User:Cornellrockey/Archive02

'''This page is kept for archival purposes only. To leave a message for User:Cornellrockey, please use his talk page.'''

Welcome!

Theocratic Federal republic
That's the problem with those Theocratic Federal republics... so unstable. ;-) 'tis no more.  JDoorj a m     Talk 20:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Theocratic Federal Republic
someone keeps changing it back to just "Federal Republic", what a shame.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolo75 (talk • contribs)
 * Ah, there was one with "Republic" capitalized, too. JDoorj a m    Talk 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

USCOTW
I saw that you've worked on the Bill Ritter (politician) article, and would like to encourage you to support it in the USCOTW elections. Thank you, Editor19841 22:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support! It would really help if you rally other editors to vote for the artilce as well. Thanks again. Editor19841 21:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pixelated images
How are you connecting to the Internet? I've noticed that using a Web accelerator or connecting via wireless broadband distorts the images somewhat, but otherwise they look fine at hi-res.--Lordkinbote 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:ChloëSevigny.jpg
I uploaded it, and placed it in the article. you removed it, citing it not being 'fair use' justification. I really could care less, honestly, but I was a little confused, since it is a press release photo from HBO for a new show shes on. Isn't that fair use? Cornell Rockey 03:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't see any evidence that this came from a promotional kit, though it may have been. You are also meant to provide a detailed fair-use justification for each use.  It's probably fair use, but not definitely.  --Yamla 03:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Kitty In A Basket
I notice you've replaced the PROD tag on this article a few times. You may not be aware that if the tag is removed, even by the article's author, it should not be replaced. You're welcome to take the issue to AfD, though. Joyous | Talk 02:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know it seems like it's defeating the whole purpose, and that the tag will always be removed by the article's creator, but it really doesn't happen all that often. I think I'll start an AfD, just to see what happens. Joyous | Talk 03:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
I noticed that you added some detail to Glen Edwards disambiguation page which is good, but I thought I would point out a couple of things from Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Disambiguation pages follow the following standards:


 * Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed
 * Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line

I kept the content you added, which is good, helpful content, but removed the piping and extraneous links. Thanks --rogerd 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Fitzpatrick
I just took a look at the Michael_Fitzpatrick disambiguation page. Since the Pennsvylania congressman more formally goes by "Michael G. Fitzpatrick", I suggest moving the page to Michael G. Fitzpatrick. You can do that by going to Mike Fitzpatrick. At the top, there's a "move" tab. Click that, and in the "To new title:" box, put "Michael G. Fitzpatrick". Put a reason if you like, and then "move page". You also should check for double redirects,, and update pages that link to the moved page. The Michael J. Fitzpatrick page looks fine. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 20:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Cornell needs you!
Me and a small team of editors have brought Cornell University to near-featured article status, but we still have a few things to do (see the talk page). In particular, I saw you did a lot of work on Cornell Big Red and would like you to expand the Athletics section of the main Cornell article. It doesn't describe enough significant athletic programs successes (or lack of successes) to really hit the issue with a neutral point of view. Could you help out? - mercuryboard talk &spades; 18:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lynah salute nov 5 2004 jpg.jpg
We need some way to verify the image's licensing status. Your friend can specify the license at their website, or they can email permissions AT wikimedia.org to give us a licensing release. As far as advice about the license goes, the question is more about your friend's goals. If they want to restrict usage to the web, GFDL is better. If they want it to be used as freely as possible, but ensure that no one makes a less free derivative work, then choose CC-BY-SA. Jkelly 18:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We have some Boilerplate requests for permission that can be used. But an email stating "I license the following images under the GFDL//CC-BY-SA/whatever" should be fine.  Jkelly 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It does look like I utterly failed to leave the notice about the licensing verification problem here. I'm genuinely sorry about that, and I hope you'll excuse the mistake.  I also sympathise with your frustration.  You've made the effort to go out and find free, reusable content and are being asked to jump through all sorts of hoops, when literally thousands of unfree images are being uploaded every day, tagged with Promotional and often go without further comment.  It isn't a great system.  I'm sure that you understand, however, that we really do need to keep some kind of track of these things, and it isn't obvious to me how we should go about making the system easy on those uploading content we really want and efficiently get rid of the stuff we don't.  Jkelly 19:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, we have to do it ourselves. We can use Confirmation when we have a ticket number to add.  Jkelly 19:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornell
I have just started WikiProject Cornell University, an attempt to thoroughly cover topics related to Cornell. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Thanks! — mercuryboard talk 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

New Ivies

 * Is it just me, or should New Ivies be put up for AfD for non-notability? It just smacks me as silly to write a new article for every time a magazine puts out a new list. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 23:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

New Ivies AFD
New Ivies has been recommended for deletion, click here &mdash;ExplorerCDT 06:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Razing Darkness
User:The fatal light has removed your request for speedy deletion, but I think the original request was flawed; perhaps you can explicate and cite the relevant section of the Speedy deletion policy? Vectro 02:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you
Why hello there ;) Bellemichelle 19:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I post
Thanks for the information, fortunately he was spotted and blocked quite quickly. You can report page move vandalism on WP:AIV as for other vandalism and you are likely to get a faster response. Thanks. --pgk 19:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment on Bow-tie lists
Hi,

You may have an interest, since I saw your name in the history list of the Bow tie article: There's a separate article, List of bow tie wearers and an admin is suggesting deleting it. When I looked into the Bow tie page, I found there's already a list there. I don't have an opinion on which list should remain, but one really should go. I'd appreciate your advice on the Talk:Bow tie page, if you're interested and have the time.Noroton 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

30th Street Station photo
It seems your photo has been included in the 30th Street Station website at. Kind of neat (and amusing) to know that they're taking material from WP. Shame it doesn't seem to credit you or Wikipedia (technically that's a GFDL violation, if anybody cares). I just thought you might want to know. --TexasDex 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Patsy Cline spam?
Hi. What do you think of the external link added to Patsy Cline? Looks like spam to me but I've already reverted it three times in the last couple hours. I see you recently removed a bunch of fan sites from that article. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Redbuds
As much as I have my displeasure with the whole Redbuds controversy, I don't see it being deleted as it did receive some national news coverage, which I suppose makes it "notable." Then again, what notable impact did it have? The protesters got in some trouble and the freshmen got bus passes. That's certainly not notable. It falls in the file of numerous other examples of campus activism that came and fizzled like the burning of the Cornell American a few years ago.

What I really don't like is seeing the WSH takeover taking over a bunch of articles, such as when it was comprising almost a third of the Cornell history section on the MAIN PAGE. Sheesh. That event was definately notable because of its lasting impact on Cornell and its national recognition. Didn't it make the cover of Time magazine? . --Xtreambar 23:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than tagging freedom tunnel for "tone"
Could you simply fix it? I don't quite know what to do. I think the tone is fine.futurebird 06:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Freedom Tunnel

To arms! To arms!
The List of bow tie wearers page has been nominated for article deletion (Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers) and there are already seven deletionists surrounding me. Are you, a contributor to that page (and to the discussion on the Bow tie page back in October) gonna let them do that?!? Defend our page! Go there to vote to uphold truth, justice and the civilized way! Noroton 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rachel weisz.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rachel weisz.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 , 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. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've spent my fair share of time finding, fixing & uploading free-use images. You know exactly why fair-use promo images are currently being deleted, don't give me shit for doing the dirty work. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and have fun being a vindictive asshole. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)