Meelar (talk) 05:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again. First, there is no mention of super human strength to avoid a flame war. Second, your examples prove your own argument wrong. Those Marvel Universes published in 2004 that you mentioned list Wolverine at a level 4. If you look in the appendix of those issues (even X-MEN 2004) level 4 correllates with low superhuman strength. Why are you not able to read that? Also in the Marvel Universe Master Edition 4 Wolverine's strength is listed as enhanced. Why can't you just read it? I gave you a mountain of evidence which is still on my site and all you had to do was cut and paste the text into the field on your browser (you can't just click it doesn't allow hot linking, you have to CUT AND PASTE). Contact the editors of the Marvel website and review the entries there where he is yet again listed as level 4. http://www.marvel.com/about/contact_us/email.htm. Britney Spears 23:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did have this stuff available for you to actually look at on this site but since someone went and reported it I had to take it down.Britney Spears 23:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is a another image for you. Please look at the following entries from various comic books illustrating that the character has enhanced strength. They will save you much trouble or doing unnecessary revisions. The image bellow shows a feet of greater than the peak human range or Captain America, but less than the Superhuman Class 10 range of Spiderman. Spider man can lift a maximum of 10 tons (roughly 20,000 lbs.). He would snap these bonds easily. Captain America could not snap these bonds at all. Also in the old Marvel Universes in the 80's that said that Wolverine was a strong as any man of his hieght and wieght who engages in intense regular excersize, how many 150 year old men do you know of who can lift over 800 lbs? You see there were problems with those universes. There was no enhanced range at that time. Meaning that characters were not as strong as Spidey would sometimes (but not always) just get this "strong as any man of his hieght and wieght who engages in intense regular excersize" even if they could lift 2 tons. Another example was Sabretooth who was does definately have superhuman strength and in the marvel universe from 1986 it listed him as peak human. Yet in the new Wolverine2004 Universe it does put him at Level 4 and in the Master Edition Master Edition it lists him in the Enhanced Range. Britney Spears 22:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF1.JPG

File:Seelink.JPG

From Uncanny X-Men 111

Hi, got some info for you concerning Wolverine. http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF5.JPG

File:Seelink.JPG

From New X-Men: Mutant Academy 10

(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF6.JPG

File:See link.JPG

From New Thunderbolts 6

1) His strength is listed as ENHANCED. http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF1.JPG

File:Seelink.JPG

Marvel Universe Master Edition 4

2) There were two editions that listed of the Marvel Universe in 2004 that had profiles of Wolverine. Marvel Universe X-Men 2004 actually contradicts itself by stating that Wolverine's strength is Level 4 (enhanced human through superhuman class 25) and then it states in words (directly copied from the old volume from 1986) that he is merely in top physical shape. Marvel Universe X-Men 2004 had a LOT of errors in it (such as reprinting a portion of the Deluxe Edition no. 14 from 1986 in describing his strength, and that edition listed a lot of characters with superhuman strength as merely being in peak physical condition). If you then look at the appendix it shows that level four includes strength anywhere from 800 lb to 25 tons (encapsulating 3 categories, enhanced human, superhuman class 10 and superhuman class 25). Level 3 is peak human. Captain America can only lift 800 lb under optimal conditions, and even then it is a great strain. Wolverine, with his metahuman stamina could pick up 800 lb and run the Boston Marathon with it, without getting tired. That is why he is considered enhanced. He has also demonstrated that he can lift more than 800 lbs. (completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF2.JPG

File:Seelink.JPG

Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004

3) In the Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004 and on the Marvel Website, Wolverine is again listed as level 4. Level 4 covers enhanced humans (beings able to lift from the 800 lb to 2 ton range), Superhuman class 10 (beings able to lift from 2 tons to a max of 10 tons), and Superhuman class 25 (beings able to lift wieghts between 10 and 25 tons). So Wolverine is at the very bottom of level 4 (an enhanced human). In the comics there are several places that this is explained explicitly and I will scan those entries and show them to you if necessary. (completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF3.JPG

File:Seelink.JPG

Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004

(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF4.JPG

File:See link.JPG

Marvel Universe Master Edition 2 appendix

4) Although Wolverine has had his adamantium back for several years now, if you look at the X-Men 2004 edition it mistakenly puts that he still has the bone claws. This was corrected in Wolverine 2004. This is another example of an error in that issue. Just because it says in that issue that he did not have adamantium does not mean he didn't have it. It means that the issue was rushed to be printed and not edited well. This was somewhat corrected in Wolverine 2004.

So essentially Wolverine is at the enhanced human level, which is equivelent to very low superhuman strength. He can lift around 800 lb to 1500 lb. That is the position of Marvel. The writers don't make a big deal out of it because he is in a class below Spiderman.

(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF7.JPG

File:See link.JPG

Marvel Website Official Listing of Wolverine's Abilities

5) Finally, this is from Marvel's website. Wolverine is on Level 4. Level 4 covers characters in the range of being able to lift 800 lb to 25 tons. That is 3 categories. Enhanced Human, Superhuman Class 10, and Superhuman Class 25. Wolverine is in the lowest category of the 3 being enhanced human. As you can see the statistics from the Master Edition still stand.

Britney Spears 04:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have shown you specific marvel universe entries and panels explaining it this point. The character is described as enhanced, which in an intermediate level between superhuman and peak human. The first two volumes of the Universe stated that he was merely in peak physical condition, because the writers had not worked out an enhanced (intermediate) category yet. Britney Spears 05:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have just proven that it states in the Marvel Universe that he has enhanced strength, agility, and reflexes. I showed you the page where it says it. Then I showed you examples. You keep stating that there Marvel has always maintained that his strength is merely peak human. That is called a lie. You need to stop now. Myself and several others agree that what you are doing is vandalism. Britney Spears 18:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is why over-extending the "Superhuman Powers" sections is stupid. All it EVER does is lead to flame wars over tiny little insignificant details that NEVER get kept to in the comics. EVER. And that's not even COUNTING cross-media stuff.

And I think many of those pics above are imagevios, possibly all the text ones. I'll tag them tomorrow and see what everyone else thinks... SoM 22:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I reduced the amount of text in the entry. And what does "imagevios" mean? If you are suggesting they are fake you are definately wrong. You should check things out before you acuse people. Saves you trouble.Britney Spears 22:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way these images were only posted on here for Nightscream. They aren't part of entries anywhere else and after he had the chance to read them I was planning on deleting them or allowing them to be deleted. I only added one small picture to the Wolverine entry. I am clearly in the right here and I have the documentation to prove it so you might want to avoid wasting your time. Britney Spears 22:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, remember that some people using this site are Christians and do not appreciate it when you take the Lord's name in vain. It is extremely disrespectful. Britney Spears 23:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome, I see spacing issues everyday... so its not just you :-). For future reference send communications/comments to users on their User talk page (their discussion tab). I've moved your message there and my talk page is directly liked by Boy in my signature. Have a better one, and keep up the good work. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Britney.

Let’s see if we can take this in order. First of all, the notion that there is no mention of superhuman strength in my version is false, an indication that you obviously didn’t read carefully. It’s archived, so look for the paragraph that begins with “Additionally, some readers believe that Wolverine's strength, agility, and reflexes are enhanced…” If you read that paragraph, you’ll see that I mentioned the very examples that were mentioned as possibly indicating superhuman strength on Wolvie’s part. So what if I didn’t mention every single detail, like those Stat Gauges? The point is, I addressed the debate by mentioning material that both sides point to. If you felt that the Stat Gauges were too important to be omitted, why not simply add that in? Isn’t that the whole point of Wikipedia? That each person contributes a little bit, so that the entry presents a more and more detailed picture? Instead, you simply go back and revert to the old version, which doesn’t contain ‘’any’’ of the material on that issue. I have restored my version, and have added the points about the Stat Gauges.

Second, you claim that the lack of such a mention, if true, would cause a “flame war”. How do figure this? If two contributors disagree on the content of an entry, they should ‘’discuss’’ it, not engage in a flame war. Simply because you respond to any disagreement with accusations of “lying,” ‘’vandalism,’’ and intending to “antagonize” people—as if you somehow have been able to divine my intentions, exclude less nefarious motives on my part (like perhaps a sincere belief on my part that my contributions are valid)—while simultaneously admonishing others to be more careful with ‘’their’’ language—does not mean that others are so cynical, and that they possess the intentions you ascribe to them. If the only response you see to such a disagreement is pejorative language, accusations, and flame wars, then that says far more about your own character and temperment than it does about the content of my contributions.

First step is to move this discussion to the article's discussion page. If this is about content then it should be on the article discussion page where it belongs. It will also keep the things from being fragmented. Then progress might be made. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And make sure to sign your name on every discussion entry. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The entry is better the way it is because it doesn't say anything about him having enhanced or superhuman strength it merely states a few facts which are also stated in the Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004 and lets the reader draw thier own conclusion. Your entry has a ton of unnecessary information and is not NPOV. There is no need for you to explain to us what you think the opinions of some readers are regarding a comicbook characters powers. How do you know? Which readers? Did you conduct a statistical survey? Where can I look at the data? Seriously, this has gone on long enough and you need to find something more productive to do with your time. ScifiterX 8 July 2005 09:48 (UTC)

The fact that the version you favor entry does not mention the issue over his strength is precisely why it is incomplete. Reference sources like Wikipedia should address such discrepancies. It is for this reason that I feel it may be useful to present the contradictory bits of evidence cited by different people when discussing whether he does or doesn't have enhanced strength, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Your statement that your version somehow allows readers to do this, even though it doesn't even mention the issue at all, makes no sense. You also provide no evidence or elaboration on how my version is not NPOV. How exactly is it not NPOV to incorporate evidence that both sides present on the matter? My version does not slant the information toward either side, which is exactly what an NPOV is. Moreover, my version also has other information regarding his superhuman powers that has nothing to do with the strength issue, and it is not your place to decide for others whether it is "necessary" or not. That's for readers to decide, depending on their curiosity and their needs. Lastly, which readers advocate which position on the strength issue is unimportant. The only important thing is that I incorporated the information they pointed to in support of their position, for which a statistical survey is neither necessary nor relevant. The only important data are the sources that I cited, which you can most certainly look up. Nightscream 7.8.05. 9:49am EST.

Its NPOV because you are telling us what the opinions of readers are and implying which opinions are correct. Its a fictional comic book character it isn't necessary to site sources for the character's powers. My comment about a statistical survey was a play on words, which apparently went over your head. Several people have been reverting your editing. I am not alone on this one. ScifiterX 8 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

Nowhere in my version do I imply which opinions are "correct." I merely present both sides of the issue, and cite the arguments by each side. Nowhere do I indicate that one is correct and one is incorrect. Your comment about a statistical survey was not a play on words; it was a manipulation. Statistics are usually used in regards to quantitative issues (that is, how many people believe this or that), when in fact, nowhere in my version do I ever allude to the percentage of people who subscribe to one explanation or the other. Bringing the issue of statistics up, therefore, was irrelevant, and referring to it as a "play on words" is at best, demonstrative that you do not understand yourself what that phrase means, and at worst, disengenous on your part. Shocking as it may be to you, I know that others have been reverting the entry. So what? Most of them employ the same sort of Straw Men, word manipulation and other fallacies that you do, as well as irrelevant insults and name-calling, none of which I tend to take very seriously. If you want to engage in a civil discussion in which I might see your point of view, you might consider abandoning those tactics, since they do nothing to lend credence to your position, much less convince me. Nightscream 7.8.05. 9:37pm EST.

Several Wikipedians agree that your edit is innapropriate for the entry. I have explained to you in very explicit and civil terms why we have come to this conclusion. I have never insulted you, but you have been quite rude in your correspondence with me, which so far I have generously overlooked. As I said before I welcome any appropriate contribution you can make to that or any other article. People don't always agree with each other. Let's all try to be a little more mature about this matter as it is rather insignificant compared to the other activities in our lives.ScifiterX 07:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The statement that you have never insulted me, and that it is somehow I who has been rude to you, is clearly false to anyone who reads our exchanges. To date, you and others have accused me of deliberately trying to antagonize you, you have presumed to know what my motives are behing my actions and my position, you have distorted my words and made manipulative use of words to do this. The idea that I have somehow been rude to you is just flat-out untrue, as is the notion that it is somehow you who has been "civil." You seem to think that merely stating an idea or an accusation somehow lends credence to it. It doesn't. In order for any idea to hold up, you have to provide evidence/reasoning for it. You have not done this. You say I've been rude to you. Fine. Please point to where I have done this. You say that my version of the section does not show a NPOV because it implies which side of the dispute over Wolverine's strength is correct, and that I have omitted and distorted information for the other. Fine. Please point to where I have done this. I challenged you on this a short while ago, and you again stonewalled on the matter by refusing to respond. By contrast, I can point to information that reflects my statements regarding your behavior and mine. You allude to what I am supposedly thinking, you assert that I somehow need a dictionary in order to use the words I used in my recent post to you (as if there are any words in that post that one cannot know by heart), and so forth. You're saying those are not insults? How so? For your part, the only things to which you can point as supposed insults on my part are when I point out the logical fallacies you employ, which is clearly not an insult, but a reasonable description of your arguments. As far as the explanations you have given on why my edit is inappropriate, I respectfully disagree with them, and have explained why, and in detail. It should be left to the readers looking for information to decide how much information or detail they need/want. Not the aesthetics of individual posters. I don't myself don't care for the recent addition of the section Wolvie's costumes, as his costume has never been a signature trait of the character. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to unilaterally decide to delete it. Moreover, only one portion of my edit refers to the dispute over his strength. The rest covers other information that the version you favor does not, such as the limits of his healing factor, the fact that his hair also grow back, and greater detail on his senses and claws. Your only response is to argue that length of a section equates with whether it makes sense and other fallacies, and to attack me and my motives. Nightscream Tue 7.12.05. 4:42am EST.

I've set up a section on Talk:Wolverine (comics)#Some sort of compromise and would appreciate your input. Steve block 13:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the discussion has moved on a bit, please have a look and share your thoughts, cheers. Steve block 22:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia:Three-revert rule before further editing Wolverine (comics) for the next 24 hours. You are allowed only 3 reverts within 24 hours, otherwise you may be blocked from editing -- Chris 73 Talk 14:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Since you have ignored attempts to reach a compromise, and insist on editing warring at Wolverine (comics), I am citing you on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nightscream. Steve block 14:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Wolverine (comics). Please engage in dialogue with other editors and try to reach or accept a consensus view. --khaosworks 01:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed your comments on Thrydulf's page. I just wanted to point out that a pillock can also be an objectionable person, used to describe someone you are in disagreement with. I would also like to extend to you an apology. It seems I did not acquaint myself fully with the situation. I have asked Thrydulf to protect the page and I have also asked Netaholic if he will keep an eye on the page. I'm not sure how to solve the impasse, but it needs to be somehow. Steve block talk 08:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that never once have I reverted the page. Steve block talk 08:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I referenced Dictionary.com for the word, and they did not provide that other meaning. Sorry if my reference to it was not as accurate as it could've been. Nightscream 7.20.05. 10:38am EST

Seriously, I have several messages on my user page from you, and none of them are directed at me. - SoM 15:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Nightscream, would you now please take another look at Wolverine (comics)/Temp, and please incorporate the suggestions which SoM, ScifiterX, and myself have given. Let us know on Talk:Wolverine (comics)#Step 3 when you're satisfied with it. -- Netoholic @ 16:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you made some drastic changes to the aforementioned article. However, by the looks of things, the work was only half done. You deleted a lot of information including his discography, filmography, categories, external links, fansites and references; all of which are important. I understand that the article was a bit long, but the proper thing to do was to make seperate pages and provide links from the main articles to these pages. Ive reverted most of your changes and have made new ones. Journalist 05:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I have no idea how to revert changes. However, I go to the history and find the article in its previous state. I then copy everything from there and then delete the current article and paste it there. I dont know if its the right thing to do (or the easiest), but hey, it works. Im just currently working on the Michael Jackson article. I havent saved everything yet, though. Its giving me hell so I might leave some work for tomorrow, cause Im sleepy. By the way if I seemed bossy or harsh, I apologise. Journalist 05:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Everything alright? I looked at the article and seems to have worked out. In order to revert to an earlier version, what you do is click on the version you want from the history list... then edit that page and save with a comment explaining the reason for the revert and that version will become the article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I would advise you to let it go for a while. You had the best intentions and were being bold in editing an article; but your insistance on additions despite reverts from multiple editors will not look good in arbitration. That is entirely seperate from wether your additions are notable or not. Give yourself some more time to get a feeling for editing; and that might help you create a Wolverine proposal later on which can get more support. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

At least a few weeks... maybe till September sometime. Yeah in the meantime work around Wikipedia, and I'd suggest look at other Comic articles to see how they deal with inconsistent portrayals of abilities. Talk to users who have written comic articles (without mentioning Wolvering for a bit) and find out how they deal with inconsistency, and if they think its notable. To be honest its not notable to me, however I can see it as notable to someone interested in Comics, so a possible compromise is creating a sub-article on that. (For example on the Blade Runner article I created a lot of information on Themes in the film. Some people pointed out it was too much, and a little too interpretive, so I split it into Themes in Blade Runner and they can evolve on their own.)

As to "ScifiterX's slanderous attacks"... I try to look at things from the other persons perspective. Maybe he is a little defensive about the article, but it does seem clear he and others think you are dead wrong, and when you kept trying to put in your additions that pissed them off. So I actually blame you for their anger :"D, but as I said you were trying to improve the article, and that doesn't excuse their behavior. I'd say keep notes about the important stuff (especially Steve block being mislead) if you have to go to arbitration against ScifiterX. But keep in mind he got angry for a reason.

Hopefully the next time you will be more tactful (not pushing your edits on the article right away), and will have a solid argument for inclusion (or splitting) of some details based on comparisons to other Comic articles. Ultimately that's what I see making or breaking your edits, if other articles don't have this information, then neither should this one. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Just letting you know that there is a standard format that the trek pages have been organized into. When you add things please see how they are set up before making changes. As a rule: the "Quick Overview" line is a quick one sentence description of the episode (not a paragraph for the whole plot). Anything like credits, tidbits of info, and such are put under the "Trivia" section. Thanks. Cyberia23 08:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess not, when I saw it it was bigger in size like (Star Trek pages) above. I reduced it to the smaller size. Cyberia23 08:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

yeah thats cool. Cyberia23 10:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/New Jersey page as living in or being associated with New Jersey. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey for instructions. Al 15:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

You didn't actually have to do an Afd on your duplicate article. You could have used a redirect instead to point your article to the duplicate one instead. Redirects can be done by anyone and sense you were the author, no one would have objected. Just thought I'd let you know in case you weren't aware. -- JLaTondre 00:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence that you added to the Mariah Carey article: "(In fact, she merely removed a loose-fitting sweater to reveal tight shorts and a top underneath.)" This may be what happened (I wouldn't know), but this statement may be a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. All the references that I added to the article regarding this incident referred to it as a "strip tease", so the article should reflect this. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 15:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks for the expansion. --FuriousFreddy 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is regarding the article Joe Madureira. Please note that according to Wikipedia's guidelinies regarding date formatting, "simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so." These should only be linked if they're part of a full date with day & month, as in December 28 2005. If they occure alone, just December or just 2005 or just December 2005, they shouldn't be linked. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

1, Usually, neither the month nor years are really relevant to the article. The article about a specific month or year will usually not provide any information relevant to, say Battle Chasers. Full dates with day, month & year are linked so that user's individual date preferences (under my preferences) work.

2, I think the best way to handle this right now is to contact the user friendly on his talk page, and explain that information on Wikipedia should be sourced and all the other explainations from the article's talk page (I guess he/she just didn't read that). If that doesn't help, you can add warnings to his talk page and finally if all else fails use administrator intervention against vandalism.

Hope that helps. Let me know if you need any other help. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

1, I think the difference is that people reading the BC article might not know what Wizard is, therefor the link can be helpful. It's fair to assume everybody knows what May or December or 2005 is. ;-)

2, even IPs have talk pages. For the one who keeps editing the article that's User talk:68.46.36.1. And everybody who isn't an IP is a registered user, redlinks only indicate that they haven't written anything on their userpage, yet. (The user you where talking about is Inmytown, right? His talk page is User talk:Inmytown and that's only a redlink because nobody has written him anything, yet.) So you can just go ahead and write on either of the two pages I linked here. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to your numerous comments: (1) I'm not an admin, so I can't assist you with those matters. If your attempts to contact the editor have failed, you may want to visit Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention for guidance. You can also find admins at Wikipedia:List of administrators. (2) I'm not from Union City -- I live in neighbouring Jersey City -- but I like to contribute to NJ-related articles. (3) I see what you're trying to do with the Bergenline Ave. pictures. I think you have to put the pictures in an HTML table in order to align them to the right, but they look fine as is. (4) It is considered bad form to give yourself credit for pictures and text in Wikipedia articles, which is why I removed it for the 9/11 photograph.

By the way, I noticed that the scan on the 2000 Bergenline Ave. photo is really poor and should probably be replaced with a higher quality image. Would you be able to take a picture of the intersection? If not, I have a digital camera and could go up there -- but I thought I'd ask you since you live in the area.

Happy New Year to you too! Darkcore 07:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding this article... your attempts to communicate with User:Inmytown have been moved from their main userpage to their talk page. They may not have noticed your edits as userpages don't put up the autonotification about changes like user talk pages do. Cheers! ps - I've done that more than once myself accidentally ;) --Syrthiss 00:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is Inmytown and I already apologized in the Union City talk page. However thanks to your recent comment you left me I am now starting to regret it. The reason why I "vandalized" the Union City page with putting my pictures was because you put up a picture that was not on Bergenline. I had to put a picture of Bergenline (not 32nd Street) to show how Bergenline Avenue is today.

Inmytown

The proper way to credit yourself for photographs is to add the credit to the image description page, which you seem to have already done, and not in the caption on the article itself. Darkcore 05:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Nightscream. And yes I did take that photograph myself however it was on 2004. User:Inmytown

I will try to take a pic of Celia Cruz Park in Union City if I get the chance ASAP.

P.S. I have a newer pic of the intersection of Bergenline and 31st that is more illustrative. ALthough I do have a question. If you took a picture yourself, what do you do with the copyright status? Thanks. User:Inmytown

If you go to List of U.S. cities with Hispanic majority populations, it doesn't list selected cities in each state. It lists all cities with a Hispanic majority. If less than half of the population is Hispanic, then it's not on the list. For New Jersey, 8 cities are listed, but for California and Texaco there are several dozen each. Of the other 558 municipalities in New Jersey, none are more than 50% Hispanic. Of the 8 listed in new Jersey as being over 50% Hispanic, Union City is the highest, at 82.3%, ahead of West New York at 78.7% and Perth Amboy at 69.8%. The one catch is that this excludes municpalities over 25,000 population. So, perhaps there is a town of 24,000 that is 90% hispanic? There might be, and I could double check that. I'm still trying to get a ranking from the Census Bureau of all municipalities in New Jersey, but I can check any place one at a time. Let me knof if this helps. Best wikiwishes for the New Year in Union City and all of New Jersey! Alansohn 03:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You could have it moved, which requires submitting a request. i'd suggest creating a new James E. Buttersworth and populating it with what's now at James E. Butersworth. Then make James E. Butersworth a redirect to James E. Buttersworth. Let me know if I can help further with this. Alansohn 04:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I created the redirect for you. All I did was to edit and blank out the old page. I clicked on #REDIRECT[[]] on the special characters menu at the bottom of the screen. Then I inserted the new page name between the double brackets. Done. Alansohn 21:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, moving a page does not require a request unless the target already exists and its history contains non-redirect pages. See the "move" tab at the top of every page. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:WanSyke1.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It still needs a Image Copyright Tag --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 03:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup I saw you were teh photographer, I would suggest either licensing it under the GFDL or under a Creative Commons license ({{GFDL-self}} or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} I use usualy). --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 03:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

All images that are uploaded to Wikipedia can be used for commercial useage, and anyone can download them. Both the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA requires attribution (in teh cc By = attribution). If people reuse the image under either tag they have to credit you as the photographer. As far as admin stuff, shoot me an email.--Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 04:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

GFDL is a very long license that has to be reprinted with your work, where the CC license is alot shorter and doesnt require duplication of the license. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 04:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In the Creative Commons license, CC = creative commons BY = attribution required and SA = share alike, if it is modified it has to be licensed with the same license. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:S4-lana2.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 07:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't make any promises, but if I ever get a chance to create the article, I will use the link you provided as a source. I've been concentrating on creating pages for New Jersey school districts, and every time I get near finishing one megaproject I think of one more interesting megaproject.... Such is the life of the Wiki-obsessed. Alansohn 00:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you've done a lot of work on the Green Laterns introduced in recent issues of the Corps. comic. I think you've done a good job, but you might want to go through and add headings like 'Biograpy' and add the Template:Superherobox. It shouldn't be too hard to mimic the other minor Lantern articles.

Thanks again. --waffle iron 06:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my "accusation" was taken the wrong way. I did not mean any harm by it and did not mean in any way to violate any rules. However, let me explain why I even made it. I actually asked Mr. Lynch about this mysterious "Nightscream" character (not so mysterious now), who has been updating his wiki article with seemingly everything he had mentioned to me regarding the false information. I joked with him and asked if it was him, and he responded in a very ambiguous way, saying that he didn't have a personal account yet, but also not clarifying whether he was indeed involved with you in any way. My comment was merely a jest, because based on his response I figured he would see it, but I realize that it was wrong to make and I apologize. Flypanam 04:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Nightscream, thanks for your many uploads, but I'm afraid all of those that are from municipal sources will have to be deleted unless permission is granted. Municipalities retain copyright like any other incorporated entity. It is only Works of the United States Federal Government that are automaticly in the public domain. Please audit your uploads to correct this. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I found a nice image of Kristen from a Neutrogena ad in an issue of Teen People. Are low-res scans of ads permissable in the same way that magazine covers, screenshot, comic book covers, etc., are? Is there tag for mag ads? If so, what is it?

Also, I have a question about my Talk Page. It's gone! The History is still there, but all the material is gone on the "current" page, which just says that there is no page by that name, and there is no indication that the last person blanked it, nor any way to go to the most recent version and "save" it that I know of. Can you advise? Thanks. Nightscream 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In general, advertisements can't be used as illustrations in Wikipedia. As for your talk page, it was probably a temporary glitch in Wikipedia. --Carnildo 03:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if all the text has been photoshopped out? Oh well. And thanks for the heads-up about my page. Nightscream 04:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, even if the text has been photoshopped out. --Carnildo 07:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the Original Research tag you removed from the article Joe Madureira, as the sentence "his popular work lead to a new interest in Japanese entertainment in the U.S." seems to be original research and needs to be sourced. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the Google test is explained here WP:GT --PTSE 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ven.JewCemetary.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you.

Perhaps have a look at rationale for fair use. Regards, Dethomas 19:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ven.GhettoAerial.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Dethomas 19:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I will probably recuse as I have strong feelings against publishing the name or image of an alleged rape victim. Fred Bauder 13:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the image from the article and ask that it not be re-inserted until consensus is reached by a large number of experienced users. WP:BLP should be followed in this case. Fair use of images is also an issue. --FloNight ^talk 14:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nightscream, I think the arbitration case is premature. Have you tried the other steps to resolve your content dispute? Other methods of dispute resolution Third opinion, straw poll, Mediation, Rfc for content or user behavior? It is possible that you have done these things and I missed them. regards, FloNight ^talk 15:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nightscream, there are two issues here that overlap. One deals with user behavoir that is disruptive. The other deals with a content dispute. Annoyed as you are at the other editor (and likely them at you), I hope you will agree that neither of you is being greatly disruptive to the encyclopedia. Those are the type of cases that end up in front of the arb comm. I suggest that you withdrawl the arb case and persue other types of dispute resolution.

The first step is usually getting input from a alot of experienced editors. By accidently bringing the arbitration case, you have already advertised this content dispute. : ) I think you will get feedback and discussion from alot of users over the next few days. If that doesn't happen, we can start a Rfc. You can read about your options at WP:DR FloNight ^talk 18:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't able to view the image under dispute. Do you have a link to it on the web? If we are publishing the name of the victim I don't see why we can't publish a public photo as part of a tabloid cover. In fact, the tabloid cover is very appropriate. (Maybe a blur?) - Tεxτurε 21:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind separating the image into three separate images (one for each panel, respectively)? --DrBat 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted for you. Secretlondon 04:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to ask if you're aware that the images you've licensed under CC-BY-SA, such as Image:TempleOfJupiter.jpg, can be used freely by anyone obeying the terms of the license. I'm asking this because you've written "If you want to use this or any other one of my images outside of Wikipedia, or commission me for an original piece, contact me on my Talk Page" on the image pages in question, and I don't want you to be under the impression people are required to ask you in order to use the images outside Wikipedia if you're licensing them in this way. If you're already aware of this, my apologies for bothering you. --Fuzzie (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA does require people to give you full credit and handle the image under the same terms as Wikipedia, but that doesn't necessarily prohibit commercial use - people can sell copies of Wikipedia, as long as they adhere to the license terms.

If you want to continue using your images on Wikipedia, you can't really change that - all Wikipedia images nowadays need to either be covered under Fair Use law, or be licensed so that commercial use is allowed. There are some old images which prohibit commercial use, from before these rules were introduced, but they're slowly being removed. There are various reasons for this, for instance that the project wants to be able to sell DVD or even paper copies of the encyclopedia in the future.

To answer your other question, images put out by US municipal/city governments are generally covered by copyright law, so usually your only option is to justify such images under Fair Use and use a Fair Use tag. The same generally applies to US state governments, with the exception of North Carolina who generally release their materials under the public domain thanks to state-specific law. If you believe that a certain municipal/city government licenses their images so that they can be freely used on Wikipedia without having to depend on Fair Use, point me to the relevant details and I can hopefully help you further. Hope I was helpful. Feel free to ask me to clarify or answer other questions. --Fuzzie (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:PeterDavid.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 02:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply to you, it's been a hectic few days! I think it's a weird MediaWiki bug, I'm afraid, it's unlikely to be anything you did wrong or anything you can do differently in the future. I've fixed it, anyway, hope it looks fine now. --Fuzzie (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream. I have been meaning to do something about the Punk'd article for some time now. I just never got around to it. You are completely right with your points. I'll try to keep a closer eye on it and keep it clean, but thanks for taking the initiative and bringing it up. Also, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Mel Etitis has also left a note on BigBang19's talk page about this issue. Just so you know, I have moved your comment from BigBang19's userpage to his talk page for you. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've left a comment at his Talk page; let's hope that he starts discussing the article instead of just making his edits. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, I would have posted my 2c as per your request on my Talk page however I feel I have little to add to what you and PS2pcGAMER already posted. So for now I'll just heartfully agree and will put Punk'd back watchlist. Intinn 08:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep got him blacklisted so if he moves a single letter out of line I'll sort it :) Thanks for your message - Glen ^T _C 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am really hesitant to block him. He obviously keeps trying to push the limits and he keeps adding inappropriate content. I've only been an admin for a little over a week, so I don't think I am ready to deal with the more controversial issues. His latest round of edits here could be seen as well intentioned. If it were simple vandalism like some of his previous indiscretions such as blanking the page, removing small portions of valid content, or violating the 3RR (well, he almost did), I'd block him immediately. I am just hesitant to block him over content disputes. I'd suggest taking it up on the complex abuse page. I unfortunately don't have the time right now. I'm sorry I couldn't assist more. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Blacklisting is done via VandalProof - it means I can track all his edits and reverse them with one button - unfortunately I have to be online to do it and I've only just gotten up (it's like half 6am here in New Zealand). I'll look into it now - Glen ^T _C 18:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes just click on the link above - and tomorrow version 1.1 is being released which will have improvements on this one. You need to be approved to use it by a moderator - lucky you're messaging one I guess! :) Now, about BB19, the List of celebs edit he does, the info seems accurate so I don't have a problem there. But, I have just warned him on Punk'd, if he reverts JUST ONCE more please tell me or an admin and he'll be blocked for 24 hours. - Glen ^T _C 18:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, you left a message on my talk page concerning the current status of the Punk'd article and the changes made by User Bigbang19. I'd like to thank you for bringing it to my attention; I agree completely and have left an appropriate message on his talk page. Also, your artwork is great; although it's rather odd that I've come in to contact with the creator of the caricature I've been seeing on JR's site for so long through wikipedia, of all things. Thanks,

--^pirate 17:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome for the link fix. I actually found it on accident, while trying to figure out who Jack's father's daughter's mother was (if that makes sense).--TylerD619 09:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok here is some 'actual thought' first please stop your own uncivil behaviour and start talking to me rather than at me. Your article is unbalanced and non point of view. I appreciate that you have spent a great deal of time writing it but I and a great many other contributers are unsatisfied with it.

Far to much of the article is given to his experiences in the real world TV show and his GLT experiences. He is a cartoonist and writer and most of the article should be about this.

The Real World piece should be in the article devoted to the television show a simple link to that is sufficient. I agree that his Pedro work/assoication must be mentioned but not so extensively. This does not read as a encyclopedic biographical article it reads as a press release.

I am aware of your previous deletion/revertion 'wars' on other articles mainly the Wolverine comic and don't want to get into one with you now.

Please edit this article down to a reasonable length with the majority of it focusing on his professional work. If you don't want to do this we can get try to get an unbiased 3rd party advocate to look at the article. Tell me what you want to do.

Marcus wall 12:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I started an article on the Sidri recently. Someone placed tags on it questioning whether it merits an article. Since you put the mention and link for Sidri in the Lockheed article, I'd like to invite you over to the Sidri talk page and/or to edit the Sidri article. I figured it might be of interest to you. --JamesAM 22:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, i'm an ITALIAN WIKIPEDIA USER. The law in Italy is very restrictive, so we have not the fair use that you can use. We must use draws, sketches and other to represent a screenshot from a movie. Since you are very good in drawing (i'm good too, but not like you), can you draw me a picture of Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction like this?

PLEASE, IN ITALY IS A SHIT - LAW.

--El Tarantiniese 09:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In italian wikipedia (as you can see) there are not images of stranger movie, cause we've not the {{Fairuse}}. Since this, we can add some images with this license:

{{cc-by-sa-2.5}}

or in

{{pd}}

So, i've added in italian Wikipedia some of your gorgeous drawings, such as Quentin Tarantino's image. I've tried to draw Samuel L. Jackson (as you can see here) but I've not made it well. I've understood that I can only draw and colour the super-heroes not people! So, since you are very good, can you draw Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta (like here or here) ?

Then, when you've drawed it, add the cc-by-sa-2.5 license, so I can add it in italian wikipedia. Thanks (why not, we can add it to the english wikipedia too!)

--El Tarantiniese 07:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The middle name can go in the SHB but not in the article. This is WikiProject Comics policy as I understand it.
2. I'm not sure why "ruthlessly leaving" is important. I don't believe I edited it back in, and I don't remember that being a discussion with you.
3. I don't understand what you are telling me about the intro. You may have me confused with another editor.
4. It has been generally accepted by the WikiProject that literary present tense is appropriate for fictional character articles. See Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man. For more informations, see: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Tense, & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 11#Literary present tense.
5. As for extraneous details, the article is about Xavier and not the X-Men. We don't need the resolution to Magneto's teaching because he is not the subject of the article. I haven't read "Inferno", and I don't know what happens in it, but I'm not editing Magneto's entry, and those are not my words.

--Chris Griswold 21:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

stop vandal--OVde 20:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. His article was on the same page as the Marvel Comics' Wonder Man, so I moved him to a separate page. I didn't add anything new. --DrBat 11:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

When you wrote: "His coaching career is depicted in the 2006 film Glory Road, in which he is portrayed by Josh Lucas." it reads as if the film covers his entire coaching career. I have not seen the film, but it is my understanding that it mainly deals with the events surrounding the 1966 NCAA Championship. Shouldn't it be something like "Coach Rupp is depicted in the 2006 film....."? --rogerd 00:44, July 4, 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, I forgot to sign. I wish there was a way to automatically do it. Thanks for pointing it out to me. (D'Oh!) :-) --rogerd 13:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect for you so it's usable again. -- Longhair 08:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:PingPongMyth.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey chief, just letting you know that an article you seem to have contributed to quite heavily is the subject of an AfD. Drett 01:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not edit the comments of other users on AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder not to create subheadings on an AfD listing as it mucks the entire page up. BigHaz 23:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What someone put in an editorial section of a magazine isn't really encyclopedia material. is the author's opinion really that important? why does it need to be in there? Rainingblood667

ok Rainingblood667

I have tried to clarify my comments at the Nitcentral deletion review. Basically my point is that most wikipedians feel that failing WP:WEB is a reason to delete and so unless there is a specific reason that the subject is important anyway (beyond I like it and think it makes wikipedia better) then it should stay deleted. Eluchil404 00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that breaking the fourth wall remark was so good. Is that an actual phrase? Anyway, you made a number of corrections and called Hogan a she, dude. lol. It's cool. I fixed what needed to be and hope you will like it. ;) TareTone 03:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw that breaking the wall. I thought you were being clever. Oh well, I guess I'm a little out of the figures of speech. Anyway, much of the information you add are spoilers. I would encourage you to go back and look over the article to get rid of any spoilers as repeats of the show does air. No offense or anything, but to me, spoilers are the worst thing on wikipedia. My adjectives were fairly accurate, but when I go to a page like I have in the past like South Park (visit the page and see what I mean : / I get so outraged when I look through information and all of a sudden I realize I'm reading everything on a particular show I haven't seen. Thank you for responding TareTone 04:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you add your ( ` ` ` ` ) to my page when you write me. Thank you :) TareTone 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see where you're coming from. You're right. My stuff is a point of view. But just for the sake of discussion, you didn't think it was outlandish of Linda to try to own a monkey as a pet or go outside banging on pots and pans to cause a big disruption when she didn't get her way with the neighbors. And you didn't think it was kind of outlandish for her to get upset with the courts because they thought she owns to many animals and she got mad because she believed she should have all 20 or 30 of them. And what about Brooke. And what about Brooke. The whole time her dad was trying to hook her up with a huge singing career, she could have this huge life ahead of her, she just whined that he was embarrassing her the whole time even when he wrote that friendly thing in the air using the airplane saying pick my daughter. By the way, your spoiler incident sound frustrating with Harry Potter. lol! Yea, at least put a spoiler warning on the Harry Potter Page. People, I tell ya. lol! Sorry about that. Thanx for signing your name. TareTone 18:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I have no reasons to change the article in regards to what we're talking about then. You make some good points, good points. Although, I guess she doesn't whine enough to called whiny anyway. It's only with her parents. It's not like she whines with Nick or her friends or anything. I remember her whining when her parents tried to make her only eat healthy foods a lot though. I guess that's why I brought it up. The majority of that episode was of her whining about that. That may be tough though, Being a skinny guy, I guess I don't know what it's like to have a hard time staying away from fat foods. Anyway, I thought it was fun talking over our edits. Hopefully we'll run into each other in editing another wiki page :) TareTone 05:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:CeliaCruzMural.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted his edits to this page containing your personal information. (They're still viewable by administrators; if they're still objectionable in that state, follow the instructions here.) I'm not going to block him, since his actions regarding your name could have resulted from simple cluelessness instead of malice, and his afd shenanigans are two and a half months old. I'll drop him a warning, but I'm going to be out of town for the next few days, so I probably won't be able to follow up on it. Please bring it up again on WP:AN if he continues to be a problem. —Cryptic 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 01:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Responding to your first question, I'm not trying to imply that citing WP:AGF is incivil, only that enforcing it is. For example, mentioning to "Please assume good faith" would be considered civil, whereas stating that "You have violated WP:AGF, violate it again and you will be reported" is not.

Nor have I menioned that WP:AAGF was a policy that one must follow, only that it contains some suggestions that one could follow, similar to pages like Wikipedia:No angry mastodons or Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot.

As for your second question, usually project edits helps a user to better connect with the community (such as with WP:ESP or WP:PR) or become more experienced with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (such as with WP:AfD and WP:DRV), both of which are qualities needed to become an admin. --TBCΦtalk? 07:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, because AIV is for reporting blatant vandalism only (a la vandalism after a test4 warning), and your post there didn't appear to fall under that guideline, it is better suited for the Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents where administrators monitor that page, and take care of situations like what you posted on AIV. Your situation will be better handled at that location. Remember that AIV is for reporting blatant, obvious vandalism only, whereas the WP:AN/I is more geared towards situations like what you posted. Hope this helps, // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 14:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends... WP:VAND might answer that question. As long as there are test 1-4 warnings on the talk page of a user, then you can report it to AIV. Let me know if I can help with anything else. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, I am glad my review was useful! For deleting images, the best way to do it with fair use images is to unlink it from every article where is being used, and apply the {{subst:orfud}} in the image page. That will indicate the image is a fair use image that is not being used in any article, which would make administrators delete it in a week. Note that you can reupload the image in the same image page (there must be a "Upload new version" or similar link, so when you resize an image, you can just upload it in the same name instead of uploading it as a new image. As for size, you need to consider the width and height primarily. A 30kb jpeg with a resolution of 1024x768 could be considered too big, while a 900kb of 300x300 can be considered fine enough.

Check Help:Minor edit for how to recognize minor edits. Basically, rearranging some information, typos, grammar modifications and fixing links can be considered minor edits. The 35% given by mathbot means that, out of your minor edits, you only used summaries in 35% of them. Note that mathbot retrieves a lot of your edits to calculate that, that means it takes it a lot to find 150 minor edits to calculate.

As for adminship, just try to spend some time at the administrators' board, where you will see how administrators handle different matters. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 13:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't use Macs, but shouldn't that information appear in the "More info" section of the dialog you just showed me? As for guidelines about size, there are none. Usually, if you upload the image at Wikipedia, and get the "Download high resolution" thing in the image page, then it is generally too big (if it is fair use, that is, free images can be as big as you want). -- ReyBrujo 21:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for the expansion of the overall content at Speedster Most of it helped. However, as I stated in my comments on the talk page, the version you reverted to had problems, either way. Also, the excessive use of images—which don't necessarily display anything vital to the content—is troubling. Furthermore, I fear you are trying to overgeneralize, perhaps out of the belief that you have no other options. But you do. If you want a general article, I'd recommend making one. How about fictional characters who move at superhuman speeds? The title is unwieldy, but appropriate. Anyway, I hope you can collaberate better and more civilly in the future. Wikipedia is a group effort and I'd hate to see you lose your way by disregarding that fact. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 09:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are you asking me to get involved in this discussion? What do you think I could contribute, because all I can think of is that Lightning McQueen and other characters from Cars are not speedsters because they're just considered top-line athletes in that universe. Someone tried to say they were all Speedsters a few months ago, but since their speed wasn't a superpower, I disagreed and removed it. RMS Oceanic 11:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article in question, as you asked. Although I agree that Ace's tone can be abrasive, his substance is, in this case, what I can agree with. YOur edits seem to add some information, but they also added a great deal of 'fluff', that is, more verbose was of saaying somethign which could be phrased more briefly. Also, your edits include a fair amount of weasel words, such as 'some people' and 'commonly'. These are generally discouraged. IF i wasn't prepping for a weekend of home improvement, I'd track down for you a number of useful links about this, but I'm sure you know where they are, it looks like you've got a fair amount of experience here. If I had to pinpoint the issue at hand, you write in a significantly different style than Ace, and apparently, me. I'd recommend reviewing the weasel words policy, and relaxing. A final note:DOn't take ace's attitude to seriously, but do look at the substance of his edits. He's a solid editor, just not a sunny disposition at all times. (and sometimes, he's just funny.) ThuranX 03:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting my input. Honestly, I'm not a comic book expert- never read one in my life. I appreciate your problems with Ace. Seems to me many who deal with him come away feeling a bit burned. I've had issues with him before. He talks an excellent game, but his ego is often counter productive to his arguments. I've read the speedster discussion page, and one thing I do understand is that encyclopedia articles should be consise and tightly written. It's a fine balance between info overload vs. a bland article. I never understood the "too many pictures" argument, seems to me this only enhances an article by blending visuals with print. I have read various "fluffy" articles that go on and on without relaying any relevant ideas/information.

Basically, don't get discouraged by others lording over you. Keep doing what your doing, cause it's a learning experience and overtime you'll become a fine editor- as long as you maintain the best interests for Wiki as a whole. Thanks! Reynoldsrapture 08:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to that arguement has been settled. --Basique 13:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been discussed already at Talk:Rachel Green, where a survey/vote was held, which resulted in "no move". If you have new information to support a move, I'd suggested posting it there. --Geniac 16:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:McCullough.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —BigDT 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superman654p2&3.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi ... I just noticed your comment on the IFD page regarding this image. I apologize for not noticing it sooner.

Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for information about asking for permission to use other people's content and see [1] for Jimbo's comments on the subject.

The simple version of the image copyright policy is that they have to be "free" as in free speech, not "free" as in free cookies.

If you create a work (such as an image), you own the rights to that image. Even if you grant someone rights to use that image for a particular purpose, you are still the only one who can authorize anything else to be done with that image.

But Wikipedia, as a "free" encyclopedia, requires that all content be available under a "free" license. In short, the creator of this image must be willing to allow anyone to use it for any reason.

If they are willing to release it into the public domain or under an acceptable free license (such as {{GFDL}} or {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}, then that would be fine. But if they are only willing to grant permission for it to be used on Wikipedia, that is insufficient.

Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission gives good advice about requesting permission and tells exactly what magic words need to be said.

I hope this helps. If I can help you further, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. BigDT 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the problem - if you go back to "For the Cause" You'll see I added a References section and placed code in there to make the your references appear in a list. You have to use that code to get it to work. Cyberia23 20:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how it works, or if it's something new or whatever. That's just the way I saw how it was done on some other pages, but I think there are other ways of doing the same thing. I'm not sure if it's a javascript or something built into the WikiMedia code for the site itself. If you set up your reference tags like you did on other pages and add that same code it should work. Honestly, I'm not very techno-savvy so I'm really the wrong person to ask. Cyberia23 00:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I did some checking - and there is another way to do it. If you check out "Where No Man Has Gone Before" you see a reference list with a different code - but if you look at the reference tags in the article they are different than what you and I used. And they are rather complex. This set up however makes one reference link at the bottom for multiple entries that reference the same link. In "For the Cause" you reference only two sources but the list repeats those sources for every reference you made. The other way on WNMHGB lists only one link for multiple references to the same thing, and distiguishes them with a, b, c, etc. I suggest you ask Morwen who was the one who set up that list and ask how she did it. She may be able to help you better than I can. Cyberia23 00:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you left me a message about the stardate a little over a month ago. I apologize for not responding - I haven't been active on Wikipedia for a while. Glad you got things sorted out though. In the future hopefully I'll respond a bit sooner. :-) Moulder 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

hiya. ok, I've gone on For the Cause (DS9 episode) and merged the refs. the way it works is, the first time you use a ref you specify a name, like <ref name=thingy>Thingy. Thingy</ref>, and then when you want to refer to that ref again, just do <ref name=thingy />.

I find using the {{cite book}} stuff is nice but not compulsory. Morwen - Talk 11:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ~ BigrTex 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Four more images (from the same series) that meet the same conditions and have been tagged:

• Image:DavidPuckRainey.jpg
• Image:JoRhodes.jpg
• Image:MohammedBilal.jpg
• Image:JuddWinick.jpg

~ BigrTex 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

• Image:UnionCityMap.jpg
• Image:ColumbusSchool.jpg
• Image:Bergenline32nd1.jpg
• Image:OldEmersonHS1.jpg
• Image:OldUnionHillHS1.jpg
• Image:BergenlineThen&Now2.jpg
• Image:SamViviano.jpg
• Image:SamViviano2.jpg
• Image:EverythingHaloween.jpg
• Image:CeliaCruzMural.jpg
• Image:JMcCullough.jpg
• Image:JulieMcCullough.jpg

Thank you. BigrTex 23:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Only the most recent change to an article will be the one on the watchlist. So, if a vandal makes an edit, then somebody reverts it, then you view your watchlist, only the revert will show on it. You can change an option in your preferences under the Watchlist tab to show all changes. --Geniac 14:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Nightscream! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 02:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Usually, when some part of the article disappears, it is usually because you forgot to close a <ref> tag, which "eats" the article until the end. I see you put that you cannot link to her MySpace account. Try using the {{myspace}} template. Note that this template should only be used for "official" ones (that is the "unofficial" condition for the template to "stay alive"). If it begins to be used for any page (like a non notable band or some fan MySpace account), it would be sent again to deletion. Take care! -- ReyBrujo 04:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you would refrain from uploading pictures I've uploading just so you could have your name on them and take credit for them. You re-uploaded all of the RW San Francisco pictures I screencapped on April 12 of last year and replaced them on the page for no apparent reason. Do your own work please. HeyNow10029 03:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If your intent was just to "improve the article" then why did you go through all the trouble of reuploading all the pictures under completely different names? Hmm, that's a tad suspicious. When I think a picture needs improvement, I either contact the person who orginally uploaded it or I reupload it under the same name so the person who originally went through the trouble of screencapping it will still get credit. But then again I don't get my kicks by taking credit for other people's work. But that's just me. =-) HeyNow10029 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:CANVAS. --- RockMFR 06:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it's me that you wanted to get that message to? I don't have anything to do with that article. Madmaxmarchhare 08:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's no bother... just checkin' to make sure that you wrote to who you thought you wrote to. Have a great February. Madmaxmarchhare 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really maintain this article and I only know as much about the company as a brand in a pet store. But if you were to ask me about the added external link, to me it comes off as a blog or message board for those dissatisfied with the company. If you know about WP:EL, that type of site is discouraged, and I would remove it. Tinlinkin 19:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:BergenlineStation.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. 07:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:UnionCityMap3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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. 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Municipal flyers are generally not public domain; only works of the federal government are. --NE2 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:HarmonMeadowMap.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. 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Products of municipal governments are generally not released to the public domain. Please stop. --NE2 06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:DavidPuckRainey.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page.

Other images that fall into this category ("fair use" images that represent only what the individual looks like) are:

1. Image:PamLing.jpg
2. Image:CoryMurphy.jpg

Thanks. --Bob 22:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your argument is against using it. Do you feel it violates his privacy? I'm not sure how a picture of his house would do that. Wjhonson 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a little looking around, and it appears his house is an often-photographed local attraction. In this case, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a picture of his house as long as he hasn't objected to it. Frise 18:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering whether you could substantiate your statement on the picture's page that states it is in the public domain. Is that comics guide in the public domain? Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 23:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but wikipedia no longer accepts images that were just given permission to be used on wikipedia. If you wish (and think it's fair use), you can use it as fair use (and add the appropriate template and a fair use rationale). Yonatan (contribs/talk) 06:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the Hoboken, New Jersey NASA image at: http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/EFS/lowres/NM21/NM21-766-65.JPG. Luckily, Union City is in the image's range. Latitude0116 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:MohammedBilal2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bob 01:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Because that is your opinion and I disagree. Does wiki work by mob rule? Do you own the article?

Hello, Nightscream. I still think it should be separate, since the majority of the information presented was from Corey Clark's interview on ABC, excerpts from his E-book, and his public statements following the internal investigation and the parody. The tone of that section seemed oriented towards a more "pro-Clark" slant, so at the time it appeared to be more appropriate to annotate it as "Corey Clark's perspective" since it didn't appear (to me, at least) that it was from a NPOV.

At any rate, hopefully it'll stop being vandalized by the well-meaning (but overzealous) anonymous user who had frequent grammar and writing style issues, or the anonymous users who would delete everything and input spam-like adult comments.

Personally, I am surprised that Clark's article has encountered so many edit issues and vandalism. Articles on William Hung and Clay Aiken do not seem to encounter nearly the amount of edit warring, even though they are the subject of media and internet jokes on a semi-regular basis. I could be incorrect, but that's the impression I have from reading the various American Idol entries in Wikipedia in the past month or so. User:Ptah3773

"Geniac, the protection tag on the article says it'll stay there until the "editing disputes are resolved." I don't know if there is a prescribed procedure for this other than consensus..." - See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Unprotection.
"...and since 69.180.238.139 is impossible to talk to, I'd appreciate if you'd weigh in on the various points that he and I are "discussing" on that Talk Page." - I am reading what both of you are saying, but have not had time to reply to much yet. Although it may be difficult, I would advise that you continue discussing the dispute on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#First step: Talk to the other parties involved.
"I apologize for responding to him on your Talk Page, which I won't do again." - Thank you. --Geniac 13:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the points you just outlined on my talk page, I think changing the protection from full protection to semi-protection is probably justified. I recommend consulting the admin who protected the article, User:Cbrown1023 or posting a request at WP:RFPP. --Geniac 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Nightscream. Your points are valid and if in the final version it's re-merged, no issue from me.

After reading the various diatribes from anonymous user 69.180.238.139 on the Clark article discussion page, I am not sure what I can conceivably do to resolve the issue, other than pointing out the obvious: he (or she) clearly wants to put the article in a pro-Clark slant and has been unwilling to receive feedback on the numerous violations of NPOV policy, writing style/tone, and general etiquette. User:Ptah3773

Your posting to WP:RFPP was removed unreviewed by a bot in this edit. I don't know for sure why, but maybe because you didn't sign your posting and trying again may work. --Geniac 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• i will be happy as long as nighttime uses the same grammatical corrections to the idol and abdul comments and press releases that he uses on clarks comments and press releases. to say the word alleged about one side of a conflicts statements as he consistently keeps doing with clark and not the other side is slighting the article to be pro one sided and against the other side. if this is a place of fact than printing clarks statements as factually released by him is the only right way to edit this article. as would be appropriate to do the same with idol and abduls press releases and statements. it's a fact that both parties said what they said in sourced content referenced time and again to bedtime so he needs to leave ALL facts the way they read and not interject his conjecture into the facts. its like simon saying he hates a contestant, yes america votes for who stays but the opinion of the judges or editors in this case can carry weight to sway a viewer or readers opinion one way or the other. this place has nothing to do with how well the article reads as if its a magazine article if fact is the ultimate undertone you are trying to achieve. if all facts are inputed into the article as is and left alone without inputing alleged in either statement, than and only than can readers make up their own minds about the actual facts. your injecting personal thoughts into this article, and you are someone who didn't even watch the special, nightlady you seem to try and discredit a lot of what abc sourced and aired. it's like having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. he hasn't followed what's gone on with clark and yet he tells someone who knows a lot about the matter that their facts are wrong. doesn't make sense.69.180.238.139(Talk) (User:Liaishard) 00:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"I would appreciate it if you would weigh in on the six points I outlined in my recent post on the Talk Page" - As far as I can tell, you are making solid points backed up by sources. My access to some of the sources is limited during the day, so I will have to check it out better this evening.
"I would ask if there is some decisive action we can take to resolve this, such as asking for a consensus of other editors, for example." - See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Further dispute resolution, which discusses informal and formal Mediation, Requests for Comments and Surveys. --Geniac 14:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hello again, Nightscream. Upon reviewing the Talk page of the article in question, there really isn't anything of merit for me to add. I do not have the time or resources to re-write the article in accordance with APA or MLA formating/grammar. User:Ptah3773

• Hello, Nightscream. Again, there really isn't anything I could add, other than mentioning that after reading Liaishard's comments on the Talk page that the tone, user comments, and grammar were becoming increasingly similar to the versions presented by anonymous user 69.180.238.139. I am sorry, but I do not see that being a valid comment to add to the discussion on the article in question. User:Ptah3773

The image was removed because it was deleted per WP:CSD I7. enochlau (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use - the fair use image could be replaced by a free equivalent - she is still alive after all. enochlau (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It was tagged as a TV screenshot, so it was not licensed under a free license like GFDL. The only way such media can be used on Wikipedia is if it meets fair use criteria, but this one fails that criteria, because it is possible for a free alternative to be created. enochlau (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you added this term as an ethnic slur in Sept 2005. Can you give a little of the background? If you did not add it, or don't remember, no sweat. Just curious as someone (w/o a sig) posed the question on the Nez Perce Talk Page. Thanks in advance. --Robbie Giles 04:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. This applies to user and article talk pages. Regarding the Corey Clark article; the talk page is getting a bit long; I'll make an archive. Also, I will look over the latest postings shortly. --Geniac 19:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Cully Hammer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --VS ^talk 12:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)