User talk:DickClarkMises/archive3

proposed deletion: Laurence M. Vance
I've added the "prod" template to the article Laurence M. Vance, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Laurence M. Vance. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Non notable as an author--no book reviews or refs to them Non notable as an academic -- Written from an uncritical and autobiographic style Not verifiable, no references. DGG 03:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll make it
Best of luck in getting admissions and scholarships. I'm sure you'll succeed. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 07:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'Welcome'!
I appreciate the information you passed along. Several of the items were new to me, and such thoughtfulness always helps facilitate my learning. Although I'm quite new to the project in terms of authoring, I've watched Wikipedia's development over the last couple of years with an intense and rather zealous, interest. My own research and writing over the last 5 years makes the current work here, all the more intriguing. Thanks again.--gospelnous 00:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Karl Hess
Hi, Dick. You claim to be a Libertarian and Karl Hess admirer, yet didn't know he was a cannibal twin? It was an important fact of Hess' life. Look it up, learn about it and maybe even create a link explaining what it's about. This article is starting to look good; I should know, since I'm its chief architect . Hello from Canada! (unsigned comment by User:George415)

Global warming on LewRockwell.com
To prevent a counterproductive edit war, I ask that we discuss this issue on the talk page. The issue is over whether global warming is a scientific theory or not. I'll create a section on Talk:LewRockwell.com for this discussion in a moment. Pyrospirit Flames  Fire 14:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:George_reisman.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:George_reisman.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This image was properly sourced, with the description enoting that it came from the Mises Institute and had been released under the GFDL. I have expanded the source information at the image page in hopes that this will clarify this image's free status. DickClarkMises 17:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I know that guy
Hi, Dick Clark. This is Rob C., your fellow Auburn U. Wikipedian. I last spoke to you in person when you were running for the state lege. Nice to know how to find you in the WP world. -- Rob C (Alarob) 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your views on fascism on my talk page
Just so that we are crystal clear, I have no interest whatsoever in discussing Nazi philosophy on my talk page with anyone. Please confine it to the article talk pages. Thanks. MarkThomas 20:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your talk page and mine both exist for the advancement of the project. Thanks, DickClarkMises 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Frank Fetter
Again, good work so far, and it's good to see an infobox has already been added. I'm a bit of a stickler on article length for articles in GA review, I just believe they should have at least four to six sections at least to pass (plus meeting all of the other criteria). Have fun editing! --Nehrams2020 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when I did a quick search on Google while reviewing the article, I saw an abundance of information that could be included. That was the mean reason I failed it was for the article to be expanded by adding some of this information. --Nehrams2020 01:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Frank fetter-sig.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Frank fetter-sig.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Delviery man here!!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Trampton 20:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sobran.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Sobran.gif. 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. Abu badali (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, this open source activist is trying to delete Sobran's photo. He's been attacking Pat Buchanan's photo in recent days as well. Fair use images can be distributed freely. If someone's intentions of using an image contradicts fair use then it is not WP's problem.Yakuman 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Sorry Dick, you are quite right! Thanks for fixing my in-haste edit on Nazism. Much appreciated. MarkThomas 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gun_owners_of_america.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gun_owners_of_america.gif, has been listed at. Please look there 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. Nv8200p talk 01:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep for identification of previous logo. Yakuman (数え役満) 06:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Assistance, please
I seem to be the target of a some free content activists who are digging through my contributions. Now content about harmless Spanish soap operas are being challenged: Maria-ant.jpg, [Decisiones042.jpg]]. and Madreluna041.jpg. My addition of British screenwriter Melvyn Bragg's promotional head shot Mbragg1.jpg got me a nasty little edit war with an admin. This guy retaliated against me by protecting the National Review page, locking in somebody's disruptive edits that removed the entire "Criticism" section. I feel like I have stumbled across a band of people who believe that all content here must reflect their "free content" views.

I don't know what to do. After all, PR people make pictures and distribute them for publicity, so that sites like this can use them. These guys don't get that. They are tearing up hours and hours of work, quoting policy as they go along. I never thought I was the anti-free content type, but this is becoming worrying. It seems to be an organized campaign backed with admin power. Any thoughts? Yakuman (数え役満) 06:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have developed a strongly-worded rationale to challenge replaceable fair use claims. See Image:Sobran.gif. I throw the kitchen sink at this one, as I'm pushing the issue of what counts as replaceable. Yakuman (数え役満) 08:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use
Replied on my talk page. This is a hotly debated issue, but current policy is quite clear on deleting replaceable content, even if the replacement doesn't yet exists. Hope this clarifies the issue. ed g2s &bull; talk 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I (and, I assume, DCM) say the Sobran photograph was properly used in accordance with current Wikipedia poliicies and guidelines. I posted a lengthy rationale, which you sniffed at and disregarded.  You disagreed with DCM's upload and invoke disproportionated power to remove it.  Since discussion is fruitless, as I explained on your talk page, I reuploaded per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR.  You reinvoked disproportionate power again, over my objections.  That's all there is to it. Policy is not really the issue, but your ideological campaign. Is this behavior really constructive? Yakuman (数え役満) 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation policy requires us to have some deletion process. The en policy is to speedy delete non-compliant images after 48 hours. The image was tagged with rfu2 which describes this procedure, and subsequently deleted. If the person died, we would almost certainly have to resort to Fair Use. ed g2s &bull; talk 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You use the deletion process not to enforce policy, which is vague, but to enforce your personal ideological views about free content. I'm annoyed by this, since you decided a priori that all publicity photos must be deleted and are using me as some sort of test case. You know not and care not who Sobran is. Please do not disrupt my contributions once again just to make a WP:POINT. While you repeatedly dare me to take you to arbitration, that will not solve my short-term problem of your ongoing deletion campaign.  Censorship in the name of freedom is insane.  Yakuman (数え役満) 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The template (and the 7-day template before rfu, which I didn't create) were created out of consensus at WT:FU. Several hundred images are tagged daily and most are deleted. His contributions were put in front of all the editors at WT:FU, the first was deleted straight away by another user. We don't stop enforcing policy to appease editors who disagree with it. The user has taken my actions as personal, and accused me of stalking and harassment. I don't think any amount of debate will convince him that what I'm doing is anything but bullying. ed g2s &bull; talk 21:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 20:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Your editor review
Hello, I have noticed your editor review request in the backlog. To get other editors to review you, you need to submit the entry of your review to the main page of Editor review. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

 * A quick response to this secondary survey is of paramount importance to resolving this dispute, and would be greatly appreciated. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor review
I reviewed you. YechielMan 07:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Peace and Freedom
You are right. I checked the page for the site again, and I had not compared it carefully enough the first time. In fact, I was there in the first place because I thought it obvious that the organization is not unquestionably non-notable and thus not appropriate for a speedy. Since I am not the author, I an and did remove the speedy altogether. Naturally, whoever placed the speedy will undoubtedly want to send it to AfD, so I placed the AfD, and the article can be debated there with wider participation. My apologies for my utter carelessness--I was in a rush in the RW, but that isn't much of an excuse, for what I should have done was waited and checked. DGG 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Karen Kwiatkowski.jpg
How would LewRockwell.com hold the copyright on a photo from "Honour Betrayed". Aditional if they wish to release the photo under the GFDL an email confirming this will need to be sent to permissions@wikimedia.org .Geni 21:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * please do so.Geni 11:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)