User talk:GGreeneVa

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:LandisAt2006TourOfCalif.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:LandisAt2006TourOfCalif.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Ben-Gurion on the Article Impovement Drive

Thanks for supporting David Ben-Gurion on the Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Repectfully, Republitarian 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen article

You just beat me to the delete of the so-called 'apology' by Allen concerning the Macaca incident. Richardjames444 20:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen reversion

Can you explain your reversion of my recent edit to the Allen article? Sdedeo (tips) 19:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foley

Why would you cut, without commentary, the position of James Dobson, one of the 3 or 4 most influential conservatives and the chairman of the group covered in that section. I have raised the matter in Talk. It seems to me that we owe the man the decency of accurately reporting his position, if we are to cover him at all. If he wants to blame the matter on Clinton's penis, then that's his position. If he blames it on a joke, then that's his position. Both are also important parts of the emerging talking points. 150.203.2.85 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that might be your issue. So, I re-inerted without Clinton, though Dobson clearly emphasized Clinton. My issue is not with editing, you simply reverted the whole thing, giving Dobson no voice at all.

At a minimum, he called it a "joke". He was incredibly dismissive. The hypocricy does floor me, personally, but it's obviously a well-considered position having come out yesterday.

Frankly I'm not wild about having that section at all, but we should be fair to their positions if we do. I also think the press release is too extensively quoted. At any rate, thank you for your response. Cheers. 17:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian McKellan

You seem to be overlooking his knighthood of 1991. Best. --Moonraker88 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe

Actually, I believe you are incorrect that this the improper citation format. In fact, the complete name of the case, when abbreviated, would include the Inc. Nothing worth getting into a fight over. --Cdogsimmons 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Lexis and Westlaw include the Inc. in their citations as well as the Supreme Court's website where I got the information originally here, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/casefinder/casefinder_1949-1970.html. (I was comparing the citations from Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases with the existing Supreme Court case articles and this case popped up. However, I've also found several places in my textbooks where the citation doesn't include the Inc. Anyway, I would say we've covered the problem.--Cdogsimmons 13:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

You added this to my talk page:

“

I am not an SLA. I am not a sock. I am an editor who reverted the article, and I defy you to identify who my sock puppets might be, or how you've sniffed out my mythical chicanery.^[1]

”

Nobody accused you of being a sock. It was never even suggested as a possibility - all though I would bet $10,000 that SouthieFLA was some body's sock, but yours, I don't know, maybe, but this was never suggested. The fact that you would protest so strenuously about something that nobody even suggested may suggest a guilty conscience, it is certainly very peculiar. That you followed the discussion to the archives of my talk page is very strange. Your name wasn't mentioned. This is all very strange. I have no doubt that the IPs that the sockpuppetmaster used was a special untraceable one, but that it belonged to one of the 3 editors facing me is in no doubt, since the account was created after the edit war commenced.

I wasn't going to pursue this matter, but this had added some considerable intrigue for me. Hmmm. . . just by the by, in the light of your considerable interest in Greenwald (Greenvald in the old country) . . are you by any chance related to Glenn GreeneVald, GGreeneVa with whom you appear to share a number of common interests ^[2], based on your edit history? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ This is a very strange turn of phrase and bears no relation to the discussion at all. You impliedly admit - out of nowhere - that you have suffered from accusations of chicanery in the past, yet this not clear from your wikipedia history. Beautiful writing by the way.
^ Left-wing politics, gay icons, obscure US legal cases, Glenn Greenwald.

Oh well

There goes my theory.David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hi Greg. I don't know how I could be active as an editor for over a year without running into you until today, but there you go. Tjarrett (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These things happen. Never know where you'll find a friend hiding out on the intertubes. ;) --GGreeneVa (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PathTo911_lead.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PathTo911_lead.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) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Gates at san ysidro port of entry.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Gates at san ysidro port of entry.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Gates at san ysidro port of entry.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Southbound cars at san ysidro.jpg

File:Southbound cars at san ysidro.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Southbound cars at san ysidro.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Southbound cars at san ysidro.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your great edits to American Federation of Teachers! Much appreciated. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GGreeneVa. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This is a very strange turn of phrase and bears no relation to the discussion at all. You impliedly admit - out of nowhere - that you have suffered from accusations of chicanery in the past, yet this not clear from your wikipedia history. Beautiful writing by the way.

[2] Left-wing politics, gay icons, obscure US legal cases, Glenn Greenwald.

[1]

[2]