User talk:HeyNow10029/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:HeyNow10029. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, HeyNow10029/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! Karm a fist 04:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Miami Beach Image

Image Tagging Image:MiamiBeach.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

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

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Where you got it from? --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Where you got it from? ... lol ... is there a Cuban Ebonics page on Wiki I didn't know about. lol. J/k.

Image Tagging Image:MiamiBeachSeal.gif

This media may be deleted.

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

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

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I need a source that it is the work of the US goverment --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Biltmore.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

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

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:SealOfCoralGables160.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SealOfCoralGables160.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 15:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image additions to Miami Beach and Coral Gables

Hi! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that that even though the photographs you've added a couple of times to these articles are promotional, they may not meet our fair use guidelines for using copyrighted photographs. In the case of Coral Gables, the hotel is probably not the best illustration of the city itself. And the fact that both photographs could easily be obtained by taking our own photograph weakens our rationale for using them under fair use doctrine. In any case, I would encourage you to bring the matter to the respective article talk pages for discussion (Talk:Coral Gables, Florida and Talk:Miami Beach, Florida) rather than inserting them again. Thanks again! Demi ^T/_C 19:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

City seals?

I think it's fairly clear that a city seal is highly relevant to an article on the city and can't be obtained any other way than claiming fair use. Freely-licensed photographs of a city are encouraged for an article on the city--I also encourage you to upload those free photos to the Wikimedia commons. Cheers! Demi ^T/_C 20:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page):

So I can add the city seals that I uploaded to their respective cities' topics sites? Just want to be clear before I make another change and save you from Bastique coming in and whining ... lol. HeyNow10029 20:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. On the other hand, I don't usually edit city articles, so there maybe other comments. I'd add them back in (just them, without the images), and if anyone disagrees they can discuss the matter on the talk page. Demi ^T/_C 20:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for explaining what I did wrong as regards to the city pictures. I'm still learning as regards to copyrights and things of that matter, but I knew that he jumped the gun when he deleted the seals as well. HeyNow10029 20:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Disregard of notices

I had left you a message about unsourced images above. Rather than mentioning anything about it, you reversed my reversion to Coral Gables, Florida to remove your copyvio images. I removed them from the page so that when your images get deleted from Wikipedia, they won't be messing up the page.

That's what was meant by Disregard of notices.

As far as city seals go, different municipalities have different rules regarding them. Some are very explicit about use and appearance. Without knowing what the City of Coral Gables' policy is on the use of their seal, we will not be able to hold the image here.

And I apologize that you ever saw the "spanking" comment. That was entirely directed at Demi. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 20:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure that was directed at the admin. You're sending someone a message and you refer to them in the third person ... that makes sense.

It was on the administrators Talk page. I never expected you to read it. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 01:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the seals, if, as you say, ever city has different rules regarding the use of their specific seal where on the seal page does it say whether or not each city gave approval? After you deleted the images and the seals and I checked around and each seal had the same coat of arms summary that I also applied to the Coral Gables and Miami Beach seals. I highly doubt that every person who uploaded city seals, whether it be from New York City or Beverly Hills or New Haven got approval from the city before they were uploaded. Whatever, dude. I'll wait to see what the admin says ... HeyNow10029 20:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cased closed. Seals are legit. Just like I thought! :) HeyNow10029 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Case closed? Not entirely. Incedentally, I added the seals back to the pages pending more information, because they are useful to the article. This does not however, preclude the city's copyright status to use the image. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 01:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Meh. Case closed. Under your brilliant plan, every single city, state, county seal and logo would have to be removed pending approval from the copyright holder(s). I added the seals back to the pages pending more information, because they are useful to the article. LOL. Why do you think I added them in the first place ... lol ... genius!!! Man. Case closed, seals I uploaded are back up, unless you have any further issues please stop writing in my discussion page. Thanks! :). HeyNow10029 07:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't said everything I have to say.

I take issue with your self-righteous, condescending attitude. If you are going to contribute to South Florida Wikipedia articles, then you are going to be dealing with myself and other South Florida contributors. Many of whom have differing levels of interpersonal skills. While I don't desire to deal with you any further at all, it's evident that you have a desire to contribute. However, as I'm involved in many articles on Wikipedia, particularly those in South Florida, it is in this project's best interest for both of us to conduct ourselves in a more civil manner.

If you did not understand that I apologized about my careless remark to Demi regarding your contributions, then let me do so now. I honestly had expected that you wouldn't see it, based on your prior non-response to my comments.

Your city seals were removed based on an overall reversion of your unfree images. Furthermore, it's evident you also copied the city seal images from the respective city websites. This practice is questionable at best, but in hindsight, it's a common practice, so I returned them and them only to the article. Therfore, your remark to me: "Cased closed. Seals are legit. Just like I thought!" was entirely inappropriate, as I was the one who decided to return them to the article, solely because they were valid incorporations to the article and to avoid any further reversions. Of course, this hasn't stopped other users from reverting you. Sorry about that, I can only control myself. But I kindly ask you to avoid any further snide remarks, because you are not entirely right in spite of my actions or anyone else.

As you have expressed the desire to end this discussion on your talk page, and I have no desire to subject myself any further to your contempt, this will be my last word, here, unprompted. If you would like to respond, you are welcome to do so at my talk page.

I wish you well in your contributions. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 15:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yawn, maybe you should read up some too ... WP:BITE. HeyNow10029 19:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If the goal of Wikipedia is to make sure the pages are all perfect then it is my duty to change the picture you uploaded. You changed the picture I screengrabbed and made it grainny and out-of-focus, so I re-cropped it so it doesn't look like crap. HeyNow10029 20:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson She is a Scratching Record Player

I'm not referring to the image (though edit warring on that is still a bad idea). You may be interested in this. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Public domain images are allowed to be displayed on Wikipedia without fair use rationale because they have been released by the independent company and/or owner. Government images immediately qualify as public domain. The images you added to the article require fair use rationale because we do not want Wikipedia to be sued by the company and/or owner. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Images. Until you are able to provide fair use, the images should not be placed in the article. I would also like to mention that I am going to be initiating a heavy clean-up on the article since it is filled with fan-cruft, non-notable information, no sales figures, and little information on Clarkson's influences and early life. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong though. Screengrabs are allowed on Wikipedia. You obviously don't know what you're talking about since you had just asked External Machine on your userpage what qualifies and what doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Story.crash.sequence.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seinfeld1.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jerry_Seinfeld%28character%29.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elaine_benes019.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kramer6.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TV_The_One_After_Ross_Says_Rachel.jpg

Please explain to me how all these images (just a few I pulled out in a matter of seconds) qualify for fair use but the images that I uploaded don't? And it's policy to create a topic in the discussion page before you go about making extreme changes to any page. You don't own the right to police that page. And what's fan-cruft? Are we in the 1920s? HeyNow10029 03:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read up on fancruft. A review of the policy on fair use rationale might be a good idea too. And your list of images: they're particularly bad examples of fair use (except the 9/11 crash sequence, see the edit summary) because a fair use rationale is not listed on any of them. Far too many screenshots of the show Seinfeld than a good article on the subject would need. They would make great candidates for deletion -- Malber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The undeletion vote on Template:User No Marxism

Hi! I see you have been using this template on your user page. In case you haven't voted yet, make sure you don't miss the vote on the issue, whether to undo its deletion or not Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#User_No_Marxism. Constanz - Talk 14:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Fix it now

HeyNow10029 Please go to family guy something funny and the Super Mario 64 ds Picture looks funny to me thanks.

Request

Could you upload a pic of the icon of Survivor: Panama (the newest season), and put it on its article. Thanks--Hotwiki 13:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I did upload one, SurvivorPanamaTitleCard.jpg but AdamJacobMuller removed, I didn't fight to put it back because honestly, it gets taxing after awhile. You're more then welcome to add it yourself, though. HeyNow10029 00:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson image Image:Kelly Award.jpg

WAS 4.250 removed the image in concern from the Kelly Clarkson article because it does not qualify as fair use in its current state. Please do not replace it without the proper criteria, and as several users have noted on your talk page, it may be deleted. Your edit summary perplexes me: Image is fair use screenshot and should not be removed for copyright reasons, if you think there's a copyright problem get an admin to sort it out.)? It should not be removed for copyright reasons? I don't understand this at all. Nonetheless, please do not replace it in the article. The other images will also be removed as per Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Fair use. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me how my image is any different then any of the images listen in this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Screenshots_of_movies_and_television Those are all screenshots with the same tag I put on my image? Don't dodge the question like you always do .. explain to me why these images fall under fair use and the image that I downloaded doesn't? And 'because I said so' isn't a good enough reason. HeyNow10029 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

When someone sends you a message, unless they specify so, please respond on their talk page. Anyway, I did not state that "I said so". The majority of those images do not include fair use rationale, and are basically the exact same as the ones you uploaded. All images require fair use rationale in order to be placed on Wikipedia unless it has been released to the public domain. Respond on my talk page, please. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So you mean to tell me that all those pictures, some which were uploaded months ago and placed on frequently visited sites are all illegally on Wikipedia? It's a possibility, it's guess it's feasible that all the images were uploaded without fair use but the admins are just letting them slip by. Because the alternative would be that Eternal Equinox is wrong! But that can't be! I mean, someone so intelligent who is a master question dodger couldn't possibly be wrong, could they? I placed a tag on the summary section of the image's page which describes this picture's fair use rationale. If it's good for every other tv screenshot that has been uploaded to Wikipedia, it's good enough for mine. Again, you've failed to answer my question and provide your reasoning so I'm re-inserting the picture. Have a great day! :) HeyNow10029 05:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The incident has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#HeyNow10029. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Listen, report me if you wish, I don't care. But if you're going to use Wikipedia you have to learn to deal with people. And if you're going to police a page you have to be able to back up why you do things. Your M.O. is you delete a something off a page or change something, and then when you're called out on it, you either a.) don't answer back, b.) direct me to a Wikipedia page or c.) pretend you don't understand what's going on. You still haven't answered my question from last post -- but I guess I predicted that, didn't I? HeyNow10029 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The DH title card

Excuse me, but YOU stole it from ME. Dan777 20:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but YOU stole it from another user. Here's the original image uploaded on November 27, 2005. Image:Desperate titlethem.jpg It's an exact copy of the image you uploaded on the 14 of February. And cropping it doesn't fool anybody, it just makes the picture look worse. Nice try though. Stop reuploading images other people screengrabbed just you can take credit for it. It's not right. HeyNow10029 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a lie! I DID CAPTURE AND UPLOAD THAT PICTURE, JUST LIKE I UPLOADED THESE JUST NOW:

[[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] Need more proof? And I'm not giving up. Because I clearly remember uploading it! Dan777 14:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

AND I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FRICKING "CREDIT," NOBODY DOES BUT YOU! Dan777 14:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

I have to go, but I've given a very cursory look at the page and the images in question--sorry I can't be more thorough; I'll look through everything more carefully tomorrow. I did see that the video shown in Image:Since You've Been Gone.jpg is explicitly discussed in this sentence: Its music video presented Clarkson singing to an underground audience with a full band. . . The high school yearbook, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be discussed. All you have to do to include any fair use image is to show why that particular image needs to be included. For example, you probably should discuss her appearance on SNL in any case, since that's a well-known show, and then you could include the SNL image. You can certainly include the Grammy image since the page talks about that. That's how it works--it has to be a direct connection. Chick Bowen 03:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My advice: don't make it about Eternal Equinox. He's being thorough, which is a good thing. To answer your question--here are some things I would do (and all of them would help improve the article, which would be a good thing anyway): decide what you want to do about the Grammys--I didn't realize you had two pictures from the same ceremony. If you want both of them, then you need to have a thorough discussion of both her receiving the award and her performance there. Are either or both of these remarkable in themselves? For example, she was discovered by a TV show, right (forgive my ignorace--I'm more of a Mahler guy myself)--have there been others from that TV show who have won Grammys or played at them? If she's the only one, that's worth noting. The SNL thing should be easy, as you say--just describe her performance (what songs did she play?). To be honest, I don't feel so good about the high school image, mostly because it's not clear to me who the copyright holder is, for several reasons. It's actually a three-dimensional image of a picture in a frame rather than a two-dimensional reproduction of the photograph, which means that there are two separate copyrights, one belonging to the network from which that shot was taken and the other belonging either to Clarkson's family, her high school, or the high school's photographer, depending on how they set it up. Since part of fair use is crediting the copyright holder, I'm not crazy about it. As for the image description page, just say on it what function the image is having. See Image:Dipylon vase fair use.JPG this image, which I uploaded, for an example--I explain why I need that image as opposed to any other for this particular article. It doesn't have to be long, as you can see; it just needs to be specific. I hope this is helpful; let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Also let me know which images you're not using and I'll delete them. Thanks. Chick Bowen 06:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together

The awards ceremony image has been removed and I'd appreciate it if you reanalyzed your vote. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, please refrain from following me around Wikipedia. Although I thought your vote at the FAC to be coincidental, I highly doubt that joining in on an argument could be registered as sincere. I'd apprecaite it, thank you muchly. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Following you around, are you crazy! I found Giano's talk page on the We Belong Together FA page and I followed it there. Don't flatter yourself, Eternal. No one is following you anywhere. As if. HeyNow10029 05:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I had just been suspicious, sorry if I offended you. I didn't know that it was just by chance. Thank you for clearing my confusion. Anyway, please reanalyze your vote at the FAC or else it may be overlooked in the end. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop pursuing "External Bewildering" in this gratuitously unfair fashion, it could be very dangerous - you too could end up with a split personality. Please "reanalyze" (presumably that means change) your vote, before "External" instructs Raul to overlook it!, alternatively you could rebold it a couple of times to make sure Raul see it as you intend it. Giano | talk 13:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Which, as well, would be overlooked. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi HeyNow10029, E.E and I have been working on WBT for the past couple of days (copyediting, removing image, expanding music and recording section), and I was just wondering if you still object, and on what grounds. Thanks.

P.S I probably should not say this, and I apologise for even implying, but I do hope that you will not let your disagreement with an editor cloud your judgement of the article. I've also worked very long and hard on it (see list of contributors). Thanks.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what, you probably shouldn't imply it. It's pretty offense. HeyNow10029 05:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I apologise for even implying; just disregard it (please). However, you still haven't answered my question. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 16:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Image

Really, HeyNow10029, you have gone way over the edge about the ugly, unimportant, stupid, image of Kelly Clarkson. I have never been in Europe, by the way. I know some strong, threatening, language I can use. Just shut up about the image, and I will stop removing it. If I hear one more thing about it I will complain about it. I am just as avid a Clarkson fan as you are, and it's the truth about the image when I say it's unnessacary. Bye! MorwenofLossarnarch 21:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson

Hey! Why di u change the picture thing on Kelly Clarkson? I thought it looked good. Plus the other one had more information. Also, this one is used on Hilary Duff, Aly & AJ, Natasha Bedingfield, The Cheetah Girls, Raven-Symone and Avril Lavigne! I don't see why you changed it. It needs to be the other way. Tcatron565

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Kelly Clarkson

Your behaviour on Talk:Kelly Clarkson is not very wholesome. I'm afraid I have to place the no personal attacks link here. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. Jkelly 22:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We Belong Together FAC

Please provide some examples of the writing which you do not believe is "brilliant" as noted at these guidelines. Should you not, I will not be able to address your vote, and if that happens, it may be ignored (but not necessarily). —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already alerted Raul654 about how you rambled on about my comment and ignored the suggestion I provided in presenting me with a sentence you did not believe was featured article writing. The objection may be ignored. May. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please leave this out of my talk page. Thank you. HeyNow10029 00:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please do not use typed-words like "rambling on" to decribe my emancipation of words. It's not polite and makes me feel sad. If it continues I will be left with no choice but to report you. Thanks to you. HeyNow10029 00:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Report me for what? All I did was inform you of the action I had taken. In addition, you should see the FAC page concerning your vote. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I still have laughter emancipating from my throat. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just too easy. lol. He says he's leaving Wikipedia now, I guess we hurt his feelings in the FAC. All I can say is thank God! He's probably the most difficult Wikipedian on the planet! HeyNow10029 04:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Suri Cruise

Please do not edit a page such as Suri Cruise which has been marked as a copyright violation. As requested on the page, any edits should be made on the temporary page set up for this task. Thanks! --Yamla 15:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Smile

-- Malber (talk • contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Hollow

Hollow Wilerding isn't banned -- just notorious. The account hasn't even been blocked since around January 22, 2006. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad. HeyNow10029 04:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As BoG says, HeyNow, HW is not banned, she never was, though people who did less harm than her have been. The issue of banning her was allowed to lapse, in the hope that the new reincarnation EE would behave better. (EE was quickly identified as HW by a number of editors, several of whom told me about it.) One reason for not banning her was that it's difficult to enforce a ban against an individual who has no scruples about IP-hopping, and who happens to come in from a large IP range. (Difficult but not impossible.) But the main reason for giving her an inofficial second chance was that I believed HW wanted to be a respectable editor, and I saw that she was trying to. I still believe she wants to, but I no longer believe that she has the temperament for meeting her own wishes. It's a shame, but there you are. Perhaps it's time for either a community ban (see Wikipedia:List of banned users: "As per the blocking and banning policies, a user who alienates and offends the community enough may eventually be blocked by an administrator... and no one is willing to unblock them. In such extreme cases, the user is considered to have been banned by the general community") or a Request for Arbitration. I have to agree with you that our original hopes are beginning to look like crazy optimism. :-( I'll try to keep informed about what people think and what's going on (though I will not keep any sort of attack page), so feel free to e-mail me any comments or observations, if you like. If it looks unavoidable (yeah, it is starting to), I will act. Bishonen | talk 09:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

In the meantime you are not alone in being completely exasperated by her. Just don't let her get you down. She's her own worst enemy and that will ultimatly be the end of her! Giano | talk 11:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I for one would be more than willing to support a community ban, or any other type of ban. Keep me informed and if you decide to go that route, you have my full fledged support. HeyNow10029 16:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Smile!

FellowWikip e dian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

I am always here to help. FellowWikip e dian 21:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - U.S. FAC

Hi,

Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05 _t 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Per your comment on this page: What exactly do I need to exclude myself from? I'm sorry, but I didn't know that I needed your permission to engage in discussions or decide what should and should not concern me. And since you were kind enough to "enlighten" me, let me enlighten you now. Since you're so adamant in your claim that I archived the talk page to "hide" something, you should know that wasn't the case. I could care less whether or not my outburst to Eternal is on the front page of the Kelly Clarkson talk page, archived somewhere else, or on the jumbotron screen in Times Square. E.E. was under a block and since I believed that those IP addresses reverting the changes belonged to him/her, I reverted them back. As for the images, her/his reasoning for tagging the image I uploaded (that more then one image from a single telecast/program violated fair use) was the same reason I tagged those images. I also find it extremely funny how you paint him/her as a "helpless" (that's a good one!) victim. Like (s)he is a lowly editor that a pack of bullies just decided to gang up on for no reason. How considerate of you to look past her history of antagonizing edits and abusive, disruptive behavior. As for this comment: you all were looking for the first chance to institute a block, I don't know who you're referring to with "you all", but I don't have the power to institute a block. So you might want to approach the person you directed that comment to. I also don't know which edits you meant by this: (you know which ones). No offense, but I don't even remember ever talking to you before today. ... ??? HeyNow10029 00:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate: do you really think that you are in any position to pass judgement on the bahavior of another editor? You prance around here jumping from talk page to talk page discussing the unscrupulous nature of E.E's edits (how engaging ([12])). "A community ban"? Your hypocrisy astounds me.

I'll make my point succinct: No, you do not need my permission. However, you need to be told that you ought to exclude yourself from things that are way out of your league. You are just too supererogatory for you own good (I think I've told you this already on Talk: Kelly Clarkson). Never mind how I look past her edits... I do not, and as I've said, they have not been unprovoked by the likes of you etc. I have noticed how scheming your edits have been since the disagreement over Kelly Clarkson, but I advise you to yield. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, where do I begin? First of all on my "bahavior", I never once mentioned a "community ban", just thought I should let you know since you eloquently put that into quotations, you should double check before you quote people. And it's funny that you call me a hypocrite in the same paragraph you chide me for following E.E. around, when it's apparent from the nature of your arguments that you've been doing the exact same thing to me ... lol, if you ask me that's the pinnacle of hypocrisy. But I'm not the kind of person that makes blanket and rash judgments about people I hardly know or have never contacted before. And I need to be told that I "ought to exclude [myself] from things that are way out of [my] league". I'm sorry, but what are you referring to being "way out of [my] league"? I think you should stop telling users what they should and shouldn't do, I didn't violate any policies. Contrary to your belief, E.E. is not an innocent, and has done more then enough provocation to deserve a block, and if I can help somehow in enforcing that block, I'm going to do it.

Another thing, with all your talk about "passing judgment", "hypocrisy" and "good faith" this puzzles me:

Since you are so adamant in your claim that the IP is Eternal's, I thought that I'd let you know that its me, User: Journalist

The IP address you were referring to was this one69.196.21.5, that I had believed belonged to Eternal Equinox, as seen here. Now that you claim ownership of that IP address[13], I was wondering about this edit made under that IP address on May 30 at Eternal Equinox's talk page. Oh, let the bitch go. Wow, you certainly are in the position to be passing judgements and calling others hypocrites. At least I don't pertend that I'm hollier-than-though. HeyNow10029 23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what? I take back everything I have just said. A couple hours ago, something happened that changed my outlook on the whole situation (and it has nothing to do with the post that you just made). I've just been enlightened and I now realise what a fool I have been making of myself. I no longer care what happens to E.E. I leave her to all of you, and believe me, she deserves all that she gets (if anyone wants to know what changed my mind, just e-mail me). Wow, I was blind, but... better late that never. BTW, I'm really not being sarcastic here. I really do mean this. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm ... OK, a little confused but judging by all the things Eternal Equinox has done in the past, not very suprised. blegh. Hope whatever (s)he did wasn't too cruel. HeyNow10029 03:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect change to Metro Detroit article

I've reverted your change to the Metro Detroit article. The sentence specifically mentions combined statistical area and its the nine counties. You changed the number to be smaller metropolitan statistical area which does not include Flint or Port Huron which accounts for a million people. -- KelleyCook 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:AmericanIdolCompetition.png

This media may be deleted.

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

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angr (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

E.E

Yes, I'm aware of the RFA against her, and I do plan to comment. However, I'm a bit busy with work, so this will have to wait until tomorrow. Regards. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Belated returns of the 21st

Hope it was fun. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Belated birthday wishes from me, too. Hope you had a fantastic day. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi! i´m writing the article sex and the city in portuguese because the serieswas an huge hit here in europe. i just don´t find any images that can ilustrate the article and your photos are exacly what i would want for it. i was wondering if you had any problem if i put them in the portuguese's article. please answer me! thank you. J27kloe 12:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)J27kloe

Me again, I'm sorry

Hi, again! thank you for answering me! i know that it is fair use, but the problem is that in the portuguese page, i don't know why, but fair use is not ascepted by law. we can only put images that the author says its free to use. that creates me a lot of problem because i'm doing a lot of pages about us series (sex and the city, charmed, commander in chief, life as we know it,smallville,etc.) and i can't do an article which is completed. thank you for your time

) J27kloe 00:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Jkloe

Orphaned fair use image (Image:KellyClarksonGrammys.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:KellyClarksonGrammys.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 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. Abu Badali 18:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)