User talk:WhisperToMe/Archive4

I see that you've been doing a lot of work on school articles, and thought you might be interested in commenting on some questions I've asked and work I've done.

Take a look at

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Infobox template proliferation
  • I've been slowly trying to convert articles to Template:Infobox School from the numerous variants.
• Template talk:Infobox School#Color swatches
• Template talk:Infobox School#Gender
• Template talk:Infobox School#Mascot image?
• Template talk:Infobox School#Country?
• Template talk:Infobox School#Website
  • Various ideas and comments on handling of fields in Template:Infobox School

Thanks.

Jordan Brown 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving St. John's School. CarolGray 20:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Alsup. She is in the May 2007 Playboy Women of C-USA section, under the name "Stella."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=cur - You do realize that, when I block, I tell all of my colleagues about what I am doing and they will know if I have a reason to do so. See, you need to read Wikipedia:Wikilove. C'mon, man, we need love! :) WhisperToMe 12:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK if you want love just don't make false and stupid statements.

Bitch what's your problem???

Go back to your little hole and stop fucking around with those who are above you.

Go back to where you came from.

But you are right in a very vauge way. Wikipedia talk pages are not "your" property even if it's about you. But look at this:

Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is much less of a concern than removing comments from other pages in Wikipedia. For text elsewhere, where such text is directed against you, removal should be limited, except in unusual circumstances, to comments that are listed above as clear violations of this policy.

Feel free to remove anything you want from your own talk page but DO NOT TOUCH MINE UNLESS TO COMMENT.

If I know how otaku think, they'll have already downloaded it and viewed it off the internet. Evilgohan2 00:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reaches Consensus through discussion and negotiation. If there's rough consensus, we're done. If you have substantive reasons to not move to the other title, can you please repeat them? Note that this particular page move does not require admin intervention at this point in time, so as long as we're patient, we can just agree on what to do and just do it. --Kim Bruning 23:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Note that if we're impatient we can break stuff and might need an admin, so do take care with that :-)[reply]

Requested Moves gets abused more often than that it gets used correctly. At times when it gets used correctly, I have no issues with it. Today was not a day where it got used correctly. :-P Alright, I'm done talking about requested moves now.

If you think the page must have another name, please clearly tell me those reasons, and let's see if we can reach an agreement. --Kim Bruning 23:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google

i wasn't using it as a "test" or any of that shit, i was using it to prove my point that it is hardly known as o-part hunter on the internet Ancientanubis 00:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i dont five a flip what amazon says, and they're selling the american translation of it... it's supose 2 be the ORIGIONAL name, BUT TRANSLATED to ENGLISH, NOT AMERICAN so just because a few sites say one thing doesnt mean we have 2 do it as well...Ancientanubis

do me a HUGE favor buddy, since your not my mother or my girlfriend, PLEASE don't tell me what to do... Ancientanubis 06:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't care if you've been workin on wikipedia since 1897, it doesn't change the fact that i think you made a BAD decision about changing the name of the article, which is why i am interested in changing it back to how it's suppose to be, AND i ALSO think that you dont really know what your talking about with this article because the ONLY thing you can ever say is "digital monsters/pocket monsters and digimon/pokemon" so i think ya should let people who actually care about the article choose what should happens to it...Ancientanubis 07:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the point you've made in a few places, I've been changing it to Kyoya Ootori wherever I found that it wasn't Kyoya Ootori, so there's no need to tell me that, unless I mistakenly left one instance out, in which case you'd probably do better to just correct to Kyoya Ootori it as opposed to telling me something I already know. >.>; Nique talk 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have commented on the above articles talk page. I have come to you in regards of helping clear up a matter on the above article per WP:DR. There is an annon trying to push his/her POV regarding "Unsourced reports from Christian sources alleging that Cassie said "yes" persist" and "and presents the reports as fact". I have added to the talk page that unsourced reports should be deleted. Could you please help us in this dispute. Thank you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 23:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. You know, I did not know that my grandfather, Antonio Soberanis is featured on this site! Wow...

Oh, and can I make whole pages? I know where the upload page is, but it looks like that is only for images. If not, can you do that for me? Thanks!

Housecat Monkey 03:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Per WP:GAR, If you see an article on the GA list which clearly fails the criteria , you can delist it and remove it from the list at WP:GA immediately.

You can honestly tell me it's up to GA snuff? PhoenixTwo 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I did provide rationale. The article's a mess. Fails 1c, 3a, and 3b of WP:WIAGA, as well as the standards at the school wikiproject for what a school article should be layed out like. Have a look. PhoenixTwo 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 3b is the least of this article's concerns...a good chunk of the school articles have problems with it, of course that's subjective. I think since this article's promotion in September GA standards have really risen, and it'll take a little tweaking to get this up to where it should be. I had to shift a picture down the page just now, I have no idea what i was doing on the left side of the lead text. Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools has some rough outlines that really need to be examined here if we are to form any kind of consistent reference for school articles. PhoenixTwo 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aware that was going to be deleted? I sorta wish I had a chance to vote on that one! Postoak 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noted it on the WikiProject Texas page. I think that many people would have voted against it if they knew about it. Postoak 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to change the page name so much, you should have DISCUSSED it on the talk page. That's WHAT IT'S FOR. You can't just go around changing whatever the heck you want without regard to what other fans want. What you did was selfish, and not how an article editor should act. All major changes should be discussed in the talk pages. Learn some etiquette. Jezebel Parks 05:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Jezzy to you, buddy. And did you give it a chance to be brought up? Noooo. I didn't get the new issue yet (and I subscribe so I would think that I'd get it in a timely manner), and would have brought it up when I did see it. Sometimes, to discuss things, you need to bring them up. That's the power of democracy. Wikipedia is not a communist dictatorship, and I think you need to realize that. I don't know how old you are, but you seem to be acting your shoe size and not your age. Jezebel Parks 05:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rereading the Anime Wikiproject Article Structure, and I fail to see where it says that we have to use the English manga names. Most SK fans that I know prefer to keep the Japanese names intact. If you can give me a few good reasons why you felt it was necessary, (besides 'I felt like it') then I may concede go about my business. Thank you. Jezebel Parks 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you tailored them doesn't mean you are always right. In fact, I'm currently getting a group together to give the ManKin section an overhaul so that it is less messy and more informative. You still haven't convinced me that there is a specific reason why the manga names have to be used. Jezebel Parks 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• sigh* While I still do not fully agree with the change or the method in which it was carried out, I will relent. Otakus and casual fans will probably never see eye to eye. I will only advise you to look above at other users who are displeased with your impromptu edits. While you may think you're right, others may disagree. Peace Out. Jezebel Parks 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You edited a protected page (I assume you must be an admin.) Your edit has a typo, and I can't fix it. --HonourableSchoolboy 06:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. But don't you think you should refrain from further edits while the page is protected? --HonourableSchoolboy 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:SetoKaiba.PNG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Hbdragon88 07:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that, and thanks for correcting me! I got that info based on another wiki page and didn't double-check it. --Jellyfisho?^talk! 15:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

seriously you suck big time. Get a life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.244.56.223 (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What is your interest in helping Lindsay Ashford spam his website all over Wikipedia?

Dude, Wikipedia is so...cool! But...in a creepy way! Thanks for the info man!!!!

-CB-

Housecat Monkey 05:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Outwar, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outwar. Thank you. --Slowking Man 09:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I dont go by Sharpstown High School at all. I rarely see the school.

I understand now, thank you for correcting me. Takedashingen620 18:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew some opposers attacked my reasoning; please told them I only raised this RM due to our agreement[1] and User:Mojo-chan is pressing for a solution at Talk:Case Closed/Name dispute discussions#Decision please; I am forced to put on a RM. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you know of any sources for the other alumni on the "Notable Alumni" list? (My goal is to finally organise the list by year of entrance). Thanks! cab 00:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you use rollback at The Best Page in the Universe on a non-vandal edit? --- RockMFR 05:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your contributions in the name discussions on Case Closed, I inveite you to comment on a recent name change request for that article at Talk:Case Closed#Requested move.--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 13:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the information regarding Joker in the Flame of Recca article is too detailed, so I cut it down to one paragraph (again), since there's an existing article devoted to him (which can be found here). That having been said, please free to add information to the article if you wish. ---- Silentaria 12:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sry! No problem, I'll have it by tomorrow evening. Sorry about that. Vseferović 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added one single paragraph to the WP article's section on deaths attributed to cheese heroin, but there's far more stuff in the article. I abstracted a bit on the Talk page and wanted to alert you to it ASAP, though I do realize it's hardly the only article you work on(!).

• 'Cheese' crisis runs deep

— Lawikitejana 02:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you should tell your students that the world knows about the drug epidemic. People in faraway countries will read about the deaths inflicted by the drug... WhisperToMe 03:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose not pointing it out to them won't help matters. Wish they had more consistent exposure to the news aspect of the Internet (and entities such as Wikipedia); it might help their urban provincialism a bit. Lawikitejana 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: P.S. The article confirming Cortez' toxicology results indicates they're waiting still on several others' results; also, there was another death this week in which cheeze is suspected. It's reaching the point where naming names will get inappropriate/non-notable and be subject to removal on grounds of "Wikipedia is not a memorial"; however, the first few cases will stay notable because they spurred action. Now that TAKS is over, at least one of the high schools -- maybe more -- is having a community anti-cheeze rally next Monday. We'll see where it gets us ... Lawikitejana 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parking another article here mdash; hoping we don't need to incorporate it into the article. Dang, Cornyn's going to spread the blasted trend himself in his efforts to get attention and be the hero: 'Cheese' may become U.S. priority: But some worry more exposure could lead more youths to drug, The Dallas Morning News, June 15, 2007

-- Lawikitejana 19:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was just an interview around 5 minutes ago on Fox News today (7/19/07), the people were clueless, but it was all about "Cheese" in the Dallas area. I thought I would mention this to you since we discussed this in the past, and I wanted to report to you that it is still relevant.

The interivew was horrible though, the hostess said that anti-histamines are banned (when she meant sudafeds), and the officer agreed. They also both agreed that anti-histamines are behind the counter multiple times, even though they aren't in most areas. The officer also said they use Tylenol to get the high, when it is mostly the anti-histamine, so yes, it is still relevant and an issue, but these people are so stupid. We should be doing interviews on the news about it. ^_^ FreakOut GiveIn 14:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tohma to Thomas, Sunflowmon to Sunflowermon, Miki and Megumi to "a possible" Miniskirt police which they were never referred to in the original Japanese version, and the order of the names for Fujieda Yoshino to Yoshino Fujieda and Satsuma Rentarou to Rentarou Satsuma, but Masaru's stayed Daimon Masaru even though in the explanation of the series they used "Masaru" as his first name to identify him, so there are other "characters" that have their names changed or switched around, not just Tohma, that is why it must be that "anglicized names for some of the characters" not "an alteration of one character's name from Tohma to Thomas" because there are definitely more characters with name alterations.--Amigobro2 04:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the image of Lincoln Park High School.

• 
  Lincoln Park High School

I'll take some more pictures later on in the year. School ends in mid-June. Vseferović 23:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I did not know that the CPS articles lacked images... Vseferović 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on the Westfield High School article seems rather nit picky to me, the fact that the various towns and communities listed are unincorporated ultimately makes no real difference to the article, and bothers the flow of the wording. I'm going to work with the text to fix this. Zidel333 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Chantilly designations are based around zip codes, and the schools and communities when assigned are designated where they are from via their address. Your argument is based around may and maybes, and in all practicality, this doesn't happen. The school is most definitly within Chantilly, there is no second guessing over its physical location, and can be cited. It is simply a matter of the text appearing superflouous. Zidel333 02:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIC, there's no justifiable reason to supply this information in the article itself. We have a Korean name template for this very purpose.

{{Korean name|[[Cho (Korean name)|Cho]]}}

gives you:

This is a Korean name; the family name is Cho, and, unlike Western family names, comes first when pronouncing full names.

We don't need a whole paragraph talking about possible variations on a name. Bueller 007 15:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would disagree. Just because someone writes a play for class, does not automatically make them a "playwright" and "dramatist". WooHoo! By your logic, I am a playwright... I guess I'll go write up an article on me! Oh, and I'm an author, because I once wrote a short story back in middle school. Oh, and a researcher/historian, because I put some little figurines in a shoebox that looked like the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth. Oh, and a scientist, because once, in 5th grade, I put baking soda and vinegar in a volcano shaped thing to show a reaction. Man, I am quite an accomplised aliʻi... --Ali'i 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh... you do realize you just said you thought "he is notable for writing the plays", right? That is absurd. He is in no way notable for writing plays... I think he might be notable for some action other than writing plays, but that eludes me currently. I'll get back to you when I can come up with another reason why this playwright is notable. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Ali'i. In no way is he an author or a playwright. Bueller 007 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. I understand the definition, but did I forget a conversation we had previously? My mind isn't as sharp lately, and I don't mean to be rude, but what started the conversation? Jmlk17 05:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. Jmlk17 06:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last night I sent an email to NPR, and they ran a story on this[2]. Today, NBC and the AP already reversed their position[3][4]. CNN, on the other hand, butchers his sister's name to be consistent [5]. DHN 00:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the explanation was a misguided attempt at cultural sensitivity. Absent of information from his family, it should be clear by Wednesday that he and those around him used the Western order. What was supposed to be an attempt at showing cultural sensitivity ended up looking like they were trying to de-Americanize him. DHN 08:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had already read all of those links that you posted. When the media first labelled him Cho Seung-hui, they were going by the best information available to them at the time. Then the family spoke and finally confirmed the name that he used on a daily basis. It's a non-issue. Bueller 007 21:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing that major mistake in the infobox. :) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 18:42Z

That's a little pedantic, don't you think? I can't imagine there is a policy somewhere reading "Wikipedia is amoral" either. But past practice shows that there is some sense of responsibility: the entire existence of oversight, the entire existence of the biographies of living persons policy, the general practice of removing personal information about children from their user pages, and various other actions we take do exhibit some sense of responsibility. Natalie 00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your request for some explanation or demonstration of practice is unreasonable, but I think your request for "policies (not guidelines)" is unreasonable, especially since you are not providing any sorts of policies to demonstrate your own claim. Biographies of living persons may be couched in legal terms, but Seigenthaler never sued, and in fact expressed his desire not to sue. Nor would legal issues explain the injunction to remove contentious positive information, which surely would not be considered defamation. For that matter, I would argue that obeying the law is a part of being responsible, although it could be considered amoral (or even immoral, in some cases).

As far as Sun-Kyung Cho goes, she may not be a private individual, but I would say she is not a completely public individual either. Nor do I think you can determine what may happen in Cho's case - who knows what he did with his electronic accounts. They may very well be part of this investigation. So to claim that there will be no legal issues with his electronic accounts seems like something you can't prove at this time. Natalie 00:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer to believe that we only remove phone numbers from edit histories, or birthdays from biographies of just-barely-notable people is for public relations purposes, that's your prerogative. But I can just as easily say that we do these things out of a sense of responsiblity to other people. Natalie 00:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm completely aware that the man is dead. Regardless, there is no reason to put his email address in his biography. It adds nothing to the biography and in this case, because of the magnitude of the crime he committed, there may be a reason to not put his email address in his biography. As for the larger discussion of whether Wikipedia has or should have any sense of responsibility... Natalie 01:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what is this statement referring to: "I will also find the phrase about lack of usage of "tragedy," "tragic," etc. " I don't recall discussing use of tragedy or tragic, but I could be mistaken. Natalie 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the relevance of the specific addresses. I see the point in including the fact that he purchased weapons on EBay and never have argued against its inclusion, but I find the inclusion of the email addresses themselves pointless at best and harmful at worst. Natalie 01:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that one needs an email address to create an account on EBay has no bearing on whether or not we should publish the email address. As far making moral arguments on Wikipedia, I was making an appeal to responsibility, rather than morality, which I think (as I said above) is relevant. I understand you think may be better ways to argue the same point, but argument A being better or stronger does not automatically make argument B invalid. And I'm still confused about the comment about "tragic" and "tragedy" I reprinted above. Natalie 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't participate in the discussion about Cho's sister's name being released, and I would have found it silly to not include, because it's just a name. However, I feel I must reiterate that I'm appealing to our responsibility as one of the most popular websites in the world, not any moral rule or judgment. Publishing an email address, when we don't know who will be on the receiving end of that address or what they may be doing with the emails, seems irresponsible to me, as well as unecessary. Natalie 01:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the purpose of having an email address to open an EBay account, but again, that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not we should publish it. We have an article about telephones that explains everything about the phenomenon, but we don't publish a phone number in the article. Natalie 01:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't really answer the question of what the purpose of publishing the email address would be. Also, even though you're probably right and he did not give the email password to his family, that's no guarantee the email's arrivals won't be the subject of the investigation. Natalie 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question. I removed all references to personal websites and social networking sites into the discussion area. This article has received much attention because many believe it constitutes (or eventually will) a violation of the policy against creating memorials. Additionally, wikipedia has specific guidelines on what content should be linked externally, and these links to not meet that criteria. If you would like to discuss moving the links back into the article, please do so on the talk page of the article. HokieRNB 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These seemed to me to fall under speedy delete category r3 (unlikely to be used as search terms). I would say to just put them in the list of victims article, but I'm not even sure that the screennames should be included there (for reasons of doubtful notability and invasion of privacy). If you feel strongly that they should be included, maybe there needs to be an AFD discussion instead. NawlinWiki 22:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just responded to you on the talk page of the article and on my talk page. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article List of victims of the Our Lady of the Angels School Fire, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Coren 02:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Where do we draw the line? As far as I can tell, those other pages belong just as little on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not for lists of victims of tragedies, no matter how well intended (the list, not the tragedy). I am not making a reflection on relative tragedy, but one what belongs in an encyclopedia. Coren 02:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. The fire was notable. The victims, no matter how regrettable, were not. Coren 02:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. As far as I'm concerned, the "notable as a group" beef poo-poo just validates my argument.  :-) The VT event, however, is probably too fresh in everyone's memory to consider rationally-- anyone voting delete must have been pelted with... err, "notability arguments". I'd submit the list to AfD, personally, with a mention that merge back into main article might be appropriate. I just want you to understand that's a judgment call for the quality of Wikipedia, not against the victims of the tragedy. Coren 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say, what about merging back in the article, but dispensing with the bullet list? That would take much less screen real-estate. Coren 02:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Your call. We're both working for the good of Wikipedia, right?  :-) Good editing Coren 02:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "That material should be removed ASAP. Unless we are going to go into EVERYBODIES ethnic background, it's offensive and unnecessary. --Tom 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

It's a stretch to call it offensive when the information is widely circulated: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Reema+Lebanese&btnG=Search WhisperToMe 01:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are adding ethnic background info to ALL victims, then its prefectly OK. If not, then I still think its offensive. Just because its widely published means little. --Tom 12:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have a dispute with User:Mel Etitis on the Futari Ecchi article which I was doing some copy editing on. After have a disagreement on what seems as his own policy of reverting because editors did not leave an edit summary. Or at least this is how I perceive an editor that has the statement " If you've come here to ask why I reverted your edits with the edit summary "rv unexplained and unsourced edits", don't bother, I'll tell you now — it's because your edits were unexplained and unsourced" on their talk page. I will not lie when I say that I find him disagreeable, but I have been civil and tried to make my arguments with sources. I even tried to User:John Reaves involved, but nothing came of it. I guess what I want is you to look over his edits on the Futari Ecchi article as someone who has done edits on Anime and Manga articles and see what you think. (Duane543 01:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your help. (Duane543 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi WTM,

You've helped me before, so I want to offer some help to you too.

First, I agree with the major improvements that you did to the page and the reasoning behind doing so. Thank you for the extra work--I KNOW what it takes!

When you do an external hyperlink normally, your format is fine, as below, just using single square brackets.

Your link:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/20070417_SHOOTING_GRAPHIC.html?ex=1177905600&en=2ada0d455f440cd0&ei=5070]

However, when you are adding links to a page which is currently using the footnote structure, as this one is, then they need to be converted to this "ref link" structure, which is a combination of HTML and a template.

Converted to a ref link (footnote):

<ref name="Graphic"> {{cite web | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/20070417_SHOOTING_GRAPHIC.html?ex=1177732800&en=7f033140a028fa2d&ei=5070 | title="Shooting Graphic" }} </ref>

This allows you to just use the shorthand version, a "named reference", for each following use.

Each subsequent use of the ref:

<ref name="Graphic"/>

Of course, it is more work at first, because you need to determine if a link already exists and is named, but, in the end, it is easier for all.

If you want to tackle it, that is fine. If you don't have the interest or the time, I will work on it later today, if no one has done it before. BTW, either method is acceptable, they just can't be mixed, as the same numbers will be used in both referencing strctures and it becomes very confusing for the reader.

Again, thanks for all your work!

Take care,

Larry --Lmcelhiney 12:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing in my page. As I wrote, I'm Japanese and live in Japan. Tokyo has been the capital of Japan since Edo era(1600s), and Kyoto had been the capital of Japan from Heian era to Azuchi-momoyama era(794~1500s). I am so so surprised to know which is the capital of Japan TODAY, Tokyo or Kyoto has been discussed! It's Tokyo, of course! It's by no means a controversial issue. It's so meaningless. I hope you understand what I mean. Regards.--220.214.55.236 16:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Stub Attack! - see WikiProject Houston, for report and mission details. Postoak 19:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I am a new user and i was on the virgnia tech discussion page i completley agree with you just because people decline interviews there is no reason or whatsoever to include everyone affected by this incident. even the injured count--Missionimpossible 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Pearl C. Anderson Middle Learning Center and Lincoln High School (Dallas): why is it more beneficial to have the schools in list form? It is recommended against in the MoS. Also, it's not like I can't convert the inline external links you added, but is there a reason you aren't using the cite.php format? It's not like any of this would normally bother me, but I would like to keep the style of Dallas ISD school pages uniform. -- drumguy8800 C T 22:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure if there's even policy regarding a link embedded like this: [6], but references go after the punctuation. -- drumguy8800 C T 22:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heres the link where it says that Lamar has the largest IB Program in North America. http://www.lamarhsalumni.com/Reach_For_The_Stars_brochure_v2_02-22-07.pdf

Thnx for the spanish article. Ill fix it for you since it has poor spanish grammar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J90nepnjmm (talk • contribs) 00:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is not governed by newspaper style. 65.28.9.8 17:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am not a "new user." I, too, have been here since 2003. I just choose never to use my registered name except to upload pictures, and my IP address changes every couple of months. The use of last names for the "bad guy" and the more familiar first names for the "good guy" in an article about a child killed by someone about whom there are horrible allegations de facto does not support neutrality. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: Wikipedia does not allow "propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." The fact that Kanka is the alleged victim and Timmendequas is the alleged lawbreaker does not merit cementing that distinction by calling the alleged victim by the more familiar and the alleged lawbreaker by the more distant. As WP:NPOV states, "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." If you would rather use first names, that's fine, but then "Timmendequas" should be changed to Jesse.65.28.9.8 21:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an account. I just choose not to use it except to upload pictures and start new articles. I'm not upset that you thought otherwise - I only wanted to inform you that I wasn't new to Wikipedia. Regardless, "tenure" is meaningless on Wikipedia, where all contributors are to be treated equally. Journalistic style may be what it is, but still, again, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper (see WP:NOT), those concerns essentially are immaterial to the neutrality issue at hand. Wikipedia has a much narrower neutrality protocol than a newspaper. I believe I adequately explained my neutrality issue above. Since you already told me that you understand my concern, I believe the issue is closed. 65.28.9.8 21:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MY ANONYMITY: Wikipedia has no policy stating that I cannot remain anyonymous. Moreover, I choose - and have the right to choose - not to give out my username. The username I use has no main page, and I intend to keep it that way. I cannot list my IP addresses, because they can change without warning (and I use various methods of internet access at work, home, and school, all of which change frequently). I don't mind that you thought I was new; I simply pointed out otherwise. That's my usual remedy for people thinking I'm new: I simply point out that I'm not. NPOV: Now, regarding the naming issue, bias is not a standardized thing, but rather arises when someone percieves bias, as WP:NPOV makes very clear. I perceived bias in the articles Megan Kanka, Megan's Law, Jesse Timmendequas, Jessica Lunsford, and John Couey, so I edited them accordingly to rid them of that bias. Wikipedia has no standardized naming conventions for anyone, so what some outside article may say about journalistic naming conventions is completely immaterial. I understand that the topics of these crimes and alleged perpetrators are very sensitive issues, but even so they were not neutral. My changes made them neutral. It does no harm simply to refer to all persons involved in these very sensitive topics either by their full names or by their surnames, rather than injecting bias by using first names for the alleged vicitms, thereby making them seem more familiar and victim-like, and surnames for the alleged perpetrators, thereby making them seem worse. That is bias, and that is not in keeping with WP:NPOV, as detailed above. Clearly, Timmendequas and Couey continue to claim that they are innocent of the respective charges against them and continue to fight their convictions. There is no basis for Wikipedia perceiving them or their alleged victims one way or the other. The articles as they exist now uphold that neutrality and should not be changed. I will respond as necessary to any further comments on the discussion page and subtopic which you created. 65.28.9.8 21:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not "abuse Wikipedia." I have never vandalized an article, I vigorouly fix vandalism when I see it, and I make what I believe are useful and thoughtful contributions to Wikipedia nearly every day on topics of which I am knolwledgeable. I have edited Wikipedia in this manner since 2003, and have no intention to stop doing so. I have not evaded anything or anyone. I consider the issue of my username and anonymity closed. The substantive naming issues will be addressed further on the discussion page and subtopic which you created. 65.28.9.8 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhisperToMe, do you think it would it be appropriate to move "Six Flags Astroworld" to "Astroworld"? Or would the last owner be associated with the park? I would like to work on this article, perhaps try for GA (although it will be hard to find good refs). Thanks, Postoak 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Confidence Tricks You recently edited an article that was about confidence tricks. I'm currently proposing an WikiProject to cover confidence tricks, and I'm curious to see if you're interested. If you are, please check out the proposal page, and join if you wish! Of course this is legitimate! Would I lie to you? Scalene•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•

I'm not as active as I once was but I do follow these kinds of articles. I'll check back and see how far this has progressed. Hopefully I can be of some help down the road. - Tεxτurε 18:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As your own quote says, it wasn't published. Thus it's discounted on that grounds. Biography page template states that it's published works, not possible works. It also needs to conform to the Biography template. Togashi also wanted to do a robot manga, but that too was rejected (Takeuchi said so in the back of Toki*Meca). Not every work that's rejected should be listed on Author's works. Your own quote said that it never made it past a script, making it not even a full-fledged manga. And I'm still calling for a date on Church rather than it being slapped at the end. All manga should have published dates. --Hitsuji Kinno 13:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to message on my talk page) — We can't accept images that are used by permission only. We want people to be able to make copies of the encyclopedia and modify it to suit their purposes. A "Wikipedia use only" license is not good enough. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to message on my talk page) — Yes, the image will be deleted unless relicensed, and especially because we already have a very similar free image, Image:Continental.b777.gatwick.arp.750pix.jpg. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to message on my talk page) — OK. I'm glad you approve. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain why you have set this page to redirect to Franklin? --BozMo talk 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent a half hour cleaning up the Goodwin disambiguation page, but I can't figure out one link on it: Caitlyn Goodwin (Magical DoReMi). Is she a character or an identity of a character or what? I see you've edited the Ojamajo Doremi so could I possibly enlist your assistance? Cornell Rockey 17:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You moved Gen'ichirō Sata to Genichiro Sata with the reason: "Japan Times uses [Genichiro Sata] http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cabinet/cabinet_profiles_q.html)". Are you aware that the Japan Times has editorial policy that omits all diacritics regardless of the correctness and other circumstances? This is well known and there has been ongoing boycotts for years. Would you move the page back if you found a single English reference that uses "Gen'ichirō Sata"? Bendono 23:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Philip and I can't figure out who the hell this is, so if you would like to enlighten us, please sign on to AIM or message me at pyrogenix19. We honest to god can't figure out who you are at Challenge. - - Thanks.

(Pyrogenics posted this)

At 8:44 today (May 11, 2007) someone created a new user account with the name Fg3, then redirected the user page and user talk page to mine. The user edited Japanese name and left a misleading edit summary. It's not me. Fg2 09:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the CPS will assign the tower to a set of zoned schools doesn't necessitate it having its own section. Do you disagree? I'm not sure if you noticed, but I left the actual information in... Chupper 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66.18.210.190's edits removed the duplicate listing of your verbage. It looks like you assumed I removed that information just because I removed the section title, and then added the section back in, unaware that information was still in the article. Chupper 20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:CaseClosedmanga.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShadowHalo 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're point exactly is??? -chris^_^ 02:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Taipei and Osaka last November 2006 from the current destination list and by then there were no former destination list then.[7][8]-chris^_^ 02:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Uni High to the proper namespace involved moving a lot of pages and cats. Cats can't be moved, so they're recreated entirely and then the old cats are deleted. That was done.

But that still leaves seven pages that were moved, and therefore that now have redirects. All of the links pointing to the pages have been adjusted to point to the correct page--including in discussions and archives--the links were piped so that they didn't appear differently. The only thing that still links to those redirect pages are bot recoreds, and those obviously shouldn't be changed (especially since some are records of the move).

But it's problematic to leave around 7 redirect page for an article, when the whole point of moving it to the new namespace was because of conflicting article names (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)). I'm double checking, because this is the first very big move that I've done under the guideline, but I don't see any reason not to delete the redirect pages, and I see a lot of reasons to. Right now, nothing links to them--they stick around, people start using them. It's typical for less specific namespaces to redirect to the disambig page, or to be deleted altogether if unecessary. Also, I'd never bet the farm on this being the only Uni High School, Los Angeles. It's the only one we know about, but the name is common, (that's why we have created a unified system for dealing with names) and there's no need for the redirects that are at the least unnecessary and let people be lazy and use redirects and at the most, cause serious problems later on down the line when we have article's that conflict to a greater degree then they do now. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:07, May 14 2007

I just moved the sandbox to Montrose, Houston, Texas. I added your recent edit there. Thanks, Postoak 03:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLease ses my reply on my talk page Adam McCormick 21:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the truth only what the popular idea is at the time? No, what he did was illegal, therefore considered murder. You DO NOT have to be convicted for it to be murder, what was it before they were convicted? It is the same, only a judge didn't "officaly" pronounce it. DevoutCatholic 04:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently restored and (hopefully) improved upon an article you started. If you'd like to take another look at it and see how it might be further expanded before being deleted again, I'd appreciate it. —freak(talk) 07:10, May. 21, 2007 (UTC)

You've complained on my user page that I deleted an image without contacting you. I deleted this image on 14 January 2006 - well over a year ago - and the image had been tagged since May 2005. The image was tagged in May by User:RedWolf, and the re-uploaded image was then tagged by User:BetacommandBot this month.

I suspect you may be actually referring to a subsequent deletion of this image by a different administrator which happened this month - but even so, it's not the deleting admin's responsibility to check that uploaders were notified when deleting. Is your complaint actually with the bot which tagged the image? Anyway, if you add images you've uploaded to your watchlist, you'll see when they've been tagged.

Regards, CLW 08:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to the Duchesne article. I, too, have been doing some work on it and intend to expand it. I think, however, that the section that you just added, "Before Duchesne", is largely irrelevant. The same could be said about nearly every other school. Also, a sizable percentage of the students attend Duchesne all the way from Pre-K through 12th grade. I feel that the section should be removed, but I'd like to hear your viewpoint.

For disclosure: I'm a Duchesne and Regis dad. —Travis ^C/_T\^U 12:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe "irrelevant" wasn't the right word to use. I understand your point, but since that information is actually garnered from other schools' websites, wouldn't it be more appropriately located in those schools' articles? As for the comparison to public schools, I don't think that really applies in this case. For public schools, it is a predetermined path from elementary to junior/middle to high school. A more appropriate comparison would be to a university where students come from multiple high schools around the world. —Travis ^C/_T\^U 14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This type of information may be useful in articles of high schools such as Episcopal, Saint Thomas (both of them), or Houston Christian. Many, if not most, of Duchesne upper school students are from Duchesne middle school, which, in turn, are from Duchesne lower school. The same progression, I imagine, also applies to Kinkaid, Saint John, and Second Baptist.

In any case, the statement, "Some Duchesne students initially attend other schools and transfer to Duchesne," can be applied to any school. I don't think that the section adds useful Duchesne-related material to the article. —Travis ^C/_T\^U 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you must leave the information in the article, why don't you at least move it to the student body section and get rid of this section header? I just don't like the way it looks. "Before Duchesne" sounds like something to do with the history of the school. —Travis ^C/_T\^U 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you —Travis ^C/_T\^U 01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to be concerned about your continued comments on my talk page. My apologies for my frankness, but you appear to be a bit vindictive. You say: "This would never have happened if the redirect was not listed." I am not sure how you can definitively predict every possible future of the page in question, and therefore you cannot predict whether such an event would have otherwise happened.

Additionally, I can find the edit in question in the history of the page, my contributions searched by name of article, or my contributions searched by date. Please point out to me where the logs indicate I edited the article, as I make edits often, and do not tend to remember individual edits. You might find my contributions at Special:Contributions/Freedomlinux. If I did indeed make such an edit, it may have been because the redirect was broken, the relevance may not have been clear, the information may not have been verified, or I could have made a simple error in judgment or usage. I would like to point out that stephenb did request speedy deletion based on lack of context. Freedomlinux 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the language you filed an Rfc on is long gone, I'm going to change the Rfc to request comments on whether or not high school newspaper articles are RS. I'll link to it at wikiproject schools, WP:RS, WP:V, the likely suspects. If you still think my version (which is not the version it's currently set at) uses not neutral language and isn't specific enough, lets see if we can work that out through discussion first, and if not, rfc it. But there's no point in an rfc in the particulars, if people don't find high school newspaper articles RS. If they say no, I'm going to have to pare the article down to the bare bones. Only certain aspects of really important or controversial stuff makes the latimes, etc. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:46, May 23 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I'm doing sandbox work. Uni sandbox is what the article would be like if we didn't use high school articles as sources, and I'm working on the filming section in User:Miss Mondegreen/Uni filming (I was in the middle of writing it when the whole shebang happened so I'm finishing adding refs and fixing spelling mistakes etc). Uni filming could use some serious proofreading, and there's an accompanying talk page. I don't want the whole current issue to distract from the ones you original raised, specificity and NPOV, so please if you see something that you think is badly phrased etc, I'd really like to keep working while this whole thing is going on.

I hope you don't mind what I did to the Rfc. I do think the issues you were raising with the article are important, but I think we need to focus on dealing with one thing at a time and the whole thing was confusing enough for me...and I was there! I can't image how confusing it would be for someone who knew knowthing about the article. Anyway, take a look at the sandbox versions...I think the rewrite should take care of the NPOV issues, but be sure to point out problematic places (I still haven't edited it it really, and I'm trying to rewrite what I read, make in NPOV and make it all flow and sometimes I fail on one (or two) of those). Miss Mondegreen talk  07:23, May 24 2007 (UTC)

• Since all the related pages went for over 24 hours without activity, I requested unprotection. That time did give me a chance to finish what I'd been doing in my sandbox, and I've copied that version (better writing, finished sourcing, hopefully edited) over. I think it deals with your issues from before, but if not, please, I really want the section to be properly sourced and very neutral, especially since it looks like it will be a subpage and I'll have to create a least a stub or two for a related material. In the meantime I'm hoping that we'll get more comments and more specific comments at the Rfc, but things seem to have really died down. Miss Mondegreen talk  05:40, May 26 2007 (UTC)

I redirected this page since it was a broken redirect, but it appears the talk page is associated with your account. I just wanted to give you a heads up :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you uploaded Image:HoustonMeyerlandPlaza.JPG, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image, and that, just as with all of your text contributions, you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if I can be of assistance or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. MER-C 12:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For removing vandalism to my discussion page earlier Evilgohan2 00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I know that you have worked on numerous YuYu Hakusho articles before, I would like to request if you have the time to look at some of the new revisements and post any comments you have on the talk page of the main YuYu Hakusho talk page. The reason why I need to inform you about this has to do with the possible deletion of the YuYu Hakusho characters page and the seperate saga characters pages due to the fact that the summaries of the pages being moved to seperate categories. -Adv193 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have problem with Mel Etitis reverting other editors work on the Futari Ecchi article. He reverts because the other editors work is not cited, not vandalism which revert is usually used for. To me that is not following the wikipedia's Assume good faith policy, which fundamental principle on Wikipedia. While citing work is good, I don't agree with revert other edits on the bases of lack of citation on these edits. If he has a problem with the information, he should use the {{fact}} tag. If you look at the history page of Futari Ecchi, their has not been one edit by another editor that has not been reverted or modified by Mel Etitis since he has started editing this article. I think his actions could stunt the growth of this article and others (if he does same thing on other articles). I have tried to make my point known to Mel before through the edit summaries, his personal talk page, and the article talk page with little results in understanding or compromise. So if you could please look at the situation of Mel's reverts on Futari Ecchi and tell me what you think. (Duane543 23:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Somari, by A Link to the Past, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Somari was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Somari, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Somari itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you uploaded Image:HoustonMeyerlandPlaza.JPG, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 20:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you uploaded Image:HoustonRobertsElementary School.JPG, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 20:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you uploaded Image:UptownHoustonIntersection.JPG, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 21:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:JackHensley.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... To be honest, I went by word of mouth. An instructor once told me Texas technically has not defined what a town is. So far in my search of the Texas statutes Local Government Code has found that to be true. The Code defines as 5 types of municipalities (A,B,C Home Rule, and Special law) I haven't found a true definition of town in the code but I have found this:

§ 5.902. CHANGE IN DESIGNATION FROM TOWN[0] TO CITY. (a) The governing body of a Type A general-law municipality that was designated as a "town[0]" may change by ordinance its designation to a "city." (b) A change in designation does not affect the municipality's corporate existence or powers. (c) Bonds that are voted by a municipality and are unissued before the municipality changes its designation may be issued in the new name of the municipality as designated in the ordinance changing the designation.

which Type A refers to this:

CHAPTER 6. TYPE A GENERAL-LAW MUNICIPALITY SUBCHAPTER A. INCORPORATION AS TYPE A GENERAL-LAW MUNICIPALITY § 6.001. AUTHORITY TO INCORPORATE AS TYPE A GENERAL-LAW MUNICIPALITY. A community may incorporate under this subchapter as a Type A general-law municipality if it: (1) constitutes an unincorporated city or town[0]; (2) contains 600 or more inhabitants; and (3) meets the territorial requirements prescribed by Section 5.901.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

Read it how you want, I have searched the law books some and truly found no definition of a town from the state of Texas. I guess by reading 5.902 you could see it as it allows the municipality itself to designate itself as a town or city. Now in regard to these in Montgomery County, I am 99% certain Cut'n'Shoot calls itself a City, at one point the had a City Marshall before it became a full fledged police department. The others I've had no dealings with any members of their municipality, so I can't verify. If you find something that defines a town, from the state statutes, let me know. I'd like to see what I missed. The URL to the statutes: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html

Feedloadr 02:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've brought a good article, we see it the same, it depends on how the municipality decides to incorporate itself, if it wants to it can call itself a village, town or city. It goes under differnt code if its under chapters 1-10 as oposed to Chapter 11. From : A town so incorporated (which may be called a "village" instead of a "town" without diminishing its powers)... To this: which may be called "cities" instead of "towns" without enlarging their powers).

You can have a town under either code from what I read. Basically the differance is from city to village, because either can be refered to as a town. Unless every city is going to be investigated as to its type of municipality or naming preferance, I see the solution to this to group them as Incorporated Communites or Municipalities. Let me know your thoughts, If you disagree with the way I read the above, explain. I enjoy trying to see from another persons POV...Thanks-Feedloadr 15:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Feedloadr 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add wikilinks to the Spanish Wikipedia once the articles are created: I will get rid of the wikilinks in English articles WITHOUT corresponding Spanish articles. Houston ISD DOES have a Spanish article and you can use its format in new articles.

In the meantime, do you mind if you help me translate Lamar High School (Houston) and post its contents on es:Escuela_Secundaria_Lamar_(Houston) ? The latter is under AFD in Spanish, and I need help in order to save the article - if the whole article is translated, it has a much higher chance of being saved. WhisperToMe 12:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure buddy, I'll help, meanwhile I voted for keeping the article. I hope I have it ready by tomorrow AMAPO 12:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMPLETE I couldnt fix the infobox though. :( AMAPO 16:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:MusyaScreenshot01.PNG as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sonic 3D:Flickies' Island, by 32X, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sonic 3D:Flickies' Island fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

not used and bad spelling (missing space, see Sonic 3D: Flickies' Island) --32X 15:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sonic 3D:Flickies' Island, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Sonic 3D:Flickies' Island itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 15:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:DarkYugiToei1.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TéaGardner01.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TéaGardner01.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 11:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 17:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since school is over, i want to help out here. How can i revert vandals? thanks bro Dunkerya 03:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dunkerya 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whisper,

My only point really was that the topic is fairly vague, and students come to Kinkaid from dozens of different schools, so singling certain ones out did not make much sense to me because it gives the idea that most students came to Kinkaid from those schools. I myself went there from public school, and my brother went there from another private school.

Thanks --Txhorns79 21:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:YusukeUrameshi.PNG as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 08:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! --Fire Star 火星 14:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Amidamaru.PNG as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 08:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:AnnaKyoyama.PNG as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:AnnaKyoyama1.PNG as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert that edit? [9]

I tried to cut out non-notable and unsourced material. I do not understand why you made the restoration.

That material was NOT sourced. Unsourced material can be removed at any time.

WhisperToMe 04:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Cinco Ranch High School because your edit summary only said that you were removing the link to a non-existent Spanish Wikipedia article. You did not provide an obvious explanation for why you were removing the content. You did not say "remove non-notable material" or "remove unsourced material". Please use a clear edit summary to explain any content removals or your edits might be reverted by humans or bots as vandalism. Andrew_pmk | Talk 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to beat the Donkey Kong Country NES game? The game doesn't look finished at all, I couldn't get pass the 2nd section (cave area) of the Forest. --Voidvector 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup. One of these templates at the top of the article is sufficient, especially since every single section of the article is unreferenced. Why do you think the article needs more than one "unreferenced" template? johnpseudo 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WhisperToMe, I wasn't sure but I thought I ought to assume good faith at first. Sorry if I was wrong! Smaug123 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tireless contributions and diligence provided to the education articles of the Greater Houston area and nationwide. Thank you for your hard work and efforts! Postoak 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:JonouchiMangaShotJapanese.PNG as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:HondaMangaShotJapanese.PNG as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:AnzuMangaJapanesePanel.PNG as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Further to your comments on my talk page, please note that using non-free image inline is not permitted. Have a look at the {{not orphan}} template you would need to add to prevent deletion. It talks about free images.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The same note above about the non-free images inline would apply to all three image noted. Also, even if these images were kept as inline links, there is no fair use rationale. Have a look at WP:FURAT to read about the rationale requirements. --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that I have started a discussion point on using images as inline links here. I believe that the practice does not fit within the non-free image guidelines, but want to get further clarification. Please add your thoughts.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 02:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Could you maybe mention these differences in the Character design section? -- Deltaneos 17:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That'd be good thanks. Deltaneos 17:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hei.. I saw that you have recently helped fix this article (The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (anime)) a bit.. I would really appriciate help fixing up my latest changes to the article.. Have a great day Acidburn24m 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the old article Christianity and Buddhism to Buddhist influences on Christianity.

I agree with the part of your comment that suggests that there should be various points of view about Christianity and Buddhism (as in a comparison). If you read the section titled "Proposed move" in Talk:Buddhist influences on Christianity, you will see that it is my opinion that there could never be a balanced article about Christianity and Buddhism given the amount of detail on the Buddhist influences on Christianity side. That is why I proposed the move a couple of days ago and why I have executed the move this morning.

This now leaves room for an article that treats both Buddhist influences on Christianity and "Christian influences on Buddhism" under the title of Christianity and Buddhism.

--Richard 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really not know how to watch or do you just dislike the watchlist mechanism? If the former, I can teach you. If the latter, then please continue the Christianity and Buddhism discussion here and I'll watch for your response.

--Richard 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe, thanks for your recent contributions to Northern Virginia schools. It helps. Would you mind using edit summaries, though, please? Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you or someone had uploaded that image to the Commons and marked it for deletion here. However, the Commons had to delete it because, as an image principally of a statue under copyright in the US, it falls outside the current definition of freedom of panorama and thus it's inherently a derivative work over which only the original sculptor can claim copyright. I have retagged it appropriately but it still needs {{Fair use rationale}}. Do you think you could fill one in? You took the picture and can say more about why it's needed in the articles it illustrates and cannot be replaced with a free image (simple ... how can you tell what a statue looks like without taking a picture of it?) Daniel Case 17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm talking about Image:MarkTwainatMarkTwainESHouston.JPG, by the way). Daniel Case 17:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I just didn't see anything so I removed it with without asking. Sorry again, its been an entire year since I've made an edit. Dunkerya 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ZJarrah.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bleh999 11:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am user ro:Utilizator:Bekuletz on the romanian wikipedia. I have a little problem with my en.wiki account, it seems i've lost my password. I can't remember when I created it, and I think I have not confirmed my email address for that account. I have made no edits on en.wiki using the username User:Bekuletz. My confirmed email address for the ro.wiki account in bekuletz@gmail.com. Can you reset the password, or delete the account so I create a new one? Please answer on my ro.wiki talk page, or send me an email to the address I have mentioned. Thanks! ro:Utlizator:Bekuletz 22:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually... The thing is... Ah well... Its too embarressing to repeat what I wrote so:

Clickie here

That was what got removed from the One Piece Viz translation of the manga. Angel Emfrbl 07:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just out of pure interest... I was wondering how you, personally, refer to elderly people? Scarian^Talk 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:KatsuyaJonouchi1.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:HirotoHonda1.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:HondaMangaShotJapanese.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 11:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:TristanTaylor0.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:AnzuMangaJapanesePanel.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:AnzuSecond.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:AnzuToei.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jonouchi03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:JonouchiMangaShotJapanese.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:KeikoYukimura0.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- SilentAria ^talk 05:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:YuYuHakushologo.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- SilentAria ^talk 05:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you edit correcting the location of Emory. Some anon had been insisting that it's located in the city of Atlanta, which is incorrect. Majoreditor 04:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the anon you both are speaking of and think your persistence in listing Emory's location in Dekalb County in its "lead" is frankly uncalled for. Please click here for an encyclopedic reference of Emory (which, by the way, is maintained by an academic institution and sponsored by the state of Georgia) that refers to its urban location ("An important factor in the university's growth over the last two decades has been its location in urban Atlanta"). Also please note that ALL of Emory's Atlanta campus' buildings use Atlanta in their mailing addresses (because, as I hope you can surmise, they are located in ... Atlanta! No way!). Furthermore, if you insist on listing the county of universities in their "leads", I fully expect you to go to Harvard's wiki page and mention that it's in Middlesex County in its lead. You seem very proud of being a pedant (the irony here is rife) for the Wikipedia community, but I'd rather you take your vapid edits elsewhere. Lastly, please don't edit my posts on other Wiki users' pages -- I may be anonymous, but you don't have that right and that lowers the ability of other Wiki users to come to their own conclusions as to how beneficial your edits really are.

Thanks for uploading Image:DarkYugi.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:DarkYugiToei1.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is one on American Gangs. Gangs in the United States of America - and please don't try and call me out in edit summaries, it's rather inappropriate in addition to possibly uncivil.--danielfolsom 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, whatever, I wasn't in a giving mood after you're last edit summary, but it was still civil removing them, if someone put comments about Romeo and Juliet in Gang I wouldn't move them for that someone, I'd delete it, and if they want it in R+J they can go to the edit history and perhaps learn not to make wild accusations - especially if they're inexperienced editors.--danielfolsom 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of saying - don't say "HEY FOLSOM!" - but don't worry about it. Jeeze what are all the fair use images? Is something wrong with the server?--danielfolsom 01:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that many of them! Wow.--danielfolsom 01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whisper - please remember to consistently cite sources. You violated policy (Wikipedia:Footnotes#Converting_citation_styles) by not using the ref tag and citation template (Template:Cite web), which all other references had. If you do not know how I can convert the links for you in about 4 hours, however if you do I would ask you to. --danielfolsom 11:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry - I figured since the section was the same the topic would be - but it was Gangs in the United States of America. diff--danielfolsom 15:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klein Collins High School, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Klein Collins High School satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klein Collins High School and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Klein Collins High School during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jmlk17 06:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:OnePieceVolume1English.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. 17Drew 21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]