User talk:Justmeherenow/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Awesome

Thanks, looks great. Khoikhoi 01:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD not done right?

It looks like you have not actually completed the Lolo Soetoro AfD nomination. I don't see it listed on the general AfD page, which is probably why so few people have voted.

Moreover, your inclusion of the whole prior merge discussion is very confusing. Looking through it, I initially thought the oppose/support comments were about this AfD rather than from the prior discussion. It would be much better if you simply used a link to the prior discussion and let the discussion here be current opinions. LotLE×talk 01:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

OK Lulu, I'll try. Thanks!  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I completed the nomination and moved the link to the prior discussion to a prominent location at the top of the AfD page. LotLE×talk 02:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thx Lulu  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I hope this makes you happy: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable distant you waht sex

Family of Barack Obama

By the way, 2 to the 11 power is only 2048. Agricolae (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ancestors of American Presidents- First Authoritative Edition.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama Segments Under InfoBox

When you converted {{BarackObamaSegmentsUnderInfoBox}} to a use Navbox, you destroyed the embedded hCard microformat (see these changes). Please fix it (let me know if you don't know how). Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest, sir? Just tips me hat but then ?on thoght bows deeply 17:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. I thought this had been fixed, but it hasn't. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Easterly named to FP Top 100 Intellectuals.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Easterly named to FP Top 100 Intellectuals.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mosmof (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Phil Fisher.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Scrollbar on political positions articles

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with the scrollbar table of contents on the political positions pages, but on my Firefox 3 browser, it completely mangles the formatting. The ToC comes out after the first section has already started, and the text and pictures of the first few sections are squeezed all the way to the right of the ToC. And even if a scrollbar works, we're not supposed to use it, because articles then don't print correctly. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd thought it legit (somebody had it installed on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign page), apparently designed to fill in white space when a TOC's very long. But since you say they're discouraged (eg not filling in the text comparable to that of a printed magazine on your browser), I'll revert. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thoght bows deeply 20:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Your other recent change to a bunch of articles, "align navbox with table of contents, abutting infobox", has messed many of them up in Firefox 3 as well. In order for three-across elements, the table of contents gets badly squished into a narrow width, rendering it virtually unreadable. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Layout changes

Why are you adding layout tables to so many articles? Tables are semantic elements designed to hold tabulated data only, not tools for laying out objects. These additions harm accessibility and seem utterly pointless. Please explain. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. From the guidelines, "Often images are placed in an article by using a quirk of table rendering. Because a table can be floated to the left or right side of the screen, it has become common practice to use a simple one-celled table to place an image in a particular part of the screen." Just tips me hat but then 〜on thoght bows deeply 21:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be a great explanation if you were applying this formatting to images, but you are doing it to infoboxes. And even if this guideline applied, it still introduces accessibility issues (which applies to any table that is not being used to present tabulated data). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Juanita_Pulsipher_Brooks.jpg

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

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008 - Obama article probation

For claiming a consensus to move Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories to a watered down title when there was none:

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration‎

I am not understanding your whitespace issue at Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration‎. What browser are you talking about and what is your screen resolution? You also seem to be misunderstanding my cramming issue. It has nothing to do with right and left. It involves whether the edit button is at thetop of the appropriate section instead of crammed down below infoboxes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Various computers and/or their setups see the same WP page various ways, of course. Anyway, with the nav template at the top of the second section.... Well, just look at the rough chart below (dotted lines represent white space):

lede.lede.lede.lede.lede.infobox

lede.lede.lede.lede.lede.infobox

..................................infobox

..................................infobox

..................................infobox

..................................infobox

SECTION HED.."edit".infox

first.sect.text.text.text.navbox

first.sect.text.text.text.navbox

With the nav template directly under the infobox, however, the layout looks to me like this:

lede.lede.lede.lede.lede.infobox

lede.lede.lede.lede.lede.infobox

SECTION HED.."edit".infobox

first.sect.text.text.text.infobox

first.sect.text.text.text.infobox

first.sect.text.text.text.infobox

first.sect.text.text.text.infobox

first.sect.text.text.text.navbox

first.sect.text.text.text.navbox

Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 03:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Ancestors of American Presidents- First Authoritative Edition.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ancestors of American Presidents- First Authoritative Edition.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Brian V. McDonnell.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Brian V. McDonnell.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD which might be of interest to you

You contributed to the article so I'm letting you know: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 Borock (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Logo of the Commission on Presidential Debates.gif)

You've uploaded File:Logo of the Commission on Presidential Debates.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Logo-emperorsclubvip-com.jpg)

You've uploaded File:Logo-emperorsclubvip-com.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Rearrangement of Inauguration page

The edit buttons look fine now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Still good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thx. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 00:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Things are cramming again.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What is going on?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Robert Duvall in Lonesome Dove.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Robert Duvall in Lonesome Dove.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. Peripitus (Talk) 06:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Roubini named to FP Top 100 Intellectuals.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Roubini named to FP Top 100 Intellectuals.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:The Price- My Rise and Fall As Natalia, NYs No1 Escort.jpg)

You've uploaded File:The Price- My Rise and Fall As Natalia, NYs No1 Escort.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Vice Presidential Debate '08 Washington University in St. Louis.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Vice Presidential Debate '08 Washington University in St. Louis.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Obama Inauguration logo.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Encyclopædia_Britannica_logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Encyclopædia_Britannica_logo.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Hi. I'm from Wikipedia Spanish. I'm translating the article Encyclopædia Britannica to Spanish. I'm interesting on used the logo. But i think i have to ask for permission from you. Can I use it on es:Wikipedia? Thanks, and, sorry for my english.- 天使 BlackBeast Do you need someting? 16:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the problem is not to use it. I'ts that the image it doesn't in commons. But, if the image is not in commons, i can't use it on es:wikipedia. So, i don´t know how it's affects the license. Or not? - 天使 BlackBeast Do you need someting? 00:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:William Ayers.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:William Ayers.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo photoshoped?

Hi. Regarding this edit, can you please provide the link to discussion of this photo? Thanks. --Oakshade (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama/Family tree sandbox

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Barack Obama/Family tree sandbox, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Barack Obama/Family tree sandbox is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Barack Obama/Family tree sandbox, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates

I hope you approve of the changes I made and will vote accordingly in the TfD. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Woah, what's with the changes to Template:Obama cabinet infobox. It's an infobox, so it should be justified right, not stretched across the page. Grsz¹¹ 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no permanent changes at all. Rather, since the template is currently unused, the template is simply being used to hold what is presently being used in its place, namely, a two-columned table; and once a section or article's text is filled out enough to adequately accompany the original right-column infobox, its formatting is to be restored. ↜Just me, here, now … 01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it, this actually makes it as a useful table for the Cabinet section of the Presidency article. I still think the Cabinet child-template needs to go, but it looks as if that isn't as easy now. Grsz¹¹ 01:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And if it could be collapsable, its a perfect alternate to everything. Grsz¹¹ 01:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The "child template" is presently unused anywhere, actually. (Whereas this new two-columned table at Template:Obama cabinet infobox was contributed by a user to the Presidency of Barack Obama completely afresh!) :^) ↜Just me, here, now … 01:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's how I see it: Template:Obama cabinet should be used on all current and future members, Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template needs renamed and used only on current members, Template:Obama Administration personnel can be used on general articles such as Presidency of Barack Obama or Executive Office of the President. Template:Biden Vice Presidential staff used for those people, and Template:Obama Executive Office for those. Grsz¹¹ 03:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally confused by your comment, lol -- but nonetheless believe from the sound of it that you've got a good grip on things organizationally! ↜Just me, here, now … 04:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See my edit to Pete Rouse. Grsz¹¹ 04:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I see: an economical and sensible nav template in that context, yes. ↜Just me, here, now … 04:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your signature

Will you please change either the font you use, or the size of the text? It's nearly impossible to read. seresin ( ¡? )  07:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oyghsh, mister or m/s. Upside Down Exclamation Mark Upside Up Question Mark! (I know that's your "talk" button, but still!...lol): Isn't it true that MANY (ahem!), a user's Wikipedia signature is more akin to, um, a symbol, per se, than an actual name: eg a single block letter or what have you? And wouldn't it seem that a curious contributor would usually resort to hi/r simply parking hi/r cursor over such a signature to see the user's actual screen disignation displayed in the usual (browser display-style) san serif font? ↜Just me, here, now … 16:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying you must, I was asking. The signature's not disruptive, so nobody is going to force you to change it. It's just something to consider. seresin ( ¡? )  20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama cabinet infobox

I see that you removed the asterisk from Holder's name in {{Obama cabinet infobox}}. I wasn't aware that he'd been confirmed by the full senate (only by the judiciary committee); can you provide a source for the full senate confirmation? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Link's here. :^) ↜Just me, here, now … 01:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:The Shangri-La Diet.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nar Matteru (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea is to give the warning BEFORE they have reached 3 reverts, as by that point they are already in violation. It is simply a warning, not a threat of administrative action Nar Matteru (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration of Barack Obama

This user helped promote Inauguration of Barack Obama to good article status.

Thank you for the editorial assistance that you gave to help improve this article. Keep up the good work as we try to take this article to WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Did very little but thanks! ↜Just me, here, now … 07:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Barack Hussein Obama, Sr..jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR

I have nominated Barack Obama for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Avi (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Madelyn Lee Payne Dunham.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Chrisdt1.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Chrisdt1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Andernl1.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Andernl1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sasha Grey

IMDB biographies are not considered reliable sources because they rely on user contributions and we don't know how they verify this information beyond changing it if someone sends in a correction or an objection. See [1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Morbidthoughts. ↜Just me, here, now … 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the switch in infoboxes though? I'm not going to change it but there was other information in the adult infobox that is now deleted. I suspect other people might object to this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

With the R -Rated mainstream The Girlfriend Experience she's branching out from porn. ↜Just me, here, now … 23:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Craigslist Killer

With your creation of Craigslist Killer (Boston) in addition to the prexisting Craigslist killer and Philip Markoff, we now have three articles covering the same event. What's the reasoning behind this? I don't understand the Craigslist Killer to Craigslist killer move either. Some talk page activity would be desirable. Шизомби (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Capitalization. The wording uses an indefinate article, a Craigslist killer. Non-proper noun phrases in English are not capitalized.
2. Philip Markoff and Craigslist Killer of Boston, On the Markoff talkpage I indicated I separated in depth coverage of the allegations from that of the suspect per WP:BLP concerns.

↜Just me, here, now … 03:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the capitalization, shouldn't Wikipedia be copying the term as most commonly used in the news, rather than applying its own rules? With the new article, I think it would have been better to move Markoff and the AfD on Markoff (if an article in AfD can be moved), or to chime in on the AfD with a proposal for a new article. The situation is just a lot messier now. Шизомби (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1. How sources term the killers. Can you please provide sources? ↜Just me, here, now … 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
2. New articles. The mechanism for control of the size of/coverage given by this on-line, "wiki" encyclopedia is like this: not being printed on paper, anything deemed notable merits coverage. In order not to bore readers with informational overload, individual topics are differientated among individual articles that are increasingly distinct and specific in scope. And each new article must rise and fall, when or if nominated, at its own separate review forum. ↜Just me, here, now … 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You ill need a consensus to remove this much material

Please do not delete-by-redire3ction. If you wish to call for an AfD on a page, you must do so in the public eye. You attenpted to delete-by-redirection Michael John Anderson and John Katehis -- and the latter you did in a particularly useless way, by redirecting to a one-line list in the Craigslist article, when the topic was Crime, not internet advertising services. You cannot unilaterally "have it your way" here without the consensus process being engaged. The pages have been restored. If you want to AfD them, do so honestly, not in this sneaky manner. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That was User:Grsz11 who did that. I reverted him. :^) ↜Just me, here, now … 04:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My profuse apologies!!! I didn;t read the history thoroughly and just fired off at you. My mistake, and i am so grateful that you took it wih a smile. I am now off to create a new Internet killer page to complete our triumvirate of interrelated killer topics for the week. I really am surprised that none of this was done earlier, as it is a hot topic in news journalism. Thanks again for your kindness. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Notability tag

I'm assuming you removed the tag without following the discussion on talk. The sources most certainly do not represent the material, and I've voiced concerns about original research. Please feel free to participate in the discussion on Talk:Craigslist killer. As it stands, there are no reliable sources that discuss the phenomenon, which is exactly what Catherineyronwode is attempting to create. In other words, the sources being used do not represent the topic as a phenomenon, but merely show examples of usage. Catherineyronwode has tied these sources together to argue that it is a distinct phenomenon, historically linked to previous and current crimes. None of the sources actually say this. This is the most common form of original research and is generally frowned upon. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If the premise of the article is being challenged, I'd suggest an RfD nom. Per the premise of the tag, I checked the article for unsupported assertions, then removed it. ↜Just me, here, now … 09:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We are certainly heading in that direction, but we are engaging in discussion on the talk page in a leisurely fashion. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokey {smiles} ↜Just me, here, now … 09:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The dab guidelines are pretty strict about what appears in the see also section, but we'll deal with it when the time comes. I don't think it is at the top of my agenda at this minute, but I wanted to let you know. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm baffled by your latest edits to Craiglist killer. Dab pages are not modified in that way. Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). I'm restoring it per that guideline and the general WP:DAB. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd. There is not one, single disambiguation page on Wikipedia that uses this format. Do you understand how disambiguation pages are used and formatted? We have style guidelines. The last version was directly mofified by the disambiguation project themselves, not by me. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the diff. That editor is a member of WikiProject Disambiguation and was responding to an outstanding request for official project cleanup and formatting on their project talk page. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the official thread that made the request and logged the response. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The entries that you keep adding do not have consensus for inclusion and have been disputed by at least two registered users and one unregistered user on the talk page. I'm extremely confused by your edits which make no sense whatsoever. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a deep breath. I mean, I appreciate you high spiritedness, Viriditas, but really some of your hyperbole here is a bit hard to take too seriously, no? ↜Just me, here, now … 10:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits just don't make sense and appear to be disruptive. Your AfD nomination was made in bad faith, and I specifically said we were waiting during a discussion, but you went ahead and made it anyway, all the while changing the article that was nominated and removing the tags after I politely asked you not to do that. So, we have you making a large series of controversial edits while a discussion is ongoing, and you have basically ignored every discussion on the topic, preferring to unilaterally act without any justification whatsoever. I'm greatly confused by this type of behavior which does not seek to work harmoniously but to cause strife and discord. Viriditas (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This edit can only be described as vandalism; I cannot think of any other description. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I said I appreciate your high spiritedness and I'll even say right now that I'm completely confident you edit entirely in good faith. But as a personal favor to me, please don't multi-ping my talkpage and, in fact, I'd much prefer it altogether if you addressed my alleged bad-faith AfD nom at that venue and the other issues at their respective talkpages. I consider you to be a little stubborn (eg your refusing to follow basic BLP principles in your disambig links) and don't think we're gonna accomplish much in the way of compromise through my responding to your over-the-top accusations on my own talkpage right now. Would this be OK? Thx ↜Just me, here, now … 10:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, vandalism or trolling, or whichever you prefer. Repeatedly making bad-faith, unconstructive edits has a definition. The dab page does not violate any BLP principle in any way, and that's something you just made up to justify your disruptive behavior. At least we can see now what kind of editor you really are. Thanks for showing your true colors. I'm glad you no longer have to pretend. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Stike trolling. ↜Just me, here, now … 10:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Move one comment to article's talkpage. ↜Just me, here, now … 11:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Profit?

Dunno. ↜Just me, here, now … 11:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The funniest part of this is that you actually think you are one step ahead of me. Watch and learn. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK ↜Just me, here, now … 11:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Murder of X" is the correct and appropriate name for an article about the event. X (murder victim) is a disambiguating term for an article about a the victim. Why are you trying to disambiguate an article about a victim that doesn't require disambiguating and why did you move an article about the event to an article about the victim? Your list of disruptive page edits is growing by the hour. I'm making a list of them. Tell me, what should I do with the list? Because, honestly, I have never seen this kind of disruptive editing in my entire time here. Viriditas (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

{looks aghast and emits an exasperated tsk} I hope ya take this in the right spirit, Viriditas, but I wonder if pulling all nighters leaves your nerves in less than the best shape for collaborative wiki work? ↜Just me, here, now … 13:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Collaborative wiki work? Tell me which part you've been collaborating with me on: Was it the talk pages? Nope. Was it in the dab pages? Nope. Was it in the article naming? Nope. I don't see you collaborating with me on anything. To recap (because something tells me you aren't keeping track of this) your idea of "collaboration" was to show up out of the blue on Craigslist killer and remove a notability tag [2] added by Wikidemon [3]. This tag addition was discussed on the talk page in a discussion you ignored. Your behavior is referred to as "drive-by" editing and is considered disruptive. When I came over to your talk page to discuss the issue with you, you recommended an AfD. I explained that yes, we are headed in the direction, but right now we were busy discussing the topic on the talk page. You then immediately added an AfD tag. From there, things went worse as you began making a huge mess of the disambiguation pages. Now tell me, where was the collaborative work on your end? Viriditas (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What universe are you living it? I post to the talkpage and you don't. Would you be averse to Wikidemon's moderating the little spat that you seem to think exists here? I'll ping him, just in case you'd be interested. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 14:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be living in a parallel universe, since in this one, you haven't participated in a single discussion regarding any edits you made, and you've acted unilaterally in every case. Oh, and just in case you are still confused: Edit summaries aren't "discussion". Viriditas (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas said, "[...]you haven't participated in a single discussion regarding any edits you made, and you've acted unilaterally in every case."

Well in my universe -- and, well, surely it's the knowable one! -- it's patently provable that yes I was busily posting at

1. Talk:Murder of Julissa Brisman,
2. Talk:Michael John Anderson,
3. Talk:Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users,
4. Talk:List of Craigslist killers, aaaand last but not least at
5. Talk:Philip Markoff

-- sure...during which time you yourself were busy composing...although I surely must add, not posting yet!...your analysis whose tone and demeanor communicate some extremely sad and doleful elegy about how poor editor Catherineyronwode's work on the article lacked all of the splendorousness of your so-easy-to-see genius (Talk:List of Craigslist killers#Original research continues). Sorry that I hadn't had time to chime in (since its posting at 12:44 hours) about its astute power of thought as of yet and I admit that such an omission was gauche of me. ↜Just me, here, now … 15:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Even your own friends/allies said that you moved the article without discussion while it was undergoing an active discussion on the talk page, a discussion you didn't participate in.[4] Rational people know when to stop digging... Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I know: my last comment was over the top. (As of now I've been up too many hours.... ) :^) ↜Just me, here, now … 00:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

random question

have you ever heard of a user on other sites, who goes by "more focus and precision?" or the ilk? 72.0.187.239 (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

{tries to fathom query} Come again? Which sites? {smiles} ↜Just me, here, now … 06:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

imdb specifically. you have a similar writing style. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's a good style! {chuckles} (I'm not over at imdb, though....!) {smiles} ↜Just me, here, now … 07:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess it really depends how big a fan of Edward Bulwer-Lytton you are. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're being coyly diplomatic (laughs) but I'm most definately gonna check into Bulwer-Lytton now! (Hmm..."It was a dark and stormy night" Nice iambic line--- )... ↜Just me, here, now … 08:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: AfD

Deletion debates aren't used to discuss policy. You need to go to Wikipedia talk:No original research and start a new thread. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that I'm discussing application of already existing policies in the tandem AfDs, thank you very much..... {smiles} ↜Just me, here, now … 11:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Er, no, you aren't. You're making a fool of yourself. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Internet killer to Internet homicide

I think you're trying to be helpful, but renaming an article in AfD does confuse things, particularly when you didn't note in the AfD that you had done so. Frankly, even if it weren't in AfD, it would have been good to post to the talk page before doing that. Шизомби (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Bad WP:Etiquette. ↜Just me, here, now … 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Using title tags of websites for article titles

John, I appreciate your efforts to build up Wikipedia content regarding the Bloggernacle. One thing to keep in mind that content found between the title tags in the HTML of a page isn't necessarily the same as the name of the entity. Browsing and about page or contact page should give you a better idea of what the entity calls itself. Thanks for your enthusiasm. --Kmsiever (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My name's not John, Km, but thanks for the pointers! :^) ↜Just me, here, now … 17:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Home and family blog

I have nominated Home and family blog, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. 16x9 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you've not demonstrated any notability of the category of blog called "Home and family". Also, if the blogs aren't categorised as "home and family" blogs in reliable sources, what you're doing by including them in this list is improper synthesis (see WP:SYN). "List of parenting blogs" would be a title that would be better, as that gets 400 news hits - but you can only include blogs that have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Fences and windows (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem with home and family is it is too vague. If a teenager writes about how he hates his home and family, does that count? Actually Parenting websites would be more inclusive, not sure why we need to go down the path of "List of..." or restrict it to blogs. There are reliable sources linking "mom blog" to "parenting blog", e.g. [5][6][7], so if you write something like "Parenting blogs, which can include "mom blogs"[citation] and "pop blogs"[citation]" you'll be covered. Just be careful to avoid WP:PUFFERY when including any individual website. Btw, there's a very lonely category, Category:Parenting websites. Fences and windows (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, pedantry can be useful, as it prevents people using Wikipedia as a platform to present their own ideas and research. But editors get into the habit and gain an adversarial mindset. I've been on the receiving end of some terrible Wikilawyering and attempted abuse of rules. I think this topic has got critical attention as it appears vague, and online sources are often a battleground for issues of notability, with people trying to push their favourite blogger, MySpace celebrity, YouTube video, meme, etc. Also, I think your reaction of trying to argue and use rules was a tactical error - finding reliable sources is the best approach, it always shuts people up. Fences and windows (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, these bloggers are probably not the reading material of the average Wikipedian! You might get help here:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, a project that may sit well with your siding with the underdog. Fences and windows (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(Hi it's User:SimonTrew here, to save you having to scroll to the end)

I think you made few good points with your latest post on AfD, and I've changed my mind. I will only reply there briefly (after finishing writing this) since it's not the purpose there to discuss ways forward. I'm afraid this reply is rather long.

Tagging: Yes, it would have been a good idea to put {{Under construction}}. I had assumed you knew of its existence, since you are not a complete newbie, and so was probably unforgiving that you hadn't. But that's probably an unfair assumption on my part: I know for myself when I get rapped on the knuckles with "it should have this, that the other" and a string of WP: this and WP: that and "use this template" and HOW do you find a template? How for example do you find a stub template? the "stub" bit is usually at the end so you can't search on it. See my latest essay "Wikipedia search: Have they heard of Google?". I think admins and other wikicrats &emdash; many of whom do great work day in day out with no controversy at all, quietly keeping the house tidy — occasionally forget that not everyone has these imprinted in their brains.

It's kinda funny really when they do the stats for google searches hitting Wikipedia, as if lots of hits on Google were a good thing — actually in a sense they are a bad thing because it indicates that Wikipedia's own search engine is a pile of pants. Wikilinking is great but it so desperately needs a free text search. The obvious thing is for Wikipedia Search to be powered by Google, though no doubt from a commercial/legal, and perhaps technical, point of view there are lots of complications to that.

So I agree with you here that, though some marking that it was a stub/under construction would have been good, the edit history of the article &c. makes it disingenuous to put it to AfD so quickly after its creation. I have learnt simply to put {{Under construction}} on ANY new article I create; typically I create a network of maybe four or five new articles in gaps I think missing, and I can't work on all of them at once (though where they do cross-refer I go adding bits in). Under construction does seem to keep the vultures circling but not eating.

I don't want to blow my own trumpet but perhaps an example for good or ill, check Citroën C1 ev'ie that I created yesterday, 30 April 2009 (I use the example specifically because it's so recent). This is a stub that links to the manufacturer, Electric Car Company, which I also created. Go through the edit history, you will find that even when first created, it was templated as stub, under construction, and had categories and references (later refined), and linked to other articles, it also quickly got redirects because of the difficult-to-type "ë". So, that morning I created two new small (stub but not meaningless) articles; I fitted them into the general categorisation of manufacturers and car brands, and then edited Electric car to fit the new information in, which was in fact my primary goal, adding in new figures and so forth from reliable sources (that day's quality newspapers). I've had no adverse comments — and I think partly because although the articles are stubs they are clearly notable because of the references and so on.

It seems to me that doing it this way took me no more work than had I done it backwards, throwing facts into Electric car which is what I really wanted (and what people actually read, though not much) then adding the other stub articles, by which time I would have got bored, would have not bothered to do the template and categorisation stuff (painful for me), and they would probably go speedy delete or prod as not notable. I am an inclusionist as I said, but I do believe that each article, and each edit, must stand on its own feet: it is this what I meant by "crystal balling": not that you are predicting future events in the real world but with wikipedia itself (which I appreciate is not quite what that WP: topic says).

Notability: Notability I think is rather a malleable subject, though I would have plenty of people say "oh no it's not, here's WP:N in black and white" or whatever. I don't think notability is the same as fame; in fact, you are perhaps unwittingly arguing against notability yourself by suggesting that these people just do normal things that other normal people like to read about. What is Dooce's tagline? Apparently "Talking a lot about poop, boobs, her dog, and her daughter." Well that's not notable. It may be interesting to some, fine, but interesting and notable are different things; since the blog exists of itself to be interesting (and may succeed or fail at that), it is thus the blog that is notable and not the person.

With the exception of dooce, I find none of those people notable, but that is just my opinion (and I said so.) Prospects of future notability do not count. If blogs are widely read then that is notable, but then the reliable sources should be to articles about those blogs, not (say) blog traffic stats.

I note that Heather Armstrong has a redirect from Dooce. I don't know how to do this (or can't remember), it would be interesting and relevant to know how many pages go through the redirect. This is relevant because if people know her as "dooce" and use that to find her, then it shows that her online presence and pseudonym is an important part of her persona. Again that does not prove her, of itself, notable (her publishing and media appearances do that), but may help to state the case.

So, I still have great difficulty with notability here.

No bias: I can only assume you are a big, lying cheating hound or are quite honest when you say you have no interest in these articles. I prefer to believe the latter. That sounds like damning with faint praise probably, but I see no reason to believe other than that you're trying to put together an article collecting together some notable blogging in this niche (if you'll allow me that word) and it's in its early days yet but that you're not a sockpuppet or working for a commercial company or website etc (which was implied in an earlier comment in the AfD). You've said so, outright, several times, and so people either have to shut up saying otherwise or set their own stall — it's not your job to prove your innocense.

Sexism: It's quite true that the computer industry is male-dominated and, in talking to the few female colleagues I have, it's hard to find a conclusion to why this is so; but it's a fact. This does naturally spill over into the computer world. If Wikipedia reflects that bias then, in my opinion, it represents real-world bias, or to put it another way, its aggregate collection of articles is exactly what, at this point in time, people care enough to write about. If women don't participate in that then either it is because they cannot be bothered to do so, or there are specific hurdles stopping them, either in using computers in general or with Wikipedia in particular. In the first case, sorry, that's just society: the few women computer engineers I have worked with have all been excellent, but discussing it with them, they have no idea than I why so few women like computers; I suppose it is rather like asking me what it's like being a twin-- how should I know because I've always been one? In the second, although we can't overnight change girl's attitudes to computers or engineering, we definitely can eradicate unnecessary sexism from Wikipedia, and there are lots of ways of doing that.

Personally I am rather a grammar nut (you wouldn't believe it from this casually written piece) so have strong views on what is, and what is not, sexist language — but leaving that aside there is just no place on Wikipedia for sexism, or indeed any other -ism. But again you have put a minefield under your own foot. You make assumptions about men's and women's behavior with regard to porn and politics which is itself incredibly sexist. Personally I would characterise both men's and women's interests in these fields as narrow but deep; I don't think you'd accuse Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher of not being interested in politics (which you do by implying that only men are interested in politics). An AfD is not the place to discuss sexism anyway, especially when it is not the subject of the AfD, but really you are using the argument as a drunk uses a lamp-post, more for support than illumination.

In conclusion: I am going to be keep, because the article needs time to grow and get notable references and have content of its own (rather than being just a list). I see it's been fleshed out a bit from when I looked at it the other day. I'd like to get in there and do a bit of cleanup but I'll lay off until the AfD is over. Good luck!

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Drunk supported by the lampost

Note: the following was moved here from my correspondent's talkpage.

was/still am? I.... Thanks for the talkpage ping, so informative with its informing information (the aliteration, my tongue-tiedness, not making light of super high information quotient of your post!) Nope, I've no connection to any bloggers here. (A friend is a reporter and has a blog. Two neices keep separate blogs. I ashamedly never read any of the three. § Your name threw me off your gender. Not that that matters!, as per Seinfeld. When I was born my personal nickname was Kim. And I'm male. Wyh am I tpying tihs sutff? ↜Just me, here, now … 16:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh? The talk should have gone to your own page, and the tp goes to same page, unless I got it wrong. Regardless, since nobody owns any page (including the talk pages and user pages and user talk pages) and it's hardly difficult to find your talk page, I hardly so the problem there.

Not sure where I put "was" you, probably just an editing slip.

I have no idea why you're typing this stuff. Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see now that you were actually saying thanks. Well, no problems! I had assumed it was sarcasm/irony-- there should be a warning somewhere: Irony doesn't sound the same when written down. Mea culpa. SimonTrew (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm male, not that it matters, and in fact I was in two minds whether to say. Not sure why you would think otherwise. My closest guess is saying "my female colleagues", well I have a lot of female friends and colleagues, it is not illegal yet, though sometimes it seems so.

"Kim" in the UK and Ireland, and other places such as East Asia, is often used as a male name. I could quote examples. I believe generally it is simply then "Kim" not a contraction of "Kimberley"; certainly for East Asian (e.g. Indonesian) names. SimonTrew (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was where I'd gotten that impression. But either while I was writing you within my assumption thereof, or immediately after, it vaguely occured to me that it was indeed just an assumption. But I forget why I didn't recast what I'd written or strike through it. Yes my name is Kimball. I believe it was popularized on your side of the Atlantic (actually Kimberly was, even moreso; and this as a boy's name, too), during the Boer War (and, if so, for obvious reasons). Kimball Hunt, East Rutherford, NJ. (Weird how we make people outside the US get to know our ideosyncratic abbrevs for our states' names, huh.) Peace. ↜Just me, here, now … 21:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Gender" btw denotes a grammatical term for words. "Sex" is for people. Even if Wikipedia MoS uses gender, sorry it is wrong. I am not of the male gender, I am of the male sex (or, of course, more simply, male). It's Just Plain Wrong to use "gender", and it's wrong for MoS and other spin-out articles to encourage it. I've posted on several grumbling about this, with deafening silence, because quite frankly those wit sexist isshoooooos have never bothered to learn the distinction. I have write proper like wot I do ishooooos. SimonTrew (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

<crickets>

Lol. Just kidding. (But old school usage freaks are fighting a pretty formidible battle. And no American ever speaks according to those strictures... although academic presses try to follow quite a bit of it, somewhat, from what I understand.)

Btw what do you think of Geoffrey K. Pullum (and Rodney Huddleston)? ↜Just me, here, now … 22:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

IP#99

Actually, IP#99 did respond, just on my talkpage. See the section directly before the one you created on my talk. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD

You asked me to participate in the AfD of "Home and family blog". I looked up the relevant guidelines, and have posted them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog for your consideration. The Transhumanist    21:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, your signature is completely illegible. I'm not complaining but you may not be aware because you have a 30 inch monitor or something. Drawn Some (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't read it either. Not a complaint, just a heads up for feedback purposes. The Transhumanist    22:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that its illegibility could be overcome by simply placing the cursor over my sig. (perhaps akin to what ppl would do who used, say, a large, single, block capital intial as their sig, but whose actual name was something else). Maybe ppl see it and go, WTF is that! lol. Which didn't bother me. But your feedback makes me wonder if maybe I SHOULD? hmmmmm.

Maybe I could request a namechange to "scribble"? (And then keep a similar signature?) ... Anyway, Transhumanist, any ideas, or suggestions, feedback and pointing-to-me-of-further-information would be welcome. ↜Just me, here, now … 22:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SIG#Appearance and color.

You might try enlarging it a little, so it is readable. Just a thought.

But take the "annoyance" clause with a grain of salt. It is just a guideline. Back when there were relatively few customized sigs, I received both complaints and compliments on my sig.

The Transhumanist    23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Here I go. Tell me if you like it. I'll sign below when I come back. {smiles} ↜Just me, here, now … 23:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, users who use foreign scripts face the same problem of illegibility, for most folks too, right? (Eg Schizombie's sig: Шизомби -- ) ↜ Just  ME,   here ,  now … 00:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

↜ Just  ME ,  here ,  now … ←Too big? -JMHN

User name

Is it a play on "Can you hear me now?"

And an anagram of "Just hear me now"?

Just curious.

The Transhumanist    22:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

1. yes (or not)
2. yes (or not)

But seriously: I decided to write whatever immediately came to my mind without thought. (Sort of like a meditation.*) Just me. (Same as Paris Hilton's perfume, as it turns out.) Of course there's more than one Just Me writing throughout cyberspace, so the Just Me I'm talking about is the Just Me, Here. But, then again, every moment there's a new Just Me, Here. So I'm the Just Me who is Here right Now. Of course, ppl tend to read it as Hear me! Which interpretation I've no problem with either (and would even endorse!) ____

• Cf. Be Here Now, by Baba Ram Dass -- aka Richard Alpert. ↜Just me, here, now … 22:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. The Transhumanist    22:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a version that is a bit more legible:

(example only): ↜ Just me, here, now …

The Transhumanist    00:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks, Transhumanist. Brb ↜ Just ME,  here, now … 01:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK here is the sig I ended up with: ↜Just M E  here , now --JMHN

I just discovered that your signature shows up differently on different computers. On the one I'm currently logged in on, the Mistral font isn't supported, and 18px is much larger in the default font, making your signature huge. No doubt there will be others who see the default version also. Maybe it would be best to find a more common font and reduce the size to 14px. The Transhumanist    18:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. (Oighzh! I'll have to go back to being teeny and illegible for the time being, at least, then---) ↜Just M E  here , now 18:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks. ↜Just M E  here , now 18:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Some more questions for you, and related pages you might be interested in

• To you, what is the meaning of life?
• Are you a life extensionist?
• Do you take antioxidants to slow down your body's aging processes?
• Do you take smart drugs and nutrients?
• Do you use advanced wiki-tools?
  • Do you use AWB?
  • Do you use Firefox?
    • Do you use WikEd?
    • Do you use Linky?
• What subjects or fields of study are you most experienced and/or most interested in?
• I noticed you are a prolific editor with a wide array of interests. Would you please look over Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge and our projected outline, and point out or help fill in gaps?

The Transhumanist    22:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Non Admin Closure

I saw that you recently made a non-admin closure here. The issue with your closure is that it is highly recommended that you do not close a discussion that you have been involved in, even if it is a clear cut closure. Admins alike are discouraged from doing the same. It's just a conflict of interest situation. Therefore I ask of you to avoid closing future discussions that you have participated in. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 02:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes, that would make sense. I won't do that again! ↜Just M E  here , now 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A discussion about you

WT:AFD has an ongoing discussion about your page moves. It's not an official "report" page, but it is on my watchlist so I figured I would let you know what is going on. I won't watchlist this page so either respond there or hit my talk page to speak to me. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have countered Virititas's ideas quite so "counter-polemically." (On the other hand, to my credit, I'd never disparaged his sincerity or personality, as the record shows.) ↜Just M E  here , now 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of being about the underlying ideas and issues (the AfD or appealing the same) it's to be about me and my personality? Why, because I sometimes I throw analogies out there? You want an analogy? I'll give you one: Author A starts an article about Drownings in Loch Ness; Author B starts one about deaths by various means in and around Lock Ness. Author B labels hi/r article "sophisticated" and the first article "folk meme." A contributor, Me, comes along and finds such labeling as counter to the anti-credentialled consensusness of WPdia and thinks the first article should simply be watched, its folk meme explained therein or countered. Author B sincerely believes the contibutor, Me, doesn't understand that throwing out folk stuff and keeping sophisticated stuff is the established way of WPdia and to do otherwise is to work toward its detriment; so Author B seeks to have the contributor, Me, banned as disruptive.

Of course, put in V. as Author B; put in "Craigslist controversies and illegal activies by users" as hi/r article; Put in "Internet killer" as the initial article as created by [real-life crime writer-and-editor and] sometime Wikipedian Catherine Yronwode; then mix in my believing it rude and against WP:CFORK to endeavor to delete Ms. Yronwode's effort while creating an alternative version that would be designed to touch on what I held to be a very similar topic (with such a gambit, in my estimation, merely designed to dissuade Yronwode from contributing). And now my sincere perception and POV FWIW is being labeled as a hindrance and distraction too, with the hope that I might be dissuaded from future contributions as well? ↜Just M E  here , now 06:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request for comment

I quite like his proposal. Thanks for notifying me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

n/p! :^) ↜Just M E  here , now 18:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

No actual books were harmed in my editing of Wikipedia. That's the thing with this encyclopedia, it wasn't a viable prospect until there was enough information freely available online. Fences and windows (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering...

Would you like a project you could really sink your teeth into?

Drop me a note on my talk page if you are interested or intrigued.

The Transhumanist    18:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I added a note to the sig discussion above.

AfD nomination of Feminist Mormon Housewives

I have nominated Feminist Mormon Housewives, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist Mormon Housewives. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unionhawk ^Talk 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Justmeherenow. You have new messages at SimonTrew's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have another talkback at my talk page. SimonTrew (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

ANd I added a reply. SimonTrew (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And another reply. SimonTrew (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:The Lost Symbol.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_Rehab#Project_members

Would you please refactor and shorten your comment please? That isn't the talk page. Please keep it short. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject User Rehab

National Mentoring Month Logo

This user is a participant of the WikiProject User Rehab

Feel free to put this anywhere on your user page. To edit this box for improvement click here

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Justmeherenow. You have new messages at SimonTrew's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jerusalem SimonTrew (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

citation format

Please try to use the citation templates. Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle Hymn of the Covert Batallions

Thanks for the response.

At the moment I am running a mobile broadband connexion and don't want to use it up on videos etc, so excuse me for not checking those links. It's not the cost but if it dies at 3am then I probably will too. (In theory you can top it up online but in practice you have to get a voucher from the shop, no problem with that but it is bound to run out when the shop is shut.)

You may want to search out Billy Bragg's tongue-in-cheek song "Battle Hymn of the Covert Batallions". I'll try to remember the words (I had all my music stolen):

Here we come with our brandy and our guns
And our corporate muscle marches in behind us
For freedom's just another word for "nothing left to sell"
(And if you want narcotics we can get you them as well)

We help the multinationals when they cry out "protect us!"
The locals scream and shout a bit but we don't let that affect us
We're here to lend a helping hand in case they don't elect us
How dare they buy or products and still they don't respect us

TRALALALA, TRALALALA, TRALALALA,, TRALALALA, WE'RE MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR CAPITALISM

If you thought the Army was here to protect people like yourselves
I've got news for you, we're here to defend wealth
Away with nuns and bishops! (Voleros!) The good lord will help those who help themselves
I've got news for you we're here to defend wealth

TRALALALA, TRALALALA, TRALALALA,, TRALALALA, WE'RE MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR CAPITALISM

SimonTrew (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lillilbulero

Lillibulero

Another good one, about the British giving the Irish a good whacking. As many old songs do, it has various versions of lyrics

Oh brother taig [catholic] now hear the decree, Lillibulero, bullen-na-na Ireland shall have a new policy, Lillibulero, bullen-na-na-na

It used to be played (not with words, just instrumental) every hour on the BBC World Service as the signature tune, but because of its pejorative overtones now they cut it down to the first couple of bars. A pity. SimonTrew (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a pity for me just because it is in my memory I would probably have it played at my funeral. when you live a long way a way and of course we hadn't phones or internet or anything da-da-da-da-da etc then "0400 hours Greenwich Mean Time. This is London". That was a call from home. People forget even now, not everyone in the world is connected to the Internet or has instant communication of any kind. SimonTrew (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Accessdate parameter

I saw in this diff that you added an "accessmonthday" and/or "accessdaymonth" parameter. Please be informed that these are deprecated. The preferred way is to put day, month, and year together in the "accessdate" parameter. See {{Cite web}}. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:John William Yettaw

I am on holiday right now. I won't be able to reply to your comments and questions on Talk:John William Yettaw for a few more days. Until then, keep up the good work - and I will say briefly here that any bits I removed from the article were simply my POV as to what is essential to the article, but it's just my POV. Please re-add anything I removed. I'm not of the mindset to have edit wars or arguments about it. Just be bold. Cheers for now, Kingturtle (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Those were some terrific copyedits you did on John William Yettaw yesterday! Your work is definitely appreciated. Keep up the great work, Kingturtle (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kingturtle! ↜Just M E here , now 15:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for that recent spelling style fix per WP:ENGVAR. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Tiller

Hi there, I left you a response on my talk page. Liberal Classic (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've just nominated an article you've worked on, Make It to the Sun for deletion.Borock (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Per "Agha"

Please see my user page. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Neda.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Neda.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I consider this edit very sound- I think the article is a lot better off with the video still as its lead, and certainly without the portrait. Also-

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Though we didn't (and maybe still don't) agree, it's refreshing to see some careful and well thought-out arguments at FFD, rather than the usual "I like it" and "it looks nice". J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, J! ↜Just M E here , now 21:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've now added a rationale for the removal of the second image from the page, as you requested, and restored the single-image version. -- The Anome (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, for the second time, let me make it clear: I didn't delete the image: I removed it from the page.

However, in your comments, you made clear that you regard the other image as -- and I quote -- a '(culturally) "riske" modeling pic'.

I find this enormously patronising. I know a fair number of Muslim women. Sometimes they wear headscarves when out in public, sometimes they don't. Most of the younger ones do not wear headscarves at all, except when it pleases them to do so as part of an outfit. Out of all of them, only one, very religious, Muslim woman of my aquaintance keeps her hair covered when at home among family friends.

It certainly isn't a "modeling pic" -- she was not a professional model, it was not a professional photograph, it's visibly a personal snapshot. I find the connotation that this picture is somehow indecent itself rather indecent. It's certainly a picture that this Iranian woman's Iranian fiancé regards as suitable for public exposure of his much-loved dead girlfriend. I doubt very much whether he would do that if he consider the image '(culturally) "riske"' Do you really consider this image "risqué", or are you being vicariously outraged on behalf of other people you have never met? -- The Anome (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it looked pretty professional. In any case, Anome, alas you'd apparently have no conception as to why the protesters are protesting if you believe the pic not somewhat culturally controversial in Iran. (I do know some Iranian-Americans, but ... "Salaamualaikum! ... my good friend and landlord is Turkish and his mother, who used to live upstairs (before her son got married) wore/wears a headscarf.) ↜Just M E here , now 06:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, your explanation that you didn't delete the image overlooks the fact that images that are orphaned become deleted automatically. ↜Just M E here , now 07:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly understand that some religious nutters might find the image indecent. But this says far more about them than about the picture or its subject; some religious nutters would find even the headscarved image indecent. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not run by, or on behalf of, religious nutters.

Even with its current theocracy, Iran is not Saudi Arabia. The un-headscarved picture is a perfectly normal image of a young Iranian woman in a private situation, in much the same way that the headscarved image is a typical formal portrait. Even though Iran is a relatively conservative Muslim country, this is perfectly normal.

To my eye, the formal portrait is clearly more professional -- it's clearly posed in front of a white photographic background. It also appears to have been lightly retouched, again unsurprising for a formal picture. The other portrait is clearly impromptu, and does not, as far as I can see, show any signs of retouching. The other, smiling, happy, image is clearly more representative of the living person, who presumably did not spend her entire life posing as if for a formal picture.

On the technical matter: orphaned images will not be deleted while they are part of a deletion discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Well, Anome, let's just say that you apparently edit from a proud (/strongly POV) standpoint of perceived enlightenment that others could well consider moreso cultural chauvanism, and leave it at that, eh? ↜Just M E here , now 07:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm saying that that image is perfectly acceptable by world standards, and also by the cultural mores of a relatively conservative Muslim country such as Iran or Pakistan. It would clearly not be regarded acceptable by, say, Saudi Arabian or Afghan cultural standards. But these are not the standards in question here.

I note that Muslim voices objecting to this image are notable by their absence. Perhaps you could ask the members of Wikiproject Iran whether this image is "risqué" by Iranian standards? -- The Anome (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My point, Anome (and I DO have one, as Ellen DiDeneres would say), is that the ifdc process works. It gathers a bunch of WPdians to apply the guidelines and come up with a consensus. And while I appreciate your seeking to influence my opinion on the pertinence of the scarved photo (or is the word scarfed? lol), if you've noticed, the last two ifdc commments are from Iranians:

"Keep both images! The contrast of Neda with a moedrn look vs. with the traditional scarf is iconic of what the current conflict in Iran is all about: New vs. old, liberal vs. conservative, exactly what Neda's life was about; modern, liberal music-student at home, conservatively dressed look on the street. -- juandresh 06:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)"

"Delete - She was shot dead opposing unfair injustices towards women including the necessity of wearing scarves in Iran. I was personally expelled from college temporarily for what they call "incomplete veil" and I cannot stand seeing my deceased liberal beautiful sister being portrayed like a fanatic on the Internet's most comprehensive encyclopedia. -- Delband (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)"

-- whose viewpoints could perhaps be supplemented by your own in that forum((?)) Just thought you might consider it, is all.... :^) ↜Just M E here , now 07:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Once you have to resort to spelling flames, you are effecitvely conceding that you have lost the argument. Firstly, I used the word "headscarved", not "scarved". "Headscarved" and "headscarfed" are two variant spellings of the same word, and both are in common use.

I refer you to my previous comment, which you have failed to answer. To reiterate: I note that Muslim voices objecting to this image are notable by their absence. Perhaps you could ask the members of Wikiproject Iran whether this image is "risqué" by Iranian standards? -- The Anome (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen my landlord's mom real hair once (she is my own age)-- by accident -- and she ran and very quickly shielded herself. Yet her own sister doesn't even wear a veil. That is what I meant.

Eg, Is a pork sandwich controversial to Jews? I'm guessing you'd say no. But I'd be busily pointing out that, yes, in fact the selling of pork is deemed controversial in Israel. Yet, of course, we both know plenty of Jews that eat bacon. ↜Just M E here , now 08:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

At last, some things on which we can both agree. I am certainly not claiming that the veil is not a controversial issue in Iran; just that unveiled images are not viewed as risqué by general Iranian community standards. Since they are also certainly acceptable by general Wikipedia community standards, there really is no question that the unveiled image is acceptable here. That Wikipedia community standards are considerably more liberal than those of conservative Muslim countries is therefore not an issue here.

Just to be clear, I have no objection to the headscarved picture per se; it's just that if we have to keep only one image -- as seems to be required by the non-free use policy -- the un-headscarved image is the obvious one to prefer, since it is clearly more representative of the person in question, with the consequence that the headscarved image would be the one chose for deletion. -- The Anome (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And my point from the beginning is, Since the issue being sorted out is the subject of a separate ifdc, it would be less than fully kosher for a Wikipedian to then make an end run around that discussion and just precipitously apply hi/r own interpretations of WP's guidelines, no? ↜Just M E here , now 08:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

All I can do is offer you my assurqance that my removal of the image from the article was not intended to pre-judge the ifdc discussion. Rather, it was principally motivated by the current two-image-with-deletion notice mini-gallery looking messy, combined with a concern about over-use of non-free content images: we currently have two on the same page, something which is justified by one being an image of her dying, relevant to the report of her death, and another being an image of her alive, relevant to her biographical details. We only need one of each. -- The Anome (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, no problem (as long as you agree that we ought to wait now for the ifdc to play out) lol! ↜Just M E here , now 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Neda Agha-Soltan and links

I'm not really sure what you mean. What is that link adding to the article? The target article is mostly redundant, and will be removed soon (probably today at some point) anyway. We should be focussing on keeping people on the main article. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the information almost certainly should be in the parent. I think it would be wise to merge the child back to the parent at this point- there's no reason to wait for the AfD to play out; the result is clear. J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you accept that the article was created prematurely? I can see, looking at the discussion now, that it will almost certainly be closed as a merge and redirect. If I wasn't already involved in the article, I would be happy to close it as such myself. J Milburn (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we reading the same AfD discussion? Half of its commenters say it's THE BIO that ought to be saved. ↜Just M E here , now 11:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Name.ext listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Name.ext, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. 79.117.242.195 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Invite

You are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections because of your outstanding contributions to articles related to this new WikiProject.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Neda Agha-Soltan

Neither using multiple fair use images to depict a single person nor making blanket reversions like this have ever been "WP protocol" . There is no acceptable fair use rationale that can be added to those images that will justify the usage of both. With WP:NFCC still very much policy, that's a simple fact, regardless of a deletion discussion. --auburnpilot talk 02:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I thought you were opposing. XD; Rgoodermote  19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! ↜Just M E here , now 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've taken my !vote back. Sorry about that, misread what you said and didn't see a Support or Oppose for your comment. Rgoodermote  19:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, Rgoodermote: thanks ^{:^)} ↜Just M E here , now 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No prob, happy editing! Rgoodermote  19:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Re

Thanks for the notification. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia

Are you really saying that you believe that two political parties have sprung up as if from Jove's brow because of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

lol. I like that analogy! (It's a little overly dramatic, but I sort of do, yeah.) ↜Just M E here , now 05:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

File:David Ndesandjo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:David Ndesandjo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Peripitus (Talk) 12:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So,

The man in tweed snorts vaguely in contempt, and turns to find other amusement.

You win!

Ok, I have no idea what that little bar story was about, I didn't even read the section wherein it appeared, but damn, I liked it! Yessir, I liked it a lot! Somehow, I've found myself dancing that odd little jig more often than I'd like. Thanks for sharing. :D Eaglizard (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

PS I just read some of the section, in re founder(s) of WP. I can't BELIEVE we're still arguing over that! *sigh* Eaglizard (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Barbara Boxer appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Sorry for the template message, but I've got to run. You can't add editorial commentary to an article, particular a biography. The paragraph contained language like "she shouted down..." and "she did not address the substance of the comments." Not only is that not in any way neutral, that's a blatant WP:BLP violation. Loonymonkey (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Loonymonkey is referring to an edit by an IP which he removed. My argument is that it should have been fixed per WP:PRESERVE. ↜Just M E here , now 07:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.A Sniper (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain in detail how any edit of mine is OR. Thanks. ↜Just M E here , now 07:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Henry Louis Gates, Jr. mugshot.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Henry Louis Gates, Jr. mugshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Security Analysis.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit to BarackObamaSegmentsUnderInfoBox template

Re this edit: can you please follow up at Template talk:BarackObamaSegmentsUnderInfoBox #Tricks with 4000px fonts and empty image? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I followed up there again. Are you watching that template? If so, I won't bug you here again. Eubulides (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I made another change to the sandbox; can you please try again? Also, can you please report which version of Internet Explorer you're using? I can try to find the same version and see if I can reproduce the problem. Eubulides (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Arrest of Henry Louis Gates, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk) 20:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

IMage MOS

Here are the exceptions:

1. Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image
2. Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts
3. Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article
4. Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image
5. Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels

Exactly which of these does it fit? This is an image of 3 men drinking beer, that does not contain "a lot of detail". You can see three men drinking beer from the same size as 180px as you can from 300 px. If they need to see it any clearer they can click the image and see it at 1080 px. The MOS says not to make it 300 px unless there is a specific reason.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't see a lot of detail in a shot of people sitting some distance apart from each other at a table then you are simply more focused on words (of guidelines) and not on image (which the guidelines plainly address). But it's no big deal either way. People can click on the image if they want to see what it is. It's just that your referencing the guidelines when they don't support your view I thought was kind of strange, I dare say. ↜Just M E here , now 20:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Gates article title

I noticed that you attempted to move/rename the Henry Louis Gates arrest incident. There is a discussion on what the title should be on the talk page. Rather than all of us being bold and having the article change several times throughout the day, can you join us in trying to reach a consensus on the issue? Thanks. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

booking photo email

Hi, I had a bit of a look at what you sent to that address and I could almost not understand what it was about, if I recieved that I would delete it. I will telephone him and see what response I get. regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

After the email bounced back and you sent off that mail to his website there, I was going to call him but I am in the uk and a different time zone and long distance call so I kind of ran out of steam with it. If you have any (easy, and cheap) ideas let me know, regards Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure if I can fax from this computer? I am on cable, can I? Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My father has a seperate fax and he says that if I email it to him he will print it out and send it for me. I'll do that tomorrow.Thanks for the wake up call. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Intrepid, indeed we are. I would to know his opinion, shall I email you what I sent to him? Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

sent. By the way, I like your Meher Baba pic. He was an amazing guy, have you seen the couple of video clips that exist of him? Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Meher was a bit of an agnostic as I remember, I think you would like to see the clips, I will look them out for you in the next days. The sharing is fine by me, regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

Thsi is great from [Meher Baba in America 1932] Meher baba gives an interview in silence, hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, done them, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas edit warring

You commented in the report of Viriditas for edit warring that this had "not been brought to editors' attention much until now" can you explain what you mean by that? I'm not sure how it can be brought to greater attention for all the possible editors on the article. He was reported twice for edit warring. It is also repeatedly noted in the discussion page that the user is edit warring despite consensus. Manyanswer (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note in response... I see what you meant now, I wasn't aware that the special edit warring prohibition on Obama-related pages existed. This will provide a clearer reason for him not to edit war and I agree he should be further strongly warned with that focus. I personally feel he's gone way over the line even on a normal edit warring basis though and should face a block based on the basic edit warring warnings he's already received and ignored. Manyanswer (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to see the most recent note to V, V User Talk. also, feel free to edit the complaint as you see fit to make the case. I am not sure how to do so. this is my first such complaint. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:John Cradlebaugh.jpg

File:John Cradlebaugh.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:John Cradlebaugh.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:John Cradlebaugh.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Henry Louis Gates nav box

Template:Henry Louis Gates nav box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. B (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I know the template was not made in bad faith, I will post my comments in the deletion discussion, thanks for the input. --Jmundo (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war issues going forward

Interested in any thoughts you might have on this. I'd like to host a discussion that is based on the general case and not any specific incident or user. Thx! Manyanswer (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For making me smile and showing me another guideline page I had no idea existed (WP:CAPTIONS) – Burma-Shave rocks! JN466 15:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! ^{:^)} ↜Just M E here , now 17:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved the following here from Jayen466's page:

___

My pleasure. :) --JN466 17:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

<For some reason I blush.> Hey! within the caption could we hint at the, quote, "loud and tumultuous behavior in a public place directed at uniformed police officers," end of quote, that the dropped charges were based on -- say, in a phrase? But then, the image itself's portrayal of Gates's arrest brings so much weighted over to the side of the ledger of these public servants, the Cambridge police, maybe our adding of a single word (such as "tumultuous"?) would be plenty enough to be absolutely sure we give the cops' side its due. ↜Just M E here , now 17:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the proposal doesn't keep Crowley's end up quite enough. Am open to ideas. Perhaps we could integrate some of what I had proposed here in the arrest (handcuff) photo caption, i.e. Crowley saying that "Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him." --JN466 21:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the balance.

Would there also be some way to satisfy Mattnad's concerns wrt succinctness? Like, maybe instead of our fleshing out too much whatever context we're providing for a pic, briefly reference one or two telling details? ↜Just M E here , now 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

____

formatting citations

When adding citations, can you please use this form: <ref name="NAME">{{Citation | last = | first = | title = | newspaper = | date = | url = }}</ref>

last = author's last name (if available) first = author's first name (if available) title = title of article newspaper = source date = date of published material url = url

And insert an easy to use, unique name in place of NAME.

Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrest of Henry Louis Gates

Hopefully no hard feelings over the edit mixup. As the witness has disputed the police report several days after the incident, I've moved it to the aftermath section. Also in the aftermath section is the police explanation of the report when they said that it was not necessarily from the 911 calls. GoldDragon (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your additions were definitely helpful (and its even better when collected together), as this sheds some light on how the third-party witness felt about this, particularly receiving unwanted media attention. GoldDragon (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ↜Just M E here , now 04:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be tripping over eachother formatting the ANI thread. I've hidden the prior "wrong-question discussion" in a "hidden" box. No need to duplicate it. –xeno^talk 15:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just FYI, your striking may give the impression you're withdrawing the thread or your requests. I would just leave it. People will understand from the above why it is (somewhat -not entirely) repetitive. –xeno^talk 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, OK. Maybe you're right. Thanks! ↜Just M E here , now 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding your Burma-Shave example - that is a very detailed caption, but note that the photo with caption does not appear in the Burma-Shave article. And the reason is simple - it would be redundant to do that given the article explains the campaign. So there are captions for photos in articles dedicated the subject matter in the photo (can be shorter and more succinct), and Captions for photos that are designed to give deeper understanding in articles related to, but not focused on the subject matter. In the instance of the detailed Burma-Shave caption, that would be helpful in a article about Billboard advertising, but would be overkill in the article about Burma-Shave. Ironically, in the Billboard article, they mention the campaign, but do not include this excellent example from WP:Captions. So, I think we need to exercise editorial judgment in the case of the Gates' captions.Mattnad (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

An entire, lengthy (with an emphasis on lenghty) treatment of some issue shouldn't be repeated in a caption but a succinct detail or two can be repeated there, with the rest of the topic fleshed out in the body of the article. ↜Just M E here , now 15:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Some can be, but what Jayen466 is proposing is excessive and atypical - hence my resistance to it.Mattnad (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you're right that it's a little too much, at present. Let's fix it! ↜Just M E here , now 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So you put in the full version - now step back and tell me how this is better this way. Mattnad (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Care to weigh in on Gates?

I though we had crafted a nice balance. Jayen is pushing for more of the same quote from the press release. Mattnad (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Robert Duvall in Lonesome Dove.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robert Duvall in Lonesome Dove.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. FileBot (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I use your Jimbo picture that goes in and out of this page...

On my talk or user page? :) ----occono (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's User:Krimpet's template, not yours. Disregard. But thanks for pointing it out to me :)----occono (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry Louis Gates arrest incident (again)

Could you take a look at the current dispute at the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy? I feel that Viriditas is stirring out trouble again by taking offense to anything, but I'm not willing to accept the changes that "water down" one side of the story. GoldDragon (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

heh

You did something I agree with! Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Haha!

Your paragraph on Jimbo's talk page was smexy! Intellegence is just that. Anywho, he still hasn't signed my talk page. I planned on framing it. Hmm. :) --A3RO (mailbox) 03:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Cambridge PD - A move?

Hey, I wanted to run something by you. I noticed that you started off the article on Cambridge P.D. I was looking at the title, and it looked a little strange without the comma between "Cambridge" and "Massachusetts". But then I thought about it again and it seemed strange if it did have it. So basically I thought about looking at other cities in MA. It seems the format they came up with for most Massachusetts police departments is "(city-x) Police Department (Massachusetts)" So Cambridge would be "Cambridge Police Department (Massachusetts)". Would you consider, or have any objection to a move to that format so that it was in-line with other Massachusetts police departments? I just wanted to run this by you since you put in the time and effort to create the page and everything. P.S. Cool Jimbo image by the way. That's neat.... You had me wondering for a while if it was an ad being rolled out... lol CaribDigita (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the article by-the-way. I never got around to it... I actually tried to take some pictures of their new building. (It is cool it has these huge lights on the outside that make the building change colours at night (blue, green, red, purple, etc.) but the photos didn't come out I'm going to try again. CaribDigita (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Selected genealogical relations with Barack Obama

Template:Selected genealogical relations with Barack Obama has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jake Wartenberg 02:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you, JustMeHereNow for The Press Barnstar. Personally, I've found editing the GB article somewhat amusing in light of all the discussion - as well as frustrating in light of some of the arguing (and comments by a couple of the editors ;-) You, however, I have found to be a calm in the storm; a lonely beacon of restraint in a squall of self-appointed worsmiths! You, sir, are a gentleman and stellar Wikipedian! I am honored, and frankly, you made my day! SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As you did mine, SkagitRiverQueen, with your graciousness. ^{;^)} Thanks! ↜Just M E here , now 15:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck

Look, I really think Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck should be deleted as BLP violation, but I'll just ask: do you really think if you don't actually say the name of the website, the BLP problem goes away? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck

I have nominated Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Even though I could unilaterally, let's see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I started then realized there were just too many! Should be easy enough, though. The first step is getting the direct quotations inline cites. I started poking around but have not seen them. Do you recall where they are off the top of your head?Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Got rid of a couple so far (edit summaries say why). In particular, I would like to verify anonymous/chan involvement if it exists since the sources don't say it. I did not see GB in any sources but it was on top of many search engines is so I think we can say that or at least summarize what it is with a wikilink.Cptnono (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I know I just saw info on it ranking high on google results. Worst comes to worst we adjust the wording. I need to find the source again in all the open tabs, though.Cptnono (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Think that was the first edit conflict I hit. Funny enough, I was moving same cite there (domainwire->imbecile quote) w/ the following edit summary: "this is an alright source. looks reliable enough. may not need it though since it isn't of the quality of some of the others. better then a few though" You must have beat me to it by secondsCptnono (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know on the title. It is clunky as is but also not offensive. I think "Beck Rape Satire" might be too much which seems to be the consensus. Something asserting a meme/internet spoof or parody would be good. There are some suggestions on the talk page fro others and I mentioned a quick thought on layout just a little bit ago. The lead can be very short. A quick summary of two or three lines even. I'm going to be off for several hours but I will mull it over some tasty beverages later. Nice work, BTW.Cptnono (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

maybe I was wrong about not saying rape in the title. Glenn Beck Rape Satire would leave no question that it is not true and leaves no confusion.Cptnono (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the reader will understand but can't be positive. We can always add the of/about "Rape Satire of Glenn Beck"Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Good move.Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm glad you went ahead and moved it. I can forsee that this would be a landmark lawsuit, and this will probably close as a no consensus. Mandsford (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you removed the infobox and added See also. I like infoboxes but that is my preference and I don't think it is mandated here (I'm OK either way). The "See also" section could be reduced if those links were place into the prose per WP:SEEALSO.Cptnono (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

re Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy

Seeing as how the article will be deleted, not much difference to be made about what the name is called... :( I was going to writeup something separate focused on the legal case, as this article was about the website, but now that seems moot as this new odd name of the article is sorta trying to cover, um, both. I think I will wait a bit and do that anyways, if it gets more secondary source coverage in the future. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, people seem all riled up right now and for me to write it at this juncture would not be constructive. Best to wait a bit and see if more secondary source coverage comes out, which will probably happen. :P Cirt (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Skousen and theoconservatism

have nothing to do with each other. In fact, LDS theology specifically denounces the theocratic rule of the United States, so the assertion is simply without merit. Do you have a source other than a liberal opinion piece on Skousen's political ideologies? I find it troubling that we are judging Skousen by left wing hack pieces on Beck. Wouldn't it be better to judge him by what his contemporaries were saying about him. As I recall, at the time (before we renounced the red scare and McCarthyism) he was well regarded in mainstream political circles. Things to think about. Bytebear (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on? You seriously think that fluff that was in the article is better than my edits? Are you kidding? Bytebear (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

I attempted to clarify on the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I was trying to find it without spending money since I don't think I will enjoy the book. I'm not seeing it at Google Book or Scholar. I was going to consider other methods but my primary source for books is down for maintenance.Cptnono (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I know you were not edit warring. You two were having the conversation while the external links were getting fiddled with by someone else. I said that on the talk page but was not very clear so sorry if you felt that I was accusing you!Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Marc Randazza

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

The article Marc Randazza has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Now in your userspace at User:Justmeherenow/Marc Randazza. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Marc Randazza

This page needs lots of cleanup and improvement. I am noticing things sourced only to personal blogs, which should be avoided on a WP:BLP article. I am also noticing factual assertions not verified by the sources, for example the years of graduation in his education is not verified to the links cited at the ends of those sentences. These are problems. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It can, but best to avoid it as much as possible. On this WP:BLP article, it appears to be the dominant form of sourcing. And, like I said, separate from that, there are things that are not verifiable, even to those sources! Cirt (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the page is one big mess of dubious sources and poor sourcing, and just plain unverifiable material. I think at some point I will just restart from scratch - using only independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Editorial-reviewed academic journal publications from legal scholars is one thing. But random blog postings by the same people is quite another, especially on a WP:BLP article. I will probably just stub the whole thing, and start anew with better sources. Like I said - the article has a bunch of stuff in it that is not even verifiable to those sources. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have thought this over and I am inclined actually to WP:AGF. I formatted all the sources using WP:CIT, and most of them look acceptable. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Outing

Please be careful. If the individual has not self identified, on wiki, as such - then this is inappropriate, per WP:OUTING. Cirt (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

They did nothing of the sort at Commons. Now please stop violating WP:OUTING by attempting to refer to someone's possible real-life identity on-wiki. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You agreed that WP:OUTING is wrong, but then proceeded to say more, on wiki, about connecting the user to their purported real life identity. Please do not do that again. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if my tone came across harsh, just be mindful of this in the future. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

DHO

I've posed an inquiry at Talk:Dallin_H._Oaks#.22Dallin_Oaks.22. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama template causing problems

Hi. It seems Template:Barack Obama is causing problems on the main article (see the very bottom of Barack Obama, where navboxes don't render correctly). Since you were responsible for the recent change, perhaps you'd have ideas about how to fix the navbox issue. In any case, I thought you should know so you can revert if need be. Cheers.--chaser (away) - talk 04:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How come you put the Obama bottom nav template back to my version, Chaser? Is it working now?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 04:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

After I reverted you, I tried to duplicate the odd navbox rendering error in userspace (using show preview). I couldn't, so I rolled myself back so you'd be able to see the problem when I dropped a note here. Do you have any idea how to fix this?--chaser (away) - talk 04:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's OK on my browser (Internet Explorer). What are you using?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 05:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the red text that shows up beneath the template? I think that may happen when there is either an extra blank space at the end of the subtemplates within the charting or else a lack of a blank space. I forget which. The thing is, the damn chart was converted to regular code, so it's almost impossible to edit anyway. So, I just reverted it back to where it was before I changed it.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 05:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Firefox 3.5.3 on Windows XP. The three bottom navboxes were rendering as article-space redlinks instead of transcluded templates. There were also redlinks for other templates, such as the FA template.--chaser (away) - talk 05:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Beck v. Eiland-Hall

On October 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beck v. Eiland-Hall, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 10:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Marc Randazza

On October 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marc Randazza, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 10:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of 2009 Fox News – White House controversy

I have nominated 2009 Fox News – White House controversy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Fox News – White House controversy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. HyperCapitalist (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Format cites using WP:CIT

I strongly suggest you format cites before adding them to articles, using the cite templates at WP:CIT. I would recommend against just adding bare hyperlinks as references to articles. I just formatted all the cites at the article 2009 Fox News – White House controversy, so you can see the article looks better for it: [8]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama Indonesian ancestry

Why would this be in the lead if hes related to his half sister through his white heritage? That would not make Barack himself part indonesian. Its very misleading to be in the opening.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fun

I was expecting a subsection consisting of a series of quotes. Were you working on this? We should be able to get this up to par and prove general notability guidelines without making it read like a tabloid to certain editors. I'll start when I am not hammy on so much beer so think about if there is anything in particular you need a hand with and I would love to jump in.Cptnono (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be more diplomatic to change the scope to overall percieved negative relations with the current administration by some commentators but that would be a cesspool of allegations and POV lists of headlines (closer to NOTNEWS). One example of this is the "watch list" that was being talked about by pundits not affiliated with FOX months ago (I don't remember who it was but he was pissed). This is a subject that meets GNG and significance is not defined by one day, news cycle, month, or more. I don't see any reason why not but we need to watch out for WP:RECENTISM (again) and even keep an eye on the principles guiding WP:COATRACK. Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I need to read through the sources. My first thought is cutting all sources that are not of the highest quality. This will ensure the article stays pristine and will prevent knee jerk reactions.

In regards to the master list. Are there sources discussing both the row with FOX and and the list? (I haven't read them all). I don't want this to turn into heaping criticism upon criticism without sources equating the separate instances to their own conclusion. From what i looks like the list could be an article (I know so little about it as of right now), FOX will be easy, bad media relations could be an article if the sources are really getting in depth with different concerns, media relations could be the article instead if we wanted to try "Hey look at it all". I think FOX for sure has enough content that it would imbalance such an article. So which direction to you want to go? Are there any particular sources that should be paid extra special attention to?Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but now I want to try (goals and stuff). I'll fiddle with it over the next couple of days and see what happens.Cptnono (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Julian - disenchantment

FYI. I saw that you left a message on Julian's talk page. It appears he's feeling a bit disenchanted with Wikipedia. So, it's possible that he will not respond any time soon. See: User:Juliancolton. Jwesley78 (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)