User talk:J Milburn/archive16

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it, it is for reference purposes only. If you wish to continue a discussion here, please do so on my talk page.

This band is not notable to deserve an article, I think this is an span. Cannibaloki 13:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally what are their criteria for whether a band is notable or not? Can you pass a mini-lesson with tips of the sites more reliable, Allmusic; Rockdetector; and... Cannibaloki 16:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the biography of band on the site of Rockdetector The text is very large and extremely complex. Cannibaloki 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cannibaloki 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away a few days. Thanks, Josh, I think I got it now. I hope to have the email about the pictures origin and being released to the public domain within a couple of days. I will then forward it as you directed me, and tag the pictures as you suggested. I understand that's the order in which to take care of it properly. I really appreciate your guidance - thanks. Herbdude (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to take this image down - the image is from personal email correspondence with digitalcartography.net. Searching for the relevant email, which also pertains to the linked article (img: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atlantatorichmond.JPG). I don't have any map-creation software, but I'll see if I can create/draw and substitute a self-created image that would accomplish the same thing.

Its not worth mine and his time just delete the damn thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bes2224 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I trouble you to check one more time - hopefully the last - that I've uploaded and tagged and licensed Moses Mescheloff's two pictures properly? I forwarded Magda Mescheloff's email with the pictures and permission as you wrote. Thanks again! Herbdude (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i posted it on that web. and i thought i can two permissions.Chanakal (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes i took it and i'll select a permission type.right?Chanakal (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed it.thank you.Chanakal (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Fair use rationale to Image:UA_logo.gif page. Please let me know if any other update is needed.

Thank you.

Source added. Thank you for your help!--Alexnh (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, delete the last 3 pix i uploaded.JG Race 1194 (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever the F*** you want.JG Race 1194 (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will be happy to note that I had ALL of my photos deleted, including those of MY OWN racecars, of which the only known hard copies (the actual photos), as well as the negatives were lost in a fire 2 years ago, and that the only remaining digital copies were lost on a hard drive that unexpectedly quit 2 weeks ago. There are no other known copies of those photos (taken by me, scanned by me, and uploaded by me of me and my racecars) in existence. Thank-you. JG Race 1194 15:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to undelete those images to email the photos to you. Send me an email at Special:EmailUser/Royalbroil. If this link doesn't work, you can email me by going to my userpage, and clicking on "E-mail this user" on the left hand side. Royalbroil 05:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "sorry" just does not cut it. After the threats, and the baseless accusations, I no longer wish to be a part of this community, which is why I asked RoyalBroil to delete the articles I posted. .....And people wonder why I hate children....... JG Race 1194 19:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every article for an album I've see on Wikipedia links to the original artist's version, when no article has been made for the cover. That's what the Other versions section is for and I've seen it used many times, that's why I included it in the "Sharp Dressed Man" article. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it misleading? I think if people were to see the "(ZZ Top cover)" that follows the title, they can probably realize that Chrome Division hasn't just included a song performed by ZZ Top, on the album. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I actually do understand. But I just came out of an even bigger discussion than this, and I don't really feel like doing this again lol. Just don't link to it in the track listing then, but it still warrants a link to the song in the Background information section. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWH_Engineering_College%2C_Kuttikkattoor some days before. This is article about the college I am studying in. I have added some details by checking it on the college website http://awhengg.org/ The problem is I have a confusion on the licensing of the image of college routemap available at http://awhengg.org/routemap.html I dont know which license to use. Please help. Deepu Mohan.P (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I think giving that image in Wikipedia will be beneficial to the college. So I would like to keep it in Wikipedia under any license possible. And I am sure that college authorities would not bother this. If there is no chance of keeping the image you may delete it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepumohan.p (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Mr. Milburn, you may delete it. I'll try drawing my on map. Thanks for advice. :) Deepu Mohan.P (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use Non-free / fair use media rationale license with this kind of image? How do i do that? Deepu Mohan.P (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've just finished writing a review for Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album), your recent GA nomination. My comments can be found on the talk; I've placed the article on hold for about a week so my concerns can be addressed. Please do let me know when you've finished, I'll take a look again then. Also, feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns about the review. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i dont understand what the difference is between this picture and this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Reggiemcnealmugshot.jpg  Taylor21  12:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing people!!! I have just uploaded the photograph and am editing its copy-right statement. As you can realise, I do not have ten hands!!! How many times have I to repeat this basic fact before it is understood? Wait at least five minutes, before sending out that detested message!!! --BF 12:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I apologise for offending you. Secondly, it is a fact that I utterly dislike to be written to, called on phone, or contacted in any other conceivable way when the subject matter prompting the communication does not warrant this communication. From this perspective, I did what I always do: loose my temper. As for why the appropriate copy-right statement was not included the first time round, it is simply because PD-Iran is not included in the list from which one can choose during uploading; consequently, not knowing how to do things otherwise, in cases such as the present one, I upload under a safe copy-right statement and immediately afterwards replace this statement by the appropriate one. I was doing this, while your messages arrived. Incidentally, it is utterly impractical that one should repeat the same basic fact to all editors; rather, there must be an editorial policy that all editors should follow as a matter of course. When I have complained about one and the same phenomenon twenty times, I expect that this irritating practice of issuing messages five seconds after an action has taken place (which I experience as utterly unpleasant - it comes over as being spied on and being told that one has been in the wrong; please read Orwell's 1984 and you will realise the type of sensation that I am describing here) stops being practised by all editors. Wishing you a good day, With kind regards, --BF 13:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Im glad you cleared that up for me because im sick of my images being tagged but others which are the similar to mine are being left alone..thanks  Taylor21  12:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault. I'll revise it right now. Ironguardian (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC

Hi, I have now provided a proper fair use rationale for the image and also removed the deletion tag that you added. Joyson Noel (talk)

Thanks a lot for your help.Joyson Noel (talk)

You were recently named in this ANI thread, but the reporting user has now been blocked indefinitely. Just thought I'd let you know. Regards, Rudget (logs) 09:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you edited the Zappa article. You may be interested in reading Cannabis Culture & Cost in the Discussion page of this Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Having just read your user page information with all the awards and accolades you have received, far

be it from me to second judge your speedy deletion of two images from the above article you just learned about today. Being a Wikipedia user since April 19 this year, I am just catching up to how the Wikipedia system works. I know the images you deleted were posted by another Wikipedia Administrator with the tag he deemed appropriate at the time. If I am wrong, someone please correct me, but I was believing Wikipedia was one of the last remaining strongholds of the democratic principal: one voice one vote. You have also placed a tag questioning the neutrality (NPOV) of the Article. This is where it gets very interesting. Everyone has a point of view, but when is it not neutral or partisan? Your user page states you are strongly Atheist. Do you have a neutral point of view questioning the neutrality of an article on someone who strongly believes in God? Will you please start the discussion in the Article. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. I take you at your word, but the images are in fact removed (deleted) from the article. I used the word democracy and you use the word consensus. The ideas are not that dissimilar. But there is no discussion yet to even form a consensus. Again, I welcome you starting the discussion in the article. That's where the tag is.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you're very smart for a young person. :) I'm looking forward to seeing what your objections are and hopefully things will improve.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey J! I answered your entry on the Article in question. Shall we wait to see if any users want to form a consensus?

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• J! On my talk you said the images you deleted were not deleted but tagged. I'm sure you know the number of views to the article and by Wikipedia, no opinion is considered consent. In that spirit then, would you restore the images to the article and tag them so a consensus by user opinion will develop?

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While the images have been removed from the article they can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God's_Emissary.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God's_Emissary_1.jpg

Considering the unusual nature of the subject matter in the article the images may very well be historic, but not yet recognized as such. They are scheduled to be deleted Tuesday. There is a Wiki procedure to stop the deletion, but I haven't figured it out yet so I need help. The tag that accompanied the image when the Administrator posted it says: Because the image depicts a non-reproducible historic event, there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. This seems reasonable. In the 2nd image Emissary_1, the shock can be seen on the faces of the crowd when it was shown them freedom of speech in their assumed democracy is a delusion, unless you own newspapers or TV networks. They have it until they test it. That can not be reproduced no how no way. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC) DoDaCanaDa (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• J! I truly appreciate the information on the disputed images you posted to my talk. I know how to type with both index fingers, but I have been going around in circles trying to post and tag. Do I just have to click on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Di-replaceable_fair_use_disputed, in the tag you you attached, and state the reason and it is automatically posted to the image preventing deletion? I have it on good word the article will be complete and finished with the subject attending the Republican National Convention during the Bi-Centennial of the American Revolution in 1976. As if to lend authority to all the Referenced headers applied to Cormier by The Citizen in time past, the night President Ford won the nomination, his image, the one you deleted, standing at the podium of The President of The United States on a Secret Service restricted balcony must have appeared revolutionary to the thousands of witnesses in person and ABC, CBS, and NBC broadcasting live at the Republican Convention. While you object to the image making Cormier look too good, how unusual is it in it's contrasting context at a Republican political convention? It belongs in the article for the reason in the tag in the previous message.

Please believe me for the word's sake, on my part, my exchanges with you have been in a spirit of goodwill and without prejudice, with the sole purpose of stimulating a discussion to form a consensus. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• J! I'm sure you will believe I had no idea what I was stirring up starting this new section on your talk. The result was a surprise and opposite to the high hopes I had imagined, but I'm still a student of Life. I believe you have other more important priorities than this, and now it's in the opinions of other users. You have been helpful, and I don't want to push it but I don't think I followed your instructions properly and I don't see another way to tag the image than this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God's_Emissary.jpg. Thanks. Peace

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Great job J! Thank you so very much. Unless you put the article on your watch list out of personal interest to see the finish, I have only one more request, please. If you told me how you did the last edit, I would not need to ask. Would you correct this tag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God%27s_Emissary_1.jpg, and restore both to the Article until consensus is reached? Despite my years in seniority, I would not have presumed to just undo what you did. Peace

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• J! I see what you did, but I don't understand why. The tag is the very same one you attached to the other image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God's_Emissary.jpg. The reality is, a consensus cannot develop over the images unless they are seen in the article because that's where the discussion must take place. Be assured, I have not dismissed your objections and concerns even though I don't see them as you do. I have been anxiously waiting to hear from the creator of the article, an Administrator himself, for his advice and assistance in re-phrasing sentences that appear not neutral. He has been away for some time. Other editors can contribute as well if something must be corrected without destroying the heart of the article. I'm surprised the only edits so far have been to correct spelling and grammar. If the purpose of any article to impart a sense of the content, how do you convey a sense a reader may grasp of events that may have formed a modern day prophet. Obviously the article is not finished and there could be a surprise ending with more evidence.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Following your example, the tag is properly attached to the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God's_Emissary_1.jpg. Just for my information, how many opinions from members have to be posted to form a consensus and is there a time limit? No one can see the images where they are now to build a consensus. Would you please restore it along with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg to the article?

In the article itself this paragraph, "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey, and twenty years later the world was stunned to witness 9/11 as described in Revelation 18. That year he was shocked to learn of the development and deployment of the neutron bomb by the good guys in world evolution. He considers the concept of the device to be demonic and anti-human, exposing the power that brought it into existence for what it is. The nuclear device does not explode a fiery blast to destroy the loot, but unleashes enhanced dirty radiation so that the people die a slow, tortuous death. That has come home to roost with the fears these days of terrorists building a crude dirty bomb", is, with the benefit of hindsight, significantly important. [7][8][9][10][11] With all the concern over copyright, written permission from Macleans to print the script (Reference 11) was submitted to permissions June 17 with no action, yet these images in dispute were deleted in minutes. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is Macleans (Ref: 11) sent written permission to post to the article,(copyright material with permission to use from the holder) the script confirming the trip to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 in 1981, twenty years before 9/11. You speedily deleted the disputed copyright images from the article in minutes, but the letter with permission to post was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org over a week ago, it is still not posted. Again, please restore the images to the article, or tell me how to do it. Thank you. You will be one of the first to know when the article is finished so you may comment on the completed piece. Peace

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• J! You know it was you who deleted the images from the article clearly recorded in the history. The Administrator who uploaded them originally with the Not free/Fair use tag is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Earl_Andrew

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You have not deleted the Macleans script. I have been waiting for permissions-en@wikimedia.org to post it, but it's over a week now. You can see the information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg. I don't know if the proper tag is attached.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• J! Here I have to defer to your expertise. You see the permission given by Macleans to post it, but with all the tags in the site, I don't know which one is appropriate. Hopefully you know.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• J the article is totally destroyed, but I'm no stranger to disappointment. I had hoped to be able to complete it and then find someone to help me to perfect it so it would read encyclopedic. The interaction with Trudeau concurrent to the 3 Popes was factual and prophetic, not fantasy. I have copies obtained under the Access to Information Act of RCMP reports confirming the substance of those facts. How could this information be cited or referenced? The Declaration on Remembrance Day Day 1985, in the presence of the Governor-General of Canada, Government Leaders, the Military, Ambassadors of the Nations and 25,000 people was publicly declared and prophetic, "Hear O people and Nations, even to the ends of the Earth, the Word of the Lord God who is, and was, and is to come, The Almighty. The Lord has a controversy with the people. Do you do well to honour the dead, and yet, deny the God of the Living? Why do you follow the vain traditions of men, and make of no effect, the principles of God? You come here for one hour one day a year in a great show of public patriotism, and then forgetting, go back to work and make the same careless mistakes made by the generations prior to the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Hitler was killed, but it's his legacy that remains. A Soviet-American military-industrial complex consuming $trillions of dollars every year, holding the entire World hostage............"

"Hostage" was the last word he said perched on a bus shelter roof, as police got up and grabbed his megaphone. He was arrested for shouting, causing a disturbance, convicted and fined $250. He appealed without a lawyer to the Supreme Court of Canada.[16][17][18] is exactly factual, prophetic and important, referenced and in Court documents. The world is being held hostage to the War on terrorism. What further verification is required? Since I discovered the article April 19, approximately 2500 views were registered to the page from an average of 60 views a month for the two years previous. According to Wikipedia because they did not object is considered consent to the way it read. This paragraph from the article is significantly important and prophetic. "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey, and twenty years later the world was stunned to witness 9/11 as described in Revelation 18. There was an off site link so a user could read directly 19:11 and 9/11 from Revelation themselves. Even the References to this time were deleted This could have been edited to be more encyclopedic in style. I just don't understand how an article on a prophet could be relevant with the prophecies deleted. Not having your experience, I am trying to conform to Wikipedia requirements but I need help. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have recently challenged the fair use rationale of this image. I have proven that there is no free alternative available on any Wikimedia project here. Koalorka (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you didn't have to go through all that trouble to add those pictures to WP:PUI. Those images clearly state they are copyrighted property, and are blatant copyright violations. Why didn't you speedy delete them by adding {{db-imgcopyvio}} to the page, or delete under criteria l9? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 05:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your tag on this pic that I uploaded and put in the article's infobox. I have since removed the pic and its caption from the page until the Copyright status/source is made clear. I do not know the photographer of it, but I think I got it from Avery's Find-A-Grave page, which had no useful info on copyright or source. His uniform is of a Conf. colonel, making the pic from 1862 or 1863, but that's all I have. I'd hate to see it deleted but understand why it will probably be. Any help would be appreciated. Kresock (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where I downloaded the pic from: link. If you say I can add this as a source to the image page and put it back into the article, I will do it. Thanks for the input. Kresock (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and will do! Kresock (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
I wonder if you could please consider my request to undelete and restore the article United States Civil Flag,(if it is hopefully technically possible) inorder for me to put it in a sub-page of my userpage, where i could try to improve it in hope of making it as an article in wikipedia like all other articles.
- If it is indeed possible to restore the article, than my wish is that it will be placed in User:Oren neu dag/my sandbox1/United States Civil Flag.
All the best greetings --Oren neu dag (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked, and there are no fair use images in the article. --Oren neu dag (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I tried to edit them so they wouldn't be copyrighted, but if that's illegal, then you can delete those images because I don't wan't to get into any legal problems. I just edited those pictures using clip art. --Shustfan (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting me out of trouble. I appreciate your work. --Shustfan (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the images I am uploading including File:ParkerCanyonLake01.jpg are all owned by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The photographers and I are employees of AzG&FD. Any more information on how to label these images differently so the ownership is clearly understood would be appreciated. Thanks Scottbulloch (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your note on my page regarding Image:Strange world of coffin joe.jpg, did I add sufficient rationale to the summary? Is this what you meant? Thanks. Mike P ^(WHAT?) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Image tag removal was a judgment mistake. I misread that as a no - license template, and since I saw he licensed it as cc 2.5 ( I advised him to do that, because I thought it was a licence issue), I removed it. And, I labeled it a cleanup since I figured I was removing a redundant template and correcting an alignment issue. Sorry about that. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I should point out that the uploader admitted to me that he is the person in the photograph. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 14:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, How do I delete my sandboxes? Cannibaloki 15:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are Image:2nd Police warning 4 God's Emissary.jpg and Image:2nd Police Warning 4 God's Emissary 1.jpg ok to use in the article, or should they be deleted? Either way is fine with me. I just wanted some clarification. Kingturtle (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can you do when a user violates my edits, supposedly thinking that it is the most correct? link I am sending you this message that this situation is very frustrating and there is nobody to help me with this discography of the Sepultura. Cannibaloki 14:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shot Online Putting.gif I provided a fair use box to the image you described. Please let me know if there are any other problems. Image:Soworldshot.gif This image was not orginally posted by me - I simply found a larger version of it and uploaded it because the old one was far too small. The orginal creator claimed he had permission directly from OnNet staff (is this supposed to be verified?)

This is the first time I've really dealth with images, I try to just stay away because of this very reason. Let me know if I have to do anything else. Virek (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You should archive this talk page :-P

For further clarification, the previous uploader was using images from this page. They got permission for OnNet. I am currently using the larger image because it is more useful. Is this not allowed? Recommendations?

Thanks. Virek ^{(talk♦contribs)} 10:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should that image still be a candidate for speedy deletion even with the fair use information added? Virek ^{(talk♦contribs)} 11:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

other images the creator uploaded may also be of interest to you. They are no longer being used in the article as most of the stuff originally created was not found to be encyclopedic.Virek ^{(talk♦contribs)} 11:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, I'll read over the citation information. This is the first article I choose to completely rewrite (and it sure needed it). I'll have to do it tonight though, bed time for now. Thanks for the help again. Virek ^{(talk♦contribs)} 12:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dude, how's it going? I have a question; were can I find speedy deletion templates? Nice seeing you again. Cheers, Altenhofen (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed in my watchlist that Acrophylla titan has recently been edited by User:BJinsect. The contribs for this user and the username tend to make me think this could well be a sock of User:Bjaco18. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention :) Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:250px-Finnairin_Palloilijoiden_logo.svg.png has been widely used on the Finnish version of Wikipedia for a long time, and it's the exact one used on the English version. So there should be no problem.

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnairin_Palloilijat—Preceding unsigned comment added by GMM1919 (talk • contribs)

It's none of your business what I put on MY user page. You don't see me going around telling people how to edit THEIR pages. Worrly about your own self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I am me93 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I relize that but you AREN'T wikipedia so YOU can't tell me what to put on MY userpage. I am me93 (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't tell me what to do with MY userpage. You don't see me going around deleting stuff off other peoples user pages. QUIT SCREWING AROUND, okay?I am me93 (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You ARE telling me what to do and what not to do. You really musn't have a life if all you do is sit around and memorize wikipedia policies. And, no I won't stop saying you are screwing around because you are. I am me93 (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know where I have threatened you. You have yet to see a threat from me. 72.95.182.83 (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J, do I see your face in the crowd in the image you want to delete?

Image:2nd Police Warning 4 God's Emissary 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DoDaCanaDa (notify | contribs).

• This was originally tagged as replaceable fair use, but was kept. I don't think I agree with that- it has been kept on the rationale that it is an irreplaceable historic image. Maybe, but the specific incident in the photo isn't discussed in depth in the article, and, furthermore, a free image of the subject could be created (still living), meaning that there is no reason to keep this. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I respect you removed the image but not the link. :) I shouldn't have posted the actual image to your page considering emotions were already sensitive. Your statement on image deletion is not correct. It was originally posted by another Administrator with the not free/fair use tag. This section is aptly named since I am unhappy as well with your Canada Day birthday surprise request for image deletion. I thought the matter was resolved, as it was for a few days. In this exercise between us, I had hoped you would acknowledge I deferred to your experience and dropped my effort to have the 95% of the article you removed posted as raw material to the discussion so in time other contributors might be interested enough to re-work it. I've also recused myself from editing the article, reaching out to strangers for help, sadly with little response so far. I'm sure you have an established network of friends you can call on to support your POV. I acknowledge the article read like a novel, but I assure you all the information is factual and unembellished and you were just performing your Adm. responsibility in cleaning it up. I believe you and your friends went too far. The irony to me is you did not know the article existed until I brought it to your attention by the Frank Zappa section above. I was reaching out for your help and I was devastated to see what you did, totally opposite to what I hoped. That being said, I really have to question your NPOV for these reasons. Originally the article read: In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey, and twenty years later the world was stunned to witness 9/11 as described in Revelation 18. That year he was shocked to learn of the development and deployment of the neutron bomb by the good guys in world evolution. He considers the concept of the device to be demonic and anti-human, exposing the power that brought it into existence for what it is. The nuclear device does not explode a fiery blast to destroy the loot, but unleashes enhanced dirty radiation so that the people die a slow, tortuous death. That has come home to roost with the fears these days of terrorists building a crude dirty bomb.[7][8][9][10][11] You could have left this "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey." but it was removed along with the references. You did leave this in "In 1986, to complete his Canada-wide mission, he hitchhiked East to Quebec and the Maritimes.[7][8][9][10]" This makes no sense by itself without the 1981, 4000 mile hitchhiking trip from Ottawa to Whithorse to symbolize Revelation 19:11 This is suspect. I suspect you had one of your friends reduce the size of the original image posted to the article that permitted the viewer to see the lines in the faces of the crowd. I agree two images from the same event are not necessary in the article. I would not object to the deletion of this image instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg. You have also tagged this for deletion. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comments on my talk are acknowledged and I apoligize. Some of my comments above were inappropriate. I suppose you stuck in my mind because all this started by you removing the images in the first place. It was in fact two other Administrators who removed most of the material. Be assured I am not paranoid about a conspiracy, but I have to defend the work until others take over. Can we reach consensus on removing one of the images? Sincerely DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• J, learning as I go along, I just checked your contributions to Wikipedia and it is a very impressive and valuable contribution. You obviously deserve all the awards you have accumulated. Please be assured I have been discussing with you in a spirit of goodwill and without prejudice. If any of my words offended you, they were not intentional. I didn't know what peacock terms were, or a sockpuppet. Now I know. This is the first site I have joined with interactive discussion. At this time for me, it is a learning process. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: Your comments on User Talk: Stifle

J the event is reference 1 in the article, Dave Rogers, "Second police warning for God's emissary", Ottawa Citizen, 10 September 1977, A2. The week earlier I stood up to speak in public for the first time in Ottawa. I didn't have a reputation or supporters with money to advertise or rent a hall. To my thinking, this was the only option left to an ordinary citizen to reach the public under the circumstances. It was testing the taken for granted abstract right of freedom of speech. Being the Labour Day holiday, I was locked up in maximum security, solitary confinement for 5 days. I didn't know until I actually tested my right of free speech, 'shouting, causing a disturbance' was considered such a serious charge. Or was the State showing me what they could do if I continued? The Citizen reported the event with a 3x3 item headed 'Preacher arrested on Mall'. The image is of the Police threatening me with arrest if I don't stop speaking. That's it, that's all, no more, no less. Everyday in every city people can be seen publicly speaking or cursing or whatever. This is no threat to the State. When the people stop to listen and the crowd grows, that's another matter. I agreed to stop speaking to avoid another weekend in jail. For this event the Saturday Citizen, choosing the article header, wrote the story on page 2 with the two images and a border around the 3/4 page article. It was an event, J. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• J, reading your comments in the Stifle Talk above, I sensed you are very sincere in your objection to the FUR tag. I realize it's an exceptional tag and should only be used in exceptional circumstances. That being said, even though The Citizen and the parent holding Company Canwest Global Media refused permission to use the images, along with The Vancouver Sun, The Calgary Herald, and The Edmonton Journal, I have not given up on them either. I expect eventually they will relent and release the images into the public domain. References to those news reports covering my 4000 mile hike from Ottawa to Whitehorse in 1981 for the symbolism have been removed from the article along with The Whitehorse Star and Maclean's Magazine. Maclean's Magazine gave written permission to post the PEOPLE section in the article, but the image is orphaned because the reference is removed. When I get permission from Canwest Global, and I will, the tags will be changed, trust me on this. If I had your e-mail address, I would send you other copyright scans that might stimulate your liberal political leanings. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean's_People. It's been removed to here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg

---

Original Message -----

From: "Jessica Allen" <Jessica.Allen@rci.rogers.com> To: Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 3:55 PM Subject: Maclean's Permission

Hi Ray,

You can certainly reprint the text referring to yourself from page 40, Maclean's Magazine, August 31, 1981. There is no charge for this.

Unfortunately, we can not allow you to reproduce the cover.

All the best,

--- Jessica Allen Editorial Assistant Maclean¹s Magazine

One Mount Pleasant Road 11th Floor Toronto, ON M4Y 2Y5 Phone: (416) 764-1339/1-800-268-9119 ext. 1339 Fax: (416) 764-1332

---

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good Day J! I've been accused at times of wearing my emotions on my sleeve and yesterday I showed that by changing this section header as a tangible display. I went to bed happy, pleased that after such a long discussion started by the images being removed, we, personally, had passed a threshold as it were. I still believe that, so you can imagine my surprise and disappointment to wake up and find the images deleted, not by you. When I went to bed the dispute over the image "Second police warning for God's emissary" was ended with a Keep consensus and a different tag noting this. That is gone as well which I don't understand. I had assured you the FUR tag was only a temporary measure. This dispute within Wikipedia required my immediate focus. If the article was in the top 100 list, I am confident there would have been a consensus to keep both images. This was more difficult with such a smaller number of users involved in the discussion. My optimism was restored when Kingturtle listed the article in the RFCbio list. Nothing! I have been pleading for someone to restore the information about the 1981 trip to Whitehorse, Yukon with the verification newspaper references removed from the article. Nothing! I am seriously considering abandoning Wikipedia to the neutral netherworld as not being worth my time and effort. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Munich synagogue picture, as all other pictures I upload, was taken by me. Therefore, I am the author of this picture and gladly contribute it to Wikipedia.

I don't know how to change its status to make is seem legitimate, but trust me, it is. :)

I hope you can help me with that.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cccc3333 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again,

Thanks for your reply. I do not seek to lose any right on my own work, however, anything for the usage of the site or private users (mostly for educational purposes) is something that I do not object.

How do I change the images' status to something like that?

Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cccc3333 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J Milburn. If you have a minute could you look at the edits from 89.251.40.224 (talk · contribs). I've tried to supply the user with links to [[WP:ALBUM, WP:MUSTARD etc. Even shot a couple of warnings after they continued to edit in ignorance of those links. To no avail. This user, for some reason, has a vendetta against piped links. Specifically piped label links as they are supposed to be used re: WP:ALBUM. I have been following behind and cleaning up the mess left behind but format-undoing/damage control is extensive. Based on the IP location it may be a language barrier. I don't speak Hungarian. If you have time to intervene that would be appreciated. Thanks and take care. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pick any one. They all do pretty much the same thing. Take properly formatted pages(re: piped links) and unpipe them even though they were asked not to and pointed to the proper WP:ALBUM guidelines saying to make sure the label links are piped. It's one thing to add a label and not know that the link should be piped. But to knowingly go through and expand the formatted links and unpipe them, even after they have just been correctly formatted, is more deconstructive than constructive. Like I said, it could be a language issue. Maybe the Hungarian Wikipedia says don't use piped links and the editor thinks the en-wiki should follow suit? It's all minor. But in the end it's one editor working hard to undo the edits of many who have taken the time to read WP:ALBUM. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the Allmusic edit is fine. It's edits like these: [1], [2], [[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27](an edit that rm'd every piped link existing in a genre box?), [28](and another "anti-piped link edit?) etc etc that are so unexplainable. Like I said, minor. I wasn't looking at genres in those links but while browsing threw I noted a couple of instances where the IP switched the Prog metal link for the technical metal link (which is a re-direct) WP:ALBUM#Labels clearly states to use piped links. And the IP was asked to stop removing the piped links that were already in place. Some of those examples show that he is clearly doing that despite being shown the guideline. It's a bizarre fetish to go through and do nothing to an article other than to delete the piped link which is in place as a consensus guideline to use them. As I mentioned before, were it not against a clear guideline that the user was made aware of and not so purposefully deconstructive I wouldn't take note of it at all. We're all striving for consistency here and this user is going in the opposite direction almost to spite a simple little project guideline. I don't think its a case of "be bold"? If its a case of being non-english and not being able to read the project rules correctly and therefore not formatting correctly because they can't understand then that can be dealt with easy enough by finding someone who talks-the-talk. But if its a case of understanding the project guideline completely but ignoring the consensus in favor of their personal pov formatting... well then that's beyond my non-admin fingers to sort out. Not all the edits are bad. But many are purposely bad which is why I sought your advice. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. We all need to step away from Wiki every now and then anyways. The user was busy this morning deleting piped links. But his edits got picked up by other editors who did not like his anti-consensus-project guideline attitude. The IP sent this message to User:The Haunted Angel. Which was not called for at all. In the end his disruptive edits caught up to him and he got himself blocked for a couple of days. But I expect he will be back to his bad habits when he returns. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apologies. After 26000 edits I still ponder what is constructive and what is destructive. I just hope no one ponders those 2 adjectives over the edits that I do. While I am here. I know that you edit many music related articles. Do you play guitar by any chance? I am always on the recruitment drive for more members of the WikiProject Guitarists. Bass players, Banjo players, Mandolin players, any editor who plays a stringed instrument is welcome to join. We had a thriving membership when we first started. But many of our clan have drifted from the project or left Wikipedia completely (myself included when I took a 1 year hiatus) If you are a musician and feel you can contribute to guitar and guitarist related articles take the time to drop by the project page and add your name. And if you aren't a player but know any regular Wiki editors who are, feel free to point them in our direction. Thanks again for taking time to review my query. Hopefully if I ever drop you a note again it will be for something more Wiki-positive and not just me whining and complaining about something minor :). Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks so much for contacting me...I'm a decent Wikipedian -- as far as bios & films are concerned -- but, I'm weak on licensing stuff other than fair use...can you help me out?....feel free to change the licensing on the image. I am a photographer, I have no problem about placing the image in public domain, but I would like attribution if possible. If not, them are the breaks. My best, and happy 4th if you are an American, if not have a good day. Cheers -- Luigibob (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering when we'll have a chance for another of our little chats... how are you? Best wishes, Vox Humana 8' 20:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm glad I've finally found an admin who can perhaps help me with the occasional problem... I upload quite a few photos, and I click on Public Domain for each one. Yesterday, my son suggested I should use images from geograph.org.uk. I did upload a couple of them, following their instructions, but I must have slipped up with the Image:Birns Water - Humbie Water confluence.jpg because that is now Public Domain which it shouldn't be. How can I fix this, please? It may amuse you that my Wikipedia career started in 2002 but with long gaps in between. Perhaps that makes me a wikifossil? Thanks, Renata (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now uploaded Image:BirnsWaterHumbieWaterConfluence.jpg with the right tag, but there is still the duplicate. Is it possible to delete it? Renata (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just noticed something, and from my watchlist, sorry if I'm poking my head into other people's business, but you might or might not want to take a look here, here, and here, no further comment. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Image:Governor Walker With Audrey E Smith.jpg

you said:

"Images are not public domain just because they were taken on Utah state property, what gave you that idea? I'm assuming you're just a little confused ..." J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

uhhhh, no I'm not a little confused at all, the state website clearly states that pictures are free use, if you can read it says:

http://www.utah.gov/disclaimer.html

"The State has made the content of certain pages of its Web sites available to the public. Anyone may view, copy, or distribute information found within these web pages (not including the design or layout of the pages) for personal or informational use without owing an obligation to the State if the documents are not modified in any respect, and unless otherwise stated on the particular materials or information to which a restriction on free use applies. The State makes no warranty, however, that the materials contained within these pages are free from copyright claims, or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display. The State disclaims any liability for the improper or incorrect use of information obtained from its Web sites."

Tip for next time, (did you know just about every single state/city/county pictures taken with tax payer dollars are of free use (HELLO! Taxpayer dollars, we paid for it, etc) I don't know any that aren't in the entire USA) also via stuff like the federal GRAMA acts too, etc? Please read the discussion and or comments page before you delete & kindly stay off my personal sandbox and don't delete images you know nothing about, thanks.

--Eckre (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I don't quite understand this category thing. I added the death metal album cat for some of Alchemist's albums since not all of theirs are death metal and all of theirs are progressive so I added that to their albums cat but I don't understand why you keep removing them for the few albums that have different genres. I hope that this is just a misunderstanding. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 19:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the problem of doing that would put in pure progressive metal albums as death metal albums as well when they are not. That's the only problem I have with that. If nothing can be done I guess the category system is flawed for that then. It's pretty much misinformation. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 19:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean by that. Oh well... just wondering what you were doing before and thanks for explaining things. I've always thought of it as my way for some time and no one ever told me anything and didn't know it worked like that. Anyhow, I'll be sure to read up on it. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 22:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, A user recently created an article for this band, the problem is that the entire contents of the article was copied from the official website of this band, which is a flagrant violation of the copyright. I already managed to delete this page yesterday but it was again created, and more incredible is that no one will delete that this band that it apparently is not notable. I hope that you understand and can help me. (If nobody delete the article before you read this message!) --Cannibaloki 03:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, move for the title that is more appropriate. Centralia (album) --Cannibaloki 04:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help with Image:Ice-free-wing-2007.jpg I'm obviously still new to all of this. AM (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for calling you a cyber bully man. I jumped to conslusions about you, which I have done before. I am a dick sometimes which I am working on. Please accept my apology. Also this is really random but can I have your msn mssenger ID?-Sector311 (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you sent me a notice in my talk page about this image: The Fading - Chaos in Flesh EP 2007.jpg

I'm not too familiar with all of the Wiki code, so sorry if some of the links are incorrect or anything.

Anyhow, I added text to the "Source" field of this image. This image is just a photo from one of the gigs of this band (The Fading) who are close friends of mine (and I am one of the founders of the band itself). The image was given to me by their vocalist, there is no copyright on this image at all, I guess. It was edited (I am not sure by whom, but one of their friends, it's not a professional work) and they have it on several personal galleries such as Facebook and Myspace. The edit itself is just a mix of this photo with the cover art from their EP which was designed by me personally, so it's not an issue with copyright as well. I hope this clears up the copyright a bit, and it won't be deleted :)

Thanks.

Boris (Nomæd) A. (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the review and help, GA, wow, and me only me doin' all that, :D I've got a tingly feeling all over. lol But, I was wonderin' if you could help explain this too me:

...adding some reliable sources that aren't from Blabbermouth, placing the references in citation templates and removing the embedded external links to Allmusic...

I'm not sure EXACTLY what you mean, lol. Thanks, Crash Underride 16:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how does this sound for the article?

==Personal life==
As noted by some of the videos he has posted on his official YouTube channel, Lion is an ardent canine lover and supporter. He has spoken out multiple times against animal cruelty and on people blaming most dog attacks on fighting breeds, which is statisically untrue. Lion also has a love of martial arts which he has writin' about in his MySpace blog.

Thanks again, Crash Underride 16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There we go some. I removed the AllMusic links for right now. I then fixed the cites. I have a few more places I can look. I'll also ask him if there are any interviews that I don't know of that I could use, preferably from earlier on in his career. But any other help you can provide I would greatly appreciate. Thanks, Crash Underride 18:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, How are you? When you have a time available, I would like you to help me by giving suggestions aimed at improving the quality of this article. This is the link for page. --Cannibaloki 16:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sounds good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sector311 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for letting me know that I had forgotten the fair use rationale for the Image:PSFM PMC.png for the article Parallels Server for Mac. I have since gone back to the image's description and added what I consider the fair use rationale. Would you please review it and let me know if the tag for speedy deletion can be removed? Thanks! EwokiWiki (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I have uploaded a smaller image as you requested - Image:PSFM PMC thumbnail.png and replaced it on the Parallels Server for Mac page. Is everything okay now? I appreciate your patience and assistance. As you can tell, I'm not very experienced at images. EwokiWiki (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I've decreased the size and expanded on the fair use rationale. Also, thank you for the tip on replacing images. Much easier.  :) Will the new image work okay? EwokiWiki (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a difference a day makes! I registered my opinion in the old/new section at the beginning of the day. I was happy to get some free lance courier work today, but not enough to catch up 2 months rent in arrears and utilities mounting. The Book says "as it is with the prophet, so it shall be with the people". I was wrongfully dismissed April 14 by DND after 2 years on an exclusive contract with a courier company with a lawsuit pending I have to prepare myself. I was refused welfare because the courier company refused to give me a separation slip on the grounds I was a contract driver and not an actual employee. I'm appealing that welfare decision. I've had this dispute with Wikipedians all simultaneously. Discovering this article 6 days after I was dismissed gave me a project to work on. Life is great! I am unhappy with Wikipedians by what you have shown so far.

Having eyes, they will not see. Having ears, they will not hear, so they may understand in their heart, and be converted and healed. This site has shown me how true those words spoken 2000 years ago apply to today. J, I really don't understand why you sent me this message:

• Did you say that permission has been granted to post one of the articles? Exactly what permission was given? J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• What permission was given? Was it released into the public domain, was permission given for use on Wikipedia... (Leaving for the night now- I will reply tomorrow.) J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You just have to read the discussion above: References to those news reports covering my 4000 mile hike from Ottawa to Whitehorse in 1981 for the symbolism have been removed from the article along with The Whitehorse Star and Maclean's Magazine. Maclean's Magazine gave written permission to post the PEOPLE section in the article, but the image is orphaned because the reference is removed. The actual permission is even on this page. What more do you need? I have recused myself from editing the article. I have to depend on others.

As an emissary of the power greater than all the kings of the earth, Bible language for Presidents, Prime Ministers, Popes, CEOs and the very rich, the messages or prophecies are dispersed throughout discussions here, Kingturtle, Ground Zero, East718 and others. There are no consequences to me if people don't pay attention. The messages are now in the public domain having been buried for so many years. People here glance and skim rather than read. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2nd Police warning 4 God's Emissary.jpg - Just thought I'd inform you as to why the image was deleted. The copyright holder of the image contacted OTRS, informing us of the copyvio image. As they did not wish to release the image, it was deleted. The number in the deletion log is actually the OTRS Ticket number. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the ticket, I would agree with Rjd0060 that the complainant (ie. the copyright holder) had legitimate cause to formally request that the images be deleted as a violation of their copyright. If you like, I will happily send a link to the OTRS mailing list asking for further review of the action. Daniel (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is precisely for situations like this the FUR tag exists on this site. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Re your comment on my page, the statement above is very simple as well. What I proposed is in the e-mail I sent you to which you have not replied. I see you did reply to (talk) with your true sentiment. You, Kingturtle and other Administrators have totally ignored my pleas, remaining blind even to the bold print in your talk. It has been only talk with no action. I am unhappy with just cause. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J I'm going to take a walk after this post. You are really beginning to annoy me with your specious discussion. Not Free What does that mean? It means it is not free. It means someone owns the copyright and won't release it to the public. Under these circumstances, Wikipedia has a tag called Fair Use to be attached to an image in this situation free from liability under U.S. Copyright law. It is called the Not Free/Fair Use tag. That's it! That's all! DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely, YesDoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J, My statements in this section are clear , concise and express in the simplest English. You have chosen to distract from those statements ad nauseum. This is my final statement about the images. The deliberated removed references verifying my 1981, 4000 mile hike to Whitehorse is next up on the agenda.

You say, "In terms of the law, basic morality and Wikipedia policies, we can't just randomly take images from other people".

• These are certainly not randomly taken images. They are images of a specific public event 31 years ago referenced #1 as 'Second Police Warning for God's emissary' What about law and basic morality? Because Wikipedia is an American registered non profit charity registered under United States law, U.S. law on copyright prevails and is provided for by the FUR tag. Let's continue on basic morality later.

You say, "We are attempting to write a 'free' encyclopedia- free for others to use. If the copyright holders are not happy for us to use the images, how are they going to feel for others to use in the same context, but for profit? Keeping material that copyright holders want removed is completely contrary to our fundamental goal, not to mention a potential legal problem.

• Here we get to basic morality. You say you got a lawyers letter from Canwest Global Media warning you to remove the images. I got the same letter before you did. It didn't cower me. Since Canwest Global Media has injected itself into this discussion, then it is a fair topic to ask Wikipedians to wonder why such a powerful news organization would go to such lengths to suppress images that have long lost any commercial value? This is totally against "We are attempting to write a 'free' encyclopedia- free for others to use", and should make any freedom loving person question their motives. They want to keep it local and buried in a deliberate effort at subterfuge. I'm disappointed Wikipedians are so fearful of a challenge.

What if this went to court? Would it be ruled in our favour? God knows, I'm not a lawyer.

• If they persisted, they would have to launch legal proceedings in the United States. You won't have to hire a lawyer, I'll be there arguing the case. Canwest does have the monopoly on what Canadians see and read, but American media would have a field day reporting a newspaper is suing God's emissary over a copyvio. It will never happen.

However, I suspect that both our lawyer (Mike Godwin) and founder (Jimbo Wales) would not at all support the notion of keeping copyrighted material after the owners have requested its removal. You're fighting a losing battle there, I'm afraid.

• Maybe you should inform them of these discussions. They may have a greater perspective than we have seen so far, recognizing what an exclusive they have on their site. God fights my battles, so I am not afraid. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We finally agree on one thing. It has been a complete and total waste of time discussion anything with you. Goodbye. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Recently, your bot made this edit. I reverted it here. I understand why the bot is making changes to infoboxes and the like. I figured this one was probably just a mistake.--Rockfang (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for fixing the licensing on the images I added to Cleeve Abbey and Vale Royal Abbey. It seems I used the wrong version of the Creative Commons Licence, cheers for bringing it to my attention, I'll go and fix the others I've used from that source today.Soph (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you think this image has a source? Not only does the image not have a source URL (so the license can't be verified) but it is tagged as PD (I doubt Flickr images are PD) and the image was uploaded in a batch of similar images, all lacking decent sourcing. J Milburn (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read too fast and misinterpreted it, thanks for catching that. Melesse (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you could take another look at this article. It's still on hold, and I do believe there are some concerns left. If this isn't feasible for some reason, I can fail the article and you can re-nominate it when you have the chance. Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright; I'll try to take a look at it. I don't see any really glaring errors, but I'll fix what I do find. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed the article, congratulations. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after May 19, 2005, except where they have been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1] This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License"

I believe this image should be fine to use as it is licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License"—Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRussell (talk • contribs)

nevermind, the "except" confused me, I will remove them. JohnRussell (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that CC NC was part of the "exception" ; did not understand.JohnRussell (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The changes made for a new Broadway in Chicago page title are incorrect. The company's official title includes a captialized "I" for the word "In". See http://www.broadwayinchicago.com. Please change the Wikipedia page back to its original title "Broadway In Chicago". Kimberlyhobart (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure about what everything means... I just know that after talking with Matt Tomer, he said I can use the image. If I wrote the wrong thing by mistake, I'm sorry. Pikafire69 (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was done over AIM, and I sadly don't have the chat transcript saved... I can talk to him again though. if you think it's absolutely necessary. Pikafire69 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]