User talk:Bkwillwm/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

See Talk:Iroquois economics. Thue | talk 20:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In Iroquois economics, I linked Grand River Iroquois to the Canadian reservation Six Nations of the Grand River. I hope this is the one you were refering to. Rmhermen 00:06, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Spanish transition to democracy
¡Has hecho una traducción fantástica del primer apartado! ¿Sabías que el artículo de la Wikipedia en español lo escribí yo? Tenía pensado traducirlo pronto al inglés, ¡pero jamás me hubiera salido tan bien como la traducción que has hecho tú! ¿Dónde has aprendido tanto inglés? :P Seguro que juegas con trampa. Me encantará ayudarte. Intentaré subir algunas fotos.

Ánimo y enhorabuena por tu trabajo. --Waninoco 23:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

DYK
Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Socialist thinking and the Empire of Japan
I just made a proposal on the fate of the article on the AfD above. I would value any imput you have on the idea. Youngamerican 02:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Francis Nicholson
I wanted to congratulate you on your DYK contribution of Francis Nicholson and your efforts on History of Virginia.
 * Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 11:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Petición de ayuda
Saludos. Siento no poder expresarme con corrección en tu idioma, pero me dirigo a ti, porque no sé a quien recurrir y sé que dominas en gran medida el español. Soy un antiguo contribuyente de la Wikipedia en español, que hace alrededor de un año volvió a ella. Se encontró entonces con que la Wikipedia en español estaba dominada por administradores que violaban sistemáticamente las normas de wikipedia, como la de la neutralidad y la de no borrar informacion útil. Me he rebelado contra su censura, y he reivindicado el sentido original de las normas. Uno de mis contertulios en mi página de discusión y que ha renunciado a participar en la wikipedia hispana resume así la situación que se vive en la enciclopedia en español:

''Una vez que me convertí en escritor y no sólo en lector comencé a descubrir la realidad que esconde este proyecto. Ediciones honestas que buscaban enseñar a quienes quisieran aprender fueron eliminadas inmediatamente. Mis intentos de diálogo se vieron contestados por insultos y acusaciones injustos y por la extendida costumbre de recuperar la versión "oficial", es decir, la de eliminar todo incluyendo la corrección de errores ortográficos. Sólo he sido capaz de conseguir algún avance tras interminables discusiones, mediante la búsqueda de docenas de referencias a revistas, periódicos o documentos oficiales capaces de demostrar la insensatez de las críticas absurdas que con frecuencia se hacen y, principalmente, recuperando una y otra vez los datos que se intentan ocultar. Es decir, la cantidad de esfuerzo que hay que hacer es inmensa.''

''El gran problema es que las causas de la situación son muy profundas. Por ejemplo, es verdad que hay artículos larguísimos que describen cómo aplicar la política de neutralidad pero no hay ningún sitio donde se establezca breve y claramente qué es lo que no se puede hacer. Así es absurdo que se permita eliminar una edición completamente recuperando la versión anterior sin dar ninguna explicación. Si yo añado algo como "el 12 de marzo Aznar dijo que se estaban siguiendo dos líneas de investigación" cualquiera lo eliminará inmediatamente sin dar ningún motivo. Si lo vuelves a añadir y preguntas en la página de discusión por qué lo han borrado, que lo que has escrito es verdad, que se miren los periódicos que tienen edición digital accesible de ese día y todo eso el resultado es que te lo vuelven a quitar. Y no puedes hacer nada salvo volver a recuperarlo hasta que tú o ellos se cansen. Y es absurdo que esto sea así, porque la política de no neutralidad se resume en dos puntos: sólo se pueden incluir (1) hechos objetivos o (2) teorías existentes descritas indicando que son teorías. Si alguien elimina una contribución que no es puro vandalismo debería justificar que lo ha hecho porque no es ni un hecho objetivo ni una teoría existente. Si no se está eliminando el esfuerzo de una persona que ha querido participar en la Wikipedia lo que desincentiva dicha participación cuando se debería fomentar ya que en realidad se trata de generar un enciclopedia seria.''

Yo no quiero rendirme. Y no he dejado de debatir con esos administradores. En mi página personal, he escrito un ensayo donde denunció las practicas que se cometen en la wikipedia hispana. Lo puedes leer en []

Temporalmente he conseguido algunas mejoras, consiguiendo, por ejemplo, que algunos usen la página de discusión antes de borrar lo que no les gusta o no concuerda con su ideas. Ayer estaba añadiendo información al artículo del 11-M y acababa de discutir con un administrador que quería borrar el artículo dedicado a Leonor de Borbón Ortiz, primogénita de los Príncipes de Asturias, Felipe de Borbón y Letizia Ortiz, y segunda en la línea sucesoria de la Corona española. Este administrador decía que en la wikipedia no debía haber artículos sobre la recién nacida (cuando otras wikipedias lo tienen). Puedes leerlo en Discusión:Leonor de Borbón Ortiz. Ahora no puedo escribir en la wikipedia hispana, porque otro administrador, llamado FAR, que se declara amigo del administrador con que discutía, me han bloqueado la IP, tachándome de vándalo. No me dejan ni el derecho a réplica. ¿Puedes ayudarme, por favor? ¿Con quién debo hablar para solucionar esta situación?

Usuario:Visitante, 12:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC). '''I Blocked him because he did vandalic editions in another article. I even unknow he was in that discussion (although I have just read it, and he wrote offensive words)''' And be care, here, we think he is a troll.--es:Usuario:FAR

Boethius
Thanks a lot for the great images over at Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius. They're beautiful! &mdash; mark &#9998; 18:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Flat Earth image
Thanks, its wonderful! This is very much appreciated. KillerChihuahua 00:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave Moulton
Just wanted to let you know that I've made some improvements to the Dave Moulton article (bicycle builder). Please take a look, you may want to change your vote on "articles for deletion." The guy's claim to fame is as a custom bicycle frame builder more than as an author. Crypticfirefly 06:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Your Intimidations and Threats
You forget, sir, that this site is about contributing information or deleting bogus information from articles. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and smells like a duck, it is a duck. And that is why I presented the facts that I found, since egg-heads such as yourself have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

Francis Crick was an atheist, and is appropriate for the Religious Beliefs section of the article. It is not appropriate to talk about a "talk show hosts" freudian analysis of him (which I attempted to delete since it is not appropriate, poorly written, boring, and was pointless). It was deleted by myself. If you have a problem with it, then you can change it back if that makes you feel good about yourself. Francis Crick also felt it was impossible for life to have come into being out of a primordial soup, and is appropriate for the Panspermia section of the article. It is not appropriate to say that he didn't have a belief or interest in it especially given the fact that he cowrote a book about it. These are facts, sir, not opinions.

I am not surprised, however, that a handful of "know it alls" such as yourself would threaten me with "we will find him and intimidate him with our knowledge of his IP address." Are you perhaps going to try to initiate an attack on my computer? Just let me say that I am not afraid of egg-heads such as yourself who spend their lives trying to destroy the only hope that billions of people have (i.e. God or some other universal spirit). So go ahead, egghead, do what you gotta do...

You Need to Look Up the Definition of "Vandalism" BKWillmn
What vandalism is not Although sometimes referred to as such, the following things are not vandalism and are therefore treated differently:

Newbie Test New users who discover the "Edit this page" button sometimes want to know if they can really edit any page, so they write something inside just to test it. This is not vandalism! On the contrary, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the Sandbox (e.g. using the test template message) where they can keep making their tests. (Sometimes they will even revert their own changes.) Learning Wiki Markup and Manual of Style Some users require some time to learn the wiki-based markup, and will spend a little time experimenting with the different ways to make external links, internal links, and other special characters. Rather than condemning them as vandals, just explain to them what our standard style is on the issue in hand—perhaps pointing them towards our documentation at Wikipedia:How to edit a page, and the like. NPOV violations The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism. Bold Edits Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them—most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you wrote removed, moved to talk, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism. Mistakes Sometimes, users will insert content into an article that is not necessarily accurate, in the belief that it is. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it. If you believe that there is inaccurate information in an article, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it. Bullying or Stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism. Harassing or Making Personal Attacks We have a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is not allowed. Some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as home page vandalism. However, harassment is not in general vandalism. Hoaxes Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point with Hoaxes. This has been done before, with varying results. Some Wikipedians suspect that the majority of hoaxes here are attempts to test the system. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a less destructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place (and if possible, correct them).
 * I am aware of Wikipedia's policies regarding vandalism and new user edits. I try to distinguish between new users making good faith edits and those causing problems.  If I have labeled or responded to something unfairly, I am sorry.  Is there a specific mistake I've made that you have found?  Please let me know.  Do you have a Wikipedia SN? Bkwillwm 20:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar award!
Congratulations, well done and keep up the good work! :)--Dan (Talk) 14:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

History of Virginia
A worthy cause, lots ot be done though, based upon my past FA experience. I will be glad to help. I have limited Internet access right now, hopefully better within the month. Leave any messages, and I'll try to reply. Mark Vaoverland 22:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

American Civil War Battles
FYI I copied you posting to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history --Philip Baird Shearer 21:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship
Hey man, thanks for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout. - FrancisTyers 00:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Optimum currency area
I was wondering why it says that Mundell started it. The way I read it was just different parts added to a theory... could you explain some? gren グレン ? 06:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

vote here keep
exscuse me but also Muriel has done this trying to get people to delete this article important for a monarchic branch. This is a democratic encyclopedia and so this page has right to stay here : Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Regards, M.deSousa 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Multilaterals
I bet you can answer my question at Category talk:International development multilaterals, since you created the category. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby
You may be interested in Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby. I'm going to ask for a temporary injunction against his current behaviour; I hope you verify that his behaviour warrants immediate action. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 01:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Treason
This is who it is User:152.163.101.9 Cordially SirIsaacBrock 02:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, obviously the user who is making the edits isn't acting properly. I just wanted to make sure he was dealt with properly. I know you're acting with good intentions.  Thanks for your good work.--Bkwillwm 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

International Trade data
Thank you for adding links at the international trade article!

I know lots of links with Mercosur trade data, I'll be adding them soon...

Muchas gracias, compañero! ;-) --Luizabpr 04:15pm, 04 March 2006

Opus Dei in Spain article
As regards what you said that the all the text of the Opus Dei in Spain article taken from the Library of Congress's Country Study on the topic, I read the Country Study on religion  and I didn't find much of what is said.

But I found that this article is taken in toto from the Atheism article on Religion in Spain. I hope this has an explanation. Thanks. Lafem 06:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the Country Study section on Opus Dei under the government subsection. The original was taken from this source.  Even the atheism.about.com article cites the LOC Country study as its source.--Bkwillwm 18:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dutch disease
Hi. Since you are the only that has made any comments since I started talking on the Dutch Disease page, I was wondering if you could check on the updates I made and comment on them and at least give me some suggestions. Thanks much! --Geoff 00:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Economic history of Portugal
Nice work with the economic history of Portugal! Thanks. Gameiro 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for the information. : ). I thought that articles were like titles of books, meaning unless the word is the or of and other insignificant words, than that word would be capitalized. Thank you once again.

-- J.Steinbock (Talk)

Foreign Aid
Hi there,

I noticed your new articles you've created called "Foreign aid to...". I presume these are part of the wikiproject using Congress Library data.

If so, I wonder if the names of these pages can be altered. I presume the information relates only to aid from the United States and not all foreign aid received by the country? Therefore should they be renamed "United States overseas development aid to ..." or such like. What do you think? AndrewRT 11:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * These articles are part of WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies, but their content isn't limited to the United States. The source documents usually include information about aid from the US, multilateral sources such as the World Bank and IMF, and other donor countries (see examples Foreign aid to Bolivia and Foreign aid to Indonesia). I do not think a name change is appropriate.--Bkwillwm 16:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok fair enough. Thanks for getting back to me AndrewRT 18:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks
Thank you for reverting the edits on lollardy and thanks for the welcome note

Labor etc
Did you go through and revert the changes made by AlbertW? I only ask because I meant to repair some of these, but I see you have caught a lot of them already. Mattley (Chattley) 16:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversions of Bernie Sanders Page
Bkwillwm said: "Regarding your edits on Bernie Sanders, please respond to POV concerns on the talk page. Also, take a look at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. If you make the same or similar change to an article 3 times in a 24 hour period, you can be blocked. I don't mean to threaten, but someone may try to block you if you keep reverting.--Bkwillwm 02:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)"

There are no valid POV Concerns, the Three Revert Rule does not include restoring vandalism. The vandal has had editors restore the comments before with the note that he was confused by the reasons for the edit.If you don't mean to threaten me, don't.--Anon User

Very well, Bkwilliam, it seems that you have contacted an administrator in recruiting your friend Heah to protect the article so you may edit it and I cannot. Therefore, I have requested comments from Wiki peers, and would request you restore the deleted information until concensus can be reached. Also, I request that we call a truce, and refrain from further edits here until that time. Agreed? Straightinfo 08:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not recruit Heah. I don't know him at all. I have not worked with him before. You broke the 3 revert rule. I posted a complaint, and he responded. I don't like having people blocked, but you continued edit warring. Heah decided it would be easiest just to protect the article rather than block you, which is fine.  I think you just need to realize you have to address others' complaints; you cannot continously revert. The claims of POV in your text have been made by several people, not just me. Several other users have tried removing POV which you restored without trying to compromise. If you would like to propose a compromise text we can agree on, I will add it to the article. Otherwise, I will leave the article as is while there is page protection.--Bkwillwm 10:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
Hi Bkwillwm,

I have noticed that you have been reverting edits on Bernie Sanders, claiming that they are biased and not NPOVed. However, as the policy states: ''The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions . ..

Therefore, facts which may not present Sanders own opinions are still allowed in the article, as long as they are reasonably presented, and the reader is not forced to believe one thing. That way, readers can make there own opinion, which makes it a whole lot easier—there aren't as many edit wars, because both sides have their views presented.

I ask that you would stop reverting edits which are technically NPOVs, instead, editing them so that they are reasonably presented—and the opinion of which side to take is left to the reader.

Thanks.

— P ri m  a  t  e  #  101  02:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel that User:Straightinfo's edit are consistent with the NPOV policy, please explain why on Talk:Bernie Sanders. I am well aware of the NPOV policy; Straightinfo has misrepresented my complaints.  I am fine with criticism of any figure in any article. However, Straightinfo has used original research (see No original research), used information selectively in a negative manner, and used POV language.  I am not the only person that feels this way, at least 7 other users have problems with all or part of the text Straightinfo has been reverting to in his edit war. I have also made several attempts at compromise. Straightinfo has simply reverted these.  While I admire you for advocating on behalf of a new user, I suggest you take a closer look into the situation.--Bkwillwm 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Self-references
Left a note at Talk:Juntas Españolas. ~ PseudoSudo 05:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you mind doing the same with other articles you've translated? It's fine if you're not convinced; I'd suggest asking a third opinion. ~ PseudoSudo 17:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll definitely go back and change my other articles if this is standard practice, but I'm not convinced that it is. Take a look at Spanish Translation of the Week/History. Most of these former translations have references that go Spanish Wikipedia.--Bkwillwm 00:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Marx's theory of alienation
Heya - it's good to know someone else will be looking to update it as there's still so much to do to the article, and it's such an important one. I reckon that among the new sections should be some exegesis of the changing emphasis of the presentations of alienation throughout Marx's work. And of course the other two or three types of alienation that Marx describes.

I'm not sure I quite get what you mean about the difference between species-being and species essence. Is there a quotation of Marx writing on species-essence in which he describes the concept differently to the characterisation of species-being you pasted on my talk page? (Because I would have thought that describes them both just fine.)

Also, by citations, is it enough to have written what work it's from after the quotation, or is something more needed? (I don't really know much about the Wikipedia requirements for different things). Looking through it, the few unreferenced ones are from The German Ideology I think, and in any case, you can use the Marxists Internet Archive search facility to find and reference them fairly easily. It would certainly be good for it to be a feature article! Breadandroses 10:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's interesting - about species-essence. Wood quotes him (p22): "To ‘produce as a human being,’ Marx says is ‘immediately in the expression of my life to have created your expression of your life, and therefore to have immediately confirmed and actualised  in my individual activity my true essence, my human, my communal essence (Gemeinwesen)’."  (Which seems to be defining human essence in similar terms as your definition - which I think is entirely correct - of species-being.)  But on p21, which seems to support the view that they are not the same, he quotes Marx as saying that alienation is when people's ‘being does not correspond to their essence’.  I don't know.  I hope that's some help anyway, and good luck - I didn't quote anything directly from Geras in the article, so that shouldn't be a problem for you. Breadandroses 14:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba
Hi Bkwillwm, I noticed your name on the "systemic bias" list in relation to Latin America. I wondered if you could have a scan at the heavily contested  Cuba page and reply with any thoughts if you have the time! Thanks --Zleitzen 19:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Discussion under Economic inequality page
My question for you is #28.... :) []

p.s. I am intrigued by the possible meanings of your User Name. Hmmmmm. :)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

Page protection
Ah, I see. I was under the impression that adding the tag was a way of alerting admins. Thanks for clearing that up. -- Colm O&#39;Brien 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hey, I've noticed that you've edited quite a few articles on Marxist theory. Can I ask that you work on Wage labour? I know it's not specifically Marxist, but since the two are related somewhat, I was hoping if you knew something about it. I started the article a few months ago, and wrote a stub based on the little that I know. However, at the moment, frankly, it is a piece of crap, and I don't really know enough to be able to write it up properly. Could you go have a look? Thanks. :) -- infinity  0  20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Image source
Hi, you're credited with uploading Image:Jamestownzuniga.jpg. Do you recall what source you obtained it from? I realize that it's identified as public domain, but we've had an inquiry from someone claiming to be the source, and in terms of good academic practice crediting the source would be the appropriate thing to do, regardless of the copyright status. Thank you for your attention to this. --Michael Snow 06:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added the source to the image file on the commons. Sorry, usually I do put the source of images I upload.  I must have forgotten.--Bkwillwm 13:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks for taking care of it. --Michael Snow 16:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Soild degradation
You created this redirect in April, 2006. It has no other history and no current article links to it. It's just a typo, right? Barring some history that is not apparent to me, it meets criteria for speedy deletion. Unless you object, (or beat me to it per CSD G7), I will tag it per CSD R3. -- Paleorthid 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Castles Wikiproject
Hi

Are you interested in joining a new Wikiproject to improve the quality of articles about castles? --Dweller 08:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Giralda
Thanks for the article copyedit. I replied to your question on the article talkpage. Regards, E   Asterion  u talking to me? 07:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Detalle
Ante todo salúdos y gracias por haber creado el artículo "Galician people": ya pasaron varios meses desde que lo creaste en marzo de 2006, pero espero que aún te acuerdes. A pesar de que discrepo en otros puntos, creo que hay uno objetivamente es criticable: me gustaría que contrastases la afirmación del artículo "None of the provinces was densely populated" con el mapa de es:Demografía de España y otros datos de esta misma página. ¿Crees que se sostiene frente a "las zonas de costa y los valles próximos son las más densamente pobladas y donde se encuentran los principales núcleos de población y sus áreas metropolitanas (exceptuando a Madrid), por ejemplo [...] Vigo-Coruña"? Doy más estadísticas: Quería saber que pensabas sobre modificar tu original, porque creo que es una traducción de la "Library of the Congress". Gracias por tu atención. --Sobreira 11:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * municipio de Vigo (293Khabitantes): el 14º más habitado de España
 * municipio de A Coruña (243Kh): el 17º
 * municipio de A Coruña (6613h/km2): el 5º más denso
 * municipio de Vigo (2692h/km2): el 12º
 * área metropolitana de Vigo (423Kh): la 15º aglomeración urbana
 * área metropolitana de A Coruña (396Kh): la 18º aglomeración urbana
 * provincia de A Coruña (1126707h): la 10ª más poblada
 * provincia de Pontevedra (208h/km2): la 9ª más densa
 * Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia: la 5ª más poblada (y segun mis cálculos la 9ª más densa, a mucha distancia de las 6 primeras pero en un grupo de 5 segundas mucho mayor que las 6 últimas)

Your edit to Object-oriented programming
You reverted 12 revisions to Object-oriented programming without comment. Some of those were vandalism, but not all of them. I presume you were just trying to kill the vandalism and didn't intend to revert the other edits, so I reverted to what I feel was a more appropriate revision. But since I'm essentially re-doing what was probably a good-faith edit I thought I should mention it in case you disagree with my judgment. --Craig Stuntz 03:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

International trade
I've added more links on international trade data. Hope you like it.luizabpr

Image:Turning stone oneida casino.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Turning stone oneida casino.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. ccwaters 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)