but important NON-PROFIT that has originally printed some major recent essays(by Judith Jarvis Thompson, Martha Nussbau, Susan Okin, Diego Gambetta, Nir Rosen, etc.). Making those available when appropriate (which is what I was doing) seems to be in the spirit of Wikipedia, and not against it.
Thank you,
Have a look at the two articles Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Stillwater Mining and related. Seems to be an ad campaign, I requested speedy (which was rmved), however are these candidates for AFD? I've been fairly active tonight with this individuals contribs, don't want to COI myself.--Hu12 05:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hey there, you reported Getmy for spam, I've now blocked her (I suspect). I've quickly gone through and obliterated, the spam and most of the publicity pieces. Have a look now if you wouldn't mind see if you see anything else that could go. Cheers Khukri 07:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
You imagetaggers are why Wikipedia has jumped the shark. Congratulations. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Au contraire. Thanks for doing the needed work of image-tagging, MER-C. You're helping to keep Wikipedia viable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have taken the "List of Companies" problem (what to do with an entire class of articles that get repeatedly submitted for deletion en mass?) for debate to two different places. This really needs to be solved once and for all (we can't keep debating the same stuff for eternity). Would you take a look at either the discussion on the Village Pumporthe relevant wikiproject?Aditya Kabir 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Could you take a look at this article Marlborough School (Los Angeles, California). Another editor brought it to my attention, but I think it would be best if a third party cleared it out. Wishes, --wpktsfs 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Obviously you are no fan of lists, but I'm not going to even bother contesting each nomination. You have no case. (Mind meal 03:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC))Reply
I keep getting inaccurate form-letter notes from you that there is no explanation for the fair use of images when there is an explanation in plain English on the page. Could you kindly stop hassling people without useful explanation and deleting valid content from wikipedia? If you like policing so much, could you take a little more time at it and give a valid explanation of your actions? --Jaibe 11:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Your quote to the News 24 article is infringing their copyright in the article and the video interview. When are you going to take it down? BrownHornet21 03:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I added my Mayan calendar calculator tool to external links because I thought it was relevant and useful especially with the ongoing misconception that the mayan calendar "ends" in 2012. Why did you feel it was inappropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronprice (talk • contribs)
On reaching 70,000 edits including deleted edits. (Using Ais523's edit counter). — Rlest (formerly Qst) 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
You notified a permanently blocked user about an image. [1] I don't think he's coming back, at least not under that name. Baseball Bugs 07:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
hey i thought that it was number 2 of the movie but no one knows nothing about it so if i delete you message it means i get the idea of you saying to me to stop deleting pages
Fuck off, OK? Read what I put – the company sent the photo for me for inclusion on Wikipedia! I don't know what template is the most suitable nor do I care – at the time it seemed like that one, but the templates change all the time because of anal retentives like you obsessing over them. Now, just leave me alone. RupertMillard (Talk) 11:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
This isn't as you have misunderstood it, 'fair use'. Read the page again. The pic is a promotional pic created for and intended to be used as, a promotional pic to be used by the press (wikipedia is 'the press') in regards to the movie. It isn't a fair use pic, the image page does not say it's fair use, I didn't say it is, I don't care if it's deleted, and furthermore it will just be re-created if it is deleted, since it is intended to be used in exactly the sort of way it is being used.
The above editor, in his pithy way, has raised an important question. If the purpose of the illustration in question is publicity for the event connected with it, then what rule is violated by putting it here? I've got a possible answer, and it's not the fair use doctrine, because the core of fair use law has to do with causing harm to the creator of the item, and if it's serving their needs, they would be unlikely to claim or be able to prove that they are being harmed by it. Instead, it's the POV-pushing doctrine... Namely, that posting it constitutes "spamming" on behalf of whoever produced it. However, that's not to say it really is spamming, I'm just saying that argument could be made. What say y'all? Baseball Bugs 15:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
The foundation's licensing policy says that all fair use images must have rationales otherwise they get deleted. MER-C 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
By mere chance I noticed your deletion note. Go ahead and delete it. I already quit wikipedia, in part because of people like you. Deleting acceptable fair use images without replacing them with the free images you claim are so easy to find, just makes wikipedia worse and hastens its demise, an end I predicted when I quit. I discovered I had no desire to spend my time defending content from vandals. Thanks for helping speed things along. 69.234.233.112 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why did you delete an image which is fair-use? Photos put on the web for promotional purposes are obviously allowed on Wikipedia. Furthermore, 7 days notice is hardly enough.
You should be reported for vandalism. Kjetilho 08:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
The user concerned appears to have left, Also I'd alreayd listed this one in the 'compact' format above your message on the relevant page. Perhaps you could consider using the compact format instead of Verbose TWINKLE linke ouput and mass tag runs? Sfan00 IMG 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have created an article for WWWR-AM in Roanoke, VA, the station that formerly shared that logo WNRV-AM in Narrows, VA. With it being used on the WWWR page, it is no longer an orphan and I have removed the tag from the image page as well. Take Care....NeutralHomer T:C 16:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
The coveted Anti-Vandalism Barnstar For reverting vandalism on my user page on 2 different occasions. I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually watching my page... --AAA! (AAAA) 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply |
Hi MER-C. The Morgellons issue at COIN risks turning into another Maharishi-style dispute, with over-long postings. At one time, do you recall that we would just remove postings that were over 200 words, asking people to replace with a shorter version? Do you think this would be a reasonable approach? It will be hard to stay interested in wading into that problem if it's destined to fill up the noticeboard. EdJohnston 16:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Robbie Miller was a great australain. He was diagnosed with brain cancer at the age of 12. In his battle for survival he inspired many Australians. I am his brother, he died 3 months ago and he always wanted to make a wikipedia page about himself. For the last 4 months of his life he could not look at a computer or television screen. Just before he died he said to me, Chris I know ive only got a few days left, but Ive written what I want my wikipedia page to say please post this so people will remember me for who I was, and not just the kid with cancer. He said this 3 days before he died. I apperciate you trying to keep wikipedia spam free but please renew his page, for Robbie,
Yours Sincerly,
Chris Miller (brother)
Thanks! I looked at the image, and the thing was right. It wasn't work of the Federal gov. and must've read that wrong. My apologizes. I requested it for speedy removal, per CSD G7. -theblueflamingoSquawk 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
You commented on my page that this image has no fair use rationale, but it clearly does in the image file! I do not understand what you're looking at (or not looking at). In the scomment for the upload as well as the image file (using the selectable templates), the fair-use rationale is very clear and accurate. What am I missing here? How much ratioanle (and how many times) is needed? I'll clarify the image (more), but I don't see how any more words would be anything but wordier. VigilancePrime 15:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
You !voted to delete this article in December. I don't wish to recreate the article contrary to the deletion vote if the RS I've gathered were already considered in deciding to reject WP:ORG threshhold notability; can I get your opinion on the matter? Thanks. THF 12:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Tried to back up your removal of the DAM spam links on R-Type and several other pages. User with dynamic ip started an edit war and harassment on my talk page. Have since reported the multiple ip's to the Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, but I'm not sure that's going to be enough. --Marty Goldberg 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Subpages are not article that others may edit. Please explain your edit in my subpage of Straight Pride?--Amadscientist 02:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I draw you attention to the post by this site's webmaster
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#stickycarpet.com http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#stickycarpet.com
...for the work you put in at WP:FPC. I think you do a heck of a job keeping things moving smoothly. Your efforts are appreciated! Matt Deres 00:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Java class User:MER-C/Wiki.java has String compare bug:
if (domain == null || domain == "") domain = "en.wikipedia.org";
The faulty construction is:
domain == ""
The correct construction is:
if (domain == null || domain.equals("")) domain = "en.wikipedia.org";
This String Comparison page illustrates additional cases. Conrad T. Pino 07:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply