User talk:Stoked

"the guy might be a horrible broadcaster [most likely the worse ever]" That's your problem, you're biased. If you don't like Joe Buck that's fine, but wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral perspective. So if you keep adding NPOV garbage, I'm going to keep reverting it. Here's my suggestion, go start a "Joe Buck Sucks" blog somewhere. That way you can bash him without interference.--BoyoJonesJr 15:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, I'm not going to fight with you. By the way, I happen to think Joe Buck is the best NFL announcer out there, and I may be from Canada but I watch every NFL game that airs and an avid viewer of NFL network, there are TV's in Canada. --BoyoJonesJr 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stoked, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I'm not Rick Jelliffe, and not a Microsoft shill. I take the view that criticism of both ODF and OOXML is good and healthy, and criticism of ODF will help to improve the standard. I won't revert your edit. I was in the process of updating criticism of OOXML, trying to decide what to use from the Groklaw article. ODF is by no means perfect, and the view I have is that the better it can be made, the more likely it is to succeed - and valid criticism wirll help that process.

I hope you contribute to other articles in Wikipedia before long, and get to enjoy being here. All the best WLD^talk|edits 17:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Stevens

Hi Stoked,

I've modified your edits to the Ted Stevens page: [1] [2]. More recent articles on the subject all seem to assert that Wikipedia would not be affected by the proposed limits. For example: [3] [4]. Do you know something I don't? Thanks, Canderson7 ^(talk) 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actual bill (available here) does not attempt to specify which sites would be affected. Rather it offers several criteria for consideration by the Commission: (i) is offered by a commercial entity; (ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information; (iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users; (iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and (v) enables communication among users. Although there is some gray area, Wikipedia is not a commercial entity so it seems certain the bill would not apply (iv also doesn't apply to Wikipedia). Applicable sites would not be "banned." Access by minors without parental permission would be restricted except in such cases as a teacher is supervising educational use. I've gotten all this directly from the text of the bill itself, but we don't have to worry about original research because my interpretation is supported by several sources ([5] [6]). I think at this point we should be content with the article as is and wait for further developments. Thanks. Canderson7 ^(talk) 17:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Easterbrook edits...

I've removed your Patriots section again from this. If you'd like it to stay, I suggest you make the following changes when you put it back in.

I still question whether this is notable enough, but atleast these steps will make it follow guidelines.

1. Indent it under the TMQ section. It's part of his TMQ column, and definitely not more notable than the fact that he right this column, and likely belongs after the section on nicknames (which are one of his recurring themes, not just a one-time thing).

2. Make it Non-POV. Comments like "downplaying the accomplishments of the Patriots, while embellishing and rewriting the Colts" are clearly POV statements by you.

3. Add some sources. Right now it is completely Original Research on your part. If it is actually a controversy, than you should be able to find some articles in local new england newspapers, or something.

Bjewiki (Talk) 00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:OST 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:OST 1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:OST 1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:OST 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:EMRHL.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:EMRHL.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Jedi Purge and Order 66

Best Stoked, the Great Jedi Purge is not self Order 66, Order 66 was but a part of the Great Jedi Purge. Tim Auke Kools (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]