User talk:Rorry1

License tagging for Image:Daveheineman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Daveheineman.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:SteveBeshear 190x266.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SteveBeshear 190x266.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Arnold Schwarzenegger.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arnold Schwarzenegger.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:SteveBeshear 190x266.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:SteveBeshear 190x266.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content 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 this non-free 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 non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content 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, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. 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? Tom (talk - email) 02:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Arnold Schwarzenegger.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Arnold Schwarzenegger.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content 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 this non-free 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 non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content 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, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. 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? Tom (talk - email) 02:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Daveheineman.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Daveheineman.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content 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 this non-free 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 non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content 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, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. 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? Tom (talk - email) 02:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploads

Please do not upload images taken from the web, claiming that you created them yourself. This is considered a copyright violation and the images are likely to be deleted. Passportguy (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy way to add references

I saw your note on the earthquake page. There's a really easy way to add references. If you click on my preferences, then the gadgets tab, you'll see a check box for refTools. Check that, then when you're editing, you can click a little button at the top of your edit box that says cite. It brings up a nice little form that will create a cite tag for you. --Elliskev 23:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Los Angeles earthquake

Hi Rorry1. I just want to say, I am really impressed with your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Los Angeles earthquake. Keep up the good work, wiki warrior! --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed as well. Apparently, the admin who kept the article was too, since you were cited as the reason he kept it. Good job; keep up the amazing work! --haha169 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Quake yorba linda.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Quake yorba linda.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I ought to say...

Hello, Rorry1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Cliff smith (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pic for the quake

Heya. Noted this image you uploaded for the quake from yesterday. I'm originally from Yorba Linda, which store did you shoot this in? (Note, I promise I won't tell the store! I know some don't like to have photos taken of the insides....) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above image, I've republished it to Wikimedia Commons due to the suggestion tag. All credit has been given to you, of course. [1] --haha169 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Carmel, in.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carmel, in.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rorry1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked, not sure why. I was just starting a straw poll about convention naming of large US cities. Would someone please explain this banned user thing.

Decline reason:

Well, how would we (those of us admins who don't have checkuser, anyway, which is the great many of us) know what your IP is based on your say-so. Furthermore, this naming convention thing is an obsession of Saindon's. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note from blocking admin. This is a sock of banned user Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how one could come to that conclusion. There is no proof. I was just editing specific pages.Rorry1 (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the list of puppets by this banned user, and you made a serious mistake. First of all, this "banned" user has a list of IP addresses that begin with 69, 75, and 76. My IP begins with 98.Rorry1 (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so pissed off right now, its not even funny. I did NOTHING wrong, and everything I have done in my months of being here has been erased, my main page is marked with this tag that is totally false, this is just making me physically ill to see what you people are doing. I haven't done anything, and you people have given me NOTHING to work with here. You just tell me "well, we dont have the ability to check your IP's, so instead of dealing with that, we just assume you guily." What kind of crap is that? Rorry1 (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the admin that blocked me may be mad because I deleted an unsourced entry that he insisted be in the article at El Segundo, California. See here [2]. I deleted this entry that had no sources to it (as good editors should), and he has proceeded to reinsert the invalid information twice. Because I defied him, I think it made him mad. Rorry1 (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rorry1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

When did this user you are accusing me of being do this? It seems his obsession was with Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. I can point out several users who have requested naming conventions. [[3]]. Thats just one example. I am not this user, from what I see based on what that user has in their talk page, I don't even edit similar articles. So what, I made a request for name convention. I have come across nearly 50 people who have made similar requests. Are they all socks of this "person" too? And, I will tell you the reason I did this. I did this because I went through articles, and saw a lot of debate over the subject of naming, especially on the Los Angeles article, so I simply opened a straw poll to see how people would feel about changing the largest 50 cities in the US to a common name. I dont see how this has to deal with any of the users edits. Anaheim hills is not even a city, it is in the city of Anaheim, so this straw poll wouldn't have even affected the Anaheim hills. And, as the user above said, this user had an obsession over one article, an article I dont even edit. And this is my IP address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.149.127.13 in case you were wondering. I don't see how you can say "well, we have no way of proving it, but since an admin says it is right, it must be."

Decline reason:

Both your edit history and editing pattern make it clear that this is a sock of Ericsaindon2. If you really feel the need to contribute to a wiki, perhaps you should try another venue where you have not already burned your bridges behind you. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Proposed deletion of Anaheim Hills Elementary School

The article Anaheim Hills Elementary School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no claim of notability is present in article; high schools are considered to be inherently notable, but lower level schools than that are not inherently notable by current consensus.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kevin (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]