User talk:Davidpdx/Archive04

This is an archive, Do not edit it in any way! If you want to leave me a message please use the current talk page

Archive January 1st 2008 to December 31st 2008

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kevin Mannix.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kevin Mannix.jpg. 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) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PeteSorenson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PeteSorenson.jpg. 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) 07:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:PeteSorenson.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:PeteSorenson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DJBullfish (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

DOM issues redivivus
Hi David. In this case the vandalism seems to be very similar to the recurrent vandalism of the Kingdom of Enenkio article, so I don't think Johnski is the culprit. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon participation spam
Hi there--I was looking through Category:WikiProject Oregon participants and noticed that although you've added the WP:ORE userbox to your page, it looks like you haven't actually signed up! If you would do so, that would be great, that way you can be kept informed of our collaboration of the week and anything else we may want you to know. Feel free to add an introduction too! Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Solkope
David I have reverted your edit. Please actually read edits before you choose to delete them - Your obvious bias against DOM meant you failed to read my wholly unbiased edits to the Solkope page which clearly and concisely explain the situation in relation to DOM and Rotuma without making a case for either point of view.

Irrespective of where you may personally stand, I am a Rotuman and have an intimate knowledge of the case and the history, and frankly the DOM dispute is the only thing worth mentioning in relation to that sandbank which frankly other would not deserve an article unto itself. Certainly the myth of the tupua' leptafeke (a misreported one at that) does not warrant a place on this page.

I hope I don't come across as offensive here but please understand, feel free to wage your war on the nonsense spouted by the DOM, but do not sacrifice the truth in your personal vendetta. The DOM did claim Solkope: my article says nothing to the contrary and nothing of a bias supporting their claim either.

--Mattbray 12:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

David I humbly beseech that you desist from these needless editing of my work on Solkope. My statement about the ABSENCE of DOM on Rotuma couldn't be further from DOM propaganda. I sense that you have some sort of automated editor that seeks to undo ANY edits to solkope NOT MADE BY YOU! Please refrain from further insults to my work unless you're willing to back up your insinuations about bias on my behalf Thanks --Mattbray 02:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, I have reverted your edit. I have also have a record of your IP address as 124.176.43.199 making similar edits not logged in under your alias which puts you in Australia . Per the prior ruling of the Arbitration Committee, I will report any and all alledged activity appearing to be sockpuppets of User:Johnski. Davidpdx (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * David I fear you suspicion is most unfounded. Please read my edits and the above comments to you before passing judgment on what I've written. Nothing I've written on Solkope has any DOM bias. People who called themselves DOM went to Rotuma and tricked a lot of people, before being found out for what they were and ejected from the island. That actually happened and it deserves to be reported on the page. --Mattbray 03:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * David I want to discuss this maturely. Its clear you've paid no direct attention to my work because then perhaps you would have noticed my edits pertain not only to DOM but also to the geographic nature of Solkope which is pertinent,unbiased and could certainly be left. I'm not interested in a petty editing war: read my edits and you will see the sense in them. Look at my contribution history! I've been a wikipedian for a while and have many diverse interests outside those of DOM, making your case for me being a sockpuppet a lot less plausible. --Mattbray 03:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Energy Policy
Can you please tell me why you undid my revisions? HI believe that the voting record of a politician on a very important issue is very pertinent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daredevil0405 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Vickiwalker.gif
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vickiwalker.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 10:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)