User talk:Moe Epsilon/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

done

Done, with help from Yonatan, Moe, can you go ahead and get rid you your CSD tags? --rogerd 22:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I can get the speedy tags, but I may take a few minutes since my computer isn't reading the large archives well. — Moe ε 22:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I did some reverting on 20-23 and also undeleted User:Moe Epsilon/Header. I haven't done too much undeleting/restoring before. I think I got it done ok. --rogerd 22:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think everything is fine now. Thank you for your help :) — Moe ε 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Template: Amazonimages

Feel free to delete the template now. I have finished removing the template from the Images which it transcluded. In addition to that, I tagged any image for deletion if they had no source other than the template. — Moe ε 03:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for unlinking this. I'm usually pretty knowledgable about what turns up at TfD, but I still freeze when we decide to delete a widely-used copyright template. I have no experience with images or copyright and I intend on keeping it that way. Thanks! RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) — Moe ε 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Extra Spelling templates

So noted and deleted. If they want them back, take it to DRV. By the way, thanks for responding on my talk page. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

please help

you were banned from youtube, apparently. your video Sanjaya Malakar - hot quotes was my absolute favorite. i need it. please upload it somewhere else. i had it on my site: http://bikerchick.freehomepage.com/photo3.html and now i have to have a different one. there is a new site called www.motiono.com, maybe you can put it there. i only know about it because someone from youtube spammed me. why were you banned from youtube?

here is a cache of your video. please please upload it elesewhere. it was a favorite of many

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:yogdvMyl3JQJ:www.searchthetube.com/details.php%3Fid%3DBJO2RuxkGf4+BJO2RuxkGf4&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Torrie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharleygyrl (talk • contribs)

Hello Aharleygirl. I see that you requested that I re-upload a video from YouTube that I made from an account there. There's an issue with that:

I don't have a YouTube account and I wonder how you got me confused with him.
Eric82oslo is not me, and the account located on YouTube in relation to that name says that the account is suspended and it makes videos like the one you requested, so I assume thats who you mean.
It appears the person who made the YouTube account made one on Wikipedia located at User:Eric82oslo, I would ask him to re-upload any video for you.

— Moe ε 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN

It was not an ultimatum. It was a request. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for revert warring. Would you mind if I and/or the other editors interested in BJAODN have an edit history of the deleted subpages, please? It would be appreciated. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Im fine with my name that was just telling people where I got it from. Anubiz 23:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Done

All done -- Tawker 23:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning

What vandalism are you referring to? --81.179.113.175 02:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a perfectly legitimate edit, not vandalism. --81.179.113.175 02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

images

you can plaez stop posting the images that i didnt tag on my talk page, i dont care if they expire. --AlexOv Shaolin 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Harvest page.

Hello Moe Epsilon,

Wow, looks like you were very busy editing the "Harvest page.

You referred edit readers to "Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria items #3(a) and #8)." Thank you for the reference.

Regarding #3(a): I agree that I went way beyond minimal use, although I will say that this was without knowing of the 10 non-free content rules. My question is, does this mean that you needed to remove all album cover images and music samples? When I added the images, I was using "The Beatles" article as a reference. Looking at it now, I see that "The Beatles Discography" is without images, although the main article still contains music samples. Does minimal use mean "No use"? (referring to there being no images at all on the Harvest page). Why is showing album cover art excessive? I have a feeling I'm asking a common question.

Regarding #8 (significance): Is the discography considered a list? I would assume so. I guess this would be why no image- photo or song sample is allowed within it. I would think this rule alone would suffice for removing all of the images I had put in the article, since they were all within the Discography section. Would it be acceptable to create a separate section for music samples, as in the Beatles article? If so, how many music samples would be allowed? 25?, as in that article?

I would really appreciate you responding to this post. I would like to know what you think. And I would also like to find out if any of the images/samples I uploaded are salvageable. This would save me time in re-uploading if they are.

Thanks for your time and efforts in editing,

Jamie L. 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:X1987x/audio samples2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nihiltres#Audio_Sample_List I've tried to express my need as best as possible for that list. I direly need it, at least a copy of it back, I wish there was a way to make it non-public (as it is of personal use only), but since there isn't away I made it easy for myself and linked to it from my user page. --x1987x^(talk) 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They were just linked to, a link to a non-free audio file is not allowed from userspace?--x1987x^(talk) 01:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

I understand the situation and I apologize for any misunderstanding however I do feel that you could have approached me in a more courteous manner without threatening me. This will not happen again. I apologize. Please may this event not leave us with a delinquent sentiment towards each other. Best Regards. ˉˉ^DuranDuran╦╩ 16:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just do it.

Your motivations for tagging the articles is fine; I support that completely. If you don't like the tone of my request, that's fine too. All I'm saying is, provide accurate edit summaries. You've done this, so the issue is settled. Thank you, and keep up the good work. -/- Warren 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Images

May I suggest then, that you go out there and find free images to replace those you removed? -- 我♥中國 00:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, believe that the responsibility of an editor is to create, not destroy. But I digress. Pray tell, which specific section and clause of the fair use policy do my use of these images in this article violate? I would like to know, where does it say that 1. one 50x50 image per military medal is excessive, and 2. pictures of military decorations are to be discriminated against in fair use policy? -- 我♥中國 00:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

By #8, do you mean to say, that having a picture of the actual object in question does not significantly contribute to its presentation in an article? If you can perfectly visualize an object after only reading a text description, then more power to you, because normal people cannot. In that case, can you make life easier for the rest of us by at least trying to replace all the images you removed with a paragraph or two of description, something along the lines of "This medal is perfectly hexagonal, with the national emblem embossed on it and golden rays extending from the vertices of the hexagon"? -- 我♥中國 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I am not asking you to "sit and write 60+ paragraphs of information" or "to create a article off the top of [your] head". I am asking you to replace the information which you removed, which are vital and essential to the article. Since you removed the information, it is only fair that you restore it to a similar, if not equivalent, level of quality. As for why I don't want to fix it: I don't fix something that is not broken. The article was just fine until someone decided to arbitrarily remove all the badge pictures on it. I do know, however, HOW to fix it. -- 我♥中國 01:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The only "threat" I could find is you threatening to get me blocked. I never said I was going to restore the page, have I? There is a reason I haven't done it yet. The last time I heard, policies are subject to interpretation, and I doubt you have the authority to dictate your interpretation of a policy to others. If anything, WP is a consensus-based project, and based on the input of the two of us, I do not believe we have a consensus. I have not restored the article, because I know the importance of consensus, and I don't go about arbitrarily enforcing my views and beliefs on how an article should be or how a policy should be interpreted. Furthermore, I do believe that images constitute content as well as text: otherwise we could save millions of dollars' worth of bandwidth by simply deleting all the pictures on WP! Finally, a word of advice: You have an enormous edit count, yet most of the articles you edit often are in pretty bad shape. I think your drive-by attitude to editing might have something to do with it. -- 我♥中國 02:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it has been resolved, and your deleting our conversation was not a very WP:CIVIL thing to do. We can still try to sort out our differences if you wish, but I want you to know that I am considering escalating this issue beyond just the two of us. -- 我♥中國 02:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I was about to say:

I do not think it was correct. However, we were making some progress before you rudely cut me off. If at all possible, I would still like to resolve our content dispute with minimal drama, but if I file an RFC it will be for user conduct. We can either take a step back and breathe a deep breath, then talk over it WP:CIVILly, or we can have an RFC and sort things out in a decidedly less amicable way.

But I guess it will no longer be necessary. -- 我♥中國 03:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not an excuse. -- 我♥中國 04:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And I would like to talk policy with you, if only you weren't so rude! And you see, I'm not trying to pressure you: You pressured yourself. By tagging those pictures with that tag you consigned them to seven days until death, and I'm trying to have the tags removed in less than seven days. I hope you understand the urgency I'm feeling when the work which I put many hours into is endangered by an arbitrary decision and several mouseclicks. -- 我♥中國 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have ANY idea how much trouble one has to go through to bring a picture back from deletion? Not just the miles and miles of red tape, but also the navigation through myriads of mouseclicks, pages of disclaimers and rules to read through, so no, they can NOT be restored at any time willy-nilly. I wish I could, but it just doesn't work that way. And are you aware that an article/picture that has been deleted before automatically has about as much as a probability of 1 of being deleted again? I know these, because I'm an admin and I have dealt with all of these things before, so please, don't patronize me. And like I have already explained, it's not the policy that I'm questioning, but your interpretation of it and your belief that your interpretation is the only right one. -- 我♥中國 04:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not hard? When you have 70 of them to upload, you'll want to eat your words. And since you obviously never bothered to actually READ THE ARTICLE to find out what the pictures were used for, the pictures show the actual medals that the article is about, and there is a grand total of one picture for every medal, for about the top 70 items in the list. They are obviously not decoration, or are you just confusing pretty-looking decoration with military decorations? And since you didn't read the article, there IS a body of text next to each and every one of the pictures, explaining the name, grades, and award criteria for each medal. #8 of the policy states that galleries in lists are "normally regarded" as decorative and therefore unacceptable, not "always". That is ambiguous and leaves room for interpretation, and I think I have already established that they are NOT decorative and are highly significant. In this case, they should warrant an extended investigation. -- 我♥中國 05:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A change that took place scant days ago (5 June, currently 7 June WP-time) and is apparently already causing much distress and discontent. You can hardly prove a "historical precedent" with an event that occurred 2 days ago. Even if those removals were justified, album covers are fundamentally different from images of military medals. Album covers can be printed and used in commercial ventures and copyright owners would lose revenue. But images of military decorations? Right, I'm gonna print these off and sell them as 1-inch stickers and deprive the Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of China of millions of dollars' worth of revenue from sticker sales! -- 我♥中國 06:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been a long time, friend...

Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road;
Every life must have its burden, every heart its load.
Why sit down in gloom and darkness with your grief to sup?
As you drink Fate's bitter tonic, smile across the cup.

Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet;
Frowns are thorns, and smiles are blossoms, oft for weary feet.
Do not make the way seem harder by a sullen face;
Smile a little, smile a little, brighten up the place.

Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves
O'er his task waits wealth or glory; he who smiles achieves.
Though you meet with loss and sorrow in the passing years,
Smile a little, smile a little... even through your tears!

Ella Wheeler Wilcox

...but I never, ever forgot you ;) Have a beautiful day, dear Moe!

Phaedriel
03:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem!

Thank you for getting back to me. I really appreciate it! Do not worry as I will not ignore your warnings! Regards! xx ˉˉ^DuranDuran╦╩ 10:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

welcome back!!!!

ive been on a smal wikki break and i am just cecking and i noticed that your back!!! welcomeRazor romance 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

reply to you your reply

not a problm,Razor romance 04:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Message

I sent you an e-mail. --Spike Wilbury 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:

The next time you make notifications can you please make sure you notify a user on all the images you've tagged, and not just some? I checked through your edit history and discovered you've tagged an image I uploaded, but for that one I wasn't notified. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 14:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You notified me on 3 Godflesh album covers I uploaded, but tagged four. The one you forgot to notify me on is Selfless (album) - it's an easy mistake to make, so that's fine. LuciferMorgan 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Make sure not to overboard though with tagging certain images that a single user has uploaded - User:Alcuin had 90+ image notifications on his page and waved bye to Wikipedia, while BetaCommandbot got blocked for a few days. I suppose though that such a problem can only occur when a bot is doing the work. Anyway, all the best. LuciferMorgan 14:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Colscott

While it's a true statement that he is blocked, there is nothing whatsoever good that can come from having that message there. --BigDT 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:The Sacrament.jpg

Sure, it satisfies the speedy deletion criteria. But why were you trying to delete it? I thought you weren't an admin. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I was confused for a bit when you said you were trying to delete it ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of fair use image

Hi. I see you're good with images. I wonder if I could ask for a little help? I inserted Image:Capa%2C_D-Day2.jpg in the article Omaha Beach#Initial_assault. I found it on the Robert Capa article. It is obviously directly relevant to the Omaha Beach article but it's tagged as Fair Use. Have I done anything wrong here? Thanks --FactotEm 17:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. I'll have a go at writing a fair use rationale, but I'm struggling to get to grips with the rules. I'll keep going but if it's possible to point me in the direction of a picture that has an acceptable rationale I should be able to figure it out from there. Also, in the article the quote that precedes the picture is referenced and I think appropriate so I can presumably relocate the image a few lines up? Appreciate your help. --FactotEm 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

One last question then I promise I'll stop bugging you. I understand now what's required in the rationale. I note that one of the requirements is that the image should not be more than 300px wide. I've downloaded a copy, reduced the size to comply, and now I'm trying to upload it. However, there does not appear to be any option under the list of fair use options that applies. It's not a logo, music sample, smithsonian image etc. etc. Can you tell me if there is another option that I should be choosing or should I not be uploading it at all? Thanks. --FactotEm 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You're a star. Thank you very much. If you confirm that the rationale supplied for the picture in the Omaha Beach article is acceptable I'll have a go at those in the Capa article. Cheers. --FactotEm 19:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul & ArbCom case

I saw that you struck your comment about his revert parole. I looked over the ArbCom case and didn't see any such lifting of the parole. Of course, I probably missed it. I, um, already blocked him (ha ha?), but that can be lifted if it turns out I did screw up. -- Merope 19:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Merciful Zeus. I've asked another admin to look into the situation. If I continue dealing with him, he'll end up blocked forever with his page protected and then I'll get desysopped and it'll be bad. -- Merope 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But I hate that box! ;) -- Merope 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

PS - your page is acting all wonky in my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.4) -- the table of contents is all squished to the right-hand side and I have to side-scroll to see it. Not a big deal, but you might want to look into it. Cheers! -- Merope 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep! It's a little unsightly, but so is my own talk page. I don't know how to make the table of contents and archive box line up neatly. As Riana! She's nice and knowledgeable about such things. -- Merope 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Psst, Moe.

I'm a female. Don't make me break out my fake signature! Merope 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, conveniently, your explanation about what I meant by that statement was removed before the user placed his unblock notice. I'm terribly amused by this whole situation, but I feel I should back away. And yet, I cannot. Can't wait to see what the reviewing admin says. -- Merope 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm laughing out loud -- your picking up on Joy Division and then thanking him for it is just too awesome. -- Merope 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, it seems one of the musicians on my watchlist had a similar violation. Fixed now. I'm going to go home soon. I'll have a beer for you, too, if you want. :) -- Merope 20:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Randall

You've got to be taking the mick aren't you? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 14:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats OK it was LOL thats all!!! I've done it already -the other two I have to create the articles for ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you appreciate my work on Randall and Hopkirk. I love cult British TV I have the box set - I watched them as I was growing up in the 1990s along with the Avengers and The Saint ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey even my first reply I was laughing. Why should I be mad with you? -it was quite bulky thats all. Your're doing a great job with tagging -if this site is to be taken seriously and professionally then this will need doing for every image on wikipedia. I was considering removing the excess images on the episode list anyway -looks better I think without it anyway. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well its the fact that you have the decency to inform people about their images. Some imagers don't even bother and start putting images and articles up for speedy deletion without acknowledging the creator showing a complete lack of disrespect -this I would be less than ameniable with and have lost my temper with such people in the past who have later apologized personally to me saying "I didn't realize it was you". Regards. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay

Thank you. Meldshal 42 21:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpage you wanted deleting

Done! J Milburn 21:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales

I didn't delete any rationales for the Beatles samples, just the debate template. If current Wikipedia practice requires specific non-template rationales, I'll be happy to provide them, but that seems overly pedantic. I know the template is boilerplate, but text it contains is spot-on accurate in describing the fair use of the samples. Why have such a template if it's not useful? --LDC 01:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing rationales

Hey Moe, thanks for the note you left me, and for sparing me the standardised template warning of doom :) Sorry for the late response, I've been having some computer problems of late. Anyway, I've been working my way slowly through all my fair use image uploads, adding rationales and fixing image tags where necessary. You just got to these ones before me. I see that FactotEm has added the necessary info, but if you come across any more of mine in need of fixing, just drop me a line. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles infobox

You should be informed that discussions about band infoboxes at Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist#Defunct musical groups had determined that defunct group infoboxes can list as 'current members' the group members at the time the group disbanded. It was also determined that only individual members names be listed and nothing else which include not listing years the individuals were members and if a member is still living. Steelbeard1 16:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

New messages

You know, I changed my monobook settings and it didn't work -- the fake bars are the new color, too. MFD might open up a big ol' can of worms, but I'll be there should you decide to go through with it. -- Merope 21:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Torch

Not sure it passes WP:RS, but since there's already another ref to it, I'll leave it in. SirFozzie 23:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The current feeling over at WT:BLP is that BLP can also apply to the recently deceased. SirFozzie 04:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Talk:Chris Benoit

Hi, I was on RC patrol and put this section back in. It looked like a conflict of interest, since you were the only disagreeing editor and some other users wanted to bring it to the attention of the office. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any comments, thanks! east.718 06:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It didn't divulge any IP addresses, the editor was an anon. east.718 06:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that the WP:RFCU was way out of line or that WP:AN would be a better place to bring it up, but that doesn't mean that discussions should be summarily closed and deleted. In my opinion, archiving it and leaving a polite note to take it to AN would have been the best course of action. east.718 06:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi It's Roger

Check my Contributions if you want. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 06:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, good night man. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 06:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

hey Moe, I just wanted to apologize about last night. It was a heated and simply stupid disscussion about nothing, and it got out of hand. Just wanted to say sorry for my actions and raising my voice. BigCoop 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User Page

You should just leave it redirected permanently. It is so much easier than maintaining it ;). Peace, The Hybrid 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oookay....

I never once said you were making it up. I said to cite a source, so that others could know about it. Like I said, not everyone knows about Daniel having Fragile X Syndrome. Also, I didn't go into a "long tirade", unless you consider two sentences being a "long tirade". Finally, I said "I know the AP made it", meaning the source. So, just calm down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMReese (talk • contribs)

Just a suggestion

More light, less heat. I know you're frustrated with what's going on, and your discussions over at Alkivar's page.. but it does no good to get into an edit war. SirFozzie 19:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Was just trying to make a suggestion. I'll leave ya alone. SirFozzie 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL

I was just looking at your intro on your page, and I have to laugh at you being able to spell Intercontinental in kindergarten :). That's priceless, The Hybrid 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I bet that your teacher could barely speak when you asked her that. My kindergarten teacher tried to hold me back a grade for not being able to color well 0_o. She failed, of course. Peace, The Hybrid 23:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Benoitring.jpg

If you'll follow the link provided (pre-revert), you'll see on the right hand side of the image that image's creator said GDFL was OK. If you still find some defect in this, then it would be useful to point it out to the uploader. Clearly the uploader is trying to get this right, and saying its wrong without providing guideance might end up with discouraging him. Rklawton 20:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: NFL images

Removing the logo parameter is a great idea. I wish I'd thought of it. I'll take a look at those other images too... you're right that this is a pretty significant problem. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair use removal from New England Patriots/Cleveland Browns seasons

Looks good, but don't forget about the uniforms on 2007 Cleveland Browns season...Pats1 00:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Two things:

2007 Miami Dolphins season also has uniforms.
It's a catch-22 as far as the gallery images go. There are already smaller versions of the main logos on the main page with the truncated version of the L+U article in its section on the main page. So essentially two of those logos (but separate, smaller versions) are already there. The others are specific to eras or information presented only in the separate L+U article, so those can't be added to the main page either. I think the best option at this point would be to add text them to them in the L+U article. Pats1 01:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

AMS Seal/My Apologizes

I wasn't aware that the AMS seals were under fair-use under I seen a change by User:Wcquidditch and spoke to him. I only added these to the WJLA and [{TV3 Winchester]] pages. I have removed them from the WJLA page and you beat me to the TV3 Winchester page. I also removed them from several other pages. My apologizes for adding them in the first place, had I known, I wouldn't have. I am sorry. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You're Welcome:) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Free use disputed images

Could you possibly take a look at the following images?

Thanks. Pats1 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Extra note: I had removed these images (and others which have already been deleted), but my edits - which included a complete copyedit and comments left on the talk page - were reverted by RMANCIL. He had given me problems for the duration of the copyedit, and so I would be breaking 3RR if I was to revert his edits. All of the images above were either from San Diego Chargers or 2006 San Diego Chargers season, in which both cases this user reverted most or all of my edits in favor of ones which do not follow WP guidelines. Thank you again. Pats1 01:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the first-edit wishes. It definitely brought a smile to my face. Cheers. Orane (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Benoit

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for your unbiased opinions on the Benoit article. From everything I've seen, you've been the calming voice on that page. You've done a good job. --SGT Tex 01:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — Moe ε 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I know you've taken a lot of heat, but I just thought you should know your efforts are appreciated.--SGT Tex 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question

It was directed at Wesly. You just happened to post before I did. No worries. Jezebel Parks 04:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the info, Mo. :)Hexrei 19:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

deletion

Hi, it's here. Jimfbleak 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

YTMND

Not I, friend. bd2412 T 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)