User talk:Johntex/Talk16

Apologies. I think I misunderstood the Harvard University (I thought it was a university team, as in "Such and Such College" only). Frickeg 04:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so understanding. I've just been involved in a dispute with a vandal, so your kindness was really helpful (I bet you think I'm going over the top, but I was feeling a bit down). Therefore:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for brightening up my afternoon! Frickeg 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, I need an admin's help on an Scouting article which has lost nearly all of his history during some moves: Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas. Yesterday, Evrik moved this article twice [1]; afterwards he copied & pasted both the article and its talk to their original places.

I feel that this action was based on a misunderstanding and should not considered as vandalism (see Talk:Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas). Could you please help to merge the history at Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas and Talk:Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas?

Articles concerned are:

• '''Catholic Scouts of Eurpoe (now deleted)
• Catholic Scouts of Eurpoe (now deleted)
• Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas

Talk pages concernd are:

• Talk:'''Catholic Scouts of Eurpoe (now deleted)
• Talk:Catholic Scouts of Eurpoe
• Talk:Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas

All deleted pages were marked with Template:Db-histmerge, but JzG and Yannismarou, the executing admins, did not merge anything. As far as I can remember Evrik misinterpreted the usage of the template which led to deletion of the article's history.

Thanks for your support. --jergen 10:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you help? --jergen 10:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for offering help, but it's no longer necessary: The history was restored last night. I'd like to move the article back to the German title (there is no officiall translation), but this must be settled with User:Evrik. Perhaps I'll call again. --jergen 16:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johntex, the image Image:Brahma beer advertisement.JPG seems like a picture of an advertisement. Don't you think it poses a copyright problem? Wouldn't it be better to delete this image?

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I see Baby Gender Mentor became a featured article without me :-) Congratulations! —JerryFriedman 18:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting experience going on over at WikiProject California, and WikiProject Southern California.

Some time ago, WikiProject California members had placed their project tags on all articles about California cities. Those tags have been in place for some time. Recently certain members of WikiProject Southern California, after discussion on that project's talk page (only), decided to remove the WikiProject California tags for (almost all) Southern California cities, and replace the tags with WikiProject Southern California tags - only.

That is, the WikiProject Southern California members didn't simply add the WikiProject Southern California tag to Southern California cities, the WikiProject California tags were completely removed. This was done apparently without consultation with the WikiProject California members.

We are gathering responses to the following questions on those projects' talk pages:

• Do you have a view whether the WikiProject California tag should be removed from a large number of cities in Southern California?

• Do you have a view whether city article for Southern California cities should have more than one WikiProject tag?

Please let us know if you have a view! Spamreporter1 16:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern:

I had two discussions (from the Ayane and Kokoro Dead or Alive character pages) deleted by Snkcube. I feel treatened by the act. I would like you to tell Snkcube to not delete my discussions. Thank you for your time.--BigMac1212 01:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I notice that you have added an "unreferenced" tag to this article. I wonder if you could explain your issues with the article. The proper citation is in the first line and indeed the entire text of the case is linked to (in Wikisource) at the bottom of the page. I'm not sure what else needs to be cited. (Feel free to respond on the article's talk page if you prefer.) Thanks. George 03:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'm away from my usual computer at the moment, but in the near future I'll run Shepardize it and list the cases that have cited it, &c. George 00:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help BQZip01 18:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Image reviewed by admin and deemed to be acceptable - image kept)" ( [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]) - Do you plan to address any of my concerns? --Abu badali ^(talk) 04:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns were invalid in these cases. I examined your claim, examined the information given about the images, and determined that the images comply with policy and can be kept. So, yes, I have addressed your concerns by considering them and finding them not to be cause for deletion of the images. Johntex\^talk 04:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but would you share your thoughts on why do my concerns were "invalid in these cases"? --Abu badali ^(talk) 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what else to tell you. They comply with policy. They should not be deleted. Let's move on to images that are clearly violations. I've found several others that are not OK. Johntex\^talk 04:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read my concerns on the images pages? I believe those images have a problem because:

1. Those images were all of startrek characters and as though, copyrighted by Paramount Pictures
2. Those images are being used here under the assumption they are promotional images
3. Those images were downloaded from some website
   1. This some website is either a fansite or a official site (from Paramount Pictures)
4. Paramount pictures official startrek site, http://startrek.com, does not distributes promotional images. It have images, but you're not allowed to use them in other websites
5. Fansites are not a source for promotional images. They are reusers (or simply copyright violators)
6. Editors, while acting in good faith, usually believe any image found on the internet is promotional.

Conclusion: we have no reason to believe those images are promotional.

Then, could you share your reasons to believe those images are really promotional? --Abu badali ^(talk) 05:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites do sometimes receive material from the commercial entity of which they are fans. More tellingly, I have seen several of those images used in reliable publications such as the San Diego Tribune. Glossys of those photos have also been distributed at Star Trek Conferences and at ComicCon. They are used as promotional images. Johntex\^talk 05:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And does the fact that a fansite or the San Diego Tribune had the right to use some image as promotional implies that everyone have this right? What makes you believe so (you seem to believe so)?.

About photos distributed on conferences, please understand the difference between giving someone a copy of an image and giving some the right to copy and publish this image. Do you think the first right implies the second?-Abu badali ^(talk) 05:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These particular images have been widely distributed. They have been included in promotional packets for journalists. There is ample evidence they are promotional images meant to be distributed. Again, I say our time would be better spent working on other issues. Truly problematic images await our attention - not to mention the articles that we aren't improving while we are talking to each other.

I hope this is sufficient for you so we can move on. I don't know if it is Wikipedia or my connection but response is very slow at the moment. If you decide to message me back I may not be able to reply until tomorrow. Johntex\^talk 05:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, was it your choice not to reply my questions?

• If someone is granted the right to use an image as promotional, it means everyone automatically is?
• Do you understand the difference between distributing copy of images and allowing people to use images on websites?

Also, could you provide this "ample evidence" (in a verifiable form)? I have provided above, and on each image description page (before your mass reversion) my evidence to believe these images are unlikely to be promotional (as in {{promotional}}).

Haven't you perceived I found this images "Truly problematic"? Also, I believe removing "Truly problematic" does improve the articles they were being used. --Abu badali ^(talk) 05:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure these images comply with foundation policy though. I think we're going to have to wait and hear about that at some point in the near future. --Kim Bruning 04:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no policy they violate. The policies are already ridiculously anti-fair-use. Let's hope they don't become even more so in the future. Johntex\^talk 04:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy has always been "fair use in very limited circumstances only". People are going to be enforcing these rules more strongly in future. En.wikipedia is only one of over 700 foundation wikis, though we do have under 20% of total content by megabytes. To allow sharing between all these wikis -which all work by different rules and laws- it is vital to use free content, as a kind of shared standard that is legal for all of them. --Kim Bruning 05:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our most important policy and goal has always been "make a useful encyclopedia". The fervor to delete all fair use images impeeds that goal. Let's hope people at the Foundation wise up and become more open to using legally permissable images to enhance the product we are producing. Johntex\^talk 17:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of useful Encyclopedias out there, including many online encyclopedias. Our encyclopedia's Unique Selling Proposition is that it is a free (as in speech) encyclopedia. This was our objective even before we were called wikipedia. (see: Nupedia) We also merged people from Gnupedia under the strict condition that we would use only free licensing. As part of that deal, we also gained public endorsement from the Free Software Foundation. All of this is public knowlege, published in the general press at the time.

The only thing that is happening now is that people have realised that people have been violating our basic policies on this matter, as set forth in m:Foundation issues, and are now moving to correct this.

--Kim Bruning 17:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes us better is the number of contributors we have, which allows us to have unsurpassed breadth and unsurpassed timelinesss. As proof, look to the compliments Wikipedia recieves. They are mostly along those lines. Very few third parties portray us as a "free content" play and we get very little praise for such a mission. We have commons to support the totally free image crusade. We don't need that crusade here. The bulk of the contributors don't want that here. Attempts to overly reduce fair use images here are misguided and harmful to the goal of making a useful reference work. Johntex\^talk 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make no mistake. We are able to have those contributions due to our legal and political background. We have strong support from the free software community, allowing us to utilize our servers efficiently. We have support from several large companies, charities, and powerful people, because they support our basic philosophy. At this level, everything is political.

Also, as stated before, en.wikipedia is just one wiki in a larger wikicommunity consisting of around 700 different wikis in over 70 different languages, operating in many different countries. We get practical support from this huge and diverse community, because all our licenses match up, allowing our content can be reused elsewhere, and other peoples content to be reused here. --Kim Bruning 18:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The US is fortunate to have the concept of fair use. We should take advantage of that. If you want a crusade to follow, a more beneficial crusade would be to champion for an expansion of fair use, not a retraction from it. Johntex\^talk 18:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The US concept of fair use is nice, but does not go nearly far enough. As you know, we're using a system that guarantees more freedom across a larger number of people. I'd like to continue using that system, and I'd like to keep all wikimedia projects compatible with that system, so that they can provide mutual support. Does that seem reasonable? --Kim Bruning 18:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that I think your idea of consistency across all wikis is "unreasonable", it is that I think it is "non-optimal". There are benefits to consistency, sure. But there are also benefits to using advantages when they are presented to us. Suppose I had three children: One gifted in math, one gifted in music, and one who had a learning disability but who was good at sports. The advantage of playing to their strengths and acknowledging their unique needs and opportunities would outweigh for me the advantage to treating them consistently and keeping them all in the same school. In the same way, since our servers are based in the US, we should take advantage of a US law that is beneficial to us. Johntex\^talk 19:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johntex, your thoughs on freenes and image use are in the opposite direction of those of the foundation, and of the project. Don't you think it would be wise for you to avoid taking decisions over images like you did in this case? Your opinions are very likely to be against the project goals on these fields. Johntex, your thoughs on freenes and image use are in the opposite direction of those of the foundation, and of the project. Don't you think it would be wise for you to avoid taking decisions over images like you did in this case? Your opinions are very likely to be against the project goals on these fields. You haven't given enough reasons to have reverted the concerns I've placed over those images. I'm not going to readd the tags right now because I'm going into a short Wikibreak, and will be incapable of disputing other arbitrary reversions like yours. I'll deal with them (and with other hundread invalid-promotional images) when I come back. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No Abu, it is your thoughts that run counter to those of the majority of people in this community. "The Project" does not have goals of its own. The goals are set by the people who make up the project. The community is set up to be self-governing by default. Jimbo has ultimate veto power. If Jimbo doesn't like the will of the community, then he is free to step in and impose his dictatorial will on others. Unless/until he does so, we get to decide what we do. As an administrator, it is in my job descritption to reveiw articles and ijmages for proper sourcing, libel, copyright, etc. I do so practically every day. I did so here. You disagree with my closing and you have a right to disagree. I hope you enjoy your wikibreak. When you return, I suggest you spend some time replying to the RfC on you. Johntex\^talk 18:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an RFC on him? Wow! Can you link to that? I the mean time, aren't admins supposed to be trusted to work in support of the wikimedia foundation? --Kim Bruning 18:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali. I suspect you might tend to side closer to Abu's side vs the side of the complaintants. At the very least, however, I think he should reply to the RfC. I think it is very disrespectful to the community not to reply. Instead, Abu links to it from his own userpage as if it is a badge of honor to have earned the ire of so many of his fellow editors. If he is so proud of his actions, then he should be able to say so at the RfC. To your question, the anser is absolutely yes. I believe that encouraging our policies to support legally permissible fiar use is the best form of support to the foundation. Other people have a different view of what is best for the foundation, that is their right. Johntex\^talk 19:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bruning said " If you open [an RFC on Abu], be aware that there are known cases where RFCs have backfired badly on the opener." - Thanks, I don't fear an RfC. I have commented on several RfC's in the past. The only one I have ever started with in regards to User:Kelly Martin, whose bevavior was truly inexcusibly detrimental to the project. If people want to make negative comments about me in any forum, I will listen to them and either acknowledge my mistakes or defend my actions, as appropriate. Johntex\^talk 19:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC was not or no longer listed. I've corrected the problem. Thanks! --Kim Bruning 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Thank you for listing it. As I mentioned, I did not have any part in starting that RfC. I found it more than 30 days after it had been started and certified. I do not know if it was previously listed or not. Best, Johntex\^talk 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I notice this comment on a different RFC that I'm told is very much related: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok#Outside view by Jimbo Wales. --Kim Bruning 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, when people agree with him he's the god king, but when people disagree hes only human. ;-) Oh well... was worth a shot.

In other news, while we might not quite agree on this particular topic, I do appreciate your civil tone and calm responses. Just wanted to say thank you for that. :-) --Kim Bruning 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you three times:

Thanks for making me chuckle with the "God-King" comment.

Thanks for the compliment about me staying cool - I do my best. I'm not always successful, but I usually manage

Thanks to you also for keeping your cool and being civil.

Best, Johntex\^talk 20:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you like the commons star I would suggest writing a better definition, tie it to a WikiProject and improve the image. --evrik ^(talk) 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the suggestion to write a better definition for the Barnstar - I feel I provided one with my comment. However, I don't understand the need/desire to tie it to a WikiProject. I think it should be a barnstar given to people who make contributions of this type. I think it should be given by anyone who wants to give it. I don't understand an advantage to tying it to a project. Could you please elaborate? Johntex\^talk 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If every barnstar proposed was placed on the BS page, then there would be hundreds of stars. :-D So far, the Commons Barnstar idea has not received a lot of support, which generally means the idea will whither. The threshold for the WP Awards is much lower, with the philosophy being that any WP can have its own award, but to be placed on the WP Award page, it should be first vetted by the community. So ... if an award isn't popular enough to be a Barnstar, by working through a WP, it may eventually be listed. --evrik ^(talk) 20:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I see you found the wikiproject. --evrik ^(talk) 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would love to see about fourteen more people lend their support to this award. --evrik ^(talk) 01:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Johntex. I found most of the universities mention their good qualities (e.g.education system, infrastructures, faculties, courses and much more) In wikipedia articles. However, suppose an university didn't have better education system to provide better services in past days (2 0r 3 years ago). But now the univ's improved its quality and operating as a full fledged university based on the observation of the Government. Then should those bad qualities be added into the article along with references??? From my point of view, they (bad qualities) shouldn't be added into the article, 'coz readers may be confused about the univ qualities. And also those references mightn't be valuable, coz at present the univ's improved its quality . Would any suggestions be beneficial? --NAHID 08:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Same matters with the articles of the different categories. Is it necessary to add negetive materials (that was available in PAST days and no more exist now) into the article? As an experienced editor can you pls clarify it to me?

Johntex, thanks for your valuable suggestions (Examples) and thoughts. As a reference you might take a look on it (International University of Business Agriculture and Technology). I'm currently working on it and going to add more informations at a later time. In introduction, in 2nd paragraph: It was one of the 11 universities that went operational without University Grants Commission (Bangladesh) (UGC) approval which was made a necessity under the Private University Act (1992) in Bangladesh. And, it was one of the 10 univerisities that the UGC issued a deadline of one year to improve qualities. It also introduced new academic courses without UGC approval along with a number of other private universities. Here comes to the point.As this Univ's improved quality then these stuffs may not be added to the article.And the Footnotes are backdated. The university's already established linkages with foreign universities. You may check its website for further information (faculties, facilities etc.). Few years ago, UGC ordered to improve qualities of some private univs in Bangladesh. But now they are following UGC'S rules (like other univs) and operating as full-fledged university.

About University of Oklahoma: I think those were sudden negetive incidents and reader tend not to give too much priority than the whole article (other materials). Best regards --NAHID 13:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Pearl necklace (sexuality). Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regariding your message on my talk page:

1. Please do not leave me boilerplate templates on Wikipedia policy. I've been here a while and made a few contributions and I know our policies pretty well.
2. With regard to censorship - "Wikipedia is not censored" is a notice to readers that they may find things here that might offend them. It is not an obligation forced on us to include things into articles. We can take out whatever we want.
3. Your message is not very specific. I haven't editted that article in quite some time. Instead of a boilerplate template, perhaps you could provide a diff of an edit of the specific edit that brought you to my talk page.

Thanks, Johntex\^talk 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the diff is here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, would you mind leaving a comment about BabyDweezil? Thank you. Anynobody 08:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some action was taken, thanks and feel free to delete this heading. Anynobody 20:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of a plan to reduce the amount of vandalism in Wikipedia. Instead of telling the vandals that vandalism isn't productive and they shouldn't do it, we tell them that instead of doing vandalism themselves and getting banned from Wikipedia, they should look at the works of previous vandals at an articles "history" section. We explain to these would-be vandals that it would be just as fun, but without the punishment. What makes this plan effective is that since they would be browsing the "history" section of articles in search of vandalism, instead of vandalizing Wikipedia themselves, the amount of vandalism would be temporarily disrupted, until these tricksters realize that it is becoming harder to find humorous vandalism and resume vandalizing Wikipedia. However, a temporary solution is better than no solution, and while it won't completely stop vandalism, it may be just as effective, if not more, than the current method of just saying that vandalism is bad and people shouldn't do it. Fusion7 19:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the free use police probably had you blind with rage, but this edit chomped up the opening paragraph. No worries; I've put it back. *Mishatx*-In\Out 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at the recent edits of BabyDweezil (talk · contribs) -- particularly this one and this one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly an attack article about a non-notable person. I have nominated it for deletion before but its fans voted to keep it. If you know of anything else that can be done please do that. Thanks. Steve Dufour 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to move my postscript on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik to the talk page, how about moving Evrik's too? Take a look at the edit histories and you'll see he's added quite a bit too. I'd do it myself but I don't think that would go down too well. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 07:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed your recent comment at User talk:BabyDweezil. However, you may also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block. Another Administrator had begun a discussion of a longer block period of one month, there had also been some prior discussion by other Administrators of something called a "community ban"? I believe the other Administrator User:Bishonen did not wish to block this particular user because Bishonen had previously done so. Just something you may want to look into and comment on... Yours, Smee 07:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Over-reaction by an admin/editor involved with BabyDweezil in a content dispute at Barbara Schwarz. Johntex, I think that you should have posted this to an admin board and let someone else handle it as this looks a lot like "conflict of interest". I make no claim to be a mind reader and make no claim as to what motivated you in this block, I am telling you what it has the appearance of, to me. It would have been better to avoid that appearance. And if you are going to say that BD can appeal the block, I think that you know as well as I do that there is a big difference between another admin undoing your block vs. another admin not making the block for you in the first place. The former, undoing, is a much higher hurdle. The funny thing is that wikipedia is full of silly trivia and the Schwarz claims are interesting trivia for both Hubbard and Eisenhower and, certainly Eisenhower as he has a trivia section. It is trivia that he plays a part in the suits brought by the "queen of FOIA". So was it WP:POINT? Perhaps, but it was also a valid edit in Ike and needed only minor editing, to identify it as trivia, to be a valid edit in LRH. Personally, I see this block as piling-on on BabyDweezil. Please remove the block and post it to an admin board and let a non-involved admin make the call. Thanks. cross-posted to BabyDweezil --Justanother 14:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you mention this in AN/I so I will make my comments there also. --Justanother 14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justanother, thanks for your message. Yes, I considered that there my action may appear to be a conflict of interest and I still decided that to take action was the best course. There were several factors to my decision. One of them is that BD's behavior is consistently bad. This was not an isolated incident. Another is that I had previously blocked a different editor for the exact same thing. BD came along and made the same edits. It was a clear violation. Another factor is that BD has received many warnigs and even previous 24 hour blocks. Yet another is that the project favors action, and that any decision can be undone.

In short, I was confident enough in my actions that I didn't feel it was beneficial to the project to delay while waiting for another admin or set of admins to review the case. I stand by my action. I also note that no admin has yet found issue with the block. Johntex\^talk 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply is on my talk page. --Justanother 15:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Johntex. I'm about to go unblock BabyD now, so he can join in at ANI, please see my comment there. I sincerely hope you don't mind. BabyD has undertaken not to edit anywhere else until the 24 hours are up. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Could you please look at this page and give me an opinion on whether my removal of the tag after having provide a rationale is appropriate? The same user who filed the RFC has reverted me on this and a couple of other pages.

image

Thanks. -- evrik ^(talk) 21:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC) --I used your samples. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 16:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so it seems that I misread the tag placed on Image:TAR10Kandice.jpg. I am not an admin. As an admin, would you please review it for me. --evrik ^(talk) 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• uurggh. [13] --evrik ^(talk) 04:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be something dishonest about removing images from a page because the fair use claims have been discounted, and then deleting the image because it is unused fair use. --evrik ^(talk) 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]