User talk:Grundle2600/Archive 1

Nuclear Power
Hello! Thanks for your edits to nuclear power. They are good points, but we can't put all the good points into the Intro. I've moved one of your paragraphs down in the article to an appropriate place, and will put the other into nuclear safety. Again, thanks! Simesa 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

hello
Hi, I've noticed some of the good edits you've been making. Thanks for helping out! I sorta have a concern about your name though... There's a policy: Username. And I'm not sure if it's deliberate, but part of your name (explicit image warning: grundle) is also a term for a part of human genitalia, so it's probably not an okay name. I don't want you to get blocked because you're making good edits, but you might think about changing the name. If you go here: Changing_username, you can get the name changed pretty easily. --JayHenry 17:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, sorry! Hahaha, well, you should be okay then!  I was completely unaware of that reference.  Keep up the good work! --JayHenry 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you!--grundle2600

About my username
This is grundle2600. My user name is a reference to the video game "Adventure" on the Atari 2600. "Grundle" is the name of the green dragon in that game. See Adventure (Atari 2600).

"Accusation of vandalism
I'm afraid you are mistaken. I accused you of no such thing, I merely deleted (by reversion) your not-well-thought-out addition of an inaccurate statement that "The United Nations has come out in favor of nuclear power as a way to combat global warming", which 1. mistakenly conflates the United Nations with the IPCC; 2. does not "come out in favor", but rather is a far more nuanced position on nuclear power; and 3. was material that was inappropriately placed in the article. By consensus, significant changes to the GW article are discussed on that article's talk page first. I think mention of the IPCC's position on nuclear power is certainly worth mentioning, but you had it in the wrong place. Arjuna 09:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding to me. My addition to the article on global warming was accurate, and I cited my source. Just because you oppose nuclear power doesn't mean that my claim was not accurate. I orginally placed my statement right after a sentence that mentioned the Kyoto Treaty. If it's OK to mention the Kyoto Treaty in that particular section, then it's OK to mention nulcear power. Just because you have a personal opposition to nuclear power does not mean that my statement was not true. --grundle2600

For some reason, you think my position on nuclear power is somehow relevant to my deletion; it isn't. It was simply inaccurate and put in the wrong place. Aside from that (not that it's relevant anyway) you are incorrect about my opposition to nuclear -- I strongly support it. Arjuna 21:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. OK. Well, I put it in a different section, as was suggested by a few people. Let's hope it's still there tomorrow! Grundle2600 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR
I hope this isn't necessary, but be aware of WP:3RR William M. Connolley 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice. Grundle2600 13:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Sabrina76.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Sabrina76.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. &#124;EPO&#124; 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed it.Grundle2600 12:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Phoebe Cates
Hi, regarding your question about the two images I removed. The first image is a non-free image which could be replaced by a free content image. See Non-free content criteria#1. The second image, the screenshot from Drop Dead Fred, doesn't add significantly to the article. In the filmography is only mentioned that she plays in Drop Dead Fred. An image doesn't add much to that. See criteria #8. Hope this helps, if not, feel free to leave me a message on my talk. Garion96 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not saying it's not a great picture or that's not relevant, but it's not a free content image. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. We do use images (limited) under fair use (non-free) but only when it adds significantly to the article. If the article would go in detail about her role in Drop Dead Fred and that image was needed to explain something, then it would add significantly to the article. We also don't use fair use when it could theoretically be replaced by a free image. this image is a great example of an image which adds significantly to the article and which is irreplaceable. Garion96 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scandal goodbye to you.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Scandal goodbye to you.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 '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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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. Rory096 02:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I fixed it. Grundle2600 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FU
Your recent edit to Phoebe Cates was reverted. WP:FU prohibits us using anything other than freely-licensed images to depict living people. --Yamla 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. OK. Thanks for the explanation. Grundle2600 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Global warming
Please see Talk:Global warming for extensive discussion related to the material you added to the Global warming article. --TeaDrinker 06:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Schulz is also erasing my work. I think that it is terrible how we are being censored. It takes this guy only a minute to totally revert all that I've written. --Csn pilot (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. People shouldn't erase my stuff. Instead, they should add their own stuff. I never erase anyone's stuff. Grundle2600 07:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is your stuff is blatantly false. Stuff that is blatantly false should be erased. You're conflating the US with the world. Yes, the hottest year on record in the US, after the minor correction, is 1934 (during the dust bowl). Prior to this minor correction, far fewer than 9 of the 10 hottest years in the US were in the last decade. However, after the correction 9 of the 10 hottest years in the world were still in the last decade. Do you understand the distinction here and why your edit contained factual errors? If you were to fix your errors (essentially the same information, minus the errors, has been posted on Stephen McIntyre's article) it would not be relevant to global warming. Ben Hocking (talk 13:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But it's still relevant that NASA admitted to making an error. But I won't put it back in the article again. Grundle2600 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think that we already have more than sufficient evidence that NASA can make errors. Anyone who thinks they are infallible is probably also illiterate. ;) Ben Hocking (talk 17:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Maunyi ant, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Rjd0060 02:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonnie Hayes
OH MY GOD! That's such great news, thanks - that was one of my favorite albums, and to have it on CD will be fantastic. Thanks again! --GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚ 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I just realized you were the one who started the Bonnie Hayes article. I spotted it ans user WWGB had flagged it for speedy deletion, so I embarked on my crusade to make it substantial enough to keep. GeĸrίtzĿ..<B>.</B>•˚<B>˚</B> 17:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm happy - already pre-ordered the CD at Amazon! --Geĸrίtz<I>Ŀ<B>.</B></I><B>.</B><B>.</B>•˚<B>˚</B> 19:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)

State Children's Health Insurance Program
I think your recent edit (which I did not revert) had some important information, and I think it's unfortunate that you chose to present the information in such a POV manner that it was deleted. It's important that readers see how Congress has handled SCHIP issues in the context of pork spending and other misplaced priorities. But to cast it as a partisan issue only invites its deletion, and justifiably so. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a source of unbiased information, not a political soapbox. I think if you look at other articles' discussion of equally controversial issues you will not see such thinly veiled partisan attacks. SCHIP is not a Democratic or a Republican problem. It is a problem with the powers of the U.S. government, including Congress as a whole and the President. I hope you or some other editor will try to write the facts without the political slant. I may do so when I have time. Ward3001 16:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you rcomments and suggestions. Grundle2600 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Xenoposeidon
Hi Grundle,

Thanks so much for the new article on Xenoposeidon. Your work is greatly appreciated. If you are interested in dinosaurs and editing dinosaur articles, please consider joining WikiProject Dinosaurs; we'd love to have you aboard. Please also consider expanding any of the short dinosaur articles on WP:DABS. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I love dinosaurs! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaekelopterus rhenaniae
Just wanted to be sure you were going to add more to this article. Otherwise, someone might tag it for deletion. Cheers. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes! I am adding to it right now. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Blue Tree requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page you created, you may want to consult WP:Your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth -timed 02:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Pyrops candelarius vs Pyrops candelaria
Hi. I happen to be an expert in nomenclature and taxonomy. There is a formal, official Code governing the proper spelling of scientific names (the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). One of the rules is that the name of a species must agree in gender with the name of the genus. The name "Pyrops" is masculine, and all names in the genus must be formed to also be masculine. While it is true that nearly everyone in the world refers to the species as "candelaria", those folks who do so are all wrong, and their ignorance of the rule is no reason to perpetuate the misspelling. That's exactly why rules of nomenclature exist; so when there is a difference of opinion, there is one clear and definitive answer. The genus Pyrops is masculine, therefore, all the species names in the genus must also be masculine. I've made a note to the article to clarify this, and did so on the page for the genus, as well. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it. Yes, I agree with you - those other people are wrong. I was wrong. Thanks for teaching me. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Animal
When you linked Agelas clathrodes in the Animal article, you stripped out the italicization. All species names must be italicized in Wikipedia. I have fixed it, but I wanted to remind you to be careful about that. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 12:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Health care in Canada article
Grundle2600, there is no consensus for your reverts. I have stated my concerns on the article talk page, but you have not responded there. Can you please seek consensus before reverting again? Also, could you please format your references as full citations? Inserting only a bare URL leaves work for other editors. Thank you! --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's better to have two conflciting opinions than to just erase stuff that you disagree with. I am looking up the stuff about how to format citations. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you also read up on undue weight. Here are quotes that apply to our dispute over the Sally Pipes quote:  "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Just because one biased person makes an obviously inaccurate statement in an editorial does not by itself justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. If you insist on its inclusion, I will continue to insist on pointing out the obvious inaccuracy and bias of the statement.  And just because you can find a litany of examples to illustrate your obvious POV on this article, does not justify their inclusion in the article without balancing statements or examples.  I will continue to prune and summarize and seek balance. --Sfmammamia (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying. But for the record, I never remove other people's stuff. I like to add to the articles. I never take stuff out. But I won't get into an editing war with you. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Toshiba Micro Nuclear Reactor
Another editor has added the " " template to the article Toshiba Micro Nuclear Reactor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, 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. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Global warming and polar bears
I think the history of certain polar bear populations in the last 60 years belongs in the polar bear article, specifically this section Polar_bear. As you can see from that section, there apparently isn't a lot of historic data, but there are a fair number of sources that show details of recent polar bear population dynamics. I strongly suspect that our knowledge of the danger of global warming for polar bears takes into account recent population dynamics, so recent population dynamics are a detail that is quite out of place in Effects of global warming. Feel free to organize and re-write the polar bear section, though, as long as you are willing to read all of the sources cited already. - Enuja (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith about other editors. It is not constructive to write about what you see as my aims.   Please keep talk page comments to things that help improve the article, and avoid writing about what other editors might be thinking or trying to do.  For more information, please see the talk page guidelines.  - Enuja  (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Coskata
Another editor has added the  template to the article Coskata, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, 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. BJBot (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Coskata
Hi there. At present the article reads like an add. It also only has references from the companies own website. These alone are not suitable for wikipedia. Also it had multiple categories that suggests to me the author was trying to gain higher levels of exposure. It was for these reasons I added the tag.--Alex Marshall (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Diane Feinstein
Your edits to this pages have been reverted. Please see Neutral point of view and Biographies of a living person, which are listed in the welcome box. Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
I have nominated Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. <font face="Calibri" size="4px" color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai  <font face="Calibri" color="#660000">talk ♦ contribs 19:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries, happy to help source it. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinton lies
I agree with you that Clinton lied; however, the cited reliable source uses the term "exaggerated" and we cannot simply substitute the terms to satisfy our own points of view. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thermal Depolymerization
Hey! I saw your comment in your edit summary....while it is disapointing that more plants have not been built, the one plant is there, and is operating. The company appears to have made a business decision not to build lots of plants until they really get the operation of the carthage one down. This sort of process development always takes way longer and costs way more than it seems like it should. So, don't give up hope, though it may be a long tunnel until there is much more light.....(full disclosure: I work for a landfill that would be very interested in a plant, and I've contacted the company about it.)  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * well, I really do think it is just poor business planning on thier part. It wouldn't be the first time someone screwed up a good idea because they were not a great business person (both Edison, and Tesla come right to mind).  Eventually, the good ideas get moving.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

June 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. ''Further, CNSNews.com is not considered a reliable source for accusations made in a WP:BLP. '' Loonymonkey (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just in case you haven't noticed the notices in the article and on the talk page, please note that the "Issue stances" section in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 to which you are adding content is under consideration for deletion. You might want to slow down on that and/or comment in the discussion because those efforts may be lost if it happens.  Wikidemo (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Chocolate covered ants
A tag has been placed on Chocolate covered ants requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TubularWorld (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards and his haircuts
I left this on the talk page. I'm not the editor who was rv'ing you but I would have - the WashPost article does not make any mention of the impact the traveling barber had on the environment, so the cite can not be used as an example of such. That's synthesis see WP:SYNTH, not censorship. However, if you wanted to write about Edwards haircuts, well, that cite would be just fine. Best of luck, &#124;EBY&#124; (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for the explanation. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Roadster transmission
Grundle2600, your passionate displeasure with Tesla Motors' handling of the Roadster transmission issues leads me to wonder whether you own a scheduled production slot for a Roadster with the "interim" two speed transmission that you're no longer happy with. If so, please contact me (talk page) and perhaps we can arrange a trade. Thanks. --Mwarren us (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Worst movie of all time
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Stijndon (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to The worst movie of all time. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject
Hello, If you are interested in participating in a proposed new Wikiproject called Left-Wing bias Watch, please visit the proposal talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals (proposal is near bottom of the page) Also you can leave a reply on my user talk page. Thanks. Aletheon (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Weidman School of Economics
I have nominated Weidman School of Economics, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Weidman School of Economics. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama Obama
Can you explain this edit of yours, please? Splette :) <font style="color:#104E8B">How's my driving? 04:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a redirect to the closest sounding thing to "Obama Obama" that wikipedia has an article for. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind: this Splette :) <font style="color:#104E8B">How's my driving? 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Peak uranium
I reverted your drive-by edit. 1) You are right. We cannot run out of uranium.  But peak uranium is not about running out of uranium.  It's about the rate of supply peaking.  2) The reference you gave is to a personal web page belonging to John McCarthy. Please see WP:RS. 3) If you had read the "reference", it says that "assuming breeder reactors". 4) And, if you had read the Peak uranium article, you would have found that peak uranium will occur because breeders and reprocessing are not being widely deployed. 5) We have dealt with the inclusion of the "reference" you gave several times. It's very POV.   The point I'm making is that you perhaps need to think a little about your drive-by edits.  You seem to be very quick in editing articles to fit your point of view.Kgrr (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gerardo Puisseaux
A tag has been placed on Gerardo Puisseaux requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ThreeDee912 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've deleted Levi Johnston, as it's not a likely search term for Shotgun Wedding. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've rolledback your edit to Sarah Palin. Thank you for your interest! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 US prez election
Oops, sorry. Thanks for spotting that. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Stop your disruptive editing to campaign-related articles, now. I am in process of leaving a more comprehensive warning and explanation, but you are doing this faster than I can reasonably respond. If you continue you may well be blocked temporarily from further editing, and possibly banned from election-related articles. Wikidemon (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is supposed to be open to everyone. My edits are not disruptive. It is your censorship that is disruptive. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

More complete notice
(in lieu of above) Please stop now, and take any disputed content additions to the talk page, in one place please. You spammed the same poorly sourced POV-ish material about the vice presidential debate to four different articles where they are marginally relevant at best, and reverted them (some more than once, putting you at WP:3RR) - and started more-or-less identical discussion threads on five articles. I will not engage any further. Your accusations of "censorship", "dictatorship", etc., violate the no personal attacks /  civility policies. Please slow down, try to work with other editors, and realize that not everything you wish to add to the encyclopedia will be accepted by others. If others do not agree, you are supposed to work with them to establish a consensus on the article talk page rather than engaging in edit wars. Also, please be aware that Obama-related articles are on article probation, and that editors who disrupt those articles may be banned from further editing on the subject, or blocked temporarily, to avoid disruption. See Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Wikidemon (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Following is a templated article probation notice on the subject -
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia!  In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation.

Note - all's well that ends well. Orderly collegial editing has resumed so for anyone viewing this, nothing to see here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Editorials
The reason why editorials are never reliable sources is the purpose of an editorial is to present a point of view and is never balanced reporting like an article. You will note in bold from WP:RS, "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." They can not be extracted and presented as fact. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect "Chemical Equator"
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on "Chemical Equator", by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because "Chemical Equator" is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting "Chemical Equator", please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
You are seemly one sided in nearly all of your edits. There is a Neutral point of view policy that you should probably look at? thanks Nissanaltima (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My edits are biased in favor of truth, accuracy, and citing sources. I corrected your mistake. In the Trickle-down economics article, you said the Bush tax cut was "just for the wealthiest percentile." I corrected it, and I even quoted your source, which said "The tax rate declined across all income levels." In other words, I am biased in favor of truth, accuracy, and citing sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Poverty in the United States
Please read WP:Synthesis and WP:Coatrack. I hope that clarifies the issue for you. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to write an essay about the benefits of two-parent homes and housing regulations. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the fact that you summarized the twelve points. Today I left in your paragraph about marriage, because it directly relates to alleviating poverty. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:V and WP:RS. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to this on your talk page. It's interesting that you erased my stuff about the Wall St. Journal editorials that explain how pro-union policies drive away investment and jobs, but you didn't erase the stuff about "promoting unionization by enacting the Employee Free Choice Act." Grundle2600 (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop belly-aching. Please cite relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines you think are being violated. I recommend that you spend your time constructively and look for sources that explicitly relate job creation etc. to poverty. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A living wage job is the best way to get out of poverty. When bad government policies destroy those jobs, it makes poverty worse. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this info needs to be someplace. Closed shop, Open shop, and Union shop may already have occurred to you. The house prices biz is less obvious to me but clearly important info. Student7 (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's OK to talk about something in multiple articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Look
I am a racist communist piece of shit that has no clue whats going on when it comes to politics. What the fuck did you expect? Malik Shabazz (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of your own personal opinions, you are supposed to obey wikiedia's rules. I am a libertarian, and I follow the rules.Grundle2600 (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The edit history of this page shows that you are an imposter. But you had me fooled. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for this message, which was left by a vandal who is impersonating me. I've left a message at Usernames for administrator attention asking for help. Thank you for your understanding, and for reverting my userpage. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'm glad to help out. And you're welcome. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Loonymonkey (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, so much for the idea of free speech at wikipedia. Obama's "spread the wealth" quote has been very popular in the media, but the liberal censors at wikipedia don't want people to read about it, so they threaten to ban me. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that is the way it appears to you right now. However, let me ask you this:  if you saw vandalism inserted into an article three times, would it be acceptable for you to contact the person inserting it and threaten to burn down their house?  No, right?  Then we agree on a simple principle:  Even when the offense is real, not all responses are acceptable.  Continually reverting a page is considered an unacceptable response because it perpetuates an edit war.  The three-revert rule -- which binds all parties, including the "liberal censors" you think you are fighting -- is designed to make people seek solutions to resolve rather than perpetuate edit wars.


 * To address some of your other ideas: no one threatened to ban you.  If you read up above, you were threatened with a block, which is a temporary revocation of editing privileges, and which is a frequent punishment of those who violate the three-revert rule.  Bans are permanent revocations of editing privileges, and while those whose behavior earns them repeated blocking may eventually get bans as well, it is not accurate to claim that anyone threatened to ban you.  As for "free speech", Wikipedia isn't for free speech.  Wikipedia is a project which has its own goals and its own procedures.  Anyone who is able and willing to work according to Wikipedia's procedures, and thus further Wikipedia's goals, is given the chance to use Wikipedia's resources to do so.  Wikipedia has never pretended to anyone that it was offering editing capabilities in order to be a platform for yours, or anyone's, free speech.

Krugman political views
Hello--no big deal on the Krugman bit. It seems weird to me to have the "however" non-typically-progressive bits before there's any detail on why he's considered progressive in the first place. But I see your point about not being relative to Bush... it's just that detail on his progressivism should be filled in. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dori Kelly

 * Speedy deleted per WP:BIO -- only assertion was that she's acted in commercials, which I don't think is an assertion of notability. If you've got more, let me know.  NawlinWiki (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting record

 * "Why did you remove one rating but not the other two?"

Because I was focusing on that particular area at the time, after having a conversation about it with another editor. This was not a conscious effort to favor one area over another.
 * "Also, if a politician's statement is contradicted by his voting record, why not let readers know about this contradiction, and then make up their own mind about what the politician's real position is?"

It is not quite a simple as that. The article is about stated political positions, not voting records (which are loosely related, but never directly related). In this particular case (government waste), another editor was trying to make a political point by contrasting Obama's voting record with McCain's, despite the fact that neither set of data concern a political position. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "The candidate's voting record says more than any words that come from the candidate's mouth."
 * I'm not sure I agree with that, although I see where you are coming from. The problem with using a voting record as an indicator of position is that very often, deals are performed where a certain number of senators/representatives vote in a certain way to give the impression of bipartisanship, etc. Not all votes are a true reflection of a politician's views. This is true of the British government too, where party whips will essentially orchestrate votes to show unity with the other party. A classic example was the original vote on the "bailout", which was a frakking shambles - the party whips failed to get everyone to do what they were supposed to do, and the vote failed. Many politicians ended up voting against the political position in order to get the legislation through. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Zeituni Onyango
A tag has been placed on Zeituni Onyango requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Terrillja (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ITN

 * Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Automotive crisis
Thanks for your interest in this article and your many contributions - good stuff! I wonder, nevertheless, if it is wise to refer to paid workers coming in to do crosswords and watch TV. In my opinion, it is a slant given by the reporter in question at the time (two years ago) and has little to do with the situation in general. The way I see it is that rather than fire unionised workers, the companies prefer to keep many of them on the payroll and have them check in each day even if there is no work for them. Other edits in this direction have already been made and I would invite you reconsider whether your comments could not be worded in a more neutral way while keeping the same interesting reference. Within the next couple of weeks, the Big Three could either be successful in getting some kind of bailout or, if not, one or more might face bankruptcy. In either event, the article could become important background for a news item. It should therefore present facts rather than opinion.-Ipigott (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a fact, not an opinion, that they do crossword puzzles. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama
There is an article to add who he might choose or has chosen. Please check at Presidential transition of Barack Obama article for that kind of edits and don't forget to be careful with editorial editing. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Corporate welfare, Ron Paul quote
I do not think the inclusion of this quote is appropriate. I went to the source you give, and nowhere does it use the term "corporate welfare." I am placing a comment on the article's talk page suggesting its deletion. Academic38 (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Auto Bailout & the crossword puzzle issue
Hi Grundle2600! I have been following your discussion and I hope you don't mind me suggesting something. What about rewriting the information on the crossword puzzle issue and putting it into something like a "Trivia" section? If it has caught the attention of the public (like the "CEOs fly private luxury jets holding a begging bowl" issue) its mention in the article is relevant from the encyclopedic point of view. A great sector of the American public is outraged at certain past practices of the Big Automakers and their past background is now under public scrutiny. The facts of 2008 are the culmination of a process and there is no need for whitewashing the past if the encyclopedia wants to keep relevant and informative. - Xufanc (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the idea. Actually, I'm pretty happy with the way that paragrpah was as of yesterday, even without mentioning the crossword puzzles. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Caroline Kennedy
If you are sincere in wanting to have a section about Kennedy's political positions, you might want to wait until you have some material, and some justification for the subsections you chose to create. You might request assistance from other editors on the article talk page. If, on the other hand, you are trying to make a point by setting up a blank section, please stop now - it's not helpful or appropriate. Thank you Tvoz / talk 06:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. That's a good point. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Album of Dinosaurs.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Album of Dinosaurs.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I took care of it. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Shitty cars" image
Hello, I noticed you placed that meme image of a Ford ad mocking the auto bailout on a couple of articles. Though I did not nominate the image for deletion, as it may have a legitimate place somewhere, the places you put it were not improved by its presence. The image, while good for a laugh, is unrepresentative of the root causality of the auto industry crisis, as well as of corporate welfare. Additionally, it degrades the article: imagine if a first-time Wikipedia user were to go to that page to learn more about the bailout and the events surrounding it. They would likely not take Wikipedia seriously as a resource. For these reasons the image is not useful or suitable as a titular image. I'll throw you a bone and say perhaps it has a place under a section called "criticism of the bailout" or as a representation of the Big Three's failure to respond to consumer needs somewhere down the page. To be frank, though... still probably not. But thank you for your editing efforts. See also: Talk:Automotive industry crisis of 2008 The Sartorialist (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the criticism section would be a good place for it. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Autobailout.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Autobailout.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. After I uploaded the image, I saw that the same image had already appeated in the article where I had intended to put it. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston
A tag has been placed on Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Flying Sock Monkeys
A tag has been placed on Flying Sock Monkeys requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Xenocide <font color="007FFF">Talk undefined<font color="007FFF">Contributions 01:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the speedy-deletion in favor of a slower 5-day proposed deletion, see below. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  06:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Flying Sock Monkeys
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Flying Sock Monkeys, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Notability does not rise to Notability, Notability (music), Notability (people), or any other notability criteria. Only stated notability was tied directly to the Creative Arts Program mentioned in the Observer reference, and is not independent.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  06:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Last Summer in the Hamptons
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Last Summer in the Hamptons, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Trivial article about a non-notable indy movie. IMDB doesn't mention any awards.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  06:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See Notability (films) for notability criteria. Criteria #1, "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics," is probably the easiest one to meet, but reliable sources are needed to back up such a claim. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  06:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Carmen L. Robinson
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Carmen L. Robinson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Does not meet notability standards of Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (people).

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  06:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't take these prods personally. I really hope these subjects turn out to be notable enough to keep, but it's not looking like it.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  06:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Autobailout.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Autobailout.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. 06:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Carmen L. Robinson concerns
I'm still concerned over the current notability of Carmen L. Robinson. I'm hoping I'm wrong about this unfortunately I didn't get much feedback from WikiProject Pittsburg to convince me of that. I've asked for more feedback on WikiProject biography, maybe someone there will tell me I'm wrong. Or maybe they'll tell me I'm right. Either way, watch for changes on Carmen L. Robinson and Talk:Carmen L. Robinson. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks.


 * If you do erase the article, would you please at least wait until February? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a message on the article's talk page, Talk:Carmen_L._Robinson. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've tagged your copy for deletion and requested that the deleting administrator take care of the move as well.  If he does not, I'll do it.  You'll know it's done when Talk:Carmen_L._Robinson is red and User talk:Grundle2600/Carmen_L._Robinson is blue. Please do not edit either article or either talk page in the meantime.  Once the move is complete, only edit User:Grundle2600/Carmen_L._Robinson and User talk:Grundle2600/Carmen_L._Robinson. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Flo from Progressive Insurance.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Flo from Progressive Insurance.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the image from the articles that the image did not have the explanation for, and kept the image in the one article that the image page does have the explanation for. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright images on user page
Hi, while it is a great idea to dress up your user page with photos, you cannot use copyrighted photos for that purpose. Under US law and Wikipedia policy copyright images are required to comply with fair-use provisions, which user pages do not. This means that the use of copyrighted images on user pages is illegal. I have removed the copyrighted images from your user page. For more information please see WP:user page. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK.

I'd have rather removed them myself, once you had told me. I always do what people say when they tell me I'm in violation of the rules. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuff I like
You may not be able to use images on user pages, but you can link to them, like so: Calvin and Hobbes. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I still also have a user box for Calvin and Hobbes too. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)