User talk:Capousa

Image copyright problem with Image:NO on CAFTA truck at Bush speech.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:NO on CAFTA truck at Bush speech.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in 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. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 16:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

''Capo's note 5-21-07: Guess I should have taken less than a year to respond. I am the photographer and copyright holder for the photo that was removed for lack of timely documentation.''

John Birch Society
OK, I am not going to get into a debate with you about anything, and certainly not about the role I think the Birch society has played in American political life. The only comment I made, and I stand by it, is that if we are striving here for neutral and verifiable sources to back up the contentions made in our articles, then we ought to be at least a bit wary of using a John Birch Society quote that complains about another group having an agenda. In my view, Wikipedia ought to stay away from partisan sources and try to go with more mainstream sources. Tvoz | talk 02:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, If you are comfortable deriving your POV based on what you are feed by "agenda-free" mainstream sources then I would agree a debate is not merited. Your position seems counter to the concept of Wikipedia however. If Wikipedia is just a rehash of material put out by "approved" mainstream media, what is the point? How long do you think Walter Duranty, Dan Rather and Judith Miller would have lasted on WP, even (or especially) if they had hidden behind pseudonyms? The truth is more important than the source.-- Jim Capo --Capousa 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)