User talk:Cleared as filed/2007

Premature/Out-of-Context Advertisement-Flagging

Hey there Cleared as Filed...JustinManger4382 here. I submitted an article about the company "Obopay," and would like to take strong issue with the advertising flag you placed on it.

As I have already clarified on Obopay's Talk Page, that article reflects the whole of ALL reference-able information available ANYWHERE on the company up to now...good or bad. The contextual/real-world fact of the matter is that Obopay is a fledgling company, and that all of the cite-able information about them is in the form of press releases or third-party articles that do nothing more than simply echo what the press releases say. I tried to describe the service as accurately and concisely as possible, and quite frankly the article is inarguably and simply a wrote description of what the company has done so far up to now. I understand and appreciate Wikipedia's standards of neutrality, but you're wrong for flagging it as an advertisement: if I used all of the cite-able information I could find (and the article WAS heavily researched/referenced), how can you logically put such a flag on it? I wrote the article to describe the service and what the company have done...not as some puff piece.

Please explain to me SPECIFICALLY what induced you to put that flag on the article (i.e. specifically what sentences/words/etc...the details). If you really feel you must flag the article, could you please use something other than "advertisement" (I stress that it is NOT intended to be an advertisement, nor is it realistically written as such).

Please respond. I will take a non-response from you on the article's talk page as an admission of incorrectness on your part, and will remove the flag myself (but will certainly wait a few days for a response). JustinManger4382 20:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)JustinManger4382JustinManger4382 20:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moshassuck River

Hi. I updated the Moshassuck River article to pretty it up a bit and added quite a bit to the history. Just figured I'd give you a heads up. Cheers! --Analogdemon (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool — it looks pretty good. —Cleared as filed. 04:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid of Monsters

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Afraid of Monsters. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Pizzahut2 11:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple TV Criticisms

Thanks for the comments -- you are correct, it has been needing a rewrite for some time. There was a great deal of research that should not be lost and it appears some editors did in fact change their minds re: the structure of the content.

I was hoping we could get more meat around the major points, similar to what was done on the iPod criticisms, and then bullet the other criticisms. This is the current format. We do not need to state all of the reviewers by name since they can be found in the references, so the names were removed.

Sorry for reverting your changes, but they resulted in major content deletions. I still believe that the multiple references substantiate some of the limitation claims, and "although"s were included to make the section more neutral in nature. The topics are not necessarily limitations, but criticisms, so can have 2 sides.

There are more recent opinions by Forrester that are not favorable: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070514-forrester-paid-video-downloads-apple-tv-a-dead-end.html

....and this should also somehow be worked into the section, just not sure how yet.

Aswick 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

oh, well, my changes were also reverted. This section has been a tough one.

Aswick 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Maddox's mention of the Nokia E70

Hi. Maddox's mention of the Nokia E70 was the most notable thing to happen to that phone, yet the main editors of the Nokia E70 won't have his link included. If you have an opinion on this, please volunteer it on the E70 talk page. Thanks.--Loodog 02:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

intel imac page

that wasn't rv vandalism, I just forgot to add the word "mighty," besides, at least I fixed it from what it said before, which was Mickey Mouse, WHICH IS VANDALISM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computermatt (talk • contribs)

I wasn't reverting your edit so much as I was fixing it more than you did; it originally linked to the Mighty Mouse. So I was referring to the guy before you as the vandal. Sorry for the confusion. —Cleared as filed. 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iJustine

I have nominating the Ijustine page for afd, feel free to place your nomination wh this link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik. Dr Tobias Funke 00:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Jeffrey S. Lehman.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Jeffrey S. Lehman.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media 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 media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media 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 media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media 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 description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media 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. High on a tree (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]