User talk:Cardsplayer4life/Archive 1

Images

Hi there. I was clearing out some copyright question from WP:CP and came across Bud Walton Arena and War Memorial Stadium (Arkansas), both of which you have rewritten around the copyright, which is great. So I removed the infrining versions from the articles' histories. However, none of the images in either article has any source information attached (apart from one). Without the source, we cannot be sure of the copyright status of images. Please add a source and correct copyrighting information to these images within the next 7 days, or they will have to be deleted. Thanks. (PS: You can find this rule written down at WP:CSD in the Images section). -Splash^talk 21:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I meant that the image pages do not, at present, say where you got the image from. This means that, even when you say it is public domain, we can't be sure of that fact without being able to check the source. Did you make the images yourself originally? If so, you can edit the page and add {{PD-self}} to it (or {{GFDL-self}} if you prefer to use the Gnu free documentation license, the Wikipedia default).

If, however, you have taken the images from somewhere else, as it looks likely in at least some cases (e.g. the layouts) you need to add a message to the image page saying clearly where they came from, and under what copyright you claim they are available for use on Wikipedia. There is sometimes recourse to the 'fair use' doctrine, and in this case you would probably have a good chance at that. See the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to choose the most appropriate one(s), if you have not created the images yourself.

Once you have added source and copyright information to the images, you can remove the {{nosource}} tag yourself. Does that help? If not, drop me a line again. (PS The new image you uploaded is quite blurry.) -Splash^talk 22:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm on the case. (Cardsplayer4life 23:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Techniquesforfingers.jpg

Can you add more specific source information for Image:Techniquesforfingers.jpg? Without a source (other than just "public domain"), it may be deleted. tregoweth 22:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Senate elections, 2006 Grisham edit

Hi there. Saw you edited U.S. Senate elections, 2006 to say John Grisham may have serious interest in running for Senator Allen's seat in 2006. I couldn't find any serious published reports about this. Could you cite your source? Thanks. Velvetsmog 17:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. Well appreciated. Velvetsmog 16:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images listed for deletion

Several images you uploaded, Image:Razorbackstadium4.jpg, Image:HoustonNutt.jpg, Image:1940s_razorback_stadium.jpg, Image:Razorbackstadium.jpg, Image:Mattjones.jpg, Image:GoldenBoot.jpg, Image:OldMainArkansas.jpg, Image:Davevanhorn.jpg, Image:Vanhorn2.jpg, Image:OldMainArkansas2.jpg have been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 them not being deleted. Thank you.

--The_stuart 17:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I did not upload all of those, but I will try to get all the source info I can to keep them from deletion. :) (Cardsplayer4life 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Very cool and, thanks for donating those images to the public domain. --The_stuart 00:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Man editors category

I noticed you editting the Burning Man article. If you are someone who attends Burning Man or similar regional events you can add yourself to Category:Wikipedian Burners by editting User:Cardsplayer4life to include the text [[Category:Wikipedian Burners]].

Oh, and the photo and map are a great benefit to the article. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 03:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UArk

Continuing with my assumption that you are connected with UArk... many universities have official "archivists" or "historians," often affiliated with the library, and it might be worth the effort of trying to meet with one and get some suggestions on where to go for material for the UArk history section. You might ask about this rather odd-sounding statement that comes up in a Google book search for "frederick rudolph" "university of arkansas" fayetteville:

The new university spirit was likely to turn up almost anywhere, and in 1884, although the president of the University of Arkansas actually rejected it, he publicly charged that two subversive-minded faculty members had imported from the University of Virginia the two habits that were doing Arkansas the most harm: high standards of scholarship and faculty neglect of student conduct outside the classroom.

Dpbsmith (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I do not attend the University of Arkansas anymore, and live a long way away, I will pass on your info to someone who I think is there though. (Cardsplayer4life 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Copyright Problem with article Brian Wowk

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Brian Wowk, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! 24.126.34.97 06:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will repost it in a more encyclopedic way. I was a little intoxicated when I did the first one, sorry! (Cardsplayer4life 09:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Cardsplayer4life,

If you look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Wowk, you will see that the administrator Shanel has ruled that "The result of the debate was keep ".

There was substantial argument for deletion by mikka (t), but Tawker, the person who originally marked the page for deletion, changed his vote from delete to keep for the re-written version. As you can see from the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Wowk the vote was overwhelmingly to keep the piece. Shanel posted a note about the ruling at the bottom of the Some references indicating the significance of Brian Wowk section of Talk:Brian Wowk. I know that you meant well, but lifting copyrighted material to compose the article was a bad way to start. --Ben Best 09:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks! I wouldn't call myself anywhere NEAR stellar yet. But give it time ;) Nach0king 00:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pig

Haha, indeed! You are correct. Good call. :-) Zsinj^Talk 04:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I must say, that was funny :) Imagine if it had been about the page Crackpot or Penis. — Deckill e r 04:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You dudes are crazy ;-) Cardsplayer4life 04:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Barnhillarena.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Barnhillarena.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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.

—fuzzy510 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand the objection listed. It sounds like from the cryptic statement "Free alternative could be taken" that the pic could be changed, but it isn't necessary unless I (or someone else) has an alternative. Until further clarification is provided, I will take it as such. (Cardsplayer4life 07:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Help or advice

I can see from your contributions that you are still a very active Wikipedian. You had good intentions to be helpful to the cause of cryonics in Wikipedia with your earlier efforts. You must now have had considerable experience with edit wars and how to handle them. Your help or suggestions to deal with an revert war currently happening on the Ben Best page would be appreciated. Background on the edit war can be found at Talk:Ben_Best#You_no_longer_own_this_biography and below. A quick glance at the history of Ben Best will show you that CRANdieter has been attempting to use that page as a means of disparaging me and of disparaging cryonics -- and that this has resulted in a revert war between him, his new sock puppet Freezer Man and 71.160.248.79, a cryonicist using an IP address. Assistance or advice from a more experienced Wikipedian such as yourself would be appreciated. --Ben Best 02:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for knowingly and intentionally creating a gallery of unlicensed media images on Big 12 Conference ([1]). Galleries of unlicensed media are prohibited on Wikipedia, and you are certainly aware of this, or should be, since was discussed on the article talk page and a warning was included in the edit summary removing the last instance of an invalid gallery. You were warned that recreating the gallery would be responded to by a block. Since you chose to do so anyway, you are now blocked. If you do it again after your block expires, you will be blocked for a week. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This block is out of process because Kelly is not acting on a real policy. She is just acting on an opinion she made up herself. Johntex\^talk 05:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi Cardsplayer. I'm really sorry you got blocked. I hope you don't let it interfere with your enthusiasm for Wikipedia. It's just Kelly. She goes on a rampage every six months or so. Unfortunately I can't unblock you, but the block will expire before you know it. Just to let you know, the block was improper and nobody (well, almost nobody) thinks badly of you or that you did anything wrong, quite the opposite. Hopefully, you can rise above the nonsense, after all a block from Kelly is a badge of honor in a way. Herostratus 06:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand both sides of the equation here, I will agree that blocks are very embarrassing and, in this case, an extremely questionable step. Don't let this derail your contributions, as this is a very awkawrd situation that should have been avoided by both factions involved. — Deckill e r 06:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I think that your block was unjusitified and, for lack of a better term, draconian. I hope that when your block expires toy continue editing and that you contribute on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2 if you wish to comment. Needless to say, this "discussion" (if you can even call it that anymore) has become unpleasant for most users involved. -- Masonpatriot 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

I raised the issue of your block both at User_talk:Kelly_Martin#Unblock_request and at WP:ANI#Block_of_User:Cardsplayer4life_by_Kelly_Martin. In both cases I was unable to obtain support for unblocking you. Haukur 13:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My block

Wow, thanks everyone for all the nice comments and positive support. I have never been blocked before (never even received a warning before). I would comment on you guys' individual pages, but I can't because I am blocked. I really enjoy editing on wikipedia, and wish I would have got a warning or something before being blocked. (you can look back at my post record, I am not a troll or anything like that) Reading through the policy, it seems as if I was indeed correct in my edits, as I understand it. I will be leary of any edits I make to pages in the future, as it seems making edits to pages might result in being blocked again in the future. I guess I will be hanging up my Wikipedia hat for awhile, since it seems as if I might be causing trouble that I did not intend to cause. I apologize if I did anything to cause too much trouble, I sure did not mean to. As a word of advice to admins, in the future it might be good to give out a warning telling an individual what they were doing wrong, before blocking them, especially when the policy is ambiguous at best, and direct them to the place where the official policy states they can't do what they are doing. (I still haven't received anything telling me why what I did was wrong. All references I have seen have only backed up what I did as being correct.) In any event, it has been fun. Perhaps I will be back in the future at some point. (Cardsplayer4life 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Aw, shoot - it's worth another try. Haukur 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not involved in this, but I've seen the discussion, and just wanted to let you know that Kelly says on her talk page that she'll consider unblocking if you promise not to do it again. AnnH ♫ 16:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I promise not to do this specific action again, but not because I don't think it is justified, I just don't want to deal with the hassle associated with it. I will not apologize, however. It seems to me that the individual is trying to use moderation powers to change policy before it has been officially changed. I would have been happy to have a civil discussion, or any other such thing (as evidenced by my posting to the discussion page). But, as I dig deeper and read more, it seems as if the individual was simply abusing moderation power to get a point across before 1) the policy was made official, or even 2) the discussion leading up to an official policy had been completed. I harbor no ill will towards anyone, but as a Wikipedian that always tries to do the right thing, I have not run across such a case before. It has really darkened my view of moderators here (although I am sure most of them are fine) to know that they will block people without warning, or discussion of any kind (or, evidently, without an official policy to back up their action). Like I said, I do not see myself doing much editing in the future, because it seems impossible to know what individual moderators will simply decide what their interpretation of a policy is, without discussion or anything. (Cardsplayer4life 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Your statement "without warning" is simply false. You know you saw the edit message that said anyone re-adding the category would be blocked, because you responded to other edit summaries with your edit summary on the edit that replaced the fair use gallery. --Cyde Weys 17:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no individual warning. I think you know what I meant by that comment. I was perfectly willing to discuss the matter (as evidenced by my post on the talk page), but the moderator Kelly evidently did not want to. I was also unaware that individual moderators had the right to change policy on a whim, without it being officially written down. This makes for a very shaky wikipedia, since nothing has to be written down, and in essence all moderators have full power to make policy decisions. (even though if you read through the other discussions, it appears other moderators disagree with this moderator.) This is why all official policies should be voted on, and written down, so that you can point people to the page detailing what the policy is. (Cardsplayer4life 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I believe a rough consensus to unblock you has been reached on WP:ANI. I have now done so. Let me know if you can edit now, there might be residual autoblocks. Haukur 17:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you fell for a meatball:GoodBye. --Cyde Weys 17:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people wouldn't quote that page so much. There's no reason to regard every message saying a person is considering leaving the community as insincere passive-aggressive emotional blackmailing. Haukur 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why I say GoodBye applies: "I will be leary of any edits I make to pages in the future". Anyone being reasonable would realize they just need to stop adding fair use galleries and continue on with their editing. This block was for something very specific and it did not come out of the blue. However, anyone being unreasonable is going to try to draw emotional sympathy by saying they're afraid of "any edits [they] make to pages in the future". It's trolling for sympathy. A classic meatball:GoodBye. --Cyde Weys 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what a meatball is, other than something that goes on top of spaghetti. I will indeed be leary of any edits in the future, because an individual that is a moderator seems to have the ability to make policy decisions before such decisions are actually policy. I (as well as others) have no way to know what an individual moderator will decide, and since they will not have discussion, it seems as if there is no way to know what is and is not allowed. When people are unsure of what is or is not correct to do (since official policy does not seem to apply), they naturally will be more leary of making edits. It is a natural outcome of not being sure what an official policy is to be more reserved when making edits. This, of course, only applies to people with good intentions, since those wanting to vandalize will have no such reservations. In other words, having policy decided by individual moderators on a per case basis and not adhearing to any official policy only hurts those who have good intentions, without being a hinderance to those who have bad intentions. (Cardsplayer4life 17:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You've now been blocked for 1 week after reverting to the fair use image gallery while logged out, which was easily confirmed with CheckUser (you know we have tools to match up IP addresses with accounts, right?). To everyone who was defending this guy: now do you see how woefully insincere his "Good Bye" was? He suckered you guys in to unblock him. He took advantage of you. --Cyde Weys 01:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh, you really have a vendetta against me I can see, Cyde. Ok, let me spell this out for you. Look at the time the edit was made. It was the first page I went to. Now, look at the login time (presumably you have that info). Now look at the first pages I went to, or at the very least the first edit I made after logging in. You see a pattern, I assume? I didn't know I was blocked when I made the edit! I never said I did know. I said I wouldn't make further edits to the page, and that was subsequent to all of my edits (by my login and my unlogged in). The fact still remains that 1) it is an unclear policy (not clear), 2) I had received no warnings or discussion whatsoever before being blocked, and 3) the issues I raised about militant admins. (which you are apparently one as well).

You are blocking me in retrospect now? Something I did before it being known that I was blocked or taking part in any discussion whatsoever about the initial block?!?!? If you can not see the ridiculousness of this action, then I don't need to spell it out for you. I am going on vacation the day after tomorrow to see my folks anyhow for a stretch, so it really doesn't matter all that much, but when I return, please, please, please, please leave me alone. I don't know why you are blocking me again after I stated very clearly I would not edit the page again .(and haven't!!! look at the time stamps!!). Please quit bothering me is all I ask. Look at my edit history, I am in the habit of making edits that are beneficial. Reverting a picture gallery (of which policy seems to back me up) elevates me to the level of criminal? ...and then promising not to do it any more, but still getting blocked again? Surely you can see the hypocrisy going on here. (Cardsplayer4life 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. This little "I'm just an innocent user, I didn't know what the fuck I was doing" gambit worked once to get you unblocked, but it's not going to work again. You seem to think we administrators are a lot more stupid than we actually are. --Cyde Weys 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use profanity on my userpage. You obviously can't look at timestamps to see that I was unblocked AFTER the edits were made. Also, the edits occured BEFORE I said I wouldn't make the edits again. Also, the edits were made BEFORE a block was even known. You know as well as I that people make changes logged in or un logged in, and by your own admission the IP is tied to the username. Quit playing games, quit using profanity, quit blocking people just cause you don't like them because you know they are right, and above all quit bothering me, please!! (Cardsplayer4life 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Barnstarred!

For being wounded in the line of duty, this purple barnstar is awarded to Cardsplayer4life by Herostratus 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "being wounded in the line of duty" applies to recreating deleted fair use image galleries. Don't encourage this kind of behavior. --Cyde Weys 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was referring to the subsequent treatment, and overall handling of the situation, which has been discussed quite a bit, so I will not rehash it again. (Cardsplayer4life 19:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hah! That's funny coming from you Cyde, given your support of Kelly's attrocious behavior. Johntex\^talk 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it makes more sense to support the guy who edits from an IP address to re-insert the fair use image gallery, because that's totally acceptable. --Cyde Weys 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, you clearly are biased and support Kelly. I really have nothing further to say to you. You have shown your true colors, and anyone looking at it from an unbiased view would see the problems that I have cited are an accurate representation of what went on. I really have nothing further to add, as it seems neither do you. I have said that I wouldn't edit the page again, I have pointed out the problems with the policy, and I have had a temporary block. I really don't know what further you want from me. Please leave me alone unless you have further points to raise. (Cardsplayer4life 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I will support an indefinite block now; this user (Cards) has caused admins to polarize ourselves against each other, which, in my opinion, is a severe test of the community's patience and the integrity of our trust of each other as admins. I am embarrassed. — Deckill e r 01:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming you mean the user Kelly. If so, I am very much in support of that person being blocked, as they seem to be a very divisive individual indeed. You have my full support on that. If instead you are talking about me, I am not trying to test the patience of anyone. If admins are trustworthy, then they have no need to be questioned. I was simply pointing out (and had several people agree with me) that 1) the specific policy I supposedly violated was not spelled out clearly, 2) there was absolutely no discussion, warnings, etc. on the issue, simply a block, and 3) it appears (and this has been voiced by others, I didn't originally come up with this) that policies can be made at a moments notice by any admin without anything written down. None of these 3 points has been argued by anyone, just that either they are wrong or not wrong. If a concensus feels one way or the other on the issue, then fine, I could really care less at this point. I don't understand why I keep being focused on for the edit I made. I have moved on, and if you guys want to keep arguing about policy, that is fine, but please leave me out of it. I have stated that I will not make the same edit again, and this should be enough. I am rather tired of discussing it in fact. (Cardsplayer4life 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm very disapointed to here that you used a sock-puppet to evade your original block. That was a violation of community trust and it was not a smart thing to do. Johntex\^talk 05:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use a sock puppet. I reverted a page before being logged in. I make changes all the time either before or after being logged in. I have not allegence to this username. Who cares if I am or am not logged in when the IP is tied to the username? Plus the fact that this was before it was known I was blocked. Please check the time stamps of everything, they speak for themselves. (Cardsplayer4life 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

So you are saying that you didn't know you were blocked and that you were not deliberately trying to evade the block? Johntex\^talk 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't trying to evade anything. I was trying to revert the page that I had already been trying to revert. I just went straight to the page and reverted it. I do that sometimes, just go to a page that I know I want to change and change it, without logging in. If you look at the time stamps, you can see that I didn't make any comments about the block, or edits or anything before I did the revert. Also, if you are an admin, you can further see that I didn't even log into the account before I did the revert. There was no possible way to know that I had been blocked, I was simply reverting the page again (and my reasoning for that has already been stated). In essence I am being blocked 2 times for the same reverts. I stated I wouldn't do it again, and so I my first block was taken away, but then Cyde went back in time, saw that I had not logged in during one of my reverts, and decided to block me again. In essense, going back in time to punish me again. Whatever, I don't care. I have more important things in life to worry about than the silly games that seem to be going on here. (Cardsplayer4life 17:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"I was trying to revert the page that I had already been trying to revert. I just went straight to the page and reverted it." — This shows no intent whatsoever of discussing issues, just going about blindly reverting, and also shows a frightening lack of concern for why fair use galleries aren't allowed in the first place. --Cyde Weys 17:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cyde when he says "This shows no intent whatsoever of discussing issues, just going about blindly reverting,..." Even if I assume good faith that you did not deliberately edit while blocked, at the very least it was a poor decision to simply revert without trying to check the article history or Talk page to see if there was discussion that might have impacted your actions.

I think you messed up. It doesn't have to be the end of the world, though. I hope you will stick around and keep contributing, but don't follow the bad example of other people who act unilaterally without looking to engage in discussion. Johntex\^talk 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice

Hi Cardsplayer4life. I'm sorry some admins seem to be falling over you right now. The best thing to do, I think, is to stay WP:COOL and just walk away for some time, sleep over it, that sort of thing (I said something along similar lines on WP:AN/I). I hope you don't feel all too grumpy over being blocked again. Several admins (including me) have expressed their disagreement with this particular block, but because everyone wants to avoid wheel-warring it might take some more time before things are back to normal again.

In short, I think everyone involved would benefit from stepping back for a moment. If I can help out in any way, feel free to email me or to respond on this page. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above-mentioned discussion at WP:AN/I I have unblocked you. Please try to be careful with Wikipedia's 'fair use' policies in the future. --CBD 13:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problems

Hello Cardsplayer4life. I would like to ask to you to stop uploading images until you have a better grasp of both U.S. copyright law and Wikipedia's image-use policies. Going through just a subset of your recent uploads, I have identified each of the following images as either not including a detailed fair use rationale, or as missing accurate information about their source, copyright holder, or copyright status. They may each be deleted in seven days if this information is not discovered.

Please review each of the following pages before uploading any additional images.

Many of your uploads were also incorrectly labeled as as being licensed under the GFDL. Understand that the GFDL is a very specific license that must be explicitly agreed to by the copyright holder, and that this is almost certainly not the case with any of the images above.

I would also like you to pay specific attention to criterion #1 in our fair use policy, which says that we do not allow the use of unfree images that could be replaced by a free alternative. This covers, among other things, accessible living people (like Image:Adande.jpg) and landmarks (like Image:Northsidegrizzly2.jpg).

If you have any questions whatsoever, please do not hesitate to ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. ×Meegs 01:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Meegs, I am updating the info to bring them up to standards. Regards. (Cardsplayer4life 23:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Please read the above message carefully. We can not use unfree images for identification of these people — whether they "publicity photos" or not — under the first item of our fair use criteria. We are a free content project and only allow unfree images in a few very specific instances. These are not among them; using an image of Jackie MacMullan will hurt our chances of aquiring a free image of her that will be useable anywhere, by anyone, forever (just as her article's text is). Please also do not archive this message until this matter has been resolved (its presence on your talk page will prevent additional OrphanBot messages). Thanks. ×Meegs 08:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I apologize for archiving, I thought the matter had been cleared up by providing the source info and the promotional tag. So, you are saying promotional pictures are not allowed, but there is a promotional tag for photos? I am afraid I fail to see the logic in that. I did read through the fair use criteria that you linked to, and my understanding of it is that they should be ok. I was only adding them because I thought they would provide more info about the articles, but if they need to be removed, I am not attached to them or anything, so go ahead. I will try to be more careful in the future, but if promotional photos are not allowed, then that tag should probably be removed to cause less confusion to people. (Cardsplayer4life 08:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

In addition, after further study, in the fair use rules linked to, there is a specific case for Wikipedia:Publicity photos. The criteria of "applies to photos that are explicitly distributed for publicity purposes" and providing the source link have been shown in most cases (minus the Neil Armstrong one which is a duplicate that needs to be deleted, and the Cowlishaw one which is of poor quality, and therefore I will not take the effort to defend). (Cardsplayer4life 09:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

All images used under fair use must be accompanied by a detailed fair use rationale. Do not remove the {{no rationale}} tags from these pages unless one has been provided. Publicity photos, just as all of the other examples listed on Wikipedia:Fair use, are subject to the policy section of that page. None of these images meet the first criterion there. ×Meegs 09:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I am just confused. The policy section you refer to says "if no free alternative is available". This does not make sense for a number of reasons to reject the specific pictures I submitted. The Publicity photo is the photo distributed for this purpose. In essence, it is the "free" image so you do not have to go out and take one of the individual yourself. That is the point of a Publicity photo, and why it is specifically innumerated to be included in the fair use wording. Are you contending that these are not Publicity photos, or am I somehow otherwise misunderstanding you? Publicity photos are meant as a way to promote an individual. (in this context) The fair use rights come from their distrobution in the first place.

However, I am not going to go through and write a big long fair use rationale for each one, because this issue is simply not that important to me, and I do not have time to do so. I do not see what the purpose of deleting these is, since they currently fall into a spefically listed fair use case, but if you really want them to be deleted, then go for it. I do not see the purpose, but I really don't feel like fighting about it since it isn't that important to me, I just always think a picture makes an article a bit better overall, and deleting them for no real purpose makes wikipedia less desireable in the long run. (Cardsplayer4life 13:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Publicity photos are not free unless their copyright holder has specifically said that they are. The reason to delete them, and the reason for this policy is so that people will be motivated to contribute free images of these people. Just because the current interpretation of fair use probably allows us to republish these publicity photos in the United States does not mean that that is the case throughout the world, or will continue to be the case in the future. ×Meegs 13:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that goes to the whole, "what country rules are the ones that govern?" argument. In essence, you are saying that the countries with the most restrictive rules should be the ones that limit everyone else. There are a whole lot of things that would also need to be removed if that were the case, because there are a lot of countries (China comes to mind, but many Mid East countries, etc. also) that would censor large parts of wikipedia, given the chance. All that nonsense aside, however, I think that famous people (or anyone for that matter) would probably be more inclined to let the versions provided for their publicity used, rather than have random people come up to them and ask if they could take their picture to put on the internet. (that would seem like the bigger nuisance to me) I don't see what these publicity photos have that are different than, say, movie promotional material (or TV shows, or any of a number of other things) which are scattered all over the place on wikipedia, but seem to be ok. I am not trying to be a big complainer, I really like wikipedia and all, it just seems a bit inconsistent to me that some promotional material is widely accepted and other promotional material is not. In any event, like I said, if this is the way it is, then its all good, I understand how these things go when it comes to copyright law and everything, better to be safe than sorry I suppose. (don't want the lawyers coming down on us) (Cardsplayer4life 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The English Wikipedia web site is hosted in Florida and it is subject, right now, primarily to U.S. law. It would be nice if the encyclopedia were republishable in other countries, wouldn't it, especially in forms other than a web site? Incidentally, it's mostly western European countries that I know to have stronger copyright restrictions than the U.S.; French law has some ridiculous ideas. Anyway, U.S. copyright law has been getting stronger and stronger in recent years (Copyright Act of 1976, Copyright Term Extension Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act), and it's hard to know how far it will go in the future. The policy is not just based on the law and the fear of being sued, though. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia (look at the logo) and dedicated to free content and part of the free culture movement. We want people to release the rights of their creations so that others can benefit and build on them. ×Meegs 17:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in principle, of course, it just seems that certain pictures are harder to get than others, although I suppose that should not be an excuse. (Cardsplayer4life 03:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Burning Man Regional Events Infobox

I've started putting together an Infobox that can go on the Burning Man type events pages. When you have a few moments and can look at the example I've put together, I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Thanks, and Burn On! SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:05_map_blackrockcity.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:05_map_blackrockcity.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aerialkylefield.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aerialkylefield.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. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. ccwaters 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:BaumStadium.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BaumStadium.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:BaumStadium2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BaumStadium2.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:BaumStadium3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BaumStadium3.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HoustonNutt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HoustonNutt.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. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. ----Robth^Talk 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pictur3.jpg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Image:Pictur3.jpg, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://uagreeks.uark.edu/68.htm. As a copyright violation, Image:Pictur3.jpg appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Pictur3.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on [[Talk::Image:Pictur3.jpg]]. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Image:Pictur3.jpg, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. BigDT 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I will explain it on the picture talk page. (Cardsplayer4life 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Houstonnuttbiopic.jpg

Hey Cardsplayer4life . There is a lively debate about use of promo photos on wikipedia. My name is Jeff and I Do not support the interpretation of WP:FU as implemented by user's like User:Chowbok. They believe that Wikipedia should be free of all promotional photos that are "replaceable with an equivalent" (i.e. an amateur photo from flickr). Their rationale is being debated in many places, and take it a step further believing that all promo photos should be deleted and let someone else deal with finding and uploading a free alternative.

And many other places I've no doubt missed.

I and many others who support use of fair use promotional photos have not been successful in changing the actions of Chowbok and rampant deletion and changing of many hundred's of useful images from Wikipedia articles continues. One good example is the Jennifer Granholm article which had a great promo photo replaced by a terrible photo. I seek to raise the profile of this issue through challenging promotional photos on high profile article's like this one. I'm sorry, really I am, but fair use policy as implemented by Chowbok has left me with few viable options.

I invite you to join the battle for Promotional Photo usage on Wikipedia and the protection of Fair Use concepts. --Jeff 08:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:27 StanHeath04.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:27 StanHeath04.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —BigDT 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made me laugh.....

Your edit summary at pig: revert: that is not a pig related word. Joyous! | Talk 23:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"U of _" pages

Regarding this revert, I appreciate your desire to keep the formatting consistent of the various pages you are creating. In fact, I share it. That said, there's already a common format for all disambiguation pages at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). It'd probably be best to follow that format. I can help you change the pages to match it, if you can help me by following the style guide in the future. How's that sound?--Kchase T 08:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to reply on your talk page, but I saw the instructions to reply here. (hopefully you have it on your watch list) That sounds good, though. I was just trying to go on the style that I saw in the first few "U of _" pages that I looked at to keep them consistent when creating all the other ones, but I should have been more careful I suppose. I started with looking at U of A which seemed fairly straightforward. (and whose basic format was there before I initially edited it) The bolding helps for when you have sub-universities (in the case of several universities in a university system). I do not know how you could recreate that effect with the way you are doing it, but feel free to change them however you want, as long as they stay consistent. As for me, it is past my bedtime right now, so I am off to sleep. Thanks! (Cardsplayer4life 08:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You replied in the right place. I'm confused by the page you pointed me to, as well. Let me investigate further and get back to you. I may be wrong about the format for these particular disambig pages. Wouldn't be the first time! Thanks.--Kchase T 08:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Batesville High School (Arkansas)==

A tag has been placed on Batesville High School (Arkansas), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to provide more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately, and also put a note on Talk:Batesville High School (Arkansas). An administrator should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 1 under Articles. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such material. Adam Riley ^Talk 00:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozarks page map

Good job adding map to above-referenced article! I looked for suitable one but had no luck.--Hokeman 15:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might note that the map includes the Boston and Ouachita Mountains, if I'm correct in assuming that it does. Certainly the cultural aspects of the Ozarks don't worry about the age of the rocks or orientation of folds and valleys from one county to the next, but your map differs significantly from the USGS' Ozark Highlands physiographic province.[2] I've been looking for some GIS data to make another map from, but haven't had any luck yet. --Kbh3^rd talk 01:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Notice on My Talk Page

Hi, you posted a warning on my talk page regarding supposed vandalism on pig. The page history is here]. As you can see, I was 'reverting' vandalism, not commiting it. Also, please note that User:RJFJR also reverted vandalism to my previous version. I just wanted to clear this up. thanks--C.lettingaAV 21:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ryan Seacrest standingt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ryan Seacrest standingt.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 {{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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. ShadowHalo 07:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Klein

It's still unclear that this is a notable person. You've simply kept recreating it after a number of speedy deletions, so I've proposed it at AfD in order that there can wider discussion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?

Talk:Eliezer_Yudkowsky#Merge_proposals --70.51.233.97 00:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ericahill.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ericahill.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 {{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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Localzuk^(talk) 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bruce Klein.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bruce Klein.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Post-1-1141028020.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Post-1-1141028020.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Baumstadiumsatellite.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Baumstadiumsatellite.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 08:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Arkansas seal.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Arkansas seal.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

You may want to try to undelete the Bruce Klein article if you think it's notable. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 03:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Klein

Please do not again recreate this article, which was deleted in line with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Klein. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Image:FrankBroyles.jpg

In the description you state,

"Photo released by University of Arkansas Athletic department as a press release into public domain and used under fair use."

How can it be public domain and fair use at the same time? Can you supply a source link? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arkansasrazorback3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arkansasrazorback3.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 {{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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Image:Mattjonesamerfootball.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Mattjonesamerfootball.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Mattjonesamerfootball.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Mattjonesamerfootball.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbilling/Richard Gere

Do you know why some guy keeps deleting any discussion that mentions "Richard Gere" from the "Gerbilling" TALK page? I mean it is not in the actual article, and the page is meant for discussion. It's pretty odd. Thanks a lot!69.223.155.147 03:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be mentioned.WacoJacko 03:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:JohnMcDonnellTrack.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JohnMcDonnellTrack.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U of _ pages, redux

Hey Cardsplayer. I don't know if you even remember the dialog above about disambig pages like U of Q, but I am finally getting back to you about them, a mere six months and twelve days later. Though WP:DAB isn't very helpful in guiding formatting, the whole purpose of a format standard is so that pages look the same. With that in mind, I'm going to restyle the pages after the format I see on other dab pages such as UM and America. I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know what was going on. I should start this tomorrow, but for the time being I'm going to bed! Cheers!--Chaser - T 07:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. That was my original intention when creating all the U of _ pages, was to keep the style of them the same. (like on the U of A page, etc.) If you think they would be more aesthetically pleasing as a different style, as long as they are all the same, then I have no problem with that. Later. (Cardsplayer4life 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You know, the disambigs you link from the bottom (like UA for U of A have the same information. We should just redirect all of them. I know it sucks to say that after all the work you did, but there are already good pages there.--Chaser - T 05:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to disagree with that, as U of A is a different abbreviation than UA. (as well as U of B to UB, etc.) Generally the U of _ pages are about universities (though not always) and the U_ pages are about other things. (although sometimes universities are included in those other things, but again: not always) You could "force it" as it were, but that is generally frowned upon on wikipedia in my experience. (Cardsplayer4life 01:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK, I tried something on U of A and UA (moved most schools into the first page). I think that is the best resolution. How does it sit for you?--Chaser - T 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. ;) (Cardsplayer4life 01:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

War_memorial.jpg

I have tagged Image:War_memorial.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete that one, as I agree it should be deleted. I have uploaded a personal picture to take that ones place. (Cardsplayer4life 23:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Swingstates.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Swingstates.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Jpers36 20:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the U.S presidential election map from [www.nationalatlas.org]

Please don't change the color of the map that the Democrats is in blue color and Republicans in red color and the source (nationalatlas.org) displays that their U.S presidential election map is Democrats in red color and Republicans in blue color and it is also based on their political ideology that liberals (Democrats) is red color and conservatives (Republicans) is blue color. This color classification for Democrats is blue and Republicans is red is a misconception of most U.S media such as CBS and Fox News. Democrats must be red and Repulicans must be blue. Thank you.--Joseph Solis in Australia 09:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have it reversed. The standard model is having Republicans as red, and Democrats as blue. See Red states and blue states for more information, and please do not change back. (Cardsplayer4life 10:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You adjusted the National Atlas maps. Here is the link: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/elections.html. Blue denotes Republican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnetsrcool (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was my intention to adjust the map to bring it up to standard. See previous conversations and entries, plus the Red states and blue states for reasons why. (Cardsplayer4life 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Note: For anyone that is a resident of the US (or anyone that does a bit of googling), it is clear that red is widely regarded as Republican and blue is widely regarded as Democrat. I can provide references if necessary. ;) Also, can we keep all conversations confined to my wikipedia talk page. Going back and forth from the Commons is making me dizzy. ;) (Cardsplayer4life 21:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please list your references. The red state-blue state labeling was media-driven. I will point you once again to the National Atlas pictures. They have referred to Republicans as blue and Democrats as red for years. Who directed you to change the colors? I am a US citizen and I do remember how the map was painted on TV prior to the year 2000 and the colors you have used are not correct.Magnetsrcool 14:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get the strange feeling you are not reading what I write, haha. I of course said the same thing you are saying, that the current system is red for Republican and blue for Democrat. Irregardless of when it started (of course, if we would like to digress into the history of it, that is fine, and you are indeed correct about there not being a consensus until 2000, and before that both systems were used). So, we have established (even by your own admission) that the current system is blue for Democrat and red for Republican. (no matter that there was no recognized system before 2000, we are talking about the currently understood system for map illustration). Ok, now for some of the references:

Among many, many, many, many others that show the current system is blue for Democrats and red for Republicans. If you have any links showing the opposite for the current system of identification, I would like to see them as well. On a side note, it is a bit odd that your only 3 edits in your user contributions are for editing my talk page. (not accusing you of anything, just saying it seems a bit odd) (Cardsplayer4life 15:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

My simple contention is that some of the maps used on these election pages, which this website lists the National Atlas as its source, were altered by you by choice. In 2000, the media, not Government, the political parties or anyone else, came together to choose a color scheme. They chose red for Republicans and blue for Democrats, even though prior to 2000, many maps and a majority of media sources, including the National Atlas, which is again used as the source for these election pages, used the opposite scheme. There were even some that chose Blue or Red designations in alternating years and there were others who chose Blue or Red depending on incumbent or challenger.

Personally, I have no dog in the fight and you can accuse me of whatever you want. I have read Wikipedia for a few years and I joined to refute you changing the color scheme of a designated source. If different color schemes were used before 2000, then the maps should reflect that. Funny thing is that you only changed the maps going back to 1980. Surely if your argument is sound, you are going to go back and change ALL of the maps, correct?

Red for a long time has been associated with Socialist Parties around the world. One could lay down a good argument that the current Democratic Party has embraced Socialism. So, why wouldn't the Democratic Party, which agrees with much of the Socialist agenda, want to be associated with the color that in recent history has been used to designate the Socialist Parties in other countries? Curious. Also curious, most American third parties which endorse Democratic candidates have chosen Red, not Blue, as their color.

Links:

Magnetsrcool 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the tagging, I simply kept the same tags as were already there, but those are easy enough to change, if that is giving you or anyone else problems. As far as prior to 2000, there was not a system that was agreed upon. (not that there is now in an official capacity, but it is universally accepted as the de facto standard where as prior to 2000 there was no such recognition, and both coloring systems were used) I am not accusing you of anything, either; You are as free as anyone else to make said arguments. (although, you do indeed by your own admission have a "dog in the fight" if your sole reason for joining was to argue against my maps, haha) As far as the Socialist = red connection, that was one of the very reasons that the Democratic party wanted to dissociate themselves with the color and one of the big reasons for the current coloring system. (read the Red State - Blue State article mentioned above for a more in depth discussion of this point) Ok, I think I covered all the points you raised. (If not, feel free to ask for further clarification, and I can provide it for you :)) (Cardsplayer4life 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rowe175.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Rowe175.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it needs to be deleted; I uploaded it a long time ago. Thanks for the heads up though. (Cardsplayer4life 16:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Logo sec.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo sec.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 06:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it appears someone updated it for another image for use on the Southeastern Conference article. Go ahead and delete. (Cardsplayer4life 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Image source problem with Image:BatesvillePioneer.jpg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:BatesvillePioneer.jpg. 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 14:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Razorbackstadium4.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Razorbackstadium4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image 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. Calliopejen1 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, it can be deleted if you want. It is from a long time ago for a website design thing I did for the university. Cardsplayer4life 00:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WarMemorial2.jpg

I have tagged Image:WarMemorial2.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Rette tast 11:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bare-knuckle boxing and Kimbo Slice

Since Kimbo is already mentioned in the article, there really is no need to mention him a second time in the list. It is simply redundant. --Mista-X 16:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, but thank you for the message.Cardsplayer4life 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diavlog

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Diavlog, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Diavlog

Diavlog, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Diavlog satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diavlog and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Diavlog during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:MikeBeebeGovernorCropped.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:MikeBeebeGovernorCropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image 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. But|seriously|folks 09:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader of the source image says he took it himself, and I have no reason to doubt him, so your crop is fine as well. Sorry to trouble you! -- But|seriously|folks 03:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

CP4L, I awarded you The Barnstar of Liberty, but my formatting skills are weak. Feel free to modify the formatting on your user page to incorporate the barnstar in whatever way works best -- and / or to delete my text. Also, feel free to delete this comment when you've read it. Cheers, and great work! -asx- 03:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thx

For your recent work on 5th Baron Vernon ... wikifying etc .... it is appreciated. Two very similat pages will be on the next DYK load ... do feel free to indulge esp. on Charles Paget (conspirator) which still needs more work Victuallers 11:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This wikificationis very good...in fact perfect .... although I'm worried by the picture...I think its the wrong Charles Paget as no sign that he was an admiral (not sure he was ever that loyal!). The clothing style should be something like guy fawkes or Charles II Victuallers 17:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are impressed Charles Paget (vice-admiral) now has a stub Victuallers 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC) OK... you did the pic.... I have made its a stub ... if you can add about 300 words and 2 or 3 refs then it will be a start... I'll propose it to DYK in both our names ans serendipity will have made this guy an article ...?? Victuallers 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I will get around to it or not. I will try. Unfortunately, I don't know as much about history as you apparently do, haha. (Cardsplayer4life 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

WP:AN notice

Discussion at WP:AN about you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is a bunch of silliness, imo, but I will oblige him. Cardsplayer4life 23:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloggingheads.tv

Are you in any way affiliated with bloggingheads.tv? Is so, in what way? Thank you. Pdelongchamp 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not other than being a viewer. I have no official relationship with the site, no. (I do put comments in the comments section sometimes) Cardsplayer4life 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, just checking. Pdelongchamp 02:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

It doesn't seem terribly effective to issue another warning to someone who has already been issued a final warning. In that situation, please report him or her to WP:AIV to be temporarily blocked instead of continuing to issue warnings. --ElKevbo 19:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern, but I deliberately issued the 3rd warning (out of 4) that is required per Wikipedia:Vandalism. If they had already been issued the requisite 4 warnings, then I certainly would have reported them. Cardsplayer4life 19:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rosa Brooks.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rosa Brooks.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 02:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:James_Pinkerton.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:James_Pinkerton.jpg. I noticed 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 even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Robert_Wright_journalist.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert_Wright_journalist.jpg. I noticed 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 even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Reza_Aslan.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Reza_Aslan.jpg. I noticed 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 even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloggingheads.tv images

I don't want to spam your talk page with a template for each and every image uploaded; please check back through your upload log for the images from bloggingheads.tv. I'm afraid that they're violations of WP:NFCC#1, as specified above. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know how better to tag them to keep them from coming back like this. I have loads more I would like to add, but I don't want them to just be removed. I suppose I could always just use the "permission granted by website" tag or whatever it is since they are allowed by bloggingheads to be used. That should cut down on the violations since they are no longer "fair use" tags. Cardsplayer4life 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does bloggingheads post a notice on their website that the screenshots are under a free license? I don't see anything on their website regarding terms of use but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have no idea. I semi-know Bob Wright though (the guy who owns/runs the site), and he said that he allows the images to be used. I could probably get him to post a brief notice to that effect somewhere on the site, if you would like me to. Cardsplayer4life 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an essay on requesting free content at User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content; a workable solution would be to get an e-mail from him stating he is licensing the screenshots under a specific free license (I would recommend Creative Commons Attribution v3.0 if he would like to be credited if the photos are re-used.) The e-mail could be forwarded to WP:OTRS and the ticket number placed on the image description pages. An easier solution would be for him to post a notice on the site stating the license status of the screencaps. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you can probably get better images simply by contacting the article subjects directly. Bloggers are pretty easy to get hold of; for example, I was the one who obtained the photo on the Glenn Reynolds article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions all around. Thanks for the help. I hadn't even thought of contacting the people directly, and that is a terrific suggestion. I'll get to work on it. Thanks again. Cardsplayer4life 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got the required email giving permission, and forwarded it to the ORTS email system. I suppose someone will open a ticket and provide me with the required information to place into the images. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Jack_Balkin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jack_Balkin.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". 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. Note that the image description page must include the exact name of every article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Image:Jonathan_Chait.jpg, Image:Bruce_Feiler.jpg, Image:Bloggingheads_Moose_comparison.png, Image:Jonah_Goldberg.jpg and Image:Gershom_Gorenberg.jpg --Sherool (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I corrected them as I had with the above. I guess since they hadn't been tagged in the initial round I hadn't done them yet. Will do further corrections once the above mentioned information is provided in hard form. Thanks! Cardsplayer4life 20:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um yeah, we rely need more info on that ASAP, I can not see any info anywhere on the site that they have irrevocably released all rights to those videos, and in the absense of any spesific release statement the default will always be "all rights reserved". If you are working on obtaining an explicit release statement (have you seen WP:COPYREQ yet?) I guess we can give it a few more days, but don't leave it for too long, at presnet they would all qualify for deletion for insufficient copyright info. --Sherool (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. I am busy and I know he is busy, so it takes some time. Patience my friend. -- Cardsplayer4life (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an update (also said it in the above section), I received an email with the required permissions outlined and forwarded it to ORTS. When they provide me with a ticket number, I will update the images with the information. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BobbyPetrino.jpg and Image:Peter Cullen BotCon.jpg

Hi. The image Image:BobbyPetrino.jpg appears to come from http://flickr.com/photos/newalbanycard/32102869/ and Image:Peter Cullen BotCon.jpg comes from http://flickr.com/photos/9637166@N04/706686852/in/set-72157600626244990/. These were uploaded to flickr by two different people. Are you both of these people? Please do not upload unlicensed images or images licensed under incompatible terms. Please do not make false declarations of image ownership. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not knowingly accept images that violate others' copyrights. --B (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I clicked the wrong tag anyway on the Petrino images and needed to retag. As far as the BotCon one, it is by a friend of mine who sent it to me specifically for the article (he does not have a wikipedia account), so permission has been granted. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Can you get him to forward a letter of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org stating (1) that he is the copyright holder of the image and (2) he releases it under __________ license (he can fill in the blank with GFDL, CC-BY-SA-2.5, CC-BY-2.5, etc). What about the Petrino image? Are you newalbanycard on flickr? If so, can you change the license on flickr to a compatible license or edit the description so that there is no question? --B (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what about Image:John Pelphrey.jpg? This one comes from http://flickr.com/photos/tipsterhog/1768022973/, which has a license incompatible with Wikipedia. We do not use non-commercial no derivatives images. --B (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Image:WarMemorialStadiumFromStands.jpg is from http://flickr.com/photos/t_patterson/283620469/. You can see why I'm having a problem here. --B (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice a theme going on here. (I suspect) I am a big Arkansas fan and have lots of Arkansas connections. The Pelphrey pics were all actually taken by my brother. The War Memorial one is from so long ago I forget who I got it from. Yes, I am familiar with the license thing with the wikipedia permissions thing. I went through a couple weeks of work trying to get the Bloggingheads ones done that way (luckily finally did). I will attempt to get all of them rounded up and sent in, but I am traveling on Friday, then have a wedding/cruise, then have Christmas/New Years, so I might not be on much for the next few weeks. I will try my best to get them all worked out in a timely manner, please be patient with me, as this is all a really irritating process set up here. (it really should be easier) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Image:Fad0139.jpg is from pic #39 of http://www.webhogsclub.com/gallery/original_whrc/fad2001/. Part of the problem is that you used PD-self on all of these uploads. So when it becomes readily apparent that you aren't the photographer of all of them, that causes problems. One thing that may make it easier when uploading - you don't actually have to select something from the drop box. Just leave it blank. Then, if "John Doe" took the photo and released it into the public domain, you can type in the description box, {{PD-author|John Doe}} and then write in the description that John Doe of XYZ organization is the photographer and that he released the image into the public domain. By picking the template you really want to use rather than trying to pigeonhole it into something in the list, you can make it clearer what the status of the image is. There is a template {{Information}} that you can use in conjunction with this template to provide a good description. But if all that's there is pd-self and it clearly isn't a user-created photo, there isn't exactly a good starting place. I hope that makes sense. --B (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the help. You are right that I feel obligated to choose one from the pull down menu. (and yes I am a member of the Web Hogs club you linked to) I try on most of them to use something else besides PD-self, but I wasnt aware of the other way to tag them you mentioned. I may have some questions in the future on this, would you mind if I contacted you on your talk page for help with tagging? Thanks again! Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure ... any time ... you can get a list of copyright tags from CAT:ICT, but in general, if the person you are talking with doesn't know/care about copyrights, it's best to either get them to release the image into the public domain ({{PD-author}}) or under the GFDL ({{GFDL}}). But whatever the license under which they release their work, they need to actually say, "I license this image under _____", not just "I give permission for Wikipedia to use the picture". Something else you may want to do is upload freely licensed images (no fair use) to Commons. There are several good reasons to do this - (1) for images that come from flickr, Commons has a bot that verifies the licensing information so that if the user changes their license down the road, we have a record of the old license, (2) the {{information}} template is automatically added in the description for you making it much easier to add a good license, and (3) Commons is shared by all Wikimedia projects, so Wikipedias in other languages can use the image. --B (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you again for all your help. I will get all these straightened out and use better ones in the future. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

Hey, Cardsplayer! I was curious - did you get a response from the OTRS folks on the bloggingheads images? I'd like to copy the images to the Commons but need an OTRS ticket number. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, here is the ticket number: 2007111910004338 I would paste in the ticket template they sent me, but it doesn't display correctly when I paste it in here. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's what you should do...go back to the images you uploaded from bloggingheads.tv (they should be easier to find by looking in your upload log, if you weren't aware of that feature - apologies if I'm teaching Grandma to suck eggs). On the image description page, add the {{Information}} template with a description of the image, then also create a 'licensing' section and use these templates - {{GFDL}} and {{PermissionOTRS-ID|2007111910004338}}. Do the same for any future images uploaded from bloggingheads. Please drop me a line if you have any questions. Nice work! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [3] this for an example. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For the excellent work in getting a GFDL release for the images at Bloggingheads.tv - great job! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator:2010

As mentioned in the edit summary for the article: We don't duplicate links that exist in the article. Please read the guidline. Also, please use an edit summary. Thank you. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 02:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:John Holmes arrested.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:John Holmes arrested.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

Hi, please stop re-adding song lyrics to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not for source text, which should be on Wikisource (assuming it isn't copyrighted). Feel free to add the lyrics there but not to Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are in many (if not most) of the fight song pages that are on Wikipedia. I think they are fairly well established as being allowable. It was only one article as well, not "articles". Thanks. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue discussion on The talk page of the article in question, as I have laid out the reasons why lyrics are included fully there. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix

On the Northside High School article, thanks for adding the in-text citation, I am still not sure how to do that xD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad5ut (talk • contribs) 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Secsouthpark08updated.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Secsouthpark08updated.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. B (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Musicmidtown3.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Musicmidtown3.jpg. I notice the image 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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 non-free media 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Musicmidtown2.jpg

I have tagged Image:Musicmidtown2.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Brand sec.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Brand sec.gif. 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. NotifyBot (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:George Johnson science writer.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:George Johnson science writer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Superm401 - Talk 05:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it with the ID you gave, but I don't have access to verify it. Superm401 - Talk 06:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well thank you very much! I have no idea why it was doing funny stuff when I tried to tag it. I guess someone with special permissions needs to check ticket numbers? That is kind of unusual that they wouldn't let regular people check them. Thank you for doing that, though. Cheers. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Sports Box

Has there been discussion somewhere for the mini templates you are adding? I ask, because normally nothing is placed above the template on the right of each article. It just doesn't look good. KnightLago (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the current format (has been for awhile now) to place current events tags (current sporting events and others) at the upper right of an article. The tag was apparently specifically designed to go in such a position. Personally, I think it looks better than the ones that go at the top center of the article, because it takes up less space, is less obtrusive, and has the word wrap feature, but if you would rather have the older style in a particular article, feel free to change it to that style instead. Any other inquiries that you have about the formatting of the template might be better directed towards the discussion page or those who designed (if you cannot find the answer in the current documentation) of Template:Current sport-related, Template:Current sport, Template:Current related, Template:Current#Guidelines, or any of the related pages, as I just use the templates after they are designed for a specific purpose and have no input into the actual design or utilization guidelines discussion. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikiproject

Hey Cardsplayer4life, I have noticed your interest in the University of Arkansas and its related pages. I was wondering if you would like to join this Wikiproject, which is specifically for University of Arkansas athletic pages, which you and I both seem to have an interest. Happy editing! Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 22:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. I definitely joined! Cardsplayer4life (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:2002SECChamplogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:2002SECChamplogo.gif. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I uploaded a different version of it. Go ahead and delete. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on your Presidential maps

I was looking at your Presidential maps from 1980-1996, and wondering what program you used to switch colors. I ask because I switched the colors for maps 1828-1976 finally, and they came out well, but not as well as your conversions for 1980-1996, tho 1992 and 1996 are now replaced by svgs. I used GIMP to do mine, but I was wondering how to make them better, as the text looks slightly off on mine.Tallicfan20 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I did that awhile back in Photoshop. I used a color replace feature that they have and just messed around with it until they looked right. Looking through yours, they look fine though I think. (The colors look good!) Thanks for all the good work on the maps you did! Cardsplayer4life (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Paul Petrino

An article that you have been involved in editing, Paul Petrino, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Petrino. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Paul McDonald (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your complaint about delinking trivial chronological items

I refer to your posting at MOSNUM talk. Such linkings are, by any reasonable interpretation of MOS(NUM), a breach of the requirement that they add significantly to the readers' understanding of the topic. There are a whole bunch of reasons that they're undesirable, among the most important being that they dilute the likelihood that readers will attend to the high-value links. I'd like to know exactly why you feel so attached to the idea of not cleaning up what many people regard as a little cultural fixation among Wikis over the past few years. TONY (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After googling, I assume "MOSNUM" refers to the Manual of Style on numbers and dates and stuff? If that is the case, then I fully support being able to link to dates and such from articles. That seems exceedingly useful at providing information to the reader of an article. The wholesale unlinking of articles with no regard to if the links provide clarification or not by bots is a travesty of the highest order, imo. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas categories

I've reverted most of your recent reverts, as the whole reason I created the category for Razorback athletics was to de-clutter the parent cat for the university. Now there's no reason for articles to be in the categories for the university or for sports in Arkansas, since the Razorbacks category is already completely included there. As for the university template at the bottom of articles, I wouldn't mind its inclusion so much if its presence didn't automatically place articles in the category for the university; the template can easily be changed to avoid that. MisfitToys (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree with you on some of them (for instance Arkansas Razorbacks football, 1910-1919, etc), but you can not remove templates for navigation which include the subject being navigated to. The whole point of a navigation box is to navigate to related material. (Example: The template, Template:University of Arkansas includes Arkansas Razorbacks football as a link, and most assuredly should be included on that page.) This is very clear in the Manual of Style. On the separate issue of overlapping categories, I personally don't see a problem either way, but having multiple related categories is not a problem in most instances. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big 12 Endowment

The only non-sports information I see on Big 12 is located in the Membership table. I would be fine with you adding endowment info to a new column in that table. I just don't see how it deserves it's own section on a sports article, endowment of the university has nothing to do with sports as the funding of the athletic departments is a totally separate entity from the university endowment. Ryan2845 (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with someone merging it into another section, but the data should not be just deleted. It is included on most other "major" conference pages. (SEC, etc) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes, there is indeed a lot of information related to universities, cities that the universities are in, etc. that are not related to the sports teams themselves in all conference pages. Merging the info is fine; Deleting it is not. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say....

...that all disputes can be carried out calmly and resolved amicably without the need to resort to petty name-calling and rude statements. Please try to be a bit more civil in the future. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never called anyone by name, and used as neutral language as possible which conformed to wikipedia standards of description. The tone that you established was the tone that I responded with. However, if you were in any way offended, I sincerely apologize. I can understand how daunting procedural issues can be on wikipedia and the confusion that may be incurred from the process. Regards. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Golden boot LSU.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Golden boot LSU.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Frum - senior editor at American Prospect?

Why did you insert the claim that David Frum was a senior editor at American Prospect?[4] Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about a blast from the past; That edit was made almost a year ago. As you can see, I was filling out the entire infobox for him; I was doing my best by looking up information, but if you see something that is incorrect then please feel free to change it. That is what wikipedia is all about! Other than knowing his name, I really don't know much about him; I was in a phase of adding infoboxes to a lot of different people at the time. Welcome to wikipedia, and happy editing! Cardsplayer4life (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Lane

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Sunny Lane. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I provided 3 sources, though. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are considered reliable. Consider using sources like newspapers and such that check their work. Otherwise it's just repeating rumours found on the internet. Identifying someone (the "real name") as a porn star can be seen as defamatory if it's not true. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll add some more. According to the criteria of the verifiability, several make the cut. If nothing else, with so many sources, it should not be removed without serious discussion on the issue, I would think. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP demands instant removal of controversial content without reliable sources backing it up. The burden of proof is on the editor adding the content per WP:V. None of the sources you provided have a reputation for fact checking and veracity. If you need to confirm whether something is a reliable source, please use the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, whatever man. If you want to be an ass about it go ahead; It isn't that important to me. Its obvious that Sunny Lane's real name is Holly Hodges, and there are tons of links out there showing it. I could keep adding them, but if you want it printed in the New York Times or something, then you aren't going to find it. Most people's real names (porn actresses or not) are listed with far less proof than the links I provided. It isn't that important to me to fight over, though. Keep it cool, mate. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith with me as well. Obviously hostilely reverting when I am just trying to provide more information on the site is doing the same on your part. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reversions were demanded by policy and were no reflection on whether your actions were in good faith. Your view that the reversion are hostile is not assuming good faith. Further, labeling my comments as "uninformed ramblings" can be seen as a personal attack. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your official warnings and reverts of my edits can be seen as a personal attack. Obviously degrading me by using warnings that say "welcome to wikipedia" when I have been here for years is hostile in the extreme. I changed the title, because it is my talk page and "November 2008" is what is generally wrote at the top of a heading when you are issuing official warnings. (I know; I have issued plenty of them) If you are assuming good faith on my part (which is obvious because of the links I provided) then you shouldn't use such language or tone. I'll change the heading if that is what is upsetting you. Now, please quit harassing me, the argument is over. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15.238.95.37 Edits

I added some info on hardware performance that I and Stanford have agreed to lead the way, however you keep taking it down. Instead lets work togeather in order to make sure that the data is properly distributed to wiki F@H members.

~ Brandon~ 15.238.95.37