User talk:Asbl/Archive1

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Asbl/Archive1! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Ryan 04:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

You have not responded as to whether the claim is notable, which implies in part that you must cite a credible source. A web site content to repeat rumour-mongering from the blogosphere does not appear to be a credible source and therefore has not established that it has done anything more than publish loose speculation. The fact that he is unmarried does nothing to establish notability or credibility. Buffyg 14:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't throw around accusations of vandalism that aren't recognised by Wikipedia policy. If you want to make the edit, please argue the notability of the claim and the crebility of the source. Buffyg 16:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your post to my user page:

As I don't otherwise speculate that unmarried men approaching the age of 40 are queer, I don't see why that would be any more indicative here. By the standards you are proposing, any behaviour that may be taken as vaguely inconsistent with social norms that then becomes cause for gossip is notable. I think not. The fact that Mehlman argues that he need not answer a question when confronted with zero material evidence does not make this any more noteworthy. A chain of "what ifs" is no more compelling than an isolated one. You appear above all to confuse the fact that there is no obvious evidence of his heterosexuality (i.e. a wife and children), which therefore implies that he is gay. That is thoroughly illogical. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not — the point is that is no compelling evidence that he is and hence nothing notable. Buffyg 16:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any response on your part, I have stricken your attacks from Talk:Ken Mehlman. You remain free to retract the remarks by deleting them yourself and offering an apology. Barring this or some misguided escalation of the matter, I can only say that I regret that you have mistaken my insistence that you justify your edits in terms of wikipedia policy for my taking a conventionally partisan stand against you. I expect I've nothing further to say to you other than to wish you well. Buffyg 18:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Robertson edit

Thanks for letting me know, but informing me is pretty unnecessary. What you did was entirely consistent with the Wikipedia: Be bold guideline. Great job! MPS 17:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious

Are you really some unknown man or woman? Crazy! · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 19:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Are unfamiliar with Wiki's 3-revert rule? Your blatant disregard for it is astonishing and might warrant a report.-Brian Brockmeyer 20:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 Revert rule does not apply to simple vandalism, which applies to you. Blanking is simple vandalism. --Asbl 20:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself reported. Take the time during your block to familiarize yourself with Wiki rules.-Brian Brockmeyer 20:46, 2 December 2005 (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. Wikibofh 21:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I was incorrectly blocked, as the 3RR does not apply to simple vandalism. Blanking is simple vandalism. --Asbl 21:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my email response to your request:

I saw that. This is not simple vandalism. The 3/4/5 of you clearly have a content dispute going on. I will grant you that blanking is often vandalism, but this is clearly content related. At this point, without some facts that are not obvious, I do not intend to lift the blocks on any of the 3 of you. 3RR is an "electric fence" if you find yourself close you should be asking for assistance, not reverting another 5 or 6 times.

Wikibofh 21:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I made sure not to violate the 3RR on the Ken Mehlman article itself. In fact, I went above and beyond the call of duty, and identified an anonymous revert as mine. I was under the impression that my actions were consistent with Wikipedia policies. If they were not, I apologize. --Asbl 21:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that the content dispute is with the article itself. The dispute in the talk page is whether the discussion belongs in the talk page. As has been explain to the blanking offenders, the discussion was moved to that page, as it did not belong in a personal talk page. I did not see them transfering the discussion back to the original user talk page. This is why I considered their actions simple vandalism. --Asbl 21:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you were acting in good faith. The standard for when dealing with 3RR is to block all that violate it, regardless if they were on the "right" side or not. You might have been, but when you get to 3RR just stop and ask for help. I think on talk pages it would be even more flexible, but my quick count shows 11 reverts today, and that's too many. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. Wikibofh 21:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

I know that folks get passionate about politics, it's one reason why the field is interesting. Even so, when we're editing at Wikipedia, we should keep our cool. Though other editors may have glaring personal defects or political biases we should stick to discussing the edits calmly. It's easier on everyone. Thanks for listening and thanks for contributing. -Willmcw 00:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? --Asbl 01:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After examining the Mehlman Talk page, I guess you are referring to the discussion I had with buffyg three months ago. Although I was rough, I believe I stayed civil. He did not. I explained to him on several occasions why I thought my comments were legitimate, and we agreed to disagree on whether or not my comments constituted a "personal attack". I guess his feelings were hurt and he wants to rehash the conversation, something that I refuse. --Asbl 01:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a thorough-going misrepresentation. In the latest incident, you rehashed our conversation inaccurately. I pointed out that what you said was incorrect and will continue to do so where you repeat and revise misrepresentations and insults without apology or retraction. Buffyg 10:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the here and now. We're all imperfect editors, we all have biases, and we all have to agree somehow. That said, I hope that editors will discuss rather than revert. -Willmcw 10:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for over-writing your edit. I think the software just changed how it handles certain edit conflicts. Anyway, I've added back your edit. Thanks for asking. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for calling you a jerk. But I wonder why, with your intensely felt opinion about Republican hypocrisy on gays, you feel qualified to determine the appropriateness of including the Mehlman rumor in the article. Don't you think you are ascribing too much importance to this rumor solely to point out your belief in GOP hypocrisy? For example, I'm sure there is a rumor-rumor out there concerning Terry McAuliffe or Howard Dean (totally hypothetically, drug use or wife abuse), that would confirm some right-winger's opinion that Democrats are hypocrites by saying one thing and doing another. But I don't think you'd go out of your way to make absolutely sure the rumor got included and stayed included. MattP206.195.19.47 20:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your apology.

Please note that I completely oppose adding rumors to Wikipedia. That said, Mehlman's refusal to answer a question is not a rumor it is a well documented fact see references here. Mehlman can put to rest any questions by providing an "up or down" answer. His refusal to give an "up or down" answer is encyclopedic, even if the context of the refusal is POV.

As for your examples, we'll cross those bridges when we get there. I think our treatment of Barbara Mikulski was to your satisfaction, and if you find anything that fit your examples, we'll look at the circumstances and see how to best treat them. Every situation is unique, so I can't give meaningful answers to hypothetical cases. --Asbl 21:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You dignify my comments too much. I was making up (hopefully) ridiculous examples of possible rumors. Perhaps I should have said "so-and-so is an Alien" to be clear. In albeit minor defense of the GOP, I still think there's a little "actions speak louder than words" at work here. It wouldn't be politically wise to its most outspoken wing to trumpet such inclusion, but the other side of the coin is that Mehlman didn't say "hell, no!" Regards MattP206.195.19.47 22:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kunya

Discussion transferred to talk:kunya (arabic)

Image Tagging Image:Wendy Shalit2000.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Wendy Shalit2000.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Sweetin

Your edit was obviously made in good faith but Alpha Phi is a self-described fraternity, not a sorority. --Yamla 18:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. You may want to put a comment in either the discussion page, or as a comment in the the article itself, so that other editors won't make the same mistake. --Asbl 19:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding this. I really had wanted to go and add a little comment but I'm switching jobs, very little time. :) --Yamla 17:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

troopergate

moved to talk:Troopergate

Chelsea Clinton

Thanks for the catch on the Chelsea Clinton article. Not sure how I overlooked that. Monkeyman 14:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Jones vandalism

Thanks for undoing the vandalism on Bill Jones. There are constant edits by an anonymous person (or persons), from various IPs on the page. They constantly remove or minimize the world-wide spamming by Jones' campaign during an unsuccessful primary. Dananderson 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the edits, I am conjecturing that the contributions came from either Bill Jones himself, or someone very close to him. --Asbl 23:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

תלונה נגד הוויקיפדיה העברית

ניראה לי שגם אתה מסכים הוויקיפדיה העברית היא דיקטטורה נאצית בכל זאת חסמו אותך לחודש ולא עשית כלום אתה בטח יודע שאתה לא הנחסם היחיד שם. יש מלא תורמים שנחסמו ולא עשו כלום. ראיתי שיש לך המון תרומות לוויקיפדיה האנגלית וגם לי יש וגם לעוד המון משתמשים אחרים. אם נתארגן ביחד נוכל לידע את ההנהלה של הוויקימדיה על מה שקורה שם. --Haham hanuka 15:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

מה תגובתך? --Haham hanuka 16:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randy "Duke" Cunningham copyvio

(removed) Dbchip 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are accusing the innocent here. The Wikipedian who added the offending statement is 69.149.224.21 [1]. I moved the statement to a different section, and added to it. Please take back your {{Nothanks}} message and place it in the appropriate talk page. --Asbl 19:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! My mistake. Dbchip 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Byron_Looper.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Byron_Looper.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

minors

"Since Allen is a minor, I was initially reluctant to open up this stub, but since he keeps throwing himself into the public eye, he deserves an article"

I agree but since he went on National TV for somthing he did he deserves the good and bad that comes with being famous. 132.241.245.49 20:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerritos, CA

Thanks for keeping an eye out for the Cerritos article. We need more vigilant people like you. AManSac 10:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Kaloogian.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kaloogian.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smart of you

To have left the hebrew project. From time to time I visit there jsut to read the Miznon and Gilgamashe's talk page ,and see that nothing has changed. Today's arguments are about him erasing a huge 60KB article for no reason ,against the general consnsus (of course without notifying any one). I concur with your farewell notice ,yet I dont see any reason but personal changes for Gilgamash'es life ,to free his and his yey sayers grip on the hebrew project. This could take years. sad to see how a few people can infiltrate and destroy an open source project such as this. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 14:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, "they" were able to organize and mobalize their forces to bring back Wikipedians who have been gone for a long time just to support the status quo. I am still trying to figure out what happened behind the scenes for "mishehi she'ichpat la" to change her vote from opposing the status quo to supporting the status quo. If I could only figure out how they did that, it would represent how they maintain their firm grip on power there.

I have come to the conclusion that "they" purposely want to keep the community small, so that they can more easily manage the project to their liking. There is no way they could manage the English Wikipeida the way they run the Hebrew Wikipedia, as they would be overwhelmed with the rate of edits (by my count, about 20 per second). --Asbl 16:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting her mind was forcably changed?

There is a classic .almost ancient computer game called civilization Where one can choose the method of goverement to use over the people. the best form is despotism ,but when your cities grow it becomes corrupted ,and you lose tax revenues and such. gradually with the growth of your empire is becomes impossible to sustain it without giving liberal rights and eventually freedom to your people(monarchy ,republic..democracy). I believe they are entranched in their own concept. the wikiepdia will not grow because of this ,and because of this failure to grow(and the tendecny to erase articles) they will not encounter the problem you'r describing. Again ,I trulyl believe that no outside force can save the hebrew project.

btw ,wanne see sometihng cool ,about blind misguided haterd? See the Infint Block reason this user was given... [2] named simply WikiPed. user Blondy ,if you missed the fun ,was initally blocked after being accused to be me...and so it goes.. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Rowley.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rowley.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melania Trump Edit Comments -- Slovenian is not Serbo-Croatian

A quick note regarding your recent edits of the Melania Trump article: The official language of Slovenia is Slovenian, which is substantially different from, and not mutually intelligible with, Serbo-Croatian (or Serbian and Croatian as they are more frequently known nowadays). This correction may appear to be petty, but we Slovenians are immensely proud of our very distinct Slavic language, which has helped us survive centuries of foreign rule. Best wishes, WorldWide Update 21:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. It was an error (due to ignorance) on my part, and no intention to put down the wonderful people of Slovenia. --Asbl 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of capitals and largest cities by country

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting significant amount of work w/o explanation is vandalism. I have reverted your edit. You are welcome to add the the useful columns of the new table to the previous table, but please do not delete 90% of the entries in the table. --Asbl 05:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize you are corresponding with an automated Bot. no body read this.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Married name

On 09-Jan, you nominated the Married name redirection for deletion. It appears that it was never listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. I have listed it there for discussion (though I voted keep). If you still feel it should be deleted, you may wish to make your opinion known there. Let me know if you have any questions. -- JLaTondre 19:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternating current

Hi Asbl, please ignore the fact that I reverted all your edits to alternating current and then un-reverted them again. I was just trying to save a minor edit, but the wiki turned it into a major revert. My edit summary, had it not been lost in the post, would have said:

"You deleted my explanation of why the wires are twisted. In your version, it makes no difference whether the wires are twisted or not."

Do you think that we need some explanation of why the wires are twisted? --Heron 16:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I myself do not know the reason the wires are twisted (other than mechanically it makes dealing with the two wires easier?). --Asbl 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the reason was in the text you deleted. Did you disagree with my explanation? You will find similar reasoning in the Twisted pair article. --Heron 20:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. I am not sure what text you are referring to. I may have deleted it, not because I disagreed with it, but because I might have thought that it did not belong. Again, you have to be more specific.

In the meantime, there have been more edits by other wikipedians, which may have addressed your concerns. --Asbl 22:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I appreciate your support on Al Franken. I've left a note on the anon user's talk page, requesting that he discuss the paragraph in question on the talk page. Given that this sort of thing has happened to me before, I'm guessing he's going to ignore me and continue to revert. Just recently this happened to another article I watch, and it had to be sprotected against anon editors to stop an anon POV pusher. Sigh. But then, it always cheers me up when another wikipedia user shows they understand. Thanks. :) Kasreyn 17:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:David Shay

It seems like You are trying to rationalize non-rational actions based in power seeking(minions) and power blinded emotions. it's all about Ego ,not about building up an encyclopedia. he known you'r right ,Gilgamesh's was found at fault many times before, Yoni's automatic draw of fire has been seen many times before ,odedde's relentness prosecution threats have been heard many times time before, it's all been done and nothing has changed... these are the kind of people that this sort of community attracts. rational voices descended. maybe one should fight (if anything..) for rotation of the active Dictatorship, becasue changes of the written law are redundant as enforcement is subjective. (an Exerpt from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats "They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions upon request and in a civil manner.")Procrastinating@^talk2me

You are 100% correct. For some bizzare reason, I refuse to just give up, and keep on fighting to bring the Hebrew Wikipedia to its maximum potential, where as many people who want to contribute can contribute, and will feel that their contributions are judged on the content of the contribution, rather than the user name. As you have already discovered, this battle is doomed to failure. --Asbl 15:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around for almost a year now and have seen history recylcing back on it self over and over again. I believe that More users were banned or driven away than they are currently active users. Furthermore ,the english version is obviously better in every concieveable way ,and so I get the best "revenge" by seeing articles I created(more than 15) Completely unchanged since my last edit(sometimes more than 6 months back..).

Otherwise ,It is such a headache fighting these selfproclaimed kings, having your tools of logic ,underlying belief in good faith ,openness to self criticims and evolution repeatly proven inefficient by you and previously by me. These futile attempts to converse issues has gotten me nothing but bad bad feelings.

Btw ,I (also?) work in Matam.

I think the bad feelings you mention are more painful than editing on the Hebrew Wikipedia. If I were being punished, and told that my choices are the bad feelings, or editing on the Hebrew Wikipedia, I'll take editing on the Hebrew Wikipedia.

There is no doubt that the Hebrew Wikipedia is broken, but I think there must be a way to fix it. As you correctly mention, there is nothing I can say to bring about a change, because David Shay and his minions do not listen to reason. They just dismiss me because they dont like me. Ad hominem in all its glory. --Asbl 19:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(: I was obviously joking, just thought this scary article heeded attention...lol. I'd be honored to have further communications with you via Skype.().--Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Seder Spelling

Thanks for the help. I can't spell Hebrew words to save my life and my spell checker is not much help. --8bitJake 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Doolittle

"links to lists of sponsored legislation does not need to be included in the Table of Context"

I totally disagree with you. One of the most important ways to "check up" on a politician is too look at what they have been doing. I'd say it's important enough o have it's own section, but I can see how it would be a sub-section of external links. I was trying to find a happy medium but you simply reverted without any discussion. Please talk now. ---J.S (t|c) 20:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That should have been "Table of Contents". As far as I'm concerned, those external links are just as important as the other external links. --Asbl 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Sheehan

Just so you know I removed one of your comments on the Cindy Sheehan talk, but only because it was linked to some inappropriate comments that would act as very bad examples if they were allowed to blossom. (All of this will be documented in the Edit Summary). (I feel bad about that, as your comments were totally ok. But they wouldn't make any sense by themselves.) Hope this is alright.--P-Chan 03:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucianne Goldberg

I have removed the phrase about possible collusion between her and Starr. Please do not add it back unless we have a solid source as per our verification policy. Capitalistroadster 01:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How else can you explain why she was not called to testify? Starr issued subpeonas to tons of minor characters (Monica Lewinsky's friends), but not to Goldberg? --Asbl 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NAACP

During the whole NAACP imbroglio you have never addressed my real points about the actual merits of the NAACP report card. This suggestions that either 1) you haven't read my posts or 2) you have and are being deliberately obtuse about it. Now I assume you're a busy man (or woman) and may have better things to do than read what I'm saying. That's cool. But if that's what you're doing please then don't revert my edits. Makgraf 18:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright template

Regarding this template. The works of most (all?) state governments are not public domain. Please don't create copyright templates unless you are sure you know what you are doing. --Gmaxwell 13:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the same reason why the work of the US Federal government is not copyrighted applies for work of the state governments. --Asbl 16:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Works produced by civilian and military employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment are public domain by statute. This requirement is not extended to state goverments, and most states do not release their works into the public domain. In fact, one of the images you placed that tag on recently had a California government tag removed after it was determined that works by the state of california are not free content. --Gmaxwell 20:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Public domain#Governmental works. --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]