User talk:Ariele

Grocery store photos
Hi,

I noticed on "Le Marge.JPG", you tagged the image claiming it was a logo of the WikiMedia foundation, which seems like a mistake. Did you mean to use the GFDL-self tag?

Thanks - Tempshill 21:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Understood. You just used an incorrect tag.  Take a look at the license tag currently on Image:Le Marche.JPG - the "CopyrightByWikimedia" license tag is used for things like the Wikipedia logo itself.


 * I don't see a tag at Copyright tags that does what you want to do. What I would recommend is that you use the GFDL-self tag, which states that you, the author of the picture, is releasing it under the terms of the GFDL; and additionally add as text that you are donating the copyright for the photo to the Wikimedia Foundation.  Thanks - Tempshill 22:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I'm just pointing out that tag is incorrect. Notice on Image:Le Marche.JPG, the tag says, "It is one of the official logos or designs used by the Wikimedia foundation or by one of its projects."  The brief text in the pop-up license-selection menu is unfortunately not very clear.  Just please change it to whatever tag is appropriate.  Thanks -- Tempshill 04:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And thanks again for changing the tag. The "CopyrightByWikimedia" tag has been removed from that popup menu to eliminate future confusion.  Tempshill 06:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sciences Po
Yes, of course Bremer was not a head of state or government... I must have missed that when I edited the alumni section of the school, but I've made the change now. Thanks for letting me know! As to your confusion about my history - well, what exactly are you talking about?

Bremer - Governance, not Government
I appreciate the Constitutional lesson, but I'm American (and the one who listed Bremer under International Governance). I think you do not fully understand the distinction between government, which you outline a bit above, and governance. Governance cannot be defined in such a clear, limited, and anachronistic way. Governance is not government, and Paul Bremer is not listed as head of state or government. He is listed as a head of international governance given that he was the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. In essence, Bremer was the American proconsul in Iraq. The term governance is not associated with the formal government of any one state, but is more associated with governing - or with political authority, institutions, and, ultimately, control. Governance in this particular sense denotes formal and informal political institutions or individuals that aim to coordinate and control interdependent social relations and that have the ability to enforce decisions within a given organization, state, region, or on the world stage more generally. This would include a head of the Red Cross or CARE International, a UN Secretary-General, and someone like Paul Bremer.

Your Own Ignorance
By User talk:24.58.136.168

Sorry, but you clearly do not understand what governmance is vis-a-vis government. I suggest you look it up b/c the distinction is certainly not erroneous.


 * There's no need to apologize...for the one who calls another "ignorant" has his/her shortcomings too.,,,Ariele 19:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha
That's funny - I like your style... and I give in.

Saint Bathilde
St. Bathilde, also known as Bathilde d'Ascagnie (b. 626 - d. January 30, 680) was married to King Clovis II of France.



Sold into slavery as a young girl (some accounts suggest by Vikings others, by an Anglo-Saxon king), the young Bathilde served as a lady in waiting in Erchinoald's household, King Clovis II's mayor of the palace of kings of France. Bathilde was beautiful, intelligent, modest, and attentive to the needs of others. Erchinoald (whose wife had died) was attracted to Bathilde and wanted to marry her. But she did not want to marry him; therefore Bathilde hid herself away and waited until Erchinoald remarried. King Clovis II noticed her (at some unknown date) and asked her hand in marriage sometime in 649. Bathilde was 19 years old when she became queen. Different versions of this story suggest Clovis II was somewhere between the ages of 12 and 16 years old when he married Bathilde.

Even as queen, she remained humble and modest. She is famous for her charitable service and generous donations. From her donations, the Abbey of Corbey and the Abbey of Chelles were founded (and likely others such as the Abbeys of Jumièges, Jouarre, and Luxeuil too).

Queen Balthilde's husband died in 656. Clothaire, the eldest son and heir to the throne, became Clotaire III at age five. Bathilde served as the queen regent until he was old enough to rule. As queen, she was a capable stateswoman. She abolished the practice of trading Christian slaves and even sought the freedom of children sold into slavery. As the story goes, after Bathilde's three children (Clothaire, Childeric, and Thierry) were of age and "established in their respective territories" (Clothaire as King of France, Childeric in Neustria and Thierry in Burgundy), Bathilde entered the abbey and gave up her royal rank. She dedicated the rest of her life serving the poor and the infirmed.

Bathilde died on January 30, 680. She is buried at the Abbey of Chelles outside of Paris. Bathilde was canonized to sainthood by Pope Nicholas I about 200 years after her death.

Kangaroo Photo
Hi, I have uploaded Image:Eastern grey and joey-MJC.jpg, feel free to use it for whatever you want. --Martyman- (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bremer is scheduled to be on "The Daily Show" tonight.
I thought you would like to know. -- Geo Swan 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comedy Central's Jon Stewart featuring Paul Bremer: http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=49786


 * Well, good for him. But my "nosey hubby" and I are catching up on some missed Stargate episodes.,,,,,Ariele 03:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)



User Notes

 * For the new year, i.e. 2006, my editing style could once again evolve. I am a strong supporter of freedom, liberty, and most of all democracy and strongly believe in fighting for and defending those precious liberties found in any society - freedom of worship, the right to bare arms, freedom of speech, ... to name a few.  I try to keep my political views in check, but that too could change.  And another oh by the way, I've always opposed what was once called affirmative action right from the time I first learned of it - not because of as one Wikipedian puts it "much debate concerning claims that the practice is itself racialist", but because affirmative action encourages employers to seek skilled labor (albeit, cheaper) elsewhere.  From experience working in a field dominated by men (after 20 years, there are still fewer numbers of females in the engineering fields than females in medical and business professions), the concept does more harm than good.  Much improvement is needed but affirmative action isn't the solution - this is just my personal opinion.  There are many others who don't feel this way.  It's much more difficult to force equality down a person's throat than convincing another that one's ability is equal (sometimes better) to that of another.  I think you gals know exactly what I'm saying - go Girl Power.


 * Copy of the Declaration of Independence & U.S. Constitution,
 * Highlight of the Intro: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


 * Does Separation of church and state suggest that the statement ... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.... is false? Who is the Creator?  Unless there's another explanation to why the author(s) chose to use the word Creator, the declaration clearly points to the belief that God created men/women.  Modern day court decisions to separate religion from government suggest that these unalienable rights may not belong to all men/women after all.  Alternatively, the move to separate religion from government ensures freedom of worship without government intervention (as it occurred historically under British rule).  Those who support "Separation of Church and State" should clearly define their position on this issue.


 * Having friends as teachers in the public school systems in the United States, Christian teachers go through great lengths to keep their personal faith out of the classrooms. Their personal faith is the foundation of who they are as a person.  However, subjects such as atheism, evolution, agnosticism, ancient philosophy (which is essentially a form of paganism), and mythology (also a form of paganism) and current events (which is mostly on Islamic extremism these days) can be taught in public schools.  But is the child provided with alternative points of view?  Only time and that child can say when he/she becomes an adult and a law abiding, tax-paying citizen.

Image copyright problem with Image:Happy_cat.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Happy_cat.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 on Wikipedia 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 Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

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. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 11:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hopping_kangaroo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hopping_kangaroo.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 on Wikipedia 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 Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

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. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 19:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:May_18_2003.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:May_18_2003.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 on Wikipedia 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 Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

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. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 14:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SimpleKangaroo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SimpleKangaroo.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 on Wikipedia 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 Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

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. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 10:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User contest
Would you like to join the competition for best userpage? If so,sign up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_best_User_page#Active_users. 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I found the "list" - where's everyone? ,,,Ariele 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The list represents the member of the project. Once we have a functioning interaction with the database and the Userbox we can start the competition. In order to celetier the process spread the word, a Userbox may be ready to use in a matter of days. Federico Pistono  ✆   ✍  22:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Best User Page Project
Let us try an experiment. Until further notice, the voting system will be open, using the method described in the Guidelines. This will make us understand how reliable the current system is and whether the project has a real possibility to expand into hundrends of users or not.

All users are encounaged to display the BestUserPage banner on their User Page.

All members all encouraged to display the BUP banner in their User Page, and also notify that the project has started.

We will refer to the votes for this first session as "March 2006" in the archive.

Federico Pistono  ✆   ✍  19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ariele, I've been working on the best User Page Project for quite some time, and my intentions from the beginning were to wait until we had solid structure and organisation.

However, I now realise that it is almost impossible to achieve such a goal without users who vote and partecipate, so that eventual fallacies can be discovered. Furthermore, it is pointless to spend great collaborative efforts for a project that does not have visibility.

For all these reasons, I encounrage you to promote the

BestUserPage

with all means that come to your mind, suggestions are more than welcome in the discussion page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_best_User_page

Thank you for all your work so far, Federico Pistono  ✆   ✍  21:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Kangaroo Culling
No problem. As is was, the comment seemed to come out of nowhere. The killing of kangaroos is definitely an issue in Australia, but these statements need some context. Ashmoo 01:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Block
Your sockpuppet Puss'nPurpleBoots (talk • contribs • [ page moves] • block user • [ block log]) was used to harass another user. Fred Bauder 01:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My sockpuppet? I looked at the sockpuppet's user page.  It's so cute.  What kind of person would get upset over a cat?  Would like to know what could be the user's problem with or issue against a sockpuppet?  I've seen a few sockpuppets myself but they're not so serious a problem are they?,,,,,Ariele 03:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why am I blocked? I see it was User:Geo Swan again.  Based on Geo Swan's track record, this user is using Wikipedia to incite and resurrect protest against the United States and against the Bush Administration.  Geo Swan hides behind his/her assertion that he/she is not an expert and posts a bunch of crudely made maps and attempts to pass himself/herself off as a serious contributor to Wikipedia; meanwhile posting propagandist material similiar to those once used by the hard-core communist radicals, who ended up killing milions and millions of innocent people.


 * ....you're repeating the same mistake other people have made before.,,,,,Ariele 03:18, 20 February

2006 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan's Abuse of Wikipedia: Advertisement & Promotional Material for Benefit of Paul Bremer and Simon & Schuster Publisher
I have proof Geo Swan used Wikipedia to promote Paul Bremer's book and scheduled lectures on his and Simon & Schuster's behalf. It is our understanding that this is in direct violation to WIKIPEDIA's policies. You, Geo Swan and Fred Bauder (especially the administrator) have violated Wikipedia policy and abused certain privileges given to an administrator when you blocked a Wikipedia user without cause, and is furthermore, reason for revoking your privileges. Mr. Bauder, you have abused the tools available to an administrator, and should never have been selected to serve as a Wiki administrator.'',,,,,Ariele 06:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ...User:Geo Swan, I take it you did not like my contribution on prehistoric kangaroos.


 * Is it because Simon & Schuster couldn't use that material to sell Bremer's book? If you're fishing again, you better put on an old pair of overalls and be prepared to do a lot of digging in the dirt.


 * So which is it, your fear of puppets or the fact that you've abused Wikipedia for your own financial gain? ,,,,,Ariele 06:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

''Eversince User:Geo Swan's made these edits to the article on Paul Bremer, the issues which this sockpuppet had discussed in the article have also appeared in main stream media such as the Washington Post. More recently, the Op-ED article in the NY times by the author Paul Bremer. His OP-ED piece starts off about something to do with issues creating more heat than light. What heat? Furthermore, these repetitive reruns are the only issues which seem to have been stamped into the minds of the public over and over as if its saying buy the book to find out first hand what actually happened in Iraq. However, whenever I attempt to contribute a non-biased piece of information, User GEO SWAN just go bullistic. I do strongly believe Wikipedia has been used and abused by this sockpuppet.''

Evidence

 * puppets - "So, do you know another way, beyond subjectively looking for patterns, to detect if multiple userids post from the same IP? I'll offer it to my accuser. Thanks."


 * Well, there are a few users with the capability, I believe they are listed somewhere over on the arbitration page. You need a compelling reason for a check though, not just an ordinary dispute. Of course, you can always tell an i.p. if the user doesn't log in. You could just ask the user to make such a post, so you can check. That's not so helpful if they have access to multiple i.p. addresses.
 * On the sneakier side, you might be able to get both ends of a puppet to post under different i.p.'s (home/work for example), under their mistaken assumption that this will disprove puppetry. Conveniently, you can check the origin of an i.p. using geobytes.com. So, if they're both in Sacramento, you've probably got yourself a puppet. Of course, offering that last tip to your accuser won't help in this case, since it depends on ignorance. Derex 17:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In my attempts at having a civil debate with Geo Swan, Geo Swan proceeded by accusing me of vandalism and not able to conduct a civil discussion and especially, when I did not agree with Geo Swan's criticisms.


 * Dogged Defense?????
 * Paradigmbuff, do you have some personal connection to Ambassador Bremer? Why is your defense of him so dogged? Your repetition of his defense, "my staff was inexperienced!", provoked me to alternate between laughter and frustration. The classic example of someone illustrating chutzpah is the man who murdered his parents, and asked for leniency because he had just become an orphan. Bremer was responsible for setting the CPA's hiring policies. And the CPA chose absolutely disastrous hiring policies. -- Geo Swan 22:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Paradigmbuff asked: "Are you insane by adding words which I did not say?"
 * I stand by my paraphrase of your words Paradigmbuff. Do you want me to go and cite the passages I am paraphrasing? Why do you follow an unconventional style in your responses. You do know that the convention is that your response should have one further indent than what you are responding to? Anything else is disrespectful to your readers, because it makes it much more difficult for them to follow the discussion. -- Geo Swan 11:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hiring Policies
 * Geo Swan's persistence at placing the entire four ton weight on Bremer's shoulders is rather interesting. She (presumeably this person is a "she") extracted this piece from an article. I and probably others had been following events leading up to the transition on June 28, 2004. It would indeed be intriguing to see what Amb. Bremer has to say in his book.


 * Curious, I went looking for the actual "hiring policies" used by Bremer, the former American administrator. I discovered that the link to support Geo Swan's argument were none other than her own and about some Washington Post article. The article is really about how the Defense Department selected the few who were sent to work there and about the experiences one such staffer had in Iraq. Unless of course Geo Swan was there herself or himself.


 * Prefixing Bremer's name with "Ambassador" or "The Honorable" ?
 * An edit today prefixes Bremer's name with "The Honorable", with the explanation "Honorary Degree Recipient of Doctor of Law on June 19, 2005". Being awarded an honorary degree doesn't make one an "Honorable". In the USA the holders of certain offices are entitled to the prefix "Honorable". That list includes Judges, Congressmen, and Ambassadors. But none of the other US Ambassadors who have articles written about them are described as "The Honorable" in their articles. See: David Wilkins, Tony Garza, Tom Schieffer, George Herbert Walker III, Francis Rooney, Dan Coats, John Kenneth Galbraith, Zalmay Khalilzad, Paul Cellucci. Note: None of these other Ambassadors or former Ambassadors has every instance of their name prefixed with the title Ambassador. -- Geo Swan 17:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * See Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing. -- Geo Swan 20:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Iraqi Sovereignty ?
 * The introductory paragraph to this article currently reads:


 * He arrived in Iraq on May 11 and left on June 28, 2004, when sovereignty was returned to Iraq.


 * At most, limited soveriegnty was handed over to an appointed Iraqi administration. To assert that the Alawi administration was sovereign is a gross distortion. The Alawi administration did not control its own Armed Forces. The US controlled, still controls, the Iraqi Armed Forces. The Alawi administration did not control its own budget. Every Iraqi ministry was overseen by a US auditor.


 * I'd say that the current Iraqi administration still only has limited sovereignty. Iraqi citizens got to vote for whomever they wanted. Exercising a free choice in the voting booth is one of the essential elements of a real democracy. But, missing was the information needed to make an informed choice.


 * According to a news segment shown on the CBC, as a security measure, the new Iraqi political parties were not allowed to publicize their political platforms, or biographies of their candidates. Iraqi voters couldn't make an informed choice.


 * Americans still control the Iraqi Armed Forces, not vice versa.
 * American forces are not subject to Iraqi justice. In other countries where this is true, it is the result a bilateral agreement with the host country. Those agreements are limited. Those host countries take jurisdiction if the US military justice system fails to investigate. This is not true for either Iraq or Afghanistan. American contractor, including the tens of thousands of gun-toting mercenaries, are also not subject to Iraqi justice.


 * Bremer's highly decrees still carry the force of law in Iraq, including the highly contentious, over-bearing, inappropriate ones. So, what's my point? I think the POV sentence in the introductory paragrpah should be replaced by a more NPOV sentence, like:


 * He arrived in Iraq on May 11 and left on June 28, 2004, when limited sovereignty was devolved to an administration of appointed Iraqis. -- Geo Swan 22:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * God helps those who take a big helping for themselves [says Geo Swan]
 * In the "Post-Iraq" section I [Geo Swan] added:


 * When asked what he thought of reports of $9 billion missing from the funds to rebuild Iraq he said "I suggest you not worry, as that $9 billion was Iraqi money, not US money." Someone felt that should be supplemented with:


 * The $9 billion was Iraqi money intended for the Iraqi people. To be fair Bremer has also pointed out in a speech he made recently that "Clearly, public service must be guided by a steadfast respect for the natural moral law. The knowledge of and respect for the natural law, in fact, is indispensable for the proper fulfillment of civic duties."
 * Ariele's comment for this edit was "Geo Swan's version left out this part"


 * Ariele's first sentence is correct. Bremer allowed Iraqi funds to be looted. But since she just said this, in the preceding sentence, I don't understand why Ariele felt it was necessary to repeat it. This point had already been made several paragraphs above, when the article discussed Bremer's obligations under UN resolution 1483.


 * If Ariele's comment that the $9 billion was derived from Iraq's oil revenue was really worth repeating I think it should begin a new paragraph.


 * GeoSwan,
 * I had to rummage around in the archive to find this. To make this very clear to you, Bremer was not the one who pillaged and plundered the oil for food program, nor would he allowed that to happen under his watch. Look it up. The CPA archive has a transcript of his speech and I also took the liberty of copying it here JUST FOR YOUR BENEFIT.
 * I didn't say Bremer was the one who looted the oil-for-food program. Nor have I said he looted the DFI, the follow-on for the oil-for-food program, once Iraq's oil revenue was under Coalition control, not UN control.
 * See, you are responding to things you think I said, not to what I actually said.
 * What I actually said is that Bremer was responsible to make sure proper fiscal controls were in place to prevent a repetition of the scandal on his watch -- and that he did not do so -- did not put in place even the most basic fiscal controls. Did that absence of fiscal controls mean there was looting? Human nature being what it is, an absence of controls as profound as that Bremer was responsible practically guaranteed looting. The absense of fiscal controls means that no one can prove there was no looting. This, in and of itself is a terrible problem. And it was a terrible violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1483.
 * His speech, while well-written, doesn't seem particularly meaningful. Actions speak louder than words. It seems to me that his actions seem to show, at best, a complete lack of concern for fiscal responsibility. Where were the internal auditors he committed to hire? Where was the transparency of financial decisions and oversight of contractors? Why didn't the CPA meter the oil pipelines to make sure the oil sales could be audited? The Bush administration has a President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense who were all oil industry executives. They can't claim they didn't understand the importance of this metering. -- Geo Swan 03:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit]
 * What, pray tell, is "the natural moral law" ?
 * What is "the natural moral law" ?


 * The quote reveals how committed Bremer was to living up to his obligations to be a good steward of Iraq's oil revenue?


 * The article has made clear that Bremer is "devout". Is "natural moral law" a phrase that only devout people understand? Unless someone can explain how "natural moral law" freed Bremer from honoring his obligations I'd say this passage detracts from the value of the article. -- Geo Swan 05:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This paragraph was removed recently by a very disgruntled individual under the alias of Geo Swan: Ambassador Bremer, a "staunch" Roman Catholic, took the nickname Jerry from a renown Bible translator and religious historian known today as St. Jerome[6], his patron saint. While in Iraq, Bremer became famously known for wearing tan desert combat boots with his tailored suits. Although well respected and liked by most Iraqis, there were those who were more critical of his presence even threatening intending physical harm. Just one day after reports of Paul Bremer's departure, Dar Al-Hayat, a London based Arabic language newspaper, started a rumor that Ambassador Bremer (who so happens to be happily married to the former Frances Winfield) left behind a young 35-year old Iraqi lover. The newspaper followed up with another article criticizing Bremer's administration of Iraq; adding both Bremer and his "Iraqi lover" are together happily writing "his diary". A more substantial story occurred on March 28, 2004 when the former administrator ordered a controversial Iraqi newspaper Al-Hawza shut down for two months.
 * Geo Swan, you have just accused a fair and righteous man of immoral and indecent behavior. The rumor of an extra-marital affair which you speak of was never substantiated. Ambassador Bremer has during his stay in Iraq, been asked repeatedly by reporters if he would take an Iraqi "girl" as his wife. He responded to this sort of questioning diplomatically by saying that his religion allows for only one wife [and not up to four, as is the custom over there]. And if you had read the article published by the Catholic standard "Faith Gives Him Strength" and decipher what it was trying to tell you, his wife of 39 years is truly the love of his life. Furthermore, during his stay, there were repeated attempts to harm this man. If you had played back his speech he made back in February at a T.D. Waterhouse symposium you would have discovered that fact as well. And sure, you're upset that a controversial Iraqi newspaper was shut down. There was a reason for that. The newspaper was inciting violence. You speak of freedom of the press. What about "thou shalt not bear false witness?". Then there's your remark: God helps those who help themselves to a heap of money. Where did this come from? For your information, it was Bremer who established the Inspector General offices [5] to ensure that rampant abuse which you accuse him of, would be detected under the watchful eyes of the inspector general. So, it would seem that you are hell bent on destroying this man's reputation and using Wikipedia for this wicked and evil plot of yours. Who are you accountable to? The papermill?

You've attracted attention and created suspicion indicating that you perhaps are the lover which Bremer is rumored to have had "during his stay in Iraq". When I discovered the rumor, I did a fair amount of research into this and actually found the Arabic version of this account (which was quickly removed from access later). The rumor also quickly spread throughout Europe and found itself posted on a Dutch porn site as well (a rather x-rated version of the rumor). A gilted lover with much to scorn about. If that is who you are or claim to be. Ariele 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My mistake! Many apologies to the readers. It would seem that Geo Swan is not the "lover" or "romantic" type. Ariele 21:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have asked you many time before to make a greater effort to be civil. In the last couple of days you have dismissed me as "disgruntled"; you have said I am carrying out an "evil plot"; you have made a joke, in very poor taste, associating me with a porn site. Well, I am not going to respond in kind.
 * Your contributions does portray this man in a very contradictory fashion. Why? What do you have against this person? Ariele 20:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You have responded, with outrage, to some of the things I have written, or rather, things you think I have written. Because, it seems to me, that your outrage stems from not properly reading what I wrote. The rumor of Bremer having a mistress predates my first contribution to this article. Let me encourage you to direct your outrage about the al-Hayat accusation to the writers at al-Hayat, and anyone else who put forward that story as if it were true.
 * Are you sure that the wikipedia is the correct venue for expressing that outrage? -- Geo Swan 06:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Your contribution is outrageous. Who do you think you are making such childish comments such as "God helps those who help themselves to a heap of money".

In response to your question "venue ...". My more recent contributions are not a show of "outrage" as you put it. For several months, I have been watching what you're putting down here and all of it seem to indicate you are extremely displeased with the way things were and with Bremer. You have personally attacked his integrity and that of his staff. Your wording has drawn suspicion that seem to indicate Bremer had done something criminal. Furthermore, your persistence has drawn suspicion that you in fact may have been the "lover" or someone in close proximity to him. No one thus far has consistently and persistently written so much criticisms about Bremer EXCEPT you Geo Swan. Now you expect readers to believe that Iraqis have "limited" sovereignty over their own country?
 * Let me demonstrate to you what I am truly like when I use Wikipedia as the venue for expressing outrage: You remind me of this fanatic who claimed to be a former drug addict who co-habitated with three women at the same time, who excused himself for talking like a red-neck because he had a tumor removed from his brain, pretended to be a Christian preaching God's message and who along with a bunch of other like-kind fanatics thought that a recorded speech I made with some alterations no doubt (something similar to what you've done here about Bremer & the CPA) would coerce a government into supporting their extravagant (and expensive) way of life. That's called blackmail. And your contribution here has all the components of one.

Now that is me expressing outrage. Ariele 19:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC) [edit]

More Threats from Geo Swan to Ariele:
 * I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to be more civil

Ariele, I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to be more civil.
 * I know you know that accusing other wikipedians of criminal activity is a violation of wikipedia etiquette. You just compared me with a reprehensible con-artist, who tried to defraud the USG. You seem to be saying that both your con-artist acquaintance, and I, were guilty of blackmail. If you didn't mean to accuse me of blackmail I think you should say so right now.
 * I urge you, to exercise more caution here. I urge you to exercise more about jumping to conclusions. I urge you exercise more caution about posting here when you are in the grip of strong, intemperate emotions. We are all supposed to assume goodwill here. You keep failing to extend goodwill to me.
 * Case in point, you read an edit I made, and you reacted as if I had accusd Bremer of adultery. You are skeptical of the report from the London Muslim newspaper, which didn't provide any details that any other journalists could check? I was skeptical too. That is why I condensed the adultery section when I moved it.

I am going to point out I said it was a rumor. I didn't say it was proven. You read what I wrote, and you were swept by feelings to strong you reposted a long paragraph accusing me of a "wicked and evil plot" right into the article. You could have put a question, on the talk page, saying something like: "Geo Swan, I am concerned about your most recent edit of the section on the rumor of Bremer's alleged adultery. When I read it, it sounds like you are arguing the rumor is true. If that is not true, I think you should modify it, possibly by inserting the word 'alleged' before 'affair'.
 * Ariele, it is clear you have strong objections to some of the material I put in this article. But do you think your reaction is really how you should react?
 * You could ask civil questions about the material you find disturbing, or which you disagree with.
 * You could go read the audit reports yourself, so you could form your own opinion. If your own independent conclusions differed from mine you could return here, and we could have a civil informed discussion about the substance of the article.

It is possible for people of goodwill to disagree, and yet have reasonable, civil discussions. Sometimes that results in one of those parties modifying their views. Sometimes both parties modify their views. I try my best to never enter a discussion without being ready to give my corresponent's view fair consideration. I try my best to be prepared to acknowledge that I might be wrong, and my correspondent might be correct.
 * You just said, I "have personally attacked his integrity and that of his staff."
 * I don't see that. My intention is to summarize things that can be documented. I spent considerable time reading the audit documents. Did Bremer do a good job making sure the Iraqi oil revenue he expended on behalf of the Iraqi people was well-spent? Well, the audit reports record what kind of job he did. I tried to give fair summaries of those reports. A fair summary of those reports may leave readers with a low opinion of Bremer, But if my I am fair then I have nothing to apologize for. Instead of criticizing my character, you could write a civil challenge to my interpretations.

Consider the cash reconciliation:
 * Did Bremer's authorization to expend Iraqi oil derive from UN resolution 1483?
 * Did resolution 1483 require him to make sure expenditures were made in an open, transparent manner.
 * Did resolution 1483 require him to take basic steps to make sure those truly massive amounts of cash could be traced and accounted for?
 * Did he take those most basic steps? No, he did not. Not even a monthly cash reconciliation.
 * Did I say that Bremer knowingly failed to fulfill his oblgations to institute proper fiscal controls as part of a criminal conspiracy? I do not think I said that.
 * At this point in time we can only speculate as to why Bremer fiscal controls were so inadquate.
 * The explanation he offered was that the CPA was understaffed, and his staff was young and inexperienced. I don't accept that explanation. I don't think that explanation makes any sense. Bremer instituted a deeply flawed, deeply inadequate hiring policy.
 * Bremer had very serious responsibilities. He absolutely had an obligation to oversee a hiring policy that lead to a staff of the most qualified people who were available, without regard to their apparent political loyalties.

But Bremer only hired people who had submitted their resume to the Heritage Foundation. He has given the appearance that his highest priority was choosing employees who shared his ideology.
 * Maybe hiring only those who applied to the Heritage Foundation was just a thoughtless mistake. If so it was a very costly one. Possibly very costly for Iraq. Who knows how much more effectively, fairly and responsibly the CPA might have managed the recostruction of Iraq's infrastructure, if he hadn't crippled it with his deeply flawed hiring policy?
 * But, IMO, that policy should be very costly for Bremer personally. IMO it should strip from the use of the excuse, "Have pity on my! I had an inexperienced staff!"
 * I am going to return to where I started. If you think something someone wrote falls short of the fairness and objectivity that should be practiced in the wikipedia I am going to encourage you to assume goodwill and ask the other contributors civil questions. Civility is important. A lot of your accusations against me, like the accusations around the rumors of Bremer's alleged adultery, are simple misunderstandings.
 * I am only human. You must understand that it requires an effort to stop short of simply responding in kind. So, please try harder. -- Geo Swan 01:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * '''Ha ha funny. Is that a threat from you?...

I would seriously hope that the contributions you made criticizing the subject matter can be substantiated. Curiously, you and others have omitted Jeremy Greenstock.... Ariele 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)'''

Ariele, I know you can be civil when you make the effort
For my edit summary when I put a {test2} notice on your new userid User Talk:Paul Bremer I put ''"Ariele, I know you can be civil, if you only make the effort..."

I know you can be civil. You have accused me of hating you. I don't hate you. I have intellectual concerns with some of your contributions. A minority of the contributions you have made have been basically indistinguishable from vandalism, And a smaller portion of your contributions have been, unquestionably, vandalism. Most of the time, however, I believe you are doing your best to make a positive contribution to the wikipedia, just like the rest of us.

You resigned your accounts before, but you chose to come back. I encourage you to stay positive in your contributions. I encourage you to have civil dialogues with the other contributors with whom you have intellectual differences. I encourage you to "assume good faith"

You have leveled a lot of accusations at me, both lately, and over the course of the last year. I believe they are all baseless, and that a large portion of them are based on simple misreadings or misunderstandings of what I have said.

I think I know you well enough to know that you are very likely to change your mind, and return to wikipedia, under a new userid, if you resign. Personally I would far rather that you stayed under your Ariele userid, and simply made the effort to be civil and constructive at all times. -- Geo Swan 18:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you claim to know me so well, then do explain why I began editing here in 2004. FYI:  the article on Paul Bremer was my sandbox.  But I did not contribute any vandalism there.  I have no plans to stick around because (for quite some time now) I want to start a web site again.  Ha, I bet you didn't know that did you?  Take care of yourself and try to keep your nose clean.  Farewell.,,,,,Ariele 21:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep your own nose clean, is my advice.
Nothing another user does to you gives you license to behave badly in return. Keeping your own nose clean and keeping your own behaviour above reproach lets others see obviously and without doubt who is the bad actor in the whole thing, and makes sure that you are not blamed for it. If you wish others to censure User:Geo Swan, ensure that you don't look like the bad guy, or at the very least just as bad. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Morven, User:Ariele is not the one posting personal research material on topics relating to the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Presidential Envoy to Iraq, Paul Bremer. User:Geo Swan is a sockpuppet with Sysop privileges and has been abusing these privileges to attack other users who oppose his views.  So far as we can gather, User:Geo Swan's edits here have  stirred up protest and messages that could be construed as a threat to one's personal safety.-Sweeper 14:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You've got it backwards
Ariele, I have seen your recent complaints that you were -unfairly- blocked, and that I have been harrassing you.

During the last year you have violated the no personal attacks dozens of times. You have compared me with was a porn-star. You have called me a teenage delinquent. You keep presuming I am female, and implying that this has something to do with my judgement. You compared me to a corrupt phony evangelist you know. I waited a full year before I asked an administrator for help dealing with you. And I only did that when you created new sockpuppets to attack me.

You were blocked because you created new sockpuppets to harrass me and vandalize pages.

I told you yesterday that I would rather you didn't resign, but that you just confined yourself to a single userid, like the rest of us, and confined yourself to constructive posts, that dealt with intellectual issues, and fell within the wikipedia policies and procedures. This idea you have that I have been harrassing you and stalking you is (1) just plain wrong, (2) self-destructive, as it seems to grab ahold of you and trigger your lapses from the wikipedia policies and procedures.

I haven't attacked you. I haven't called you names. I have confined myself to urging you to be a good citizen, and obey the wikipedia policies and procedures. I don't use sockpuppets. I am not secretly an administrator. Your recent accusation that I am, somehow, profiting from promoting Paul Bremer's book, on the wikipedia, doesn't even make sense. If anyone has been promoting his book it was you, not me.

None of the administrators you have been admonished by has ever attacked you. Some of them have been very patient with you. All of them were only doing things they were authorized to do, based on your misbehaviour.

I firmly believe you can be civil, and make all your contributions to the wikipedia be positive constructive ones. I urge you to do so.

But, if you are really set on having Ariele, and all your other sockpuppets deleted, shouldn't you give the administrators a complete list?

You forgot some, including:
 * User:Sweeper
 * User:Paul Bremer
 * User:Young People

For the record I am not female, and not a teenager. Have a nice day. -- Geo Swan 14:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ariele sent me to inform you that User:Paul Bremer is not her sockpuppet.


 * Alas, parting is such sweet sorrow -- Not!


 * Puss&#39;nPurpleBoots 16:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Backwards, How?
How can anyone be certain that a user here in Wikipedia will be safeguarded from personal attacks? I firmly believe there's original research involved. Geo Swan changed the subject and accuses me of calling him/her names. So it is okay to criticize others so long as it isn't directed at Geo Swan. I think my userboxes are rather tame compared to what you're accusing me of. User:Geo Swan, are you familiar with this external link Tacitus. Surely, this is just a coincidence, right?

I am wondering if the Sysops will grant my request to delete my accounts here. If anyone wants to continue using these accounts, please feel free to do so. I did however think the "Laura Croft" thing was rather funny. You didn't see me dragging that someone over to the arbitration committee, did ya?,,,,,Ariele 19:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How can anyone be certain they won't be attacked here? We can't.  But when we are we can keep our heads and follow the procedures.  Which I have done, and you haven't.
 * Your "original research" allegation is unsubstantiated because it is baseless.
 * Personal attacks are prohibited, no matter who they are directed against. Even putting attacks, as you did, on your personal user page is an attack on the culture of civility we want on the wikipedia.
 * I don't care how tame you think your userboxes are, you had no business placing them on my User page, or that of Businessdr.
 * No, I was not familiar with that Tacitus page. I think they were mistaken, whoever they are, to think their identity was obvious.  It is not obvious to me.  If you were wondering if I was a party to that discussion let me assure you I wasn't.
 * I have no idea what you are talking about with your Laura Croft reference.
 * For crying out loud, I could have gone to arbitration over your attacks a year ago. I have been extremely patient.  The final straw was your creation of new sockpuppets to disrupt my constructive efforts to start the article Ship lifts in China.  And even then I didn't go to the arbitration committee, I went to one of the users authorized to check to confirm that the newly created user who was using your style was a sockpuppet of you.  Note: I didn't ask them to block you, or admonish you.  I merely asked them to confirm that you and PurplePussnBoots were the same person.  --  Geo Swan 21:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Go Ahead: Vandalize to Your Heart's Content
User:Ariele has provided the following account log in names and passwords for anyone to use:

Wiki's Sysops can assist you further.
 * I have blocked all but User:Ariele indefinitely as a violation of Blocking_policy (as well as for seemingly being intended for vandalism). Change the password of this account and do not post the new one. Otherwise, User:ariele will be blocked indefnitely as well. Superm401 - Talk 20:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've indef blocked Goddess of War as well. --Deathphoenix 20:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for a month for incitement to vandalism--Doc ask?  20:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have extended your block to indefinite for being a public account. You were already warned to change your password. Since you haven't done so, you are now indefinitely blocked. If you wish to contest this block, you can send me an email, but only after you have changed your password. Otherwise, expect yourself to remain blocked. --Deathphoenix 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Press Dec 19 03 (Basra).JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Press Dec 19 03 (Basra).JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:2004 bremer CPADinnerOrchestra.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:2004 bremer CPADinnerOrchestra.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:June 30 2004 at White House.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:June 30 2004 at White House.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Ave Maria U. Commencement June 19 2005 (2).JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Ave Maria U. Commencement June 19 2005 (2).JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Sept 13 2005.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sept 13 2005.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MetsBot 20:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) --  Geo Swan 21:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Bureaucrat man.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bureaucrat man.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:SimpleKangaroo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SimpleKangaroo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:May 18 2003.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:May 18 2003.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Crazy dog.GIF
Thanks for uploading Image:Crazy dog.GIF. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Hopping kangaroo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hopping kangaroo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Rudolph Reindeer.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Rudolph Reindeer.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Catinhat.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Catinhat.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Hearts.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Hearts.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Merry christmas.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Merry christmas.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:GeorgeWBush LPaulBremer Dec 14 2004.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GeorgeWBush LPaulBremer Dec 14 2004.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, 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. --Geo Swan 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

IP User 24.148.180.76
Is claiming that you no longer use this account and that you have made no login passwords for people to use. I don't believe them unless I hear to the contrary from yourself signed with your account. If I hear otherwise, I will put the account on a sockpuppet watchlist. Thanks! Tawker 02:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * templates substituted by a bot as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 07:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Bonbons.JPG
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bonbons.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 08:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

IAMB
Hi, please could you explain this edit? I notice it has been reverted, and I'd like to know if there was any reason you didn't re-instate the changes you made. Thanks, --Rebroad 12:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ariele.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ariele.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:GeorgeWBush LPaulBremer Dec 14 2004.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:GeorgeWBush LPaulBremer Dec 14 2004.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Debra Harrison


The article Debra Harrison has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "biography of someone notable for only one event and even that event isn't very notable-- it barely drew any attention outside of federal government reports."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)