User talk:Caper13

Welcome!

Hello, Caper13, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

bibliomaniac15 Review? 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		Wow! You've demonstrated a remarkably quick understanding of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! bibliomaniac15 Review? 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Assistance please

Your report at WP:AN/3RR looks just fine. As to why no admin has responded to it, I have no answer better than response times can be aggravatingly inconsistent on Wikipedia due to the all volunteer nature of the project. I have not not performed a block myself due to my previous encounters with User:Eleemosynary having made me less than objective in this issue. Hopefully a neutral admin will see your post soon and take appropriate action. --Allen3 ^talk 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about not doing the block yourself. I saw you had a history with the user and didnt ask you act on the request for just that reason. I might like to be an Admin myself one day and understand the care a good Admin has to take when dealing with issues or people they have some connection to. Since I havent done it before and there seems to be a specific format, I just wanted a verification that I didnt enter the request incorrectly :) Thanks for checking! Caper13 18:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh edit summary [1]

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

By the way, I have blocked User:Eleemosynary for the 3RR violation. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything, including your advice. I'll try to stay more Zen in the future when dealing with people and situations like that. I could have used another edit summary that would have conveyed the same message without sounding as snotty. Live and learn.Caper13 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kiski

Thanks for the comment and for jumping into that mess. I have to say that this was the most frustrating vandal fight I have been in yet. By the time I reverted one thing, one of the IPS had jumped in with something new. It was impossible to get a clean version. Thank goodness for the cavalry. -Kubigula (ave) 05:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why you took out that student piece of the kiski article. i am currently a student at that school (Edward Poon, class of 2009, check if u dont blieve me) and all of what it said was true or stated directly from teachers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edpoon (talk • contribs)

Hi Ed. See your talk page. Caper13 06:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good response to the above question. He asked a similar one on my talk page and I was working on a reply - but, you were first, and I got edit conflicted. I guess I'll have to save my pearls of wisdom for another time.-Kubigula (ave) 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing paragraphs without reading their sources

Caper13, you have repeatedly edited paragraphs of the Rush Limbaugh article that you admittedly have not read the sources for. As can be expected, this has the end result of making it so that the paragraphs do not say what the sources say. This has the effect of both putting misinformation into the article as well as attributing the misinformation to the source. This is not acceptable. You can't write encyclopedia articles based on what you wish sources said. You can't attribute things to sources that they never said. Including your unsourced misinformation is not appropriate, and sourcing it major news organizations makes your edits even worse. I will continue to correct this. As the top of the talk page dsays, "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." Please, try to edit this article based on what sources actually report rather than your own personal point of view. WillyWonty 01:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I havent read the sources is because they are your sources, not mine, and you have been unable to cite sources that are verifiable on the web to back up your claim to the lasting impact and importance of this event. I am trusting you that the sources refer to the incidents you claim and have asked you several times to find sources that are verifiable. Subsequently blaming me because your sources are not verifable is hardly fair. My edits arent even contradicting your sources. I am just condensing the section because consensus believes that this section is far too large and undue weight is being put on this event. Having three seperate people saying essentially the same thing in three seperate sentences is a little bit much, especially for an event that is barely notable on its own.Caper13 01:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal point of view is that this event is not notable. You are also trying to remove the sourced analysis from people expressly stating that the event is notable. This has to be about the clearest possible example of editing to promote a personal point of view. You state your point of view, and then try to edit out anything that does not conform to your point of viewe. Just take a step back and think about it. I also disagree with your ideas about what is verifiable. Any decent local library should be able to find you these sources if you can't find them yourself. Is there some Wikipedia Law that all sources must be on the web soemwhere? This seems like it would make it extremely difficult to find any source that meets your idea of "verifiable" for any event before 1995. And, yes, your edits do contradict the sources -- you are attributing things to Sajak that he does not say. WillyWonty 01:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I retained the statement where Sajak said that the confrontation was legendary around CBS... How is that me trying to push my POV? (my POV in fact is the opposite: that the event is not notable or legendary). I just removed statements from two unrelated people who said essentially the same thing. Consensus found that we did not need all the quotes. I kept the quote from the primary source. What incorrect statement am I attributing to Sajak?.Caper13 01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

No problem! Me too I'm doing sometimes those mistakes.--JForget 02:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Dude are you sreious I got my picture of Lil Jon up! I have been trying to findout how to upload pictures like forever. Sorry, I'll use the sandbox next time. By the way it was not my idea for the picture to be of Lil Jon.

pointlessweb

I know the domain is only eight dollars, but the domain isn't the only problem. I am only a teen. I have very little money. A ebsite also requires a web server. THESE COST AT LEAST 600 DOLLARS! THAT IS MORE THAN I HAVE!!!!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pointlessweb (talk • contribs) .

Check this out. [2]. this is a place that will allow you to set up a website and have a domain for free. Hope that helps you. That is sort of outside the scope of our initial discussion though which was that your can't promote your site on wikipedia. Sorry. It ain't gonna happen and not just because I say so. Anyone else here would say the same thing. Hope the solution I suggested works out for you.Caper13 00:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

give America9 more chances

I think it was unfair to give America9 his only warning immediately. He is a new user and his offense was not serious enough for a last warning.

You can leave me a message at my talk page.

THank you. WmCliff 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: America9

many new users will vandalize as there first page. i think that might have been how i started, and now i check for vandalism. you are coreect though that Veinor gave him a chance and directed him to the sandbox, and he didnt change.

lol. i retracted my warning as well because Veinor was doing it at the same timeWmCliff 04:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible edit war going on with you and Malber!

It appears you and Malber are in an edit war at Ann Coulter. See the edits (Consensus hasnt formed to use THIS image. I for one am still searching for alternates and consensus was to leave the page blank in meantime. It looks better blank than with that free photo.) -- 11:13, December 1, 2006 and Revert to revision 91339154 dated 2006-12-01 08:06:49 by Kizzle using popups -- 13:24, December 1, 2006]. -Will Pittenger 21:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have only made one edit to that page today which you have referenced above (and three edits ever). Are you suggesting I am engaging in an Edit war or have I misunderstood you? Would you elaborate on just what you mean? Caper13 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The two of you disagree. The revert did not appear to be due to vandalism. So if you are not careful, you will have an edit war. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as it was him that reverted me then I guess I am in the clear. Personally, I am waiting for others to chime in before I make any more edits concerning that particular point. That page has enough edit wars going on as it is. Caper13 22:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to YouTube video in the Marvin Heemeyer article

User:69.107.89.200 has re-inserted the link to the YouTube video. Could you put a longer explanation of your objection to the link on the Talk Page? I think you said it was non-encyclopedic. I'd like to understand why you think so.

thanx.

--Richard 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On of the clips was set to heavy metal music in the form of a music video, and as such it was non encycplopedic. If I'm not mistaken, the guy in the bulldozer was eventually killed wasn't he? The second was a direct copy from some TV newsmagazine show (as was presumably the first which had heavy metal rather than the announcer's voice), and was a copyright violation (both were probably copyright violations). The video was interesting, I'll grant that but I dont think it qualifies for inclusion in the form that it was in. Caper13 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: East Bay High School

I marked the East Bay High School article for speedy deletion because it is a vanity page. It also lacks notability. The reason I say that only those directly involved with the school (students, parents, teachers, administrators, et. al.) would ever read the page is because, for the most part, these are the only people that are even aware of the school's existence (note the usage of the words "for the most part", I am allowing for the possibility that there is a small exception, but I can at least guarntee that there is not a huge base of unrelated individuals that even know of the school's existence)

If I am still in the wrong, please explain, in detail, why on my user talk page. --Segin 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a vanity page is a page someone writes about themselves or their group (in the case of a small club or musicians). As a large High School, presumably one of the main schools of the community, the school would be notable for that fact. No one deletes articles about small villages or towns even though they may have fewer inhabitants than that school. I'm not saying the school has a huge amount of notability, but in my opinion, it has enough to stay, and its not hurting anyone in the meantime unless the students put some stupid stuff in there. It may also be notable because some noteworthy people went there, and in time that information may get added. In general, the db-school tag is more likely to apply to small schools (beauty schools, trade schools, etc) that few people attend, has little standing in the community, etc. In any case, it doesn't qualify for a speedy delete even if you feel it is not notable. Caper13 05:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. Also, if you're for a few laughs, check the article revision history. For example, check the References on revision 86532116, the General Inforation section in revision 80834109, and the intelligence of the editor of revision 80833216.

Articles like this do tend to attract more than their fair share of either vandalism, or well intentioned but enencyclopedic entries. It sort of goes with the territory. Caper13 17:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Matt Drudge Portrait JPEG.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Matt Drudge Portrait JPEG.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provided. Caper13 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather that add the comments you added, you might investigate {{Promo}}. As such, you could probably remove all the copyright discussion that is there. Otherwise, people that never scroll down would conclude the rational was never given. -Will Pittenger 23:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you use Image:Amygrant2005promo.jpg as an example. You might move your comments to Image talk:Matt Drudge Portrait JPEG.jpg. You certianly should remove the other license template. Once it is gone, you should be able to dump the licensing section. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs in the Bay

Ok, next time i'll cite where reports of dinosaurs come from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.193.117 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

No prob, as long as you dont say they are coming from The Hub. haha. Seriously, dont waste your energy making joke edits. They will usually be reverted pretty quickly anyway. Why not make valid entries that will enhance the article and stay there. Caper13 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Userpage

No need for thanks, especially from another RC patroller! But seriously, any editor knows the value of a simple thank you. And, of course, you're welcome. --Moralis 05:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Falcon Cove Middle School

As stated in the deletion template: "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." Since you apparantly object enough to mention it on my talk page, feel free to remove the template -- we can take it to the school's talk page. PsyMar 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me

why did you change that back on the ripper page? it is his myspace Owwmykneecap 04:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC) did you even look at it. its a mirror of it (the only 1 known) from before it was taking down. set up months previous.[reply]

And most importantly its been in the media, he is famous for it. i m going to put it back in so people will at least know it was there and put it to a vote. Owwmykneecap 04:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If you want to re-add it, include a valid published source to back up the reference. Otherwise, its going to get reverted again"

no im not that bothered people who look in the history will see it and thats good enough for meOwwmykneecap 04:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Quit the vandalism. You are breaking all the rules with your arbitrary, unreasoned edits. You are under warning. 62.64.222.199 09:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition will need much better sourcing due to WP:BLP. The source you have provided is not near good enough. This is all aside from issue of whether what Ben Affleck may or may not have said regarding anyone's ability to be bisexual, is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. Caper13 09:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to admit it!

The Wiitarded edit WAS good! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferd & Nan the Bulls (talk • contribs).

Okay

Promise.

Ferd & Nan the Bulls 21:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Ferd & Nan the Bulls[reply]

Saddam Hussein

See [3]. It was unprotected nearly 20 hours after I had protected it. Protecting/unprotecting will most likely occur periodically, so don't be surprised if it's protected again soon (and then unprotected). Nishkid 64 23:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Stop your POV attacks on the Saddam Hussein article. Crud3w4re 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV 3rr

Please look up 3RR in adictionary. the do not make silly and clearly false allegations of 3RR against anm editor merely because you think they are POV pushing, which I see another user accuses you of. Please be more careful in future about who you accuse of what on this project, SqueakBox 22:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:3RR Caper13 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to reverting 4 times. But in this case I reverted one things twice and another different statement once in a different place within the paragraph. As 2 admins made clear, what I did is not a 3RR revert, so please dont waste my time and that of others claiming that 2 entirely separate edits can be considered a violation of 3RR, SqueakBox 02:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied directly from the 3RR page.

Reverting, in this context, means undoing, in whole or part, the actions of another editor or other editors. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words, or even one word (or punctuation mark).

..."Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention...

Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count.

According to the 3rr page, the two admins were incorrect but it is not important enough to argue about. If it comes up again, I will deal with it, but for now I'll let it go since if it had been processed as a block promptly, it would have been up by now anyway and you made no more edits for a 24 hour period after that anyway. I really have no desire to make a bigger deal out of it, or be vindictive about it. I did read your user page and I see that you have quite an anti-western attitude, which I suppose somewhat explains you wanting to stick it to the US but I don't see how you get from there into carrying water for someone like Saddam Hussein, whom I would imagine must embody pretty much everything that disgusts you. I did notice you setting up some outsourcing thing to bring jobs to central America though, which sounded pretty cool.Caper13 03:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh

Of course it's relevant when a commentator on scientific issues claims that homeopathy "works". That he's paid to say so makes it more relevant, not less. - Nunh-huh 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limbaugh is not primarily recognized as a commentator on Scientific Issues. Secondlly, it was only a commercial he did for a cold remedy. No more notable than comemrcials he did for Orange juice he did saying it would help fight colds. It isnt notable enough to be mentioned in his article. Caper13 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limbaugh is the prime commentator who defends the notion that global warming is a myth. You're simply wrong on this. - Nunh-huh 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Cove Middle School - Deletion?

Becuase i believe it is pointless and unneeded on wikipedia p.s. im sorry i dont know who to reply to messages —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sbooth1202 (talk • contribs).

Saddam was a dictator

I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that he was a dictator, in the same way that his hero, Stalin, was a dictator, and Lenin before him, and Kim Jong-il today -- basically everyone listed in Cult of personality. Numerous reliable sources, including the Economist, the New York Times, al Jazeera, Spiegel, etc., all describe him as the "former Iraqi dictator". If you do a google news search for Saddam+dictator, you'll find references from all over the world -- not just the U.S. But I haven't been paying attention to the article for the past few days...it just took too much energy to keep up with it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to try to start an NPOV discussion on the subject, start with the dictionary definition ("a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.") Nobody could seriously dispute that Saddam fit that definition. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein

Thanks for your note. I'm not hung up (pardon the ironic metaphor) on whether Saddam should be labeled a dictator or not. I do think there is a simple litmus test as to whether a nation's ruler is a dictator, and that's contained within the definition of the word itself. If a nation's leader must be obeyed on pain of imprisonment or death, then he's a dictator, an absolute monarch. He most certainly was such up until the 1991 war, after which his power was eroded, but his word still was law in the parts of the country he controlled. I don't get why some editors take issue with it. It's arguably not a "neutral" word, but it's an apt description of Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, etc. Their word is law and they cannot be voted out of office, they can only be deposed and/or die in office. I don't see what could be more plain. Wahkeenah 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Saddam Hussein as a dictator

Thanks for the note. Originally "dictator" came across to me as a loaded word with huge negative connotations and not appropriate. Even thought that my perception of him may be biased by "western media." Anyway- I agree with you that if he fits the dictionary definition of what a dictator is- then he should be clearly identified as such. This battle is going to be difficult to finalize, though, as emotions are still high about him, and Iraq specifically. In time history will settle all arguments here and everywhere else. Let me know what I can do to help- but you've clearly stated the argument much better than I could have! Thanks again! Trcrev 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush

Hi! There seems to be a consensus on the talk page of Rush Limbaugh for inclusion of his quote about drug abuse, and the version in the article has gone through several revisions to make it palatable several editors. As the quote was widely reported in the media in the context of Limbaugh's arrest and the subsequent dropping of the charges, it is in fact relevant to the topic, sourced, and verifiable, and hence not subject to removal per WP:BLP's libel policy. Your repeat reversions constitute edit warring; please stop. If you still believe the content to be against WP policy, please join the discussion on the talk page, or take it to the WP:BLP noticeboard, as I've suggested several times, rather than just revert. Thanks! GertrudeTheTramp 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus does not exist to add it, and a consensus can not choose to ignore WP:BLP even if one DID form. Something may have been discussed in the media, but that does not mean it is not subject to WP:BLP especially since it suggests an equivalence between someone who was not found guilty of any wrongdoing, people convicted of criminal acts. Wikipedia's standards may be higher than some media outlets, but we have to deal with Wikipedia rules here. Caper13 04:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should continue this on the talk page, but I just want to point out real fast that just because he wasn't convicted of doctor shopping doesn't mean he didn't abuse drugs. He was arrested, among other things, after all. GertrudeTheTramp 04:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest does not equal guilt. That should be fairly obvious. From what I understand all the drugs he used were obtained legally. If you define abuse as "doing something unwise", then of course he did abuse them. But it is not illegal to use drugs unwisely. It is not illegal to become addicted to drugs prescribed to you. Its a horrible situation, but not illegal and comparing the deal in which the prosecutor dropped a potentially politically motivated investigation of him because he couldn't get any proof that anything wrong even happened, (source available) to sentences of people who were convicted of using illegal drugs, creates the impression Limbaugh did something illegal and got away with it. A violation of WP:BLP Caper13 04:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we should move this to the talk page, but there's no such comparison going on. Limbaugh's quote doesn't even specify 'illegal' drug use, AFAIK. GertrudeTheTramp 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, we've gotten an outside opinion solicited via the BLP noticeboard that the quote doesn't violate BLP. GertrudeTheTramp 05:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaug protection

Hi Tariqabjotu. Just wondering. Why did you fully protect Rush Limbaugh? I didnt know anyone had requested it, and all things considered, the recent editing (last day or so) is a little less contentious than usual. Not that I mind. I could use a few days off from having to defend it from vandals, but I am curious. Caper13 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has to specifically request that a page be protected. I was in reality looking at a request for unprotection, and simply rejected it in favor of full protection upon looking at the history. -- tariqabjotu 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned tags.

"Saw you were doing some cleanup of unsigned comments on the talk page. Thanks. You can use the following substitute command to make it a little easier. surround the following the two squiggly brackets on either side - subst:unsigned|the username or ipaddress - and it will populate like this when you save it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caper13 (talk • contribs)."

Thanks, I like unsigned2 since it lets you just paste the info from history. -- Kevin Browning 07:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions

Hello Caper! I had a question, and somehow ended up in your profile.

Anyway, in profile pages, are you allowed to use pictures or not? (Ifso), should the pictures be on Wikipedia, or from offsite? (I'm not sure how Wikipedia feels about bandwith, or even how to upload pictures to Wikipedia.)JimmmyThePiep 02:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam

Hm, good point. That was one of those reverts where I didn't check the user's other edits. We generally delete youtube links anywhere on Wikipedia (there's been a lot of discussion of it--it's because they're serial copyright violators). His other edits are vandalism. His user page had nothing on it but youtube versions of the Saddam death video: that's a pretty clear case of speedy-delete-trolling if I ever saw one. 'Tis done. Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No test

It was not a test. I believe the it was warranted. Let people know what is happening.--Riferimento 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riferimento has made over 500 edits to Wikipedia and has been involved in the Marriage article for some time. Reverting his edits with VandalProof and slapping a vandal warning on his TalkPage seems unkind and isn't the way established contributors should be treated. I hope it was done in error. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is not warranted. Discuss in talk. Don't post retaliatory fact tags. WP:POINT. As for Vandal warnings, it was a level 1. I could have gone higher but didnt considering the circumstances. Caper13 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caper13--You have now accused me of being a jerk twice. All I want is to let it be known that after two weeks of work some believe they can change an article in one day without any discussion. If you think this is a new controversy please read the archives. If you think I am gamming the system explain how in detail please do not make accusations if you do not have the time to support them.--Riferimento 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that VandalProof is a tool for reverting vandalism, not addressing WP:POINT. It is too blunt for that. In this case a version that had been agreed through considerable TalkPage discussion was being reverted to after a number of edits without discussion. That may or may not prove to be the right thing to have done in the circumstances but is def not an example of WP:POINT. Disruption was not the aim.

I don't think the level of the warning is the point, established users deserve personal messages and not generic templates. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to call you a jerk. I explained the reasoning for my edit after you questioned it. If you took offense to my explanation, then I apologise as I had no intent to offend anyone, but I still feel your edit wasn't productive. That being said, I really don't have any interest in getting involved in the debate on that page. I saw you rolled back my revert almost immediately, and I did nothing about it because you said there is a long running debate there on the subject. I still feel that exchanging fact tags in a retaliatory way (which appeared to be the jist of your edit summary) is not a wise thing to do if you want to achieve consensus and a balanced article. Caper13 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Picture

(Sorry to bug you again)

I was making a Town page for a small town near Walkerton. The town (Formosa) has pretty much two landmarks; the Brewery and the Church.

Anyway I wanted to put a picture of the church on the page, so I found one, asked for permission from the website, and uploaded it. The webmaster told me (and I wrote in the upload summary) to 'Use this picture on Wikipedia, and link back to this page.' I don't remember exactly which licence I gave it, but I attached the wrong one and the picture's gone.

Which license would be good for this? or Was it just deleted because it was a church picture, and Wikipedia already has one? JimmmyThePiep 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Ann Coulter Edits

Please assume good faith, and please be careful with unsupported assertions of trolling. My recent edits are strong comments, on a talk page, against proposed edits to a locked article. How can comments on proposed content be any sort of a "personal attack?" How can comments on bad work (not the worker) be "uncivil?" The proposed edits are obviously non-notable, and are negative comments in a biography of a living person. Their triviality is exceeded by their smarmy negativity. They are in opposition to the thoughts presented in the talk page discussion that precedes them. It IS contributing in a positive way to the discussion to call them what they are, particularly since literary illustrations are provided. (Did you follow the links?) Good Cop 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith. That is why I didnt delete them as trolling. I would suggest that you seek to phrase your comments in a way so as to convey similar meaning to what you have written above, without using inflammatory and insulting language. You will probably get a better response. Good luck. Caper13 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's

Sorry if this isn't the proper wikipedia form. I wasn't sure how to reply. I searched the church on google and was brought to the wikipedia article!

Saddam Hussein

The "bearded Saddam" photo just looks stupid on top of the article. I think we should use a photo where he looks more presidential (he was head of state after all)Max Thayer 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care what photo is used. I don't think that the current one looks stupid, but wouldnt object to a better one. Problem is, the current one is a free version, and you can not replace a free version with an unfree one...stupid looking or not. Wikipedia policy.Caper13 18:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I thought the previous one was free as well. I just found and uploaded one which I know is free (it comes from Wikipedia Finland)Max Thayer 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is getting silly. If it is on another Wikipedia, then it is free.Max Thayer 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an education in copyright, I will be happy to either give you one or refer you to someone else, but if you think that because something is on another wikipedia, then that means 'its free' then you don't know what you are talking about, and before you make a fool of yourself by calling my actions vandalism, you should make an effort to educate yourself a little bit more. Caper13 20:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just explain me why this Wikipedia image isn't free, I'm all ears.Max Thayer 21:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets first look at the bearded Saddam Photo. See here [4]. If you click, you see that its copyright indicates that because it was taken by a dept of defense employee, the image is in the public domain, and therefore completely free. Anyone can use it for any purpose. If I wanted to integrate it into an advertisement for a beard trimmer, I would be free to do so, and that is how wikipedia defines a free image. The image has no restrictions whatsoever. Now, lets look at the other photo. See it here [5]. Look at its copyright tags...It is licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only". Wikipedia does not consider this a free image. In fact, if you continue reading below, they even explicitly say that..."only non-commercial or educational use of the file is allowed. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with this restriction on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial." In fact, Jimbo Wales himself said this on the subject [6] in announcing that all the non-commercial use and by permission only photos were going to be deleted from Wikipedia because they were not free images. This may not make sense, and whether it does or not is a different conversation, but the jist of this, is that the image you uploaded is not free to use on Wikipedia, and the 'bearded saddam' is, and you can not replace a free image with a nonfree one in the article. Hope this helps. Caper13 21:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This philosophy is why wikipedia's photo collection looks like somebody's scrapbook rather than looking "encyclopedic". It undermines the credibility of wikipedia to be stuck with second-rate or third-rate photos. But it does serve as a reminder that "you get what you pay for". Wahkeenah 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument, even if I don't fully buy into it. I also concur totally on the absurdity of deleting fair-use images because a free replacement image "could be" obtained. I gather that means that if the body or structure or object still exists in roughly the same form, someone "could" go take a snapshot of it and post it here. Those folks will delete even though no such photo actually exists here. These are folks with too much time on their hands, wiki-nannies as it were. I've had more than one fight about that, as you might guess. Meanwhile, some poor sap will upload an ugly snapshot and/or a mugshot (see Carmen Electra for example) and the wiki-nannies will jump on it and say, "Aha! A free photo! No more fair use photos here!" thus making wikipedia look like its photo collection is run by paparazzi. And the guy who uploaded it is stuck with his mistake, because he can't delete his own uploads. It does nothing to enhance this website. Wahkeenah 23:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, what a lousy photo. Ann Coulter is not what I call photogenic, but that one was really bad. The photo you fought for is actually rather flattering. What a hassle. And I totally agree that publicity photos should be fair game. Part of the problem is the "proactive" approach. If it were me, I would put reasonable photos out there and only take them down if someone complained. The first law of fair use, according to the spaghetti-code of the fair use "guideline" is do no harm. That should be the guiding rule. Wahkeenah 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Saddam Hussein image

Here is the source : http://www.wpclipart.com/famous/political/ The site normally states that the images are "public domain". Max Thayer 07:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HagermanBot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caper13 (talk • contribs).

Heemeyer Article

You are not an admin, neutral POV is not the same as no POV. Heemeyer is a hero and most Americans believe it, so it should reflect that fact.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paruta (talk • contribs).

Great. Then you should have no problem coming up with respectable citations and sources to back up your edit. Caper13 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of uncited material from Rush Limbaugh

Regarding your rvereting of cyberanths edits, you might want to check out Talk:Jimmy_Swaggart regarding his edits there, my attempts to reverse them or at least replace some of the material in cited form and the edit war which followed. Artw 21:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limbaugh Request For Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

RE: CyberAnth

I noticed your comments and that you also posted on the noticeboard. I decided to post separately to emphasize that the problem has been noticed by several people independently and to highlight certain edits he made on topics that could in no way be considered controversial. I agree that the user's behavior appears bizarre. If using the admin noticeboard gets us nowhere, I suggest we join together to file an RFC against him. Indrian 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly how you feel. I will wait a day or two before taking any action, but if I decide to proceed further, I will let you know. Indrian 03:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 1 week due to your edit warring on Rush Limbaugh, so has CyberAnth. Please use this time to cool down. In the future please discuss any significant article changes on the talk page. While I understand opposing users can be quite frustrating, please resist the urge to edit war in the future. In circumstances like this it is best to get a mediator involved long before you've made 2 or 3 reverts. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced your block to 24 hours Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your decision and empathize with your frustration. I do not know if you ever looked at my user page, but I have serious doubts about long term viability as well. I have quit in the past and my activity level is far lower now than two years ago. All the best. Indrian 20:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go

Good luck on future endevours. Artw 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcome and encouragement on the Heeymeyer article. Sorry to see you go as well. Hope a few bad apples don't make your departure permanent. The Wiki community and the user of the encyclopedia will be the ones to suffer.

Article bias

It can be frustrating dealing with the never ending parade of single purpose accounts that seek to sway articles one way or another. Consider taking a break from controversial articles and find others less controversial to contribute to. Wikipedia is largely a thankless job / hobby / burden(?) but there are a lot of other ways to contribute. There are many state projects and history topics that are fairly clear of constant revert wars and pointless 100kb+ talk page discussions that go no where. Good luck with your private projects. --Dual Freq 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Replaceable fair use Image:WWilliams2.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:WWilliams2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Bmacdonald.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Bmacdonald.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Matt_Drudge_Portrait_JPEG.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Matt_Drudge_Portrait_JPEG.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mmorrison.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Mmorrison.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Matt Drudge Portrait JPEG.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Matt Drudge Portrait JPEG.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California photo requests now by County

I saw your name at Photo Matching Service. I just spent the past few days moving all the California photo requests into County categories to make it easier for photographers to locate requests in the locations where they take photos. If you haven't already done so, please consider monitoring and adding your name to the list at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Los Angeles County, California. GregManninLB (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:StPauls1994.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:StPauls1994.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:StPauls1895.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:StPauls1895.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MorrisonGlaceBayHighSchool1985.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MorrisonGlaceBayHighSchool1985.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:San Marino CAL.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:San Marino CAL.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miraferry.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Miraferry.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bkelllive.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bkelllive.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]