User talk:Jbolden1517/Archive3


 * old talk User talk:Jbolden1517/Archive1 User talk:Jbolden1517/Archive2
 * older talk at: /helpfile
 * notes as /notes

Copyright problems board
Hi. I understand your confusion with Hospice care in the United States; when I first got there, I was a bit thrown as well, since the copyvio tag was very non-specific and there was no note to offer guidance at the talk page. What I'm here to clarify, though, since copyright concerns are under discussion there is simply how the copyvio tag works. With respect to your note in edit summary here that the article was not listed under January 24th, the copyvio template automatically defaults to the present day in article display (if you look at it now, you'll see it says "January 27th"). To find a listing, you scan the entirety of the Copyright problems page. It should be somewhere within the 7 or 8 day span. In this case, it was listed under January 19th: Copyright problems/2009 January 19. Relisting works out for the best, though, since the contributor was not notified. I have remedied that, which will allow him or her a chance to help address the matter. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

General rawking

 * I couldn't find the exact barnstar for this that I wanted. I was looking for one that said, "I think it's really great that you were checking in on the problems on that article, that you followed up on it over time, that you were concerned about the potential biting of the original contributor, and that you helped provide some guidance for the new contributor who stepped up to address it. Diligence doesn't quite catch it, but it comes close; you certainly have been conscientious. :) Basically, I think that kind of behavior is the very embodiment of WP:AGF and helps create an environment perfect for open collaboration and mentoring newcomers. Hence, go, you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you should happen to speak to Tbolden, please let him (<--presumption) know that the article has been assessed. He suggested he'd be interested in going for GA, and we've got advice at that article. I left him a note at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

AFD for List of hospice-related topics
You wrote me:
 * Jerzy I have listed Articles for deletion/List of hospice-related topics I wanted to notify you. jbolden1517Talk  03:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you chose to notify me bcz my name was the only one you found in the then single-edit history, but my ed-summ makes it clear that i am not an author of the list, and merely copied material created by others. (I did so bcz it was unsuitably combined with material more deserving of having the edit history stay with it.) Your saying (i've add the emphasis) "the author" seems to imply you disregarded any consideration of notifying the real authors of the content, who can be found in the history of List of hospice programs (which you edited after me). While i have no substantive objection to deletion, nor opinion that your reasons for deletion are unsound, i think your momentary lapse of attention, your misunderstanding of the logic many colleagues apply to notifying creators of the text being discarded, or whatever was involved, casts a pall on that deletion process. Thus i urge you to withdraw your nomination without prejudice, and leave any renomination to someone else who starts afresh. I'll monitor this talk page for a while, in case you see a need to reply, so we can keep the dialog in one place. --Jerzy•t 07:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've notified people at the source article .  Actually notifying you and having you indicate the source of the original contribution is the point of notification.  I consider this part of the process not a lapse in the process.  And if someone there wants to notify someone else on their talk pages, even better.  There is still many days left in this AFD discussion.  If you think the process is corrupted then feel free to vote keep in the AFD on the grounds that the process so far is corrupted beyond repair.  My feeling is AFD is working exactly the way it is supposed to.
 * Thank you for notifying me of the appropriate talk page to place additional notification in. jbolden1517Talk  15:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at WP:AN
Hello Jbolden1517. See Administrators'_noticeboard. This article offers peculiar problems to everyone who tries to fix it up. Still, you should have anticipated some headwind when you added large paragraphs of material that contained blog links. Your reference to 'Revert vandalism' in this edit summary is not going to attract much support, since current policy does not consider this to be vandalism. There have been many additions and reversions of the blog links and your own firm conviction that they must remain in the article is unlikely to decide the matter one way or the other. You will be better off trying to persuade other people, and get a Talk page consensus to support you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

your edit summary
Thanks for the explanation, it isn't necessary to correct the edit summary. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just checking
Hi. I just wanted to drop by and say that I hope I'm not overwhelming your cousin with the rapid evolution of the article. As you probably know, my motivation is to get up to speed quickly for the GA review. I remain highly impressed with his work, which is why I nominated the article for GA to begin with, and I hope he doesn't feel marginalized. I'm guessing I have a lot more free time than he does, since his service to Hospice in the United States doesn't stop with the Wikipedia article. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh no, he doesn't feel marginalized at all. He is thrilled with the help, trust me he is grateful not unhappy it in the slightest.  He is trying to stay out of your way since you go so fast.  He's going to jump in with some refs (he was asking me about the correct template) but he's probably going to wait till Monday or possibly later.  You two work great together.  Keep going and thank you for doing such a great job!  jbolden1517Talk  16:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, good. Since he told me a while back he was feeling some ownership issues (understandable, since this is his major baby!) I've been worried about making him feel unwelcome. :) Thank you for letting me know. (I am, by the way, beginning to envision a possible shiny star for that article! I'm sure the FA review process is brutal, but I think that the article deserves it.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it will be the first FA for both of us I think. Certainly it will give Tbolden good habits, and there is no way I won't learn something.  It will force me to learn WP:MOS and MOS sub articles cold.
 * In terms of ownership issues, he isn't yet. I told him he was likely to.  No one has shown up yet who hates his article and wants to alter huge chunks of it.  Let say a person who is coming from hospice=suicide=sin camp or hospice vs. euthanasia. Or someone who thinks this should be merged to create "hospice care in English speaking countries", or split into "Hospice Care in the NorthEast/South/Midwest/SouthWestern United States" or....    I don't know anything about medicine so it is hard for me to speculate, but you know what I'm talking about.  Then again my first Caldera OpenLinux I have never had to deal with a POV pusher yet.   So maybe he gets lucky.
 * Anyway you have been doing a great job of mentoring him in this article. jbolden1517Talk  16:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can certainly see the potential. :/ I've been involved in a few contentious articles, especially helping out at the WP:BLPN noticeboard. But you never know where ownership issues are going to pop up. The most aggressive I've ever encountered (from a person presumably over the age of 13; I've run into some kids) was related to the rock band Styx. (People care? Why, yes, they do.) If we go with FA, if we get some images, it's probably going to force me to stop being lazy about citation styles. :) Since the template displays correctly, I tend to put the details in whatever order I happen to think of including them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I was around (not involved in) the Ashley Simpson controversy with bans, bot attacks, people being de-sysoped, wheel wars, 5 RFCs, 2xto arbcom and editorials at wikitruth. I'm not shocked at all a rock band would be messy. jbolden1517Talk 17:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All over Ashley Simpson? Holy cow! :O Should you happen to speak to your cousin before he comes back on WP, would you mind telling him that I've placed a proposal at his talk page for how we might fix the final problem? It's in the pretty orange box. :) (My favorite color!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I can't see the difference between the proposal and the new, so whatever that one line was I must not regard it as essential. :) I did remove what was already there, since the paste resulted it in it being duplicated. Is that good, then? Should I let Hamilstone know we are good for another go? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He sort of answered me himself while I was writing this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep all that over Ashley. But there was a time when due to Wikipedia Ashley was one of the most documented people in the world, something like 200 pages: every album, every song, every concert tour.... This was before WP:RS was applied so seriously and deletionism was less of a force.

I think what you wrote is good. There is one problem where we are describing an illegal situation. Tony is looking to do document this more gracefully. I've been encouraging him to take it to talk page for the article. I'm still mentoring regarding culture and that is is OK to say "line xyz has problems ABC I'm fixing"... jbolden1517Talk 19:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Which situation is illegal? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After rereading his comments, I bet I know. He's talking about the DNR requirements of some hospices? (I'm presuming that's what he meant about "code". :)) If so, is he sure? I've found another source that suggests individual hospices can make their own determinations: that's two reliable sources from 2008. Of course, things might have changed recently? I'll look around and see what I can find. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take it up at his talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes that's the line. There was something about medicare / HICVA (sp?) .....  The issue here is that many hospices have policies "off the books", so it is going to be hard to find RS's.  I know he's thinking about a way to handle that line.    BTW if you don't mind me asking, what caused your interest in Hospice?  I get the original interest from Copyright VIO since you are the copyright queen but what happened after that, that kept your interest? jbolden1517Talk  20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your cousin did. I was extremely impressed at the amount of work he put into the article, and I wanted to help him get it sourced to meet WP:V so that it wouldn't be quickly gutted as WP:OR. :) Once I got into it, I got into it, so to speak. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Of course, I have to add, if I had known he was your cousin, I might have left it to you. But by the time I realized that, I was already involved. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I see we are of a like mind on that. I agree I think in 2006 (when wikipedia was growing quickly) there was an attitude that good articles often came from good editorials. Or as the saying used to go "factopedia comes from cruftopedia". I like improving and verifying rather than deleting. I see all these kids who write well written OR about the boots of some anime character and then it gets deleted and they never come back. The article IMHO is harmless, I think we need different standards for "Shoes of Kathryn Janeway" and Iraq War. More focus on creating the best most useful article possible WP:IAR, is about the only rule ignored anymore. Just my $.02.

Or to pick him. He would love to put together an article on scenarios and appropriate responses for the elderly (essentially the right kinds of question to ask) but there is no way to get that to meet WP:V, but it would be really useful (I think, again I don't know the topic).

Anyway you are doing more than I would of. Heck I'm having troubling putting together refs for something I am expert in User:Jbolden1517/CM/Chart. :-( jbolden1517Talk  20:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't like the atmosphere of hostility that new contributors often face, especially running the "new page patrol" gauntlet. I think new page patrol is important, but some of the people who volunteer to do it may not be of the proper temperament for the job. I'm somewhere in the middle on the inclusionism/deletionism divide. I can't claim to be an inclusionist, given that I have personally deleted over 5,000 articles on Wikipedia, but I don't believe that deletion should be the first resort, and I don't believe that even when an article simply doesn't belong that we should be unkind about it. If an article is fixable, we should either try to fix it or try to help the creator do so. Of course, my approach probably has something to do with the fact that I volunteered for quite a long time at the Drawing board, so I am used to new contributors, and I have always been excited to find new contributors who are genuinely motivated to help. Good luck with your sourcing! Your cousin's topic may be a bit simpler to research. :) (I did a fair amount of study on the early Church in college as part of my focus on the Early Middle Ages, but I'm years out of touch. :/) Anyway, for me, it's back to WP:CP. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

All articles related to Sarah Palin are under article probation at this time
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. -- KillerChihuahua?!? 19:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

EGC Saints article
Go check out Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica and see if this is a version that satisfies you. Hopefully, we can work together to get this article up to standards and fully wikified, or whatever. (Zack Anderson) 75.73.50.113 (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lisa Boyle Suzuki ad.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Lisa Boyle Suzuki ad.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) 07:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Didn't mean to step on your edit. I wasn't sure how to incoporate it after the edit conflict. I'm off to bed now, so please fix it again the way you intended, with my apologies. Night.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Logo
Thanks for your edit. It opens up some interesting discussions. I refer back to Brian Harvey CSLs Bk 1 Ch 5. In practice I alway taught Logo as a functional language while my students resisted like hell and tried to be procedural. Multi paradigm- definitely. I suppose it is back to source code to test the argument. Asa you have made a change in the infobox- don't you want to ce the article to ripple the changes through. You are more up to date than me- so probably will be able to add some interesting references. I followed your link to Reflexive languages but doesn't their need to be a back link to logo- and cursorily examining the examples, some seemed contorted: wouldn't a Logo example be clearer. (maybe derived from CSLS Bk 1 Abstract data type p265) Look I am guessing. I am away from the Logo scene now. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Torvindus
Can you please block Torvindus, who is speading slander about me. See email./83.172.124.101 (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not an admin. who is on Christ Myth is one.  You could ask him.  jbolden1517Talk  14:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

revert on IPU
FYI on this revert- see WP:ALSO, which says "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in 'See also'". Cheers, tedder (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Xenos Christian Fellowship
Since both of us are interested in Xenos, lets try to be more coordinated in or efforts to improve the page. I posted some stuff on the talk page. Oldag07 (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. I was wondering if we could remove the POV tag on the page.  No one has responded to my rebuttal about the page's accuracy or point of view, and while the page does need more sources, this page is neutral.  Oldag07 (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * done jbolden1517Talk 17:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can see that we also have a common friend, BQZip01. He is a good guy.  That is cool Oldag07 (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Esoteric Link on socionics page
The article must be presented as a link in order to preserve the current position that the general socionics article has with wikipedia, and that is psychology. Please keep the link to tattwas where it is on the socionics page, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcnew (talk • contribs) 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio
Jbolden, this is the second time you have violated copyright at the optics article. The first time you did so--against my specific request--the action sparked an arbitration enforcement thread that I had to clean up. Now, without consultation or notification, you suddenly repeat the same problem. Mentorship in this situation is difficult enough without people randomly starting forest fires. Please cease. Durova Charge! 02:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It has also been explained to you on talk pages both here and on WikiSource why there is a license issue with simply pasting the new text into the article, but you don't seem to be willing to read and understand the explanation. --Srleffler (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this constitutes a copyright violation as was clarified on the pages a month ago,
 * the information is within the same entity (wikimedia)
 * there is a lack of standing
 * Further even if it were a copyright violation, I was the paster of the information this time, I didn't copy anything from wikisources for this copy and the act of copying is an act required for a copyright violation.   I think if you are going to accuse me of a crime you should perhaps do your homework regarding copyright law.  jbolden1517Talk  04:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are asserting, where you say that you didn't copy anything from wikisources. The text you posted does certainly contain material that can only have been copied from there. As to your other points, I have standing. The article on Wikisources includes some material written by me and released only under the GFDL. I retain copyright to this material, not the Foundation. The license under which I have released my work requires attribution be preserved when that work is copied. In copying the material from Wikisource to Wikipedia you have violated my copyright in my work. Laches does not apply because while I intended this material to be ported to Wikipedia, I intended for that to be done in accordance with the terms of the license I have used in granting rights to my work. I am happy for the material to be ported over, but only in a way that preserves its edit history and compliance with the terms of the license.


 * Sorry to get all formal on you, but you asked for it. :) All that aside, transwiki is just overall preferable. Why violate Foundation policies when it's easy enough to comply with them? Better to do it right.--Srleffler (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, I just checked the history I don't see any evidence of a contribution of yours. So what text are you claiming copyright for?   I see two sentences which appear to be directly connected with other's works.  For you to have copyright (and not just some sort of fair usage) I would think you would have an affirmative claim against those two book authors.  So lets get specific.
 * As for why violate foundation policies, I haven't objected to following foundation policies, I've objected to claiming there is a copyright violation going on when there isn't. jbolden1517Talk  19:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While it may be minor, I have an edit here that I'd like to be credited even in some small way for. Awadewit has done even more major work that I'm sure she wishes to be credited for as well. That is why I'd ask you to please hold off. NW ( Talk ) (How am I doing?) 19:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) NW -- I have no problem with "I'd like to be credited" and I think you should be and I think we should handle this by transwiki. I don't know what the hold up is on doing the transwiki. Heck I went back and forth on two equations which are going to end up in a few articles, could claim a right to be credited for. This isn't a discussion about polite this has turned into a legal discussion about a criminal act and/or tortable act and who can sue whom (which is Durova's and Srleffler's claim) is a different story. This thread started with a claim of copyright breach presumably based on her work. I don't think you think your contribution is tortable. Awadewit stuff is so clearly added to another block of work I have trouble seeing anything copyrightable. There is a lot of work there but actually enforceable text, the first person to make a claim that their release was not intended for wikipedia is Srleffler, I personally think he's mainly trying to be a pain in the ass.

So please do the transwiki thing we've been holding up for a month. But lets separate off a legal thread about what people would like (which is completely reasonable) and what if tortable (at the least). jbolden1517Talk 20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jbolden, it appears that you have been attempting to force the issue. This is not an acceptable way to engage in encyclopedic collaboration.  As a direct result of your previous attempted port, an arbitration enforcement thread opened where I had to clean up.  This happened in spite of your previous query about the port, which I had discouraged.  And it's happened again despite your pledge shortly afterward.  I've been working hard at getting things ported the legitimate way, but the net result of your participation has been nothing but politicization and setbacks.  If this continues any farther I will be left with three options:
 * 1 Request full protection of the optics article.
 * 2 Initiate a formal admin noticeboard complaint about your conduct.
 * 3 Resign from mentorship in protest. I'm not kidding; due to you and people like you I'm very very close to that.
 * Option three would be a shame when things are this close to actually succeeding, but I do featured content of my own and would like to have time to work on it without needless drama. Durova Charge! 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. You do not get to show up, accuse someone of a crime and then play victim.  You are the very first post on this thread, with an accusation that a crime (or a tortable act) by me took place.   You picked this fight,  you came to me, I didn't come to you.  I haven't said a thing to you since April 6th.  Another user decided it was time to make the move that a month and a half is long enough to reopen the conversation.  Not me.  I happen to agree with him and I fully entitled to agree with another editor.
 * I haven't asked you to clean up anything.  As for your discouragement take a look at the logs you have the order of what happened when reversed.  If you don't want drama then don't start drama.  Don't run around making accusations about crimes.  This discussion is your making.  jbolden1517Talk  20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jbolden, you sought my advice at Wikisource only to subsequently do the opposite without further consultation or notification, and left me to clean up the problem. Then you made a pledge which you have since broken, again without further consultation or notification.  When I notify you that both times you acted in contravention of the GFDL license, which is linked from every edit screen on both websites, your response is unacceptably aggressive.  You are the one who started drama; this article would almost certainly have been ported weeks ago if you hadn't interfered.  This current thread was initiated in an attempt to resolve a repeated problem without filing formal complaint against your conduct.  Rest assured, if you carry it any further formal complaint will follow.  You seem intent upon inviting it.  Durova Charge! 20:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. I didn't seek you advice, I notified you out of politeness, "I went off your comments here and made the switch on optics, so that the editors there become aware there is another version. I wanted to notify". I didn't do the opposite of your advice, the events had already occurred! As I suggested above you should look at the time stamps. I haven't acted in contravention of the GFDL, you are flat wrong on that. My comment (not a pledge) to let you work I kept, and worked on wikisource. And how exactly did I interfere with you porting this article? Finally in terms of AN/I I didn't leave you to clean up anything. The thread on AN/I was about me. I responded, I didn't ask you to get involved. Any drama that exists, exists in your head except for the drama you are creating right now. jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 21:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going to be very circumspect here and initiate a request for full protection without specifically raising your name in the opening statement. I make no promise not to do so in subsequent posts if it comes up.  This is quite inconvenient that it has to come just as we're assembling a team to get things managed properly, but if there's no other way to prevent additional interference then so be it.  Durova Charge! 21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

j/p socionics
the point of having two columns, one for MBTI, and one for socionics typings, on the Socionics page is not so that the socionics types can be related to MBTI types. in fact, there is widespread disagreement within socionics on the issue of MBTI correlations (see DeLong, who posits a 30% dichotomy correlation, and Ganin, who posits a completely different set of correlations.

instead, as was stated in this comment by an anonymous user, which you ignored:


 * "I agree, how about fix this, and create another column that has the socionics type abbreviation? I'm still not sure what the difference between Socionics types and MBTI types are due to this problem. 203.14.53.23 07:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)"

the purpose is to differentiate that socionics and MBTI names do not mean the same thing and should not be taken to mean the same thing. trying to relate socionics to MBTI types as per the j/p switch is controversial and should not be taken as fact. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (moved and replied to on talk page of article) jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 10:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Elaine Pagels

 * stop edit waring, this is text that has been in the article and you do not have consensus for removal

Look at the page history. You reverted my changes twice. That's edit warring. I don't need consensus for removal. Per WP:V you need to support the inclusion of so-called "criticism" by citing the sourced passage on the talk page. I've made that request and I'm asking you to fulfill it. Are you even talking about the same book? I don't see Pagels anywhere in it. I'm getting the distinct sense you are talking about a different book. Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Forbidden Science.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Forbidden Science.jpeg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Michael Neumann.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Michael Neumann.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Michael Neumann.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Michael Neumann.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --<b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Forbidden Science.jpeg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Forbidden Science.jpeg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

socionics AN/I discussion
you may wish to comment on the newly created administrator's noticeboard incident discussion regarding the conduct of User:Tcaudilllg and User:Rmcnew in relation to the page socionics, located here. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Candie's
I just thought I would let you know, the Candie's shoe company IS the one who started/owns the nonprofit anti-teen pregnancy foundation. It's since been relinked to the Bristol Palin page; see the talk page there for more details. ★ <b style="color:#ba6afd;">Dasani</b> ★ 02:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

SGM Change
I have no idea if you are still interested in this article, Sovereign Grace Ministries, but a chunk of your work was removed here, I assume by an editor who missed the previous discussion about this content. As I would support the removal, I did not revert it, but wanted to call your attention to it, in case you planned to pursue these edits further.

I was saddened to see that no further major work was done to the article, as I interpreted your posts as holding firmly that more was needed.- sinneed (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Again.- Sinneed  15:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Candie’s Foundation
A tag has been placed on Candie’s Foundation 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 an organization or company, 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 organizations and companies.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Candie’s Foundation
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
 * Place  on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
 * Make your case on the article's .

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Forbidden Science.jpeg
 Thanks for uploading File:Forbidden Science.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 02:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Acharya S
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Acharya S. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Acharya S (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bristol Palin
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bristol Palin. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Bristol Palin. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI
RE: your 09:25, 7 May 2007 edit adding the following:
 * "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. For example a blog written by the subject of a biography article."

User:2005 stated today:
 * "MAYBE #4 is particularly idiotic as it says nothing at all. One editor kept insisting it be put in, so he could link to some blog as I recall, but it is mealy-mouthed nonsense."

Ikip 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)