User talk:Andrewpmk/Archive 2

Images and media for deletion

I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicit photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 04:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Open proxy page

Watch out! Vandals, probably Sollog vandals, are using subdirectories of your user page, ex. User:Fvw/proxytest2, to mark open proxies to later use for the purpose of vandalism. Andrew pmk 02:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that was me, scanning open proxies for blocking. The problem has since been (incompletely) solved in a different way though, so the page has become irrelevant. Thanks for your vigilance though. --fvw * 00:44, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Pope

You misunderstood me; I meant the article had disappeared, but it is back again,--SqueakBox 23:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

hallo Andrew I give the copyright away only for the low resolution images, on Image:Iceberg.jpg can you please change it back to the small image, I do not know how to do it uwe Uwe Kils 17:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

hallo Andrew,

thank you very much for changing it back. I am early retired and on disability and sometimes I can sell the high resolution images, and I urgently need the royalties - good luck to you - Uwe Kils 21:15, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Liquid Tension Experiment

I have responded about the suggestion for deleting the second album by Liquid Tension Experiment. Please see my info on that site's discussion, and let me know if I can help keep it up on the site. Justabaldguy 00:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice work with the infobox on the LTE albums. I didn't know they were standardized, glad you mentioned that. Justabaldguy 03:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Same-Sex-Map-Can.png

Hi Andrew,

In optimizing this PNG file, you used an old revision before the New Brunswick decision. I have therefore had to revert it. Please feel free to optimize the new file. Thanks! - Montréalais 22:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Logos?

Where did you get the large Google and Gmail logos from?

Gmail/Google logos

I saw your reply to this guy but it doesn't really answer the question. Did you get the logos from Google's website, or do you work for Google, did you make them, etc. thanks --Snafuu 02:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Gmail/Google logos

Thanks for making me feel stupid haha. Thanks for the link, too. --Snafuu 01:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atromeroptics vfd

Thank you for voting to delete this entry! Hfwd 05:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking users

Thanks for your note, and your opinion, which you're entitled to. I don't think I'm jumping the gun. I'm smart enough to see the difference between newbie behavior and miscreant behavior, between an honest mistake and obvious juvenile mischief. I wasn't born yesterday. Thanks again for your thoughts. Paul Klenk 03:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Purely Objective

I'm not trying to glorify either side. The truth is that they are terrorists. There is no nice way to put it. You can call it any name you want, but a terrorist is still a terrorist. Calling them insurgents isn't being neutral, it's innaccurate. It's also a form of relativism, saying that because they believe a different way means that we must respect and understand them. Even if you respect and understand them, using violence to instill terror is a terroristic act, thus, these insurgents are still terrorists.128.194.54.244 05:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notanerd

Why did you reinstate the talk page on User talk:Notanerd? It wasn't his. It is entirely stolen as a cut and paste from another user's talk page. It shouldn't be there. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkins Goat

Yes, I did take that image from the school page, but the image is in public domain (I just don't understand the 2700 different copyright tags)

Gotcha. All I can tell you is that numerous non-school publications (obviously mostly student printings, but still) use photos like that without copyright issues. That, in fact, was taken by a private photographer (Heh, I could even make the arguement that it was taken by the development office, which it was, and as a Yearbook Editor I've been given the right to use Development Office photos, which I have) Staxringold 05:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what I'm saying, I do have permission to use Development Office photos, which all photos on the Hopkins website are. Staxringold 05:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]