I did not intentionally break any rule, so kindly do not accuse my of any such offense. I also realize that all wikipedia policys apply to me. I searched high and low, and was not able to find any legitimate reason as to why Google Earth images are not covered under fair use, especially because the NASA supplied alternative program isn't really comprable to Google Earth. I am assuming this arguement is invalidated somewhere based on the fact that you have removed the image again, and I am simply asking to see the information on which you based your judgement. Chuck Norris' IQ can be expressed simply as a sideways eight. 05:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a bunch! I remembered there existed such a template but I couldn't remember its name... Thanks again! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided rather than debate this with you, I would just get the same image from another source that I know is accepted. The image now on Geneva Glen Camp is from TerraServer, which is the US Geological Survey. I am only telling you this so you don't accidentally delete it again, because the actual image is very similar to the old one. You can check the image page if you want to confirm my assertions. Best Wishes, Chuck Norris' IQ can be expressed simply as a sideways eight. 00:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's exactly the best thing to do. TerraServer stuff is indeed PD, and it's fine to use in Wikipedia. The availability of this is one good reason why Google Earth imagery isn't really ever fair use (except on the Google Earth article itself). But rather than TerraServer you might download NASA World Wind, as it gives you access to far more (and all wikipedia-legal) sources of satellite and aerial imagery. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I was reading your userpage and noticed that it does not say that you are a sysop. If you want to add a userbox some prefer the word custodian to administrator (like User:Quadell and User:Durova). Others add the (tounge-in-cheek) rouge admin box (like User:Alex Bakharev).

Cheers! Oden 17:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have got confused between the difference in Merging in Moving. Merging does not lost edit history, whereas Moving does - please see Wikipedia:Help_desk#Merging_articles_and_preserving_history. Of course I could be wrong. cheers Lethaniol 03:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of Dave Hart. I went to his discussion page to give him a piece of my mind and saw that you had taken care of the problem. I myself violated a number of rules in the discussion about review of whether or not to delete his vanity article and that started his rampage, so thanks for ending it and keeping me from doing some things I might regret. Out of curiosity, what was the obscene image that he had posted as miraclemat.jpg? Thanks again MiracleMat 06:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finlay, Lior (talk · contribs), who you blocked indef for a seemingly rather outrageous racist statement, is appealing the block with what sounds to me like an honest apology. He was told by another admin to contact you directly, but your wiki e-mail isn't activated. (Could you do that, by the way?) - If this remark was an isolated occurrence, as it seems to me after a very cursory glance at his contributions, would you consider unblocking? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I now see I misread somthing - I hadn't noticed the block was actually half a year old (I had read "half an hour ago") on first reading his unblock request. Seeing as you yourself haven't been active in quite some time, I'll take the matter in my own hand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block the above ip address, for his continued vandalism of Alpha Decay. User talk:209.192.6.23 , the thing on the linked page says he is blocked, but he does not seem to be.

Yeah in case you didn't notice...24.115.240.233 is my own IP address, so really i just personally attacked myself (IE it was a joke) Amna Umen 18:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi, just to let u know that it looks like User:Rufus Canis is a sockpuppet of indef blocked user User:Rufus May Day. TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 16:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm new at this, so can you help me out here.....

 13:10, 16 April 2007 Finlay McWalter (Talk | contribs) (restore cleanup tag - this article is in poor condition and still needs major cleanup. No decent referemces, no categorisation, poor linking, poor prose, and still to like an advert) 

--Nahicom 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HEY WALTER FINDLEY OR WHATEVER THE HELL YOUR NAME IS I am a resident of angeles city philippines and for you moderators at wikipedia to allow this sex slavery in angeles page to be on your "encyclopedia" makes it a farce. Have you checked out any of the articles of support? The article is total bullshit, and you know it, and you continue to allow this faminist bitch susan bryce to post it, and it continues to be vandalized because its a total lie. Gee surprise surprise people are deleting it, your wikipedia IS A JOKE AND SO ARE YOU

Sticks and stones. If you'd behaved like a grownup and taken your concerns to the article's talk page, they might have been addressed. But you chose to vandalise, and have thus served only to preserve the content you so despise. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HEY MORON, GO READ THE ARTICLES CITED AS "EVIDENCE" These articles are about SEX TOURISM IN ASIA, ETC They are not supportive AT ALL of the premise of the page

This wikipedia allowing this page to exist is an outrage. It doesnt matter if people agree or disagree with the page , what matters is there is no support in all the articles presented

the articles are about prostitution IN ASIA.........OR IN THE PHILIPPINES Where in these articles does it mention SEX SLAVERY IN ANGELES

NOWHERE Pat yourself on the back because you are a big bad moddy, goody for you How you look yourself in the mirror when you moddies are more concerned with blocking IP addresses than verifying the authenticity of your wikipedia articles is beyond me pat yourself on the back...............great job blocking editing HORRIBLE job verifying the article

go read the supporting articles

then come back and tell me WHERE it says in the articles that angeles has SEX SLAVEs

I bet you wont do it, because you dont want to know the truth Your job is blocking guys. WHOPEEE GREAT JOB MODDY.....................NOT

Instead of thinking wow this page is vandalized a lot, there must be some trouble with the supporting articles, or the page must be totally lacking in credibility we should check this out, you guys concentrate on blocking people......................that makes a lot of sense...........to a retard

Wikipedia is A JOKE.........if they allow baseless crap like this to be posted

Come back here and SHOW ME EVEN ONE of the articles posted that says there are SEX SLAVES IN Angeles I challenge you. If you cannot do that, you have basically admitted that this page has no supporting articles and it is fabricated

Oh I know its not your job right? LOL nice attempt to get out of it

You need to have this discussion on the article's talk page. Whining to me about it is just wasting your time, as I'm not the one you need to persuade. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what talk page

the one you've been vandalising. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that you are being very uncivil. I ask you to stop it.--Fahrenheit451 23:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being the awesome admin that finally blocked User:CINEGroup :) I was getting quite frustrated with all the user's accusations, and no admin action - but I'm quite happy now! Keep up the good work buddy.

Chrisch 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you thing about creating a new section about the base´s layout and buildings? On dreamlandresort.com you can see a map of Area 51 with the names of the buildings...Maybe we can use this informations. User Flabreque knows a lot of this...Dagadt

I don't think dreamlandresort.com is a sufficiently reliable source for detailed exposition of what goes on in a secret base. Don't get be wrong, it's a fine site that doesn't stray into fantasy and conspiracy, but fundamentally it's one guy's website, and he makes no claim that he's been there or seen these things himself. Instead he's repeating and interpreting other people's stories, and the analysis of the buildings etc., while credible seeming, isn't based on official documents or sourced eyewitness testimony. For stuff outside the base (stuff about the cops, groom road, the bus, etc.) then I think he's a perfectly good and reliable source - because he does say he's seen that stuff, and of course that's a perfectly reasonable claim that you or I could easily verify if we bothered to drive out there and sit in the same parking lot. Furthermore, I think the relative positions of Wikipedia and DreamlandResort in the "area 51 information ecology" are compatible: we report the stuff we can verify from reliable sources like Rich and Darlington and government publications, and he reports all the stuff people have told him off the record. While of course I'd love to have more detailed info in the Wikipedia article, I can't find reliable sources to support that; in their absence, dreamlandresort.com makes for a valuable and entertaining external link. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

novice user needs help with article on tiltrotators....

you flagged it for clean up, but I need more advice....

tough to find any references in English, because of Swedish origin. I put the Swedish wiki link, but you removed it.

What else can I do to clean it up?

Wikipedia:reliable sources describes acceptable reliable sources. Articles (not adverstisments) in maganzines, newspapers, trade magazines, technical journals, academic texts - stuff like that. Information from manufacturer's websites is of limited use, but even that has to support the information in the article. Mostly the links in the article only provide evidence that there are things called tiltrotators, not what they do or why. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way back in January of 2004 you gave me a greetings message when I first set up my account and starting editing. During an experiment to see if I could delete talk page comments, I deleted your welcome message. I hope that you did not take offense at the action (as it was against wikipedia etiquette) and if you did, I apologize. I just wanted to let you know I have added your message back on to my talk page as I felt bad about having deleted it and that your message was appreciated.--YanA 08:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should found a translation alliance for translating our edits in several languages for expanding articles in several Wikipedias! the alliance should have a lot of members (in the beginning only you, me Flabreque and Premkudva! What´s your opinion towards that? Over and above that we could improve collaboration! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Connention-Alliance Dagadt

Thanks for smacking that troll promptly. I was expecting to have to clean up after his poo flinging for awhile longer -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.M., do you mind if I unblock Lewisskinner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He seems sincerely repentant and I think it's clear the previous reverts from good-faith to vandalism were mistakes, if stupid ones. At the very least, I'd request you reduce the block.--Chaser - T 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, although I'd hope whoever unblocks him keeps a weather eye on him for a day or two to make sure he doesn't return to the same blind-manic revert pattern. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 09:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unblocking him then, let's give him a second chance. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should found a translation alliance for translating our edits in several languages for expanding articles in several Wikipedias! the alliance should have a lot of members (in the beginning only you, me Flabreque and Premkudva! What´s your opinion towards that? Over and above that we could improve collaboration! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Connention-Alliance Dagadt

Funding (heading) Glasgow Central Mosque

If memory serves, a considerable proportion of the cost of building the mosque was provided by a member of the Saudi royal family. Is this the case? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC) - your quote

Sorry people were slow to respond but here is your answer

I don't know what you mean and to my personal knowledge I think it is NOT possible that the Saudi royal family did give funding for it, please would you site a source to juxtaposize your conclusion/theory? LOTRrules 22:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Scottish institute of sport logo.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 08:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, but what is the correct copyright then if that one is incorrect? - Titan602 - The mind of darkness 12:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but there as an image saying "If you have an image of this person, please upload it" - Titan602 - The mind of darkness 12:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For living people, for whom free images can reasonably be obtained, that has to be a free image. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed this edittoNASA World Wind you made in May 2006, which added the line "Digital Ortho (monochrome declassified NRO KH-11 spy satellite photographs)". I cannot confirm this information. Could you possibly provide a cite for it, since I'm curious where you found this information? I was under the impression these were aerial photographs. Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 15:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm embarrassed to say that the anon who changed that earlier today was right, and I was dead wrong. I think there was some some confusion at some point as to whether the DOQ/DOQQ datastream also contained the declassified CORONA KH-4 spy satellite images held at the National Land Remote Sensing Data ArchiveinSioux Falls, South Dakota (whence really do come the Landsat images World Wind uses); it's very hard to distinguish DOQ from CORONA - see the 1968 CORONA images in this article). But looking at World Wind Central they say "USGS Digital Ortho and Urban Area Ortho layers are images created from aerial photographs." and the USGS's imagery catalog explicitly seperates the DOQ/DOQQ from the CORONA streams, so any ambiguity (which may have existed only in my age-ruined mind) is clearly gone. None of this is, of course, any excuse for my not having added a reference. As I now consider myself banned from that article for past crimes, perhaps you may wish to consider whether this fact sheet would make a worthwhile addition to that part of the World Wind article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Everyone makes mistakes; there's no need to beat yourself up over an error made in good faith. --Tom (talk - email) 20:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across your user page as the result of some remarkably sensible comment you'd left somewhere, and thought the quote collection and the chicken soup were the best things I'd seen in Wikipedia in weeks. In case your own hypertension ever needs lowering, I'll point you to a fine rendition of Cam Ye by Atholl, or at least a clip you can hear here. — OtherDave 03:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep removing our link to Area 51. The link has been on that page for 2 years. What gives?.

I can assure you that whatever you might think is fact about that site is just speculation regardless of your sources.

I get positive comments everyday about out Area 51 section.

Please reconsider as again it's been on this page for years.

(Why would I go through this much trouble for 5 hits a day if this was spam. I get 1000's a day. How pathetic)

The link adds nothing of value to the Area 51 article. Wikipedia is not a web directory and it's not a suitable venue to advertise your website. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you dont mean to come across as rude and almost uncivil, but contrary to what you may believe, im not some arrogant imbecile editor. I have been around a while and made a fair few edits (over 1500 or something). What happened with the pictures was a mistake I have now rectified. I fail to see what you have against me here but then it doesnt matter. Its fixed. I am in the process of negotiating with him over the pictures. Fethroesforia 13:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed "you" took the pictures, then you claimed "he" did. How can you mistake yourself for someone else? Wikipedia's whole copyright policy relies on people being truthful when they upload content; that's a trust you've broken. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are claiming that i lied, when i was actually mistaken, and its easy, I took some and he took some (plus my memory is appalling due to previously havining meningitis which has given me brain trouble). I was also ill on the 'holiday'. You seem to me like you are being almost uncivil. I welcome useful dialogue but it seems to be lacking. Fethroesforia 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy for people to misunderstand our copyright policies, and it's easy for people to think someone has given permission for something when they really didn't understand the GFDL and what they were agreeing to. But you didn't: you claimed, clearly and explicitly, that you took many photos when you in fact did not. That's a difference of fact, not of misunderstanding or interpretation. By doing this you're exposing both Wikipedia and (worse, I think) the downstream mirrors of our content, who took you at your word in good faith that the images were in fact yours to licence to them. While the images have been removed from the Wikimedia websites, all those downstream sites are still potentially showing the infringing content. Frankly I'm not bothered if our enforcing our copyright policies makes you uncomfortable; you can't expose lots of people to legal problems and then expect not to be called on it. You are't the victim here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken, and contrary to your opinion, it is possible as i was mistaken. I took some of the pictures, and wrongly picked the pictures i believed i took of the ones off the camera. Fethroesforia 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]