User talk:Jepler

User:Jepler
I've added the "" template to your user page (User:Jepler), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy).

Please note that the purpose of a user page is not as personal homepage or used as a general webhosting service, but as way for active editors of Wikipedia to introduce themselves to other editors. If you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues here or on my user talk page. You may remove the deletion notice, and the page will not be deleted for the moment, but note that it may still be sent to Miscellany for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Calton | Talk 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Added by J.Epler 2/15/07
I disagree with your assessment as I am not using this as a personal web space. In fact, I've contributed photographs and other items for inclusion into the wikipedia project. Please do what you need to do to return my page to its original framework. I appreciate your speedy attention to this matter as I see my page is no longer accessible. Thank you.


 * I disagree with your assessment as I am not using this as a personal web space


 * Begging your pardon, but your actual contributions to Wikipedia began, well, TODAY, a week after I posted the notice here, and your user page had been created at least two months previously with a Blogspot link (I don't have access to the records, so those are the only details I'm sure of).


 * If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia from here on out and to use the User Page to help you in that, that's fine, but you'll have to ask an actual administrator to undelete the page, or you can just recreate it. The admin to ask would probably be the one who actually deleted it, that being . Hope that helps. --Calton | Talk 06:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Stardust sign.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stardust sign.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 05:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Stardust sign.jpg
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Stardust sign.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-3.0 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you. jepler (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:San Diego train station.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:San Diego train station.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 02:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

File:San Diego train station.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:San Diego train station.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mackensen (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Gila Bend Horse Sculpture.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gila Bend Horse Sculpture.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding Prince to List of American Idol episodes
This is in regards to you adding Prince to List of American Idol episodes. First off, you should read WP:BRD, in that if your BOLD edit gets reverted, you need to discuss on the talk page instead of continually reverting. Second, the episodes have short summaries. Listing one of the numerous performers in the finale is unnecessary and listing all of them is too long. Simply listing that guest performers is enough. If there are a few performers, they can be listed like Jennifer Hudson and Sugarland. Third, you cannot simply copy my edit summary of "since this is a short summary guest performers should not be listed" and remove the mention of "one" and then use it to advocate for two different standards because your edit summary in no one explains how Prince should be listed and not Jennifer Hudson and Sugarland. Lastly even if we had Prince listed, we would remove the WP:PEACOCK terms "Pop Superstar" and actually provide the correct link to Prince. Now that a discussion has been started here, please discuss to form a consensus instead of reverting in the article. Aspects (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The logic you are using to remove Prince as a performer is circular and flawed. If you continue to argue that short summaries do not require performers to be listed, then all short summaries will need to follow this same standard. You can't have it both ways. If other guest performers are listed in short summaries, then Prince should be listed as well. I specifically went to this page during the final episode to find out when Prince performed on American Idol. It was not listed and required me to do additional research. Others may be in the same boat. There is NO reason not to list Prince in the short summary unless you have personal bias against this artist. If you choose to continue to undo my edits, then I will apply the same logic to the rest of the page so that it is consistent. You can't have one standard and then attempt to enforce another. Sorry. I don't care WHAT you call him (i.e. Pop superstar, etc.); change his title to whatever you want. But he needs to be listed just as the other star performers in the other short summaries. It's unreasonable to argue otherwise.

Additionally, I have no idea what you are referring to with the WP:PEACOCK reference. My original post included a link to Prince's musician page. If it has changed then change it back to the original link that I provided.

Unsourced additions
Please read WP:UNSOURCED and get over yourself with that "who do you think you are" talk. I think I know the policies here, and that anything that can be contested needs a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You're not interested in collaboration. Only policing. Both of my edits were legitimate. Why not add the source for them instead of just deleting them? No, you'd rather just pull a cop routine. Joker.