User talk:Jkelly/Archive04

illuminatus

hi, i think you missed my question about "cognitive dissonance"? basically i need more guidance about what exactly is wrong with this sentence : "The trilogy is an exercise in cognitive dissonance, with an absurdist plot built of seemingly plausible, if unprovable, components." is the "cognitive dissonance" thing really an opinion? just seems like the right word to describe a story that throws multiple viable & contradictory viewpoints at you. its not intended to speculate about it. Zzzzz 21:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

i also added a citation to the sentence. but dont know if this is what you were objecting to? can you give me feedback? cheers. Zzzzz 11:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Closed Deletions

Nopers, no hard feelings. I hadn't known it was deleted, but I recieved word yesterday about it. LOL, it's cool, no worries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geimhreadh (talk • contribs)

Category:Hilary Duff singles

I guess that the editors who created them looked at other articles and thought that the rule of thumb was to title them like that. Or, in the case of Beat of My Heart, it was originally created there, then when I merged and redirected it it was recreated at Beat of My Heart (song), and then when I merged and redirected that one it was recreated again at Beat of My Heart (Hilary Duff song). :-( Extraordinary Machine 17:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:FARC

I have no idea how I managed to blank most of Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates, but thanks for putting the rest of it back! -- ALoan (Talk) 01:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the message on my user page. Nice of you to leave it - Oliverkroll 18:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Image

There was no process. There is no reason that has been brought to my attention to remove the image. Weatherman90 00:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)==

Angels Third Party

Wondering if you could take a look at angels and the corresponding talk page, seems like consensus is one thing and it keeps getting switched, figure you'll know better than I.Serlin 05:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien FAC

I wanted to let you know that the article on Tolkien now has 62 properly formatted sources, up from 2 poorly formatted ones, just so you know in case you want to reconsider your vote. Thanks much!! Judgesurreal777 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Greek copyright

I don't know for sure. I'll see if I can find out. --Latinus 15:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

FYROM etc.

In Greece, you recently corrected "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to "Republic of Macedonia", following WP policy. Another user asked me for a precise reference of the statement of WP policy on this matter, and I'm afraid I couldn't find it. Perhaps it would be good in edit comments to point to the policy decision to avoid fruitless edit wars. --Macrakis 22:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Archiving?

Hi, you archived Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group). Where did you archive it to, I can't find it? --Latinus 18:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic Traditionalism

I've done some very significant and "bold" editing of the Gaelic Traditionalism article. I'm telling you because I value your input. It has consistently focused on improving the content and form of the article. Anyway, if you have a chance to pop by and give some feedback, I'd appreciate it. It's more NPOV now. Not perfect, but much better, IMHO. I hope no one screams that I've eviscerated it but it needed drastic editing work to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards as I understand them. I believe what remains is a relatively workable core article. I've also archived a good bit of the talk page so it isn't such a monster to navigate. --Mac 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Bitola

Do you think you could have a word with him? His latest sock has just gone on a mass trolling spree [1] and got another block [2]. I know (strongly suspect) it's User:Bitola because of the fact that a whois check reveals that this IP is in the same range (dynamic IP pool) as the one he signed his name with - not to mention the fact that when I communicated my suspicions to him, he didn't deny it. I appreciate that a block may be upsetting (I don't know, I've never been blocked - yet?), but he's compromising the integrity of the encyclopaedia and is making (bordeline) personal attacks. Could you have a word with him. Thanks in advance. --Latinus 00:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

PS I'm still trying to find the info about Greek copyrights - I can't expect an answer over the weekend. --Latinus 00:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Bitola's discussion page. Bitola 09:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your message about my comments on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Okay, I'll quit my so-called "disruptive" comments. Not because I think my behavior was wrong or abusive, but because it probably won't succeed in changing anyone's mind. Please, do me one favor ... read the Protocol article once more and look at the caricature of a Jew in this image that the article includes: Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion_1943_Poland_Poznan.gif (14KB, MIME type: image/gif). It depicts a Jew as grossly obese, with a large hooked nose, and bags of ill-gotten money in his hands. I consider that vile image to be "a personal attack" on me. In fact, I consider much of that article to be "a personal attack" on me. Can you understand that? I was born in the USA, I fought in a war for the USA, I have lived all my life in the USA ... and I have been called "a dirty Jew" more often than I care to remember. I repeat, can you understand that? Can you understand my wanting to protest that "personal attack"? I would be interested in your answer. Regards, - mbeychok 03:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See also sections with long song titles

I have stopped putting the see also sections on the artist pages. But I do feel that the reference was important, as trivia anyway. Perhaps I should take the link to List of songs with particularly long titles to the discussion page for those artists. Gbeeker 06:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the see also section with the long song titles link to the discussion page on all the artists except for the top 3 or so. Thanks for putting up with my enthusiasm. -- Gbeeker 04:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbophobia

I see you once voted "delete" on the AfD page for "Serbophobia". The article survived the vote, but has since been relisted due to obvious violations of WP:NOR WP:Notability Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and WP:POINT. Please go here and vote. Asim Led 18:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

...

in fact I admire jewishes, i wish modern greeks were acting as jewishes. BUT setting as a featured article the protocols, is provocative and its a propaganda. (i cant even imagine a featured article such as e.g. "macedonia was is and will be greek forever, slav macedonians are bad, americans are bad, european union is bad, everyone is bad etc" on wikipedia's first page.) thats my opinion and obviously not only mine, i respect and admire jewish power, but im not gonna shut up cuz i believe in democracy, and whoever doesnt believe in democracy and believes in facism, can block me--Feta 21:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Main page

Agreed. I feel that the article has improved. In the next couple of days I'd expect more of the same on the talk page because the link is still on Main pg. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Israel dispute

Bonsoir Jkelly,

I am responding to your posting on my talk page regarding the dispute with User:Tasc over Israel and units of measure. I tried to demonstrate my point and reasons to him at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conversions as requested. There were a couple of other users who tended to agree with my edits and the reasoning behind them. However, Tasc continued to revert any changes that I made (3 times). I have since asked for mediation in this matter at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-20 Israel. My question to you, as an admin, can you revert the article back to my edit with instructions not to change pending the outcome of the mediation? That way readers can see my changes and agree or disagree with them? Merci MJCdetroit 01:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response on my talk page. Merci beaucoup, MJCdetroit 02:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Per your suggestion—Talk:Israel#infobox. MJCdetroit 03:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Technical help

Hey can you point out to me what I'm doing wrong here... I archived more text at Talk:Gaelic Traditionalism, but the link to the new archive is red and immediately opens up an edit window when you click it - I obviously missed a step. Do you know what I did wrong? Thanks for your help. --WeniWidiWiki 18:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, there must have been some sort of lag or I was looking at a cached version. Wiki is going really slow on my end today, lots of time outs. Thanks! --WeniWidiWiki 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiccan rede

The copyright is no different from the standard version. There is no clear claim to authorship, since it's supposed to have been passed down through geberations. It was not attributed to an author when published. It is assumed to have been supplied by Ed Buczynski (1947-1989), a former Thompson initate, who passed it on to Herman Slater (1938-1992), who was the publisher of ERN. Paul B 00:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Action needed

I'm relatively new here but I noticed you are an administrator that is interested in articles concerning Macedonians, so I decided to inform you about this. 195.93.21.133 just made an interesting comment on the Republic of Macedonia discussion page [3]. Until that comment, 195.93.21.133 made about 100 edits [4] and most of them were reverted because of vandalism. The edits that he made were mostly minor, sometimes he changed only 1 letter, wich leads to the conclusion that he was doing it to gain a voting priviledge. I'm still not fully familiar with many wikipedia policies so I'm not sure if I'm right to ask for this IP to be blocked. Anyway I demand that some kind of action be taken, since it's clear that 195.93.21.133 is a vandal and probably a sockpuppet who is trying to gain 50 edits to be eligable to vote in polls. Regards --Realek 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Admin intervention and WP:PA

Hi Jkelly, I wonder if I can ask for your advice or intervention. I became concerned about the article on Slavoj Zizek becoming disproportionately filled with non-notable criticisms, and made some comments about it on the talk page. User:Ramanpotential, apparently editing as both his own username, as User:ShowsOn, and as an IP address User:58.160.223.124, quickly resorted to escalating personal attacks in response to my concern. I deliberately mostly refrained from editing the article itself at all pending some input from other editors, but I suppose I can also be a bit bristly on talk pages.

I think maybe this is all motivated by some animosity toward the underlying article subject, but it's hard to know for sure. In any case, the personal attacks make it very difficult for me to try to productively work on the article, or sort out the issues of "undue weight" that I see in the article. Maybe a few intervening words from you would help (especially being an admin with potentially greater interventionary powers). Or maybe just some good advice to me that I should chill out :-). All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am not User:58.160.223.124 and would welcome whatever processes can be employed to prove this. My current IP address is 192.168.1.3. User:58.160.223.124 is a friend and collegue of mine, however, who is new to Wikipedia and while we are like-minded in our opinion of Zizek I have not been happy with some of his behaviour and am currently trying to encourage him to register a username and familiarise himself more with Wikipedia's etiquette.

Secondly, I cannot see anything on the WP:PA page which supports Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's claim that I have attacked him, and would ask him to cite whatever part of it he believes does so. His threats to get me blocked certainly do not seem to be in the spirit of Wikipedia. Ramanpotential 09:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Petra-founders-2004.jpg

Hi. Hope you're doing fine. You deleted this picture I uploaded recently. However, I've been given a release by the webmaster and the owner of the picture to use it. How can I proved that here next time I upload another picture from his site? Thief12 03:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Tell them to try again. I twas out for abrief time this morning and that was when they must have tried to e-mail me. Thanks. P.S. Yes, there was a very serious problem.Gator (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wot, me an admin?

File:1000000eme.jpg

Another newly produced robot thanks you for your handiwork, and excuses himself while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 09:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the invitation or honor or whatever it may be. Yes, I'm willing to be an admin. (For some time I confused "administrator" with "arbitrator", and having looked in horror and disbelief at arbitration proceedings, I wanted to have none of that!)

There's one thing that worries me, though: two of the three examples that you give. The example of restoration after vandalism is OK; it's the other two. I don't think that Winnermario made a "personal attack": he (she?) just had a minor explosion of irritation. Yes, I stayed cool, but there's a whiff of sarcasm about my coolth: while I don't regret what I wrote, I wouldn't claim it as exemplary. As for "helping out with dispute resolution", I think that yes, I was attempting to do this in the long run, but the diff that you give is of my advocacy of one side in a dispute. Worse, the latter two examples are both in response to one user, Winnermario. I disagreed with him at the time and was sure he was wrong and I was right; but I also supposed that he honestly believed that I was wrong and he was right -- though his edits irritated me at times, I didn't regard him as a vandal, troll, or similar, and wouldn't be happy if people got the impression that I did regard him in this way.

Might I persuade you to reconsider the details of your nomination? -- Hoary 02:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a second time. I've dutifully answered the questions, done the transcluding, etc. Now I'll sit back and watch the ensuing carnival! -- Hoary 04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Hectorian

I apologise:(...but there have been many real vandalisms in Alexander the Great's article lately and when i rv-ed them i was writting (as i should) 'rv vandalism'.this time,the history of my browser(when i wrote 'rv' appeared 'rv vandalism') cheated me, and i clicked it...I should had been more careful:(... --Hectorian 02:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

50 cent image

It is in fact part of the creative commons-- the email that makes this clear is on the image's page. Please kindly remove that tag. Thank you.--Urthogie 07:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reason to believe they own the image because they are sourced as the holders of the image on all other sites that hold the image. Why is commons-nc a speedy delete?--Urthogie 09:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. That makes sense-- but can you explain how I could put the lists in prose format. They don't seem to lend themselves to prose. I just want to get your support on this FA Nomination before it fades out.--Urthogie 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status of 150-year-old print

Hey, Jkelly. I don't understand the image copyright notice you've posted on Giano's talkpage or the nosource tag you put on the image page. What is the problem? The image description page is and was appropriately tagged with {{PD-art}} and there's a note stating that it's from a 150-year-old print and hence Public Domain by virtue of age. It looks from your message (a form message, I guess?) as if you want the image description page to also contain info about who created it. Wtf? 19th century prints are anonymous, one hardly ever knows who created them—but hey, it's 150 years old! The images I have uploaded myself are generally tagged either {{PD-art}} or {{PD-old}}, because I also write articles about old stuff. Could you let me know if there's something wrong with my image info also? The only difference is that I can generally refer to an URL or a published book as the source I've gotten the image from (because I don't collect old prints the way Giano does). Of course these old pictures have nothing to do with Fair Use, and no Fair Use claim is made: they're Public Domain because they're old. Is there some magic or obligatory way of expressing this that we've both missed? Bishonen talk 08:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

• Many of them are scans of old prints etc. I have collected, but they are mostly far from rare, the 1830/40s were the beginning of mass production. I don't want to put my name and private address as their source for obvious reasons! I have returned to the image's own page and given a slightly more detailed description thus I think all images are now more clearly described for you. Where an artist is anonymous but publishing work in the 1820's I hope you will agree with me that he will have been dead for over 100 years. These images are also uploaded from England where copyright of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (including a photograph) lasts only until 70 years after the death of the author. But that is hypothetical anyway as these artists have all been dead over 100 years. I hope you are now able to resupport. While I am here and you seem to know about the subject, I am planning to write a page to FA standard about the Victorian printer George Baxter (he developed colour printing as opposed to hand tinting and died in the 1850s) as I am fortunate enough to own one of the largest collections of his work in Europe, how can I upload never before published images and examples of his work, of which I own the only known example without losing my anonymity - or can't it be done - because for all anyone knows I could be just producing them myself - do you see the problem - A few experts will know instantly who owns them, but I don't want it common knowledge - I'm interested in your view. Giano | talk 09:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion

Why did you delete the Dorthe Holm image? It was sourced! I clearly labelled it as IOC. This is the source. Now I have to re-upload the image, jerk. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User Dkwong323

I have a very strong suspicion this user may be Kasey Kassem. Just take a look at his contributions, he only edits the American Pie (song) page. For some strange reason it seems to be his favorite!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.192.215 (talk • contribs)

Your image deletion practices

Hi Jkelly. I've been idly snooping about looking at the kinds of images you delete in your quest to enforce the WP copyright policies as you understand them. Unfortunately, I've concluded that your understanding of both these policies and US copyright law itself are deeply flawed. I have no action planned at the moment, but when my own schedule lightens up and I have read a bit more about Jimbo's latest expressed views on the matter, I will almost certainly ask for some form of roundtable about these deletion practices, focusing on you and one or two other Admins... There's no personal hostility here, but I do believe your practices are seriously sacrificing the quality of this encyclopedia for vanishingly small, or even no, gains in insulation from lawsuits. I've left this message as a courtesy, so you can perhaps begin preparing your justification. I didn't want to just spring this on you and have you involved in mediation without adequate preparation time. Thanks. Jim Tour 08:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

rapping article

I updated the page to reflect all but one of your suggestions. See featured article nomination. Thanks, --Urthogie 16:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Our Gang (and rapping)

Can you keep an eye on this article (or list it at the admins' messageboard)? There's a quack who apparently thinks, because some pictures in the German Wikipedia article on Our Gang were improperly tagged and deleted, that all of the pictures in the English one should be deleted, too.

On a lighter note, how're you doing these days. --FuriousFreddy 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't see that nomination. I did some cleanup work on that article in the beginning (mostly grammar/copyediting and formatting, but a lot of it), but I'd hoped that Urthogie wouldn't try and nominate it for FAC in that state (short, listy, and non-comprehensive). I don't think I can vote on the article, because I've made substantive edits, and I really don't have all of that free time to dedicate to trying to fix it up (that's what I get for getting a job that actually makes me do work). But, no; it's not feature quality. The thing is -- I wouldn't know where to start in properly cleaning it up. It's like writing an article on poetry, only your sources are going to be a lot less reliable and comprehensive. I honestly don't know if we can produce even a good article on rapping (just the practice of putting rhyming words together, which is what the article is meant ot focus on) without heaping amounts of original research (and yes, much of the content of the article is indeed original research). There just hasn't been that much outside study put into the subject.--FuriousFreddy 02:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack

You have reacted quite promptly on my recent outburst of hate. I just wanted to say that I have reported on WP:ANI and to several administrators User:Hatchet and his deeds, and I haven't got a reply. He goes against WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:POINT. Consider that if you don't have any other work to do then warning users who post messages to other users. Death2 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC

I do not know if i should place my comment here or in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR .Inanna, does not participate in dialogues.on the contrary, when her edit was reverted, she attacked another article(with no sources at all) for the only reason that i am Greek [5]. not to mention the comments that she has made to the users who reverted her(apart from me). --Hectorian 03:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok,thank u.i will read the policies and how these things work and i will see what i can do.Thanks again! --Hectorian 03:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lycée Claudel

Well, I don't really think that the licensing to that picture is going to change the world. It's not as if the school could sell it and make millions. I understand your concern however and will quit being a stubborn mule as I see I am out-stubborned.

I'd like to say that this is site a real asset to the composium of Human knowledge and I am really impressed that even the slightest of details is monitered with such vigilance. I am pleased and yet, anxious, that perhaps the trully free flow of information may be limited so easily. I do not expect anything to change though, it is completely understandable for Wikipedia to CIA (Cover It's A**): copyright is a fundament of liberal society and is inviolable, for now.

I'm awed that you are so darned thorough,

Many thanks for a great job,

(Inexorable 04:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

Image:Stevenson Staff.jpg

The above image was nominated for deletion. I was about to delete it, but it is not obvious to me that you were ever informed about the nomination. The nomination was due to "questionable status". I will hold off on deleting the image for a while in the hopes that you can respond and clarify if you are the author of the image. Jkelly 01:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. Actually, I don't remember where I got the image. When I first started editing, I was really involved with school articles and I was helping various other Wikipedians write quality articles about their schools. I did not take the picture myself, but I think I got it off the school's website. If I did, though, the picture has since been removed from their website. I hope this clarifies things. --M@thwiz2020 16:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed replacement/update for "band" infoboxes

I have created a proposal for a new music artist infobox, Template:Infobox musical artist 2, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines. Let me know what you think of it. Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 23:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

rapping featured article nomination

Heya. I think I've addressed all of your concerns on the featured article nomination for rapping. Could you vote support if I have, and explain what still needs to be done, if I haven't? Thanks, --Urthogie 22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring – and with the hope of resolving this issue – you might be interested in a poll currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! --Aldux 15:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:V and the Bob Dylan article

No good deed goes unpunished, it seems; I've just finished cleaning up the Dylan links section at your suggestion, and had pulled notes together in preparation for bringing the article into compliance with the tougher verifiability standards that have been developed over recent months -- as you noted a while back, the article is almost completely unreferenced, even though published sources should be easy to provide for all significant points.However, User:JDG, with whom we both have clashed, has returned and restarted old and apparently settled editing disputes, inserting several significant blocks of unsourced, often-disputed text. Would you be willing to respond to my recent comments about verifiability issues on the article talk page (supportively, I hope)? Monicasdude 09:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

JK-- do you from your side encourage Mdude's use of you as his go-to-guy? Have you seen the RFCs and now the RfAr against him? Is this the sort of fellow-traveler you want?... Please think twice before taking his case, or even backing him in a single assertion. He has a talent for playing the advocate of things like "tougher verifiability standards" while quietly breaking these ideals when it suits his own (unsourced) preferences... JK, there's something going on with you. Do you discuss WP disputes with certain people in other venues, then come here to carry out agreed-upon actions? Were you a confidante, for instance, of Jtkiefer's? (I don't know why I suspect it, but I do)... Look at what happened to him and at what is about to happen to Mdude. JDG 11:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC).. Update: How to interpret your silence? I've hit a few nails on the head and you don't want to discuss it? You're withholding food from a troll?... I'm no troll, JKelly. Monicasdude has embroiled dozens of people in very contentious, very time-consuming brawls. I'd just like to know why someone like you, who by all evidence is a quiet, careful conributor, wants to link up with such a polarizing figure. JDG 18:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wild Rhododendrons in Kashmir.jpg

Thanks for pointing out the lack of a copyright tag. I inserted this image when I was first learning the ins and outs of working on the Wikipedia and did not know about copyright tags at that time. I think I have it fixed up now. Please let me know if you still have any concerns. John Hill

No worries! Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers, John Hill

Image:Hoteldevilledequebec.jpg

Hi. I know that you put a lot of effort into Wikipedia images, so I thought I would ask your advice on Image:Hoteldevilledequebec.jpg. The editor who uploaded the image inserted a copyright credit into the image itself, which could hamper the image's free use. When I pointed this out to the editor, he didn't give the impression that he was prepared to upload the image again, without the copyright credit. I am not sure if the credit in the image itself presents a real problem or not, and if it does, what tag I would use. Your advice/assistance would be much appreciated. Skeezix1000 17:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Damn! I'd hoped to slip that in without anyone noticing... Thanks, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:IFD

I remove the image listings from the page whether I delete the image or keep it. Anything still left listed needs to be processed by an admin. I do this so I don't forget which images I've touched and have to duplicate effort. Sometimes I start on a day and am not able to completely finish it before I have to go. I'm sorry I am confusing everyone. I will be happy to adjust to make it clear what is going on. I'll add edit summaries or I'm open to other ideas. Let me know what works best. Keep up the good work! -Thanks Nv8200p talk 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

reGulnSamauiincbil

JK (mind if I call you that?). I recently spent quite a bit of time photoshopping the English Wikipedia's Fair Use image of Picasso's "Guernica" to make it easier for folks to discern the much vaunted subliminal skull-in-profile (the image is about halfway down the linked page). Do you foresee any copyvio issue with this? I'm fond of the resulting selectively de-contrasted image and would like to fortify our right to use it as much as I can. Any advice? Any other tags I should use in the image file page? Thx, JDG 05:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Parliament

Thanks, I was rather surprised myself that the Parliament article was somewhat sparse, I would've assumed it was exhaustive. I'm tempted to adopt it as a new project to try and bring up to Featured Article status or something :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 22:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

FYROM or Republic of Macedonia

I think I should let you know that I posted a response for you in the above talk. I had almost missed your comment, since the talk-page has become more of a blog lately. I'd be happy to elaborate.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Confederation bridge photo you just added

You want to know something really weird. On March 8, I put out an appeal on the Confederation Bridge talk page for someone to help me add a great photo I have of the bridge to the article. The one you just added - we must have been standing in the exact same spot and shot at the same angle. There were a few differences- the sea was flat calm the day I was there and only a few high level cirrus clouds. What I love about both shots (yours and mine) is that the bridge appears to go off into infinity. --Hokeman 00:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply on my talk page. Whenever, I get the equipment I'll be sure and do that. (It's my photo so licensing is not a problem.) Thanks. --Hokeman 08:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the "birthday" wishes

Hi, thanks for the wiki-birthday wishes. One year — I'm getting very old! AnnH ♫ 00:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Canada

I have nominated it for peer review. Ardenn 07:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

About the personal attacks and vandalyzing

I appologise about the personal attacks. I usualy don't do that.

About vandalizing: see what user Nikosilver is doing - he is the real vandalizer, not me. Please have him warned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.78.8 (talk • contribs)

Images

Hi, I am thinking of starting a new page, but before I start to waste my time - is the licence for these images here valid Image:Warszawa Lazienki4.jpg? I haven't come across this one before. Thanks Giano | talk 07:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi J

Hi Jkelly, is it ok if I request that my user page and talk page be protected from editing for about a week? I plan on hardly being around for the next week. If you don't wanna do it, I don't know if there is a special page to request this. Thanks J either way, Alexander 007 23:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the page. Alexander 007 00:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Jews in Greece

Great work! Thank you for a very good article! --Michalis Famelis 06:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced template

In re: this edit, is there a compelling reason to add this template to an article that already has the Template:Citation needed template showing which assertions need referencing? Jkelly 18:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know there was a citation need template so I just put the unreferenced template at the beginning. Robot569 18:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sweet...

It's like I have a little fairy godmother running around behind me uploading my pics to the Commons...I really need to make it a Firefox tabbed bookmark, so I remember to do it myself sometime :P Much thanks though Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Objection to 3RR warning

Are you threatening me? - Xed 17:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Shaking

Pistols at dawn, I assume, except I've just removed his last bullet. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, knowing Xed, I think I ought to withdraw that hubris. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Expertise

I stumbled across your userpage, and reading what you had to say about expertise, I would largely agree. The case of User:William M. Connolley is indicative, I feel, of how experts are sometimes treated. Anyway, just wanted to say I was impressed by what I had to read. Batmanand | Talk 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Block This IP From Editing

As one of the people who uses this [school] IP (by extension making me a representative of this "account"), I request that this IP be blocked from editing. I ask you in particular to do this because you had left a message on the account page in March 2006 threatening to block this account (along with the four or five other messages already speaking to something in that matter, though varying in willingness to be "tough on vandalism"), and though I'm a regular Wikipedia user and editor (at home), I don't know who to contact to get accounts blocked. In any event, I want this account blocked. The last thing I want is for Wikipedia to be vandalized, and since most of the people who share this account are idiots who not only can't contribute anything remotely intelligible but are also jerks who would mess things up for cheap thrills, I wish/demand that this account be blocked (especially because Wikipedia is notoriously inadequate at the task of blocking accounts that need to be blocked -- it's 3 strikes, not 7.) Thank you for assistance. 64.213.196.4 21:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hi EM

Thanks, but I dunno...I just feel like it would be better if I did leave. Before I go though, I have noticed all the things that you do in relation to my user and talk pages (e.g. asking people who insult me not to make personal attacks, etc.), so I just thought I'd express my appreciation below. I really should have done before now, and you really deserve it, because it's nice to have users looking out for things like that, and I should have probably done it more as well. Anyway, if I don't speak to you again, then it's been nice editing with you. :) Extraordinary Machine 22:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		"My hero, superhero won't you come and save my day..." Extraordinary Machine 22:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave now, and then see how I feel later on. Bye! :) Extraordinary Machine 22:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and request for further discussion...

When I'd written an article about Atlantis, a film by Luc Besson, I'd made use of screenshots from the respective DVD. Back then, I was quite new to Vikipedi and was not caring about copyright issues (not intentionaly, of course). Then, as my awareness about these issues grew and learned about the fair use tags of en:, I asked similar questions to some of the admins in tr:. They also had limited ideas and what they thought was that as the tr: was served from the servers in USA, there wouldn't be any inconvenience about using the translated versions of these tags with the phrase "Vikipedi, the Turkish-language Wikipedia" (of course, the translation of it) instead of "English-language Wikipedia" and "Vikipedi" instead of "Wikipedia". As I was not sure of this, I prepared direct translation templates of the en: templates but added extra frames under the translated ones describing that the above frame includes a direct translation with the source being the en: template and explaining the sincere and caring motivation for using the translated verison.

An example to the templates I created is here:

• Şablon:Telif hakkı - Görüntü - Film afişi, the translated and explained version of Template:Movie poster

I know that you'll not understand the text (as it is in turkish). Yet, I show it to you with the hope of getting further advice and direction.

I will carry our discussion to tr: as there seems to be a trend of preparing translated fair use tags (with using "Vikipedi" instead of "Wikipedia" in the template texts), and also, will try to consult a lawyer as you've suggested.

--Doruk Salancı 22:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

École Secondaire Catholique Garneau

Unhonorable Actions require a follow-up

Due to your unhonorable lack of ability to properly announce, to user:CyclePat, the uploaders talk page, the deletion of image:Garneau.PNG I have brough this to the attention of the community at WP:ANI.[6] Please, follow familiarise yoursefl with wiki procedures and in the future please be kind, assume good faith and don't be so WP:DENSE. Wikipedia is after all a place for everyone! Thank you for your understanding. --CyclePat 18:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat and the image

Could you let me know what the problem is please? Email if you prefer. Thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 22:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

skoolz

OK, what's your school problem? Mine's over at Arnold School, where there are two things happening at once, but they're blurred. First, there's a lengthy list of "old boys", which is being frequently messed with by (I assume) children at Arnold who are adding their own names to the list. The other has to do with the list itself, which is mostly a bunch of redlinks; I think I got someone a bit bothered when I suggested that the addition of obvious hooey was making the whole list questionable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:École Secondaire Catholique Garneau

You asked: Hi. Thanks for catching my mistake. Do you have any additional insight into what this is all about? Not a clue - I just weighed in because it caught my attention on WP:AN/I. I don't know if any of us (or all of us) will succeed in convincing CyclePat of the principle of the matter, but at least showing up in numbers will show that he doesn't have a consensus behind him. FreplySpang (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

Eh, well the semiprotection and factual dispute tags don't bode well... It doesn't look so bad, but an article on Dylan really shouldn't be featured without extensive inline citations. Though, I suppose we could start with a references section. If you took it to FARC, I'd vote to remove it unless someone was actually fixing it up -- I think it's a holdover from brilliant prose, and it really ought to be evaluated according to modern criteria. Tuf-Kat 20:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ive had the page on my watchlist since i came here, (2004) , and edits to it have seriously stalled in the past few months. Before that, edits came in, but with very few sources. SECProto 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Genesis (band)

Hi Jkelly, I have clarified the source for the Image:Genesis Group.jpg image. I had scanned the image from a book. I have updated the information in the image tag. I am unable to determine the copyright holder of the other image Image:Genesis 1967.JPG. I have therefore replaced that image. Genesis 1967.jpg may be marked for speedy deletion. Please review the article based on my recent edits. Thanks. AreJay 00:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Per your responce, I have added the copyright notice from the book to the image. Thanks AreJay 01:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see that

Hi, I was curious about you, as you edited the Kierkegaard article, but I didn't see that I reverted that article. Sorry bout that. Poor Yorick 04:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dershowitz

When I said I was being fair to critics and subject by adding the word "controversial", you reverted me by saying it's "not our call to make". I meant fair as in portraying the fact that he has many critics, not representing the views of Wikipedians. He - the ideas he advocates, to be sure - is controversial, so it seems as fair as adding the word controversial to the opening sentence of the USA PATRIOT Act, no? Not a big issue though, if you feel strongly about it. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 07:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Captain Marvel

Well, we're not supposed to use a cover image to illustrate that article. According to Kelly Martin: "A cover image should only be used to illustrate an article about that issue. Do not use a full cover image to illustrate an article about a character." [7] Regards —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 13:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your message

It's cool that you have guts to leave such reminders to editors who have six times more eexperience in WP than yourself. Nevertheless, I would like to know which of my comments you classify as "personal attacks". Where did I comment on the contributor rather than content? If you fail to demonstrate such diffs, I'll have to bring the issue of intimidation on WP:ANI. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you think Gmaxwell's edit - unaccompanied by any explanation on talk - was neither trolling nor vandalism? I believe we have too different views on the difference between "personal attacks" and statements of fact to carry on this discussion any further. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I paraphrase this edit as"Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ghirlandajo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.0.138.29 (talk • contribs) Jkelly 19:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

Semi-protect Attalus I, please!

I know that it's general policy not to semi-protect a featured article, but what is happening to Attalus I is so incredible, at least for me, that it should warrant an exception. The article is generally edited about twice a month, but an anonymous vandalic attack under ever-changing IP was mounted April 24 and continues now without any interruption, withmore than 170 edits of vandalism and counter-vandalism in less than 24 hours. Please help!--Aldux 19:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I should have thought that the 25th was the day it went on the Main Page, I feel considerably stupid :-) The good news is that tomorrow is another day, and I hope the vandals will think this also. Bye, and thanks!--Aldux 20:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear JK, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My galloric images

I don't understand why you removed the images I had in the gallery as images I have uploaded. Is it because of my public domain tag at the bottom of the page? Thanks for reading the whole page too. :) -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 05:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Don't worry its wikipedia, nobody intrudes. Tell that to someone next time they get angry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Davis (talk • contribs)

User talk:Musical Linguist

Thanks for your little note about the Test templates on User talk:Musical Linguist. However, I feel I was justified. Even if it was spam, I should be the one that decides if it should be removed from my talk page. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 00:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

I'm sorry if you felt that I made a person attack. That was not my intent. My intent was to simply express my freedom of speech. I assume that is allowed here at Wikipedia (well, maybe not in China). I also read Wikipedia:Userpage, and I did not see where someone has the right to remove a note from my talk page, even if it is spam. Thank you! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 01:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:MSTCrow

Yeesh, yer telling me. Sorry you had to be the target of all that! --InShaneee 01:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

re: SarahMclachlanJLC2005.jpg copyright correction

Sorry if I made any mistakes... this is all new to me. Yes, I'm the one who took the photo - I have made the change to the copyright notice; I simply wanted a more up-to-date picture up on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezster (talk • contribs)

unfree?

Hi. Please don't do this. See Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use for information on using unfree media on Wikipedia. Thanks. Jkelly 04:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it unfree if image is realavant to the subject and has proper copyright information? That's what fair use says. And if it was, why hasn't it been reverted before (the past several years!). Also take a look at this.The Republican 23:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why did I call this vandalism? Those events did not happen. This user has done the same thing repeatedly in various articles. For example he claimed that the Allies invaded Spain's overseas colonies during WW2. Total poppycock. "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." Deliberately adding false facts to an article seems to me to count as reducing the quality of the encyclopaedia, no? Gsd2000 00:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to satisfy for yourself that this did not happen pls read this: http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-236518 . Then understand that he has been doing this repeatedly. Gsd2000 01:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And here Schleswig-Holstein question#Resolution. Gsd2000 01:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Canadadrainagebasinsmap.jpg

You added the no source tag to the above image. I have found what appears to be the source here. I'm not sure what to do with this information. Qutezuce 23:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)