User talk:Jkelly/Archive05

Unreasonable blocking by Jonathunder
Hi, I am sorry for bothering you, but can you please look here and comment on the matter? Thanks. FunkyFly 03:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The FYROM blog (again)
Well, I agree with you, as I have already agreed in that page before, again and again and again... I think the problem lies in what people tend to define as article improvement. For me, for example, (as for many other users, not necessarily Greek, like here and here), the ultimate article improvement for this particular article, would be to have a fairly elaborate analysis of the naming dispute. Hence, the name of the article itself, is a huge article improvement issue. The funny comments about your name (here and here), aim to illustrate that being a Republic does not necessarily require others to be forced to call you exactly as you demand! I find it very humorous and very improving. Ofcourse, you can disagree on my (and the others') priorities considering improvement, but you must admit that it is a very amusing parallel... N i k o S il v e r   (T) @ (C) 08:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify; I'm not actually grumpy about it. Jkelly 20:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew you wouldn't be J. Your humor is evident. Did it make you think though?  N i k o S il v e r   (T) @ (C) 20:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see. I don't think FWKAT would be automatically adminned.  In fact, I think that when FWKAT discussed applying for EU admin membership, I would make it widely known that I would vote "Strong oppose -- username, also other issues.", and some other editors would think I was being completely unreasonable, while others would say "Well, Jkelly has been a trusted admin for a while now, and we should probably be careful here."  Jkelly 22:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... You mean that you'd just oppose because he dared mess with your name -OR- would you oppose to FWKAT applying for adminship as FWKAT, rather than as "Republic of Jkelly"? I really am puzzled, but then again, maybe it was intentional...  N i k o S il v e r   (T) @ (C) 22:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wicca / Emberverse series
I thought mentioning the series in the section on WICCA IN POPULAR FICTION would be appropriate - the Wiccan religion and those who practce it are a major theme of the novel -Paullaw

Exodus 17 1/2
It's at 22:17 in the link given in the article. I could believe that different Bible translations give slightly different verse numberings, though. FreplySpang (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, you know those English kings, can't turn your back on them.... :-) Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Last reply
In the series of my last contributions, I post my reply to your text on my user page. In case you wish to reply to me you are welcome to send me an e-mail of post a comment on my blog.

You may feel that I behave strangely. It is obvious since you don't know now more than one-and-half year struggle on cs: during which I was desysopped as a bureacrat. If you are interested in problems of small wikies, then you can read m:Requests for comments/Cswiki issues, m:Meta:Babel and before it will deleted as well.

In my view conflicts with some cs: editors are unsolveable. They or me should leave cs:, there is no place for both the parties. These conflict was often transmissed to Meta and now to en:. This is unhappy because both Meta and en: has nothing to do with cs:. But I am sorry that both Meta editors and Board of Directors did nothing to improve the situation, they just washed their hands like Pontius Pilate. Their choice but I cannot participate at the project where my rights are overlooked. I am fully decided, it is not a question of one conflict here.

"You can still edit your User talk page even while blocked." ??? Is that technically possible? I never heard about it.

I hate translating, I find it very boring work. And my English is not perfect as well.

So I wish you good luck and thank you for your deleting of my pages. -- Vít Zvánovec 10:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked sock
You blocked User:Intermediary - I have reverted all his edits to talk pages - is that ok? Sophia  Gilraen   of Dorthonion  21:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do - I know this is an on going problem. I just didn't want to get "done" for pretending to be an admin! Sophia   Gilraen   of Dorthonion  21:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Treaty_Of_Sevres
It is an original wikipedia image. I have seen this image in a book published before 1930. Treaty of Sevres dates to 1919. It may be originated from the original agreements or somewhere close... I have added colors.--OttomanReference 23:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)



Karma to Burn
Hello, please excuse my poor formatting/etiquette, I am quite unfamiliar with talk pages and suchlike. I am responsible for interfering with the Karma to Burn articles, would appreciate help repairing links and disambiguating. Also, it appears the band has a self-titled album which complicates matters. Would greatly appreciate any guidance. Salkádar.

RE: Wp Admin
Hello! I hope you're well; I'm on a wikibreak of sorts ... ha! But thank you for your note and request: I appreciate it! I've been similarly encouraged by others to become a Wp Administrator.

However, I respectfully decline to an RfAdmin or to become an Admin at this time. I feel that my current level of activity would not be helped or hindered by becoming an Admin. I may reconsider this at some later date (and one of the advocates I mentioned wants to nominate me later), but I'm not ambitious – or perhaps foolish? ;) – enough to pass that bar just yet.

Please let me know if you've any questions; thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Incivility vs harassment
Admins are going to indef-block and the community at large will ban users who harass Wikipedians offsite. Perhaps a policy against users who harass Wikipedians offsite is in order. What you voted for is not that. WAS 4.250 02:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little baffled by resistance to [a policy against] people who choose to set up websites devoted to attacking editors here, discussing at length, for instance, speculation about their home addresses or how Jewish they are. I know of no resistance to that potential policy. Again, what you voted for is not that. WAS 4.250 18:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You and I are clearly reading the section differently. Yes. No personal attacks states "Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks." and "Accusatory comments such as Bob is a troll, or Jane is a bad editor can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." which makes sense in the context of a talk page where it is appropriate to "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and in general "they hurt the Wikipedia community". But the proposed addition seeks to ban engaging in the same behavior elsewhere where same behavior includes calling someone a troll! Wikipedia is not the world and humans have a variety of interests and obligations and perceptions. A reporter should feel free to write a truthful article in a newspaper without being told they commented on a person rather than content. A policy against harrassment and against someone warring against Wikipedia makes sense. Piggybacking this subsection onto NPA does not make make sense. The one is defending "us" against those who have chosen to be "them". The other is about maintaining a proper focus on the job at hand - writing an encyclopedia - where "Comment on content, not on the contributor" makes good sense. Conflating distinct goals is a bad idea. WAS 4.250 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong image
Re: Image:Rcmp_food_5937.jpg. Oops, this isn't the image I intended to download, but one of the ones I saved in the process of looking for various suitable images. I honestly got confused as to which was the CBC one. Is there a way of replacing it with the one linked here? Fishhead64 18:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Chola dynasty FAC
Hi! I have removed two images with the copyright problems and replace one with a free image. Please have a look at Chola dynasty and leave your comments. thanks Parthi (Venu62) 00:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Burnside FAC
I have provided a fair use rationale for that image in answer to your objection, do you have any other concerns in relation to the article? Thanks for commenting! michael talk 04:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if you still have any qualms, you have not replied yet. michael talk 11:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

re:Image:Guru jazzmatazz.jpg
Best to just delete it, it's an orphaned image now, and has been replaced by a higher quality, more recent, and most importantly, free, photograph (image:Guru.jpg) --Krackpipe 12:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Help
Could you help me in the Template:Spice Girls, User:Rimmers keeps reverting the template on to a big template and I think that a small template is better, it's looks organized and not cluttered pls pls help me--2hot4u2handle 15:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT
In reply to your comment, I know for a fact that all those old post cards are in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. I grew up with those images. I know the kin of the photographers who took them. They are no copyrighted. But WIkipedians are going to do whatever they want with something they don't know about anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter. Almost Famous 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the collage, I'm talking about the old post cards. The collage is a whole different thing.  The tag on the collage says: "possibly."  Truth be told, I'm not sure which tag to use for it. Almost Famous 21:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The images I know for a fact are Public Domain, The collage that appears on the Long Island Page, as well as the old post cards that are posted. One is on the LI Page, the other two are on the Casco Bay Lines page.  One is of the Aucocisco, Customs House Wharf, and the one on the LI page is actually of LI.  No one owns the copyright to the LI one, it's original has been archived by the historical society (an organization that I am a member of.)  The other two old post cards never had a copyright on them.  Anyone can take them and print their own post cards if they want.  The collage was released by the town, which is why it has been posted on other websites.  The date on the collage is the date of the town's incorporation, not the date of any copyright.  All these images can be found in my recent history. Almost Famous 21:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When I say LI, I mean Long Island, Maine just in case. Almost Famous 21:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:House.jpg
It might be more useful to post that on User talk:GusF, as he's the one who originally uploaded the image - I just cleaned it up. — sjorford++ 08:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

protect Wiki's fair use of magazine covers
I am following the federal fair use guidelines. Someone added new restrictions on the editors from out of nowhere--not based on law or practice or anything else. Those restrictions have not been justified and cannot stand. --for example the nonsense that the article has to discuss the magazine itself rather than topic XXX which is illustrated on the cover. That has to go. I have in fact been in contact with TIME on the issue and their lawyers do not impose any such rules. Nor does anyone else. Rjensen 22:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On the historical issue: no problem, I just wanted to clarify that it was pretty messy. Of course the rhetoric of messiness and clarity is itself a tactic but such is life. ;-) As for the user page -- it's a silly page, but silly pages should be ignored, not deleted. I don't think it uses any more resources than a lot of other silly things we have around here, which is why I thought it was somewhat of a unnecessary comment on your part (if we really started taking stock in which pages were an "appropriate" use of resources, I'd have to scrap a number of pages in my own user space which aren't doing any real harm or good!). --Fastfission 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the complement, and thanks to you as well. I think we have a pretty good team of editors working on Canada to make it a great article. -- Jeff3000 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Physics
Thanks for making the User:Physics link Kosher with the standards. Any ideas on a picture we could use that's a little more colorful than "Phy" but still within the rules? Ryanluck 05:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A tiny diagram of an atom sounds good to me. Ryanluck 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Help wording a new "Wiccan views on Divinity" section
I've just put a draft rewrite of Wicca on Talk:Wicca and I was hoping that you, as a top-notch editor with a great deal of knowledge in this area, might help with wording it; you might also know where I can find some supporting references for certain bits. I'd really like to get this section reading well; it's the heart of the article, as far as I'm concerned... Any help would be appreciated, and please consider this request more as an appreciation of your skills as an editor than a demand for your time! Many thanks, Fuzzypeg 12:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Napster
Hello The content I linked to at Napster is now free to US residents. They are also negotiating to make it free worldwide. Waldzazi 21:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Waldzazi

Napster
Hello JKelly I want an arbitration (not sure of the all the procedures here, but I believe this is my right) on the links of mine from Napster that you deleted and I would also like to have an advocate. I think you are being very short sighted on this and do not appreciate the full implications of what is now on the cusp of happening which is full access to any and every artists entire recorded works for free. Thats what this will lead to down the road if Napster catches on. The artists should be and are entitled to be paid so it will never be completely free and if you cant stand a few ads to make this happen, then get out of the way. I'd like an advocate because I dont want to be brow beaten by people more educated than myself on a point that I see as so obviously for the good. If someone tells me that they cant see the usefulness in a link to an artists entire recorded output, that is free to listen to with just an email and a user pass on that artists Wiki page then I would say that guy either doesnt like music or is full of s**t. Thanks Waldzazi 03:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Waldzazi

You could start a conversation at Wikipedia talk:External links, or if you really want something more formal, you can open a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I don't understand what you would need an "advocate" for, but it is always good to discuss changes with as many people as possible. Jkelly 03:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) You may want to see WP:AN#Napster_Links_.28copied_from_village_pump_news_section.29 first, before getting too optimistic about changing a lot of people's minds, however. Jkelly 03:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Napster
Hi JKelly I am not discouraged by one admins comments on the village pomp, but as I understand it I am entitled to arbitration and an advocate. I notice that you did not address one single point that I made in my communication to you. I think I explained why I want an advocate in my previous message to you, maybe you should actually read it this time. You wont blow me off as I believe you are trying to do now. You addressed none of my points and none of my concerns and are therefore not arguing in good faith. You may be an admin but you dont own this joint buddy, nobody does. I may not be as good as some people at debating my position but as I feel my position is so painfully obvious maybe an Admin advocate that sees my point of view may very well win any and all debates quite easily. Thanks Waldzazi 04:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Waldzazi

JKelly I would like to collect and paste the debates Ive had over this issue with several people recently on the Wiki, on your page here. They are spread over 2 or 3 pages so it would be helpful if they were all in one lump sum. Possibly you might actually read them then and understand my point of view. Would that be OK with you? Waldzazi 05:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Waldzazi

Re: Christianity
I know about WP:3RR and I don't think I've violated it. — Aiden 00:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The KLF FAC
Hello again. I have news on one of the two oustanding image issues in The KLF article. We have determined that the lead image is probably not fair use, so I've nominated it for deletion. It has been replaced with Image:The KLF - Why Sheep?.jpg. Please check the fair use rationale for this one and if it's OK you have one more to strike out :) (If it's not OK, assistance would be most welcome). Thanks again for your feedback, it's a thankless task you do but a worthwhile one. --kingboyk 10:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Decided to actually log in and make a few edits. Not going to be back around very often -- a LOT of a lot of "real world" work to take care of. --FuriousFreddy 06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 FAC
Hello,

I have addressed and taken action upon your comments at Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2/archive2. If you would be so kind as to review what I did, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
I will think about it. MegaloManiac 14:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Category Deletion
Please visit and weigh in! N i k o S il v e r  (T) @ (C) 17:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlatkoto
Hi, since there's no other admins at this point look at 3RR, can you check this out? Thanks.  /FunkyFly.talk _  18:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reaction. Actually Vlatkoto has been uploading quite a lot of images with unknown copyright status, and what is worse is that he claims ownership for some that are clearly used from other sites. Can you take a look? This one is from here for example. Generally it is not clear what should be done about the flags of the Municipalities, some of which contain copyrighted symbols  /FunkyFly.talk _   19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Was I too harsh?
I was just going to the talk page of to say I had blocked him indefinitely (which I had) but your rather mild warning got there before my block notice. I give warnings for IP vandalism, but not for registered users who start by vandalizing. Do you think I should unblock? AnnH ♫ 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I've unblocked now, so we'll see. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How's it going?
We haven't crossed paths recently. Still being "the reasonable one"? I think so. Keep up the good work! Wallie 18:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. Not too controversial though. I sometimes have problems if I walk into someone's pet project as an outsider. Ouch! Managed to settle down some others, though. I would like to ask you for some advice, though. I have had an ongoing content issue that has dragged on. I went away the moment the petty insults started. (both of us). I put something on Wikiquette, but this was a waste of time. The issue is too complicated, really. My question really is. Who do you go to if there is a content disagreement that requires expert knowledge to solve it? Wallie 19:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just had a young chap getting annoyed at something I said... he was quite right... Anyway, my problem was that the members of the Swiss Federal Council are all categorized as "Current National Leaders". There are seven of them, and each is treated in the same way as President Bush! Imagine. Switzerland has seven people in this category, and a big country like the US one. It seems silly. I believe that collectively they are in the category, but individally they are not. The other guy is the Number 1 contributor to Wikipedia, I think, accompanied with bots. (Found out - User: Docu and his trusty partner, User: D6). So he will not be easy to shift (a joke). I think the category may be the problem. Any ideas? Wallie 21:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Might work. Hope so. Thanks. Wallie 21:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bayt article
Hi you send me a talk page saying you cant accept bayt because it was copied of the internet site. However, look at it now someone has totally re-done it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorykay (talk • contribs)

User:Jerry Jones/JJstroker
Since you've interacted with this individual in the past, I though you might be interested in this discussion. Jayjg (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks; there doesn't appear to be any objection to the banning. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Hi, can you please help with the 3RR backlog? We have quite a lot of outstanding cases. Thanks.  /FunkyFly.talk _  16:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oddly, neither your Talk page nor WP:AN/3RR will load for me. Seem to be experiencing internet problems.  Sorry.  Jkelly 16:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats probably the reason for the backlog. Looks like some of the wikipedia servers are down.  /FunkyFly.talk _   16:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
Hi, you were just talking to me about adding images. So, I can't add an image from a website. Here's a question then: How can you add an image? I put the URL of the image, and I will gladly explain where it came from. What more can I do? Or can I not use internet images period? If I can't, it would be almost impossible to put an image on here, wouldn't it? Sorry if I sound mean, but I don't understand what you can and can't put here. I don't want to be redirected to another page, I would just like a simple helpful answer, please. RoryS89 18:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

How come I see plenty of pictures from websites on here, when and there are no messages about copyright tags. I'd like to add one myself, but no one has told me exactly what to do. I read the Image use policy, and for whatever reasons, I'm not getting the answers from it that I want. I'm referring to the pictures Dave Douglas.jpg (or ), and Jon Schneck.jpg (or ). Please tell me what I can do with those. RoryS89 18:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC) RoryS89

So, that works for both images? Seriously, if that's a joke in any way, I don't feel like dealing with it. That template doesn't seem right. If it is, sorry for jumping to conclusions. But if that isn't a real one I can use, then just tell me if I can use the image or not.RoryS89 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

Okay, sorry. But the person who did take the pictures lets people use them all the time. I know because she goes on the same message board as I do. If I talked to her about it, is there any way I could use them? RoryS89 19:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship
Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! -  Corbin  Be excellent 

Please do not revert referenced material
Please do not removed referenced material. Thank you.Travb (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was admonished by users to start getting involved with user pages and start building consensus. My minor edits on WikiProject Fair use are the first step in doing this.  The more agressive path is obviously not working, so I am attempting the more consensus building approach. I appreciate your continued understanding.


 * PS, the policy tag thing is a dead end, because I think the overwhelming consensus of those who monitor the page are against this. I will drop it completly for now, and focus on editing wikipedia. I probably will not come back to it again, but I don't want to make any lifelong promises right now that I won't return to this issue.


 * Wikipedia isn't going to drop out of the Free culture movement because you edited out a policy tag from a policy page.


 * Russians say a pessimist is an informed optomist. I have no delusions about anything that I do, please don't treat me like I am some starry eyed 18 year old, fresh out of high school.Travb (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
I was wondering if you could provide me with some creative criticism on my Requests for adminship/Computerjoe 3. This way, I can at least improve. Computerjoe 's talk 18:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Gun
Thanks for my new gun! -- Lockeandload

User talk:ThistheWOman== ==

I like how you handled this one ... usually banned users get at least 5 or 6 rounds of before an admin keeps up with them. That you watched and enforced your policy and did not just fire and forget, I thank you. -- &infin;Wirelain 02:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

that strange flying thing
I love that strange flying thing! Thank you very much. I don't quite know what merited it. (Something to do with my dealings with that fellow who ties up naked women for a living?) Not that it matters. I think I'll soon move it to my user page: after all, I need more stuff on my user page, to deflect attention from the facts that (i) my list of pages started virtually never grows, and (ii) I'm too lazy to add anything else.

This collectible card game -- are Perec and Walser included? -- Hoary 07:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Pic
As far as I remeber I uploaded it from the NARA's archive. However, atm I can't check it as their page seems to be down. // Halibutt 22:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:Edit to Bruce Springsteen
Whoops! My bad, I didn't realize I'd blanked it! - Mike (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image cleanup
No problem :)  Radio Kirk   talk to me </tt> 19:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Message
I have an account already. But thanks anyway.70.30.225.140 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Golden Dawn tradition
Thanks for protecting! I think we all need time to WP:COOL, though IMHO you protected the wrong version. Ah well; better protected than an edit war! --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, BTW: apparently the anon does not want to discuss things over on the talk page. See my repeated requests? I also posted on his/her talk page. The anon has, to my knowledge, never discussed changes, not even in edit summaries. What can I do? Thanks again! --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 21:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All right; thanks! In the meanwhile, though, could I persuade you to check out WP:AIV? It looks like nobody's watching it. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 22:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me second the point made by M1ss1ontomars2k4 -- I believe you have locked down the wrong version of the article. While indeed a lock-down is better than an edit war, it would make more sense to lock down to the version that had been in place BEFORE Frater Fiat Lux came along and started it up again. Please consider reverting it to version 41711201 by That Guy, From That Show! of March 1st, 2006, from when previous edit war had settled down. JMax555 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Golden Dawn Tradition
Dear J. Kelly,

Futher to my message on the discussion page for the Golden Dawn article, recently protected by yourself, with the correct, untampered, FACTUAL and NON POV version. I can confirm to you that I've taken your advice, and now have a Wikipedia account.

My user name is: Frater FiatLux

For your convenience, I've pasted my message to the Golden Dawn article, discussion board directly below.

Dear J. Kelly,

I will comply with your suggestion and create an account with wikipedia, as I want to ensure that this page is not irregularly deformed and misrepresented by JMAX555, and M1ss1ontomars2k4. The recent editing I had to perform was to ensure the article was not a POV article, and adhered to a neutral as possible standpoint. furthermore, to ensure that the article was not misrepresented by unscrupulous persons.

The recent editing performed by merciless opportunists that wish to create intrigues and misrepresentations in regards to this article. Was made, I believe, to deliberately misrepresent the facts given in the article, to their own biased point of view.

Therefore, naturally, I strongly contest and show appropriate contempt for the recent editing made by such integrity lacking persons, and I corrected the article with the TRUTHFUL, FACTUAL, NON POV VERSION; as any upstanding member of the community would.

You’ll hear from me shortly.

Golden Dawn Tradition Article
Dear J. Kelly:

The only evidence that Cicero operated a Golden Dawn temple in 1977 comes from Cicero's own book, and one reference to that same book by a friend. In fact, Cicero's only formal contact in the Occult community in 1977 was the O.T.O.'s Major Grady McMurty.

While, like tens of thousands of others, Cicero may have bought a copy of Regardie's doorstopper/black book, he did not meet Regardie until Pat Behman (a/k/a Cris Monnastre) and Regardie flew down, at Behman's insistence, to Athens, Ga. This was in the early 1980s (where Cicero, as is a matter of public record, see the attached links to the affidavit of Charles Cicero, infra to this text; Cicero operated a strip club- "The Shady Lady").

Monnastre did in fact write the introduction to Regardie’s -black book- and it is P.O.V. of J.M. to attempt to link Cicero to a work totally unrelated to him. Llewellyn in fact has largely stopped publishing Cicero's works, which H.O.G.D., Inc. now markets through Thoth Publications.

Regardie's ONLY students were Pat Behman, Larry Epperson, William Kelly and Alan Millar, and Cicero has admitted that he was never initiated into ANY grade of the Golden Dawn by Regardie (all Cicero's initiations come from Epperson). In fact, Cicero only briefly met Regardie on two or three occasions. Regardie left the bulk of his papers to Alan Miller/Gary Ford's "Isreal Reardie Foundation," and gifted his magical tools to Pat Behman, (who gifted them to David Griffin).

As to the fact that Cicero licensees deviate from Golden Dawn tradition, please see the landmarks provision of the contract between Griffin/Behman's H.O.G.D. and Cicero's H.O.G.D., Inc. (and the associated sale of partnership from Behman to Griffin). The links infra to this text, to which the attached documents originate, are from public records. There is currently ongoing litigation, which seeks to invalidate these licenses. (Including those of J.M.'s group, which is heavily Thelemic in orientation).

Please note that J.M. has inappropriately, and in a very unprincipled manner, altered the H.O.G.D. entry in a manner that is not only P.O.V. but incorrect, defamatory and malicious. The correct entry should be:

"====The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Rosicrucian Order of the A+O====

["javascript:ol('http://www.golden-dawn.com');" Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Rosicrucian A+O]

is currently a sole proprietorship originally organized as a general partnership in 1992 by Patricia Behman (aka Cris Monnastre, a student of Regardie's) and David John Griffin. Behman had operated the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn temples in Los Angeles throughout the 1980s. Prompted by Regardie, Behman formed an unincorporated association with Charles Cicero and Adam Forrest. After withdrawing her endorsement from that organization in 1992 to continue the unschismed version with Griffin, she eventually sold her partnership interest to Griffin in May, 1998. Griffin's H.O.G.D. has modernized the practices of the original Order of Westcott and Mathers since it teaches all the previously published Inner Order materials and practices (notably by Regardie) in the Outer Order. It thus allows adepti to follow a structured curriculum in advanced Hermetic Alchemy. The material taught in their Outer Order is described in "The Ritual Magic Manual: A Comprehensive Course in Practical Magic", by David John Griffin. Mr. Griffin holds the European Community trademark to the name "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" registered with the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market (O.H.I.M.), holds the trademark in Canada, and has a contractual agreement with H.O.G.D. Inc. to share the name "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" on a worldwide basis."

Please contact me should you have any questions. Thank you. Frater FiatLux 02:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are the attached links to: 1.Affidavit of Charles Cicero, 2.The landmarks provision of the contract between Griffin/Behman's H.O.G.D. and Cicero's      H.O.G.D., Inc. 3.The associated sale of partnership from Behman to Griffin.







My RFA
That's a cute comment you whipped-out on my talk page- well here's something for you to think about- I DON'T GIVE A RAT CARCASS ABOUT YOU!- Betty Yves 17:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs Up
The image removed from Slimvirgins' talk page was a "thumbs up", which is a sign of encouragement in these parts. I'm still wondering how one could read it as an attack, but there you go.

If I have to be 100% official, I'd say I was uninterested in peoples' activities outside of wikipedia. In reality I'm keeping an eye on things of course. :-)

One last thing. While checking I saw you'd effectively removed a different comment by a 3rd party. Could you give me a quick comment as to why you did that?

Kim Bruning 10:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Heck even I can find this on wikipedia: ""'Thumbs up' traditionally translates as the foulest of Middle-Eastern gesticular insults — the most straightforward interpretation is 'Up yours, pal!' The sign has a similarly pejorative meaning in parts of West Africa, South America, Russia, Iran, Greece, and Sardinia, according to Roger E. Axtell's book Gestures: The Do's and Taboos of Body Language Around the World."[2]"--Vidkun 14:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * *grin* Trust a wikipedian to find that :-P. Even so, this particular user had used the same image elsewhere to congratulate an RFA candidate, so I wonder if that's the correct interpretation here ;-) Kim Bruning 15:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Watchmen FAC
Hello, I saw you put a comment on the FAC page for Watchmen and I was wondering if as long as you have looked at the article, you could put in either a support or oppose vote, because there isn't much in the way of anything there right now.

Thanks.--DCAnderson 17:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) DCAnderson 00:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Travb
''I suggest that the unblocking was a mistake, until that user identifies all of the copyright violations in their editing. User:Gmaxwell/trouble is the beginning of the list.''


 * I'm not sure he can identify all his copyvios, but you can ask.


 * whether the unblocking is a mistake or not depends on his future actions, not his past actions. He promised to stop what got him in trouble. He has created a lot of content, presented a successful arbcom case and, yes, caused a lot of trouble with his fair use activism. If you read his apology/explanation/promise to stop statement you can see the reasoning behind his behavior, which has never been malicious. Blocks should be preventative and not punitive, see the opening paragraph of the Blocking policy.


 * I appreciate your feedback and hope my unblocking isn't a mistake, I'll certainly admit it if it is. I think we should always be looking for ways to accept serious contributers and turn them around when they cause trouble, instead of rejecting them and creating more enemies that go out and start wikipeida hate sites. --Duk 03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
Hi JKelly, I have noticed your excellent and very detailed Kelly Coat of Arms. I have written a brief article on the Keats surname and its origin. I haven’t been able to get a good reproduction of the Keats Coat of Arms. Would you be so kind as to give me some direction on where I could obtain a detail Coat of Arms such as yours? Thanks in advance, HJKeats 12:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for your quick reply. I'm not much of a graphic artist, so I wouldn't be of much help to myself. Thanks for the offer to seek out individuals on Wikipedia that may be able to pitch in. HJKeats 17:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hello. I'm not sure what to do so I have brought my question to you. 203.11.81.235 has been posting rude comments on my talk page, as well as on the talk page for the song "Get Together". I don't not want to start a problem with this user and have posted a message on their talk page explaining how they shouldn't post rude comments on talk pages, but they seem to disagree. I'm unsure what to do now, as I hope it won't continue. Thanks for your time. -- Underneath-it-All 15:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. -- Underneath-it-All 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes
Your objection is not inline with featured list criteria. -- Cat out 19:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to a great admin/user
Hi, Jkelly, this is very much overdue, but I wanted to thank you not only for your recent help with the format of my user page but for the whole pattern you've set in recent months of being around to help when needed, reverting trolling and vandalism, blocking abusive users, and without ever drawing attention to it. Sorry I can't give you a real turnover through the internet (they're absolutely delicious, the result of instruction at the Cordon Bleu School in Paris a few years ago), but maybe you'll be in Ireland some time! Glad to have a few of the finest admins still here, after losing two of them in the last week. Will e-mail you at the weekend. Cheers. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 01:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my screwup
I noticed you removed Image:Duke Ellington hat.jpg from top hat. Thank you! It was me who added it mistakenly, and I should have fixed that a long time ago. – FWIW, I wouldn't mark such changes as minor. While no one in their right mind would object to edits like these, we simply can't have enough people take notice and learn from them. Rl 08:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Map
No, we should not. That map has already been inserted once but reverted. On a side note, I'm not too happy with the CIA map either, when I have free time I'll work on a better one. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian question? That's nothing. Its the football fans we have to worry about...
This edit that u reverted was really funny!!! Perhaps a supporter of the opposing football club who got pissed off from the daily demonstrations of this club's fans... Pfff...people!:) --Hectorian 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hehe... Maybe someone combining both would be a lethal weapon for us... coming from Hell!:p

Re:L external links to YouTube, Google Video, etc.
Although it's definitely a common-sense issue, is there a written Wikipedia policy prohibiting links to copyrighted videos on sites such as YouTube, Google Video, and anywhere else? If not, we need one. The article on The Thief and the Cobbler recently had a link to the entire (copyrighted) film on You Tube, and even went on to refer readers to go to The Pirate Bay if they wanted a copy of the film. --FuriousFreddy 01:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No objectors yet,; but if they had the precense of mind to put the link there in the first place, I don't assume it'll be long before someone protests. As far as War (song), while it's very high on my list of Norman Whitfield-produced Motown songs, erverything that;s currently in the article is the extent of my available knowledge and resources on the song. There's no available biographies on Starr or Whitfield, and most of the content present in the article comes from the coverage of "War" in larger works based around Motown in general. There are a few other articles that I've tinkered with (slowly) that may be of FAC quality: "Ain't Too Proud to Beg" and (don't laugh, because I've saved it from speculation hell) Scooby-Doo. --FuriousFreddy 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, fulfil your promise
My " -- Vít Zvánovec 11:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)" -- Vít Zvánovec 14:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Slim Virgin Talk page
Hi. I got your message. To answer, No, I don't think standing up for a valid principal such as being against censorship of others views is a silly game. Its very important to me. And, other editors on the page, including those who are big SV supporters, agree. Also, I am not taunting. When I gave up on answering someone with my own assessment of the situation which was being reverted as I guess it could be interpreted to be presenting a negative assessement of SV's leaving (which I stand by), I then simply wanted to endorse the comment that the talk page is of limited value because of the censoring. But, it was removed! Note that there is no way to even possibly interpret this comment as any kind of taunt. I feel this is blatant and unjust censorship, which I disdain. My message, which is being censored:

"I stated my view, responding to your comment below about when I think for sure SV will be back in full action but it was suppressed and reverted. I asked why but there was no answer, just another revert. This underscores the message of this section in regards to silencing any voices, opinions that state a view with commentary that can be interpreted as negative. I don't have any agenda as im not anti or pro SV, but I do have a view on the incident. Its sad that not all views are tolerated, and does make this talk page of limited value as a result. This comment will probably be removed as well per the pattern. If you support my view, Bhandani, I hope you will restore this if and when its removed. Giovanni33 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Giovanni33 17:36, 5 June 2006


 * I donated to them, but this is a bit of a red-herring on your part. I disagree with your implication, however, that its not correct to stand up against censorship anywhere at anytime it rears its ugly head. What is unjust is unjust is unjust-- no matter how insignifiant the actual message is, or where it happens to occur. Its a matter of principal and thus should not be compromised. Of all places, Wikipedia should not be a place that tolerates this kind of blatent and unjust censorship. I see you do not give an argument to justifying it, either. Unlike you, I think this very seriously and intend to make a big deal about it. Again, it the principal of the matter.Giovanni33 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my opinion. I do not call that censorship. Never have. So you have created a red herring. Infact, I welcome disagreement and think it’s healthy. Censorship is the control of any of a number of forms expression, and communication, of controlling perceptions by excluding ideas--no matter the motive and no matter whoever the agents happen to be doing the suppression and control. Censorship is counted as attempts to suppress points of view, including by relegating open discourse to marginal forums, and by preventing other ideas from obtaining a receptive audience. When my perfectly sensible comments endorsing a POV that is expressed on the page about the subject matter is removed that is blatant censorship. If the other editor disagreed with my comment, then let their voiced be heard, but don't silence those of others.

I agree this has nothing to do with the government but this is another straw man you created, as I never said it did. I'm not the one confused about it; you are the one that pointed me to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization I've volunteered for btw. No, this is a problem for Wikipedia, which is an online community dedicated to building an encyclopedia. I know Wikipedida is not a democracy, but neither it is a dictatorship, where administrators get to pick and choose to censor views they don't agree with. You might that is ok but I find it utterly repulsive and inimical to the goals, spirit and culture of a healthy Wikipedia. If you look at the values of both democracies and dictatorships, Wikipedia shares the values of the former, not the latter. Again, maybe you disagree in which case I intend to fight you about it. Censorship has no place here, including even self-censorship, provided it’s within the guidelines of NPA and Civility. To censor and suppress my comments without just cause is counter to the values and principals of Wikipedia. Again, so far you have failed to come up with a valid argument for your defense of this disturbing practice.Giovanni33 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is not that you have not communicated well, the problem is that you have used logical fallacies to support your arguments, as I pointed out so they fail and should not be accepted by anyone. Now you make more with false analogy, to Encyclopedia Britannica or CNN.com? I don't think I need to point out the differences, but using the analogy I'd hope that a comprable situation of blatant and unjust censorship by these organzations towards its staff would meet with vocal protests, as well. Even if they don't for some reason this is not a logical argument why its right.
 * You state that my behavior has been objectionable, however you failed provide the reasons for why you object, nor the particular behavior that you object to and support your objection with an argument. The fact that you object is not interesting unless you provide a logical explanation of your rationale. Also, if you object to the fact that I restored my censored comments after they were removed, this is besides the point of the actual (which is why is it being censored), so you are only resorting to yet another red herring. You say that editing here is a privilege not a right. Again, another straw man--have I ever argued this point? Its irrevlevant to the issue. You state that any edits can be undone. Yes, I know that. Another straw-man/red-herring! It’s beside the point! The point is in the particular edit, which is being deleting, in effect censored, and how this is justified in this particular case. Its clear you at least have no argument to make hence your resorting to these non-arguments, and now just an order. Does might make right? I see this as a very serious problem when we have admins getting together for the sole purpose of censoring a POV without any attempt even at explanation or just cause for this behavior. It’s a very serious problem with admins feel they can do what they want without recourse to the rules, spirit, or guidelines of Wikipedia. Lastly, this is a matter of principal first and foremost and I will pursue this abuse in the appropriate manner.Giovanni33 19:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Presley
You have deleted a well-sourced section on Elvis Presley's relationships. In my opinion, this is not O.K. The claims I have cited exist. They are published and have been discussed by several independent authors and even by fan groups. You may shorten the paragraph, but removing the whole thing is not acceptable, especially in view of the fact that user Lochdale, who seems to be an enthusiastic Elvis fan, did not provide any evidence for his claims. For instance, this user frequently alleges that more than 2000 books on Elvis do not mention any incestuous relationship. How should he know this? As far as I can see, I am the only contributor who frequently cites his sources (incl. page numbers), and these sources are published books on Elvis. By the way, there are many paragraphs in other sections of the article that are still unsourced, but I do not delete them. Onefortyone 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Lochdale also falsely claims on the Talk:Elvis Presley page that "Greenwood is a distant cousin of Presley's who never lived with the Presley's. It is the sole source of the comments in the section and it's credibiltiy could be described as dubious at best." Here is a review of Greenwood's book from the Library Journal (by David M. Turkalo, Social Law Lib., Boston):
 * Having literally grown up with Elvis Presley in Tupelo and Memphis, Greenwood also served his cousin for some years as his press agent, claiming a front-row seat for the best and the worst of rock music's late king. As with so much written about him, this book is simultaneously interesting and lurid and often the former because it is the latter. But its saving grace, in addition to being well written, is Greenwood's closeness to Presley, rendering this an eyewitness account (the first ever by a blood relative) to the formative childhood years and the inner workings of the Presley family that played such a large part in the musician's personality development. Revelatory and credible in these and other areas, but never descending to either blathering idolatry or merciless crucifixion (a la Albert Goldman), this fast-paced, no-white-wash look at the rock icon will surely find an audience among the millions for whom Elvis Presley still holds fascination.

It should be further noted that Greenwood is not the only source I have used. Greil Marcus, for instance, is a reputed Elvis biographer. Professor Goldman is author of two unsympathetic books on Elvis and therefore hated by Elvis fans such as Lochdale. Professor Wall has written on the activities of the world-wide Elvis industry. Do you really think that these are unimportant sources? Onefortyone 23:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that this user has given a misleading edit summary and put back a sentence you removed. Not sure if this is against the rules, but just thought you'd like to know.--150.203.2.85 07:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion noted.

I really don't know; what has User:Onefortyone done now? I used to keep tabs on his edits because of his apparent determination to demonstrate that 50s Hollywood celebs were gay or bi. He'd use bottom-of-the-barrel "sources" to support these claims, which anyway struck me as trivial: after all, what business is it of an encyclopedia to discuss the sex acts (even if proven) of a musician? (As opposed to those of, say, a self-proclaimed defender of so-called "family values".) Now he's going on about the relationship of Presley to black music, which, at least potentially, seems an encyclopedic concern, and whatever the value of what he claims to be citing, at least it's not obvious crap.

But perhaps I've missed something.

Meanwhile, the talk page and sometimes the article are degraded by the tantrums of some AOL person who seems to regard Presley as an obstacle to world recognition of the supereminence of that other wholesome, white artiste, Michael Jackson. Given autocratic control over W'Pedia, I'd immediately block edits from the IP, for chronic trolldom and terminal boringness. I realize that his talk page says ''AOL users often change IP addresses with each page they load. Warnings or messages left on this page will not likely be received by the intended user.'' However, the evidence is strong that most of his edits are from either of two IP numbers; blocking both would I think carry little risk of preventing worthwhile edits to W'pedia. -- Hoary 04:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with User:Onefortyone
No rudeness intended, but is something going to be done with the issue about this user? Its hard to make any progress or even useful discussion when this user onefortyone is constantly disrupting the article. At first it seemed like some decent discussion was happening, but now its just an endless series of reverting to version that this user happens to like. This is not the way wikipedia is supposed to be is it?--58.169.11.35 12:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I read your comments on Hoary's page. I am having a considerable time working with Onefortyone, he seems inclined to take up space with quote after quote from one author, out of context at times, rather than working on getting a good article by wikipedia standards. He wrote a pretty well done 'opening' - so I thought, well maybe he will work with me - then he turns tail and breaks our agreed to 'opening' with a cut-up one. This is insanity. This user has been a problem I see in the past with this stuff. I appreciate his wanting to contribute, and I try to include his material in context, but he doesn't wish to cooperate it seems. What is an editor to do with such a person? Maybe a ban on editing celebrity articles is best for him, maybe I am being to abrasive with him, just let me know. I think your remedy is best now, after seeing he really doesn't want to work on a better article but simply wishes to cause constant disruption. --Northmeister 04:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Album Review Stars
I like the way you provided the alt text for accessibilty for the stars on the album review. I think this is the perfect way to provide a nice visual, while maintaining accessibility for screen readers. I will make a point to go back and do this to all my other albums and do it from now on. UnhandledException 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Croatian copyright law
Hi, I see you are concerned about Croatian copyright law, and that you have reverted my edits on old images from WWII, based on quote of some paragraphs of Croatian law. However, the paragraphs do not contradict the other paragraph, which is for IMAGES specifically, it is just the general provision that applies always as an upper limit (and that is said, unles otherwise stated by this law - the law is not only for photographs, indeed). Please mind that the copyright law in question is available online, and that the provisions for photograps were quoted, they are verifiable and clearly state that expiration for photographs (and some other media) is 25 years. Also, it seems that you questioned the existance of this paragraph (what happened to WP:AGF?) based on the fact that there is not a specific template for Croatia. Well, there should be; there is no template for Ghana, Peru, Indonesia, certainly there are plenty of countries whose copyright law is not dealt with a template. Maayaa 21:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey Jkelly! I have received a nomination for adminship which can be seen here. Please feel free to add to it and thank you again for helping me with that IP user. :) -- Underneath-it-All 21:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tag removal
Sorry about the tag, but I removed the tags since the article from the law clarly settles the issue. However, if you want to check this or have any further issues (only thing which seems to be a reason not to close the issue is not beleiving the quote from the law, but it can be verified), pleae do so. I understand that you are an admin and want to take care of the copyright issues properly, but in any case, there needs to be a new tag according to Croatian law. In fact, there are several provisions of Croatian copyrigt law that matter for photographs (not only this one). First is fairly simple (25 year expiration; moreover, this law is probably inherited from old SFRY, and the images were already PD before Croatia came into existance). However, I believe there needs to be another tag. The Croatian law allows images used in newspapers to be reproduced freely. This is somehow awkward provision, and I am not sure weather it is to be interpreted as PD or fair use of a sort; there is also more restrictive eligibility for Copyright in Croatia. I believe these issues need to be resolved, and new tags created, apart form the expiration tag. For instance, it is not possible in Croatia to have an agency like AP that will sell photographs for newpapers as illustration, as it seems (im not an expert in the copyright in Croatia, but have read the law which I found on internet), since all such photographs, that appear in any newspaper or similar medium, are explicitly said that they can be reproduced with no consent of the author, and no payment. In general, wiki copyright tags for other countries are badly missing. Maayaa 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Neoplatonism
It looks like a lot of the article came from web pages. I edited the section on Islamic neoplatonism, cutting out the copyvio section, but it looks like if I continue doing this the article will be gutted. I was thinking of posting links on the talkpage and asking for guidance. Would you be willing to advise me? Maestlin 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The images and tag issue
The law appears to have been changed in order to put it in line with EU law. The article 207 of the new law says that with this law, the old law stops to hold (and it quotes the old law that I was refering to). Indeed, there are no provisions that I quoted in the new law. This leaves us with a question: what happens with the images, whose copyright has expired before this law started to hold? They are in PD, I believe. In fact, it would follow that all images, published before 1978 in Croatia, are in PD, otherwise the law applies (since all images would have been in PD in Croatia before the law started to hold). So, perhaps a tag saying that all images published in Croatia before 22. october 1978 are in PD. Maayaa 23:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the similar situation is with the Russia. There is a tag for year 1973; since in communist countries the laws were similar (providing shorter than in the west protection), apparently the law was changed in the 90s; in this way, all the images that are older than 1973 were in public domain before the new law started to hold. It would be interesting to know what is the basis for this 1973 tag for Russia. In any case, similar tag should be created in this case, I believe. Maayaa 23:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont know what article you are refering to, I have looked all articles about photographs and there is nothing about old law. However, I think what you might have seen is article 146 (that you mentioned, apparently you searched for 25 years and this article mentions 25 years in the new law). What this article says, is that for authors WHO DID NOT PUBLISH THEIR WORK, and their copyright rights have expired, and they publish now their work for the first time, they get their right by the new law. Now, this only confims what I claim. Why would there be such a provision at all? It is certainly to harmonize old law with the new, giving some rights to the authors of UNPUBLISHED work. The law talks about the possibility of copyright that has expired, but that would not have expired by the new law - and makes an exceptional provision, for unpublished work. It is also logical that it does so, since published work whose copyright has expired is in PD, and it cant be protected again. You cannot have image in public domain from 1970 to 2003, and than reclaim the licence - it is not wishful thinking, it is how law works (note - there are other cases like this, and there is probably somewhere where this issue has been considered - for instance, if a law in Germany or wherever has changed to increase expiration period, than the issue of images once in PD must have already been considered here on wiki, and we should follow that). Maayaa 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put a link to the source for the [Hooded Vulture]] image. Each page of the source has a pub domain notice. jimfbleak 05:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Request
Hi Jkelly,

Would you be able to protect the Nezami page? I already listed it on WP:RPP due to an edit war. Thanks. &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Buddy Holly Image Sourcing
Hi,

You've asked me about the source for Image:B holly.jpg. I found this someplace on the internet so long ago that I don't know where I found it. This was before all the copyright issues came about and before image tagging was created. I'm sorry, but I cannot provide any helpful information. --Dennis Fernkes 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Boeing free/non-free image thing
I don't care whether the image is free, or non-free, or non-existent (as I'm not the one reverting), but at least try to find one that's a better angle if you have to replace it. A rear quarter view of an airliner means it looks like every other type and isn't particularly useful to those unfamiliar with the aircraft. ericg &#9992; 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Favour
Jkelly, I've returned, but I don't know if it's for a while or not :). I was wondering if you could keep an eye on, and perhaps have a word with him/her on their talk page? (S)he's repeatedly making edits to song and album articles (specifically song and album titles) in violation of the Manual of Style (see and  for example), despite countless explanations, requests and warnings from myself. I've reported the situation at WP:AN twice (see here and here), but absolutely nothing's been done about it. Meanwhile, this user is completely ignoring my messages and continuing to edit articles away from the MoS guidelines, often reverting me whenever I undo his/her edits and explain again what is wrong with them. So far the only person to express concern about his/her behaviour is myself; if another editor weighed in, it might convince him/her that the MoS is important (and that I'm not just kicking up a fuss over nothing). Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree that it's a difficult situation; articles can't be protected because this isn't a content dispute restricted to one article, the editor is making some good contributions so it might be unfair to block him/her, and an RFC will do nothing because they're refusing to discuss the matter. I do think that they are editing in good faith, and I do hope that because you have left a message on their talk page asking them to stop un-MoS'ing articles, they will stop. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 12:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm...it appears the user has chosen to ignore your message (see, and , all of which I had previously brought in line with the MoS). Not only that, but the time I spend cleaning up and reverting these edits encroaches on the time I'd like to use to actually write and improve articles. Extraordinary Machine 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding. I don't know...it's just so frustrating! :( Maybe we could start a discussion at somewhere like WP:AN/I, or wherever would be appropriate to discuss what should be done with editors who repeatedly violate the MoS. Thanks again. Extraordinary Machine 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My recollection is that Mel Etitis asked for help concerning this very issue either at WP:AN or WP:ANI (I think it was last summer). There was some problem with a lot of eager teenagers writing about their favourite pop star, making no effort to stick to the MOS, and getting a bit belligerent when reverted. Mel regarded this blatant refusal to follow the MOS as semi-vandalism. One or two admins had a brief look, but then left him to deal with it by himself because it was so complicated, and he ended up getting blocked and RfC'd for 3RR. If I remember rightly, he was even called the devil, and Anittas, who was recently inef-blocked by Jimbo, joined in with: "Bravo! Down with the devil!" We do need more admins to help out in cases like this, but it's a fairly thankless task, as Mel discovered. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 18:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember that too (it involved a lot of Mariah Carey-related articles, which I've been helping to clean up), and I could sympathise with Mel because those editors really didn't seem to care about the MoS. Well, the IP user is still continuing to edit in violation of the MoS, and is again replacing Template:Infobox Single with the HTML syntax that many users find notoriously difficult to edit (see and , among others) as I already explained to him/her on their talk page. Look, I'm not an administrator and I'm involved in this situation so I'm probably not the best person to judge, but I do honestly think that a block of limited duration is the next logical step to turn this editor's habits around. At the very least I think we should start a discussion very soon at wherever is appropriate, because my patience is running thin. Extraordinary Machine 21:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR
I'm well aware of what the Three Revert Rule is. Not once have I ever violated it. In fact, my first two reverts restored someone else's edit that was reverted and the other one reverted back to how I improved upon that person's version. I assume you'll message the same to User:Aiden and all others who have done 3 reverts?

KV(Talk) 18:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course they count, but I only reverted three times, and it wasn't, as you said, "undoing other people's edits repeatedly", which I was pointing out by explaining what my reverts did.


 * KV(Talk) 18:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool (song)
Didn't realize I had completely reverted past User:Extraordinary Machine. That was my fault. Could you reinclude the images without compromising his edits? Sorry about that. 64.231.155.252 20:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert error
Indeed it was an error, of course, thanks for spotting it. I meant to revert the article page, not the talk page. Mistake in using one of the popup functions, it seems. But I can't even think of how it happened exactly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Checked it. Must be a bug in the popup function I'm using: I hovered over the entry in the history and wanted to select "edit" (the old version) from the popup menu. Instead I inadvertently chose "talk edit". But weirdly, that function then opens an edit window for the talk page, but with the contents of the article page! Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Photos
All photos uploaded by me are photos taken by me. Adam 02:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone else will have to determine that. I have long ago given up trying to understand these matters. Adam 02:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Blocking of User:Tony Sidaway
Hey, thanks for the note. If I may, this is neither "random" nor for "edits I don't like"&mdash;quite the contrary, it's for disruptive edits changing what he doesn't like. Thanks again. :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 03:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the note. I respectfully disagree. <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 03:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway
OK. Just my silly sense of humour. I would never complain about anyone anyway. Tony did call me a troll once, but I don't really mind... It seems people do not have enough exciting articles to work on. On another point, do you not find it strange that people get into huge arguments about trivial topics, such as Lindsay Lohan's latest hairstyle, and yet making major edits to some really important articles gets virtually no reaction. Wallie 17:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Chit chat
It is quite amazing how some people can get the wrong idea. I put up a comment intended to be a joke, but someone took it very seriously. I guess that's what can start disagreements. Communication is always important. I get upset that some people leave Wikipedia over silly disagreements. I have personally found Wikipedia to be a great training ground for conflict resolution. It certainly teaches you how to avoid conflict, and still achieve what you want. For example, on the World War 2 topic, I didn't want Canada in the list of main combatants, limiting it to the "big 5" (victors) on the Security Council. But Canadia, obviously a Canadian history buff wanted Canada to be the sixth. So eventually I put in some other countries too, as well as Canada, which were a sort of "second level". He is now playing around with the order in the list. But I guess it really doesn't matter, as I can also agree Canada was important to WW2. It gets down to understanding the other person's POV. If something is really important to them, they are not likely to give way. Wallie 17:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Milwaukee image replace
Sorry to question your judgment, but I don't see the rationale behind your switching the top image from the Milwaukee page. I understand that the original image was copyrighted, but it was relased for free use by the media, and so it is completely acceptable to use on Wikipedia. Replacing it with, in my opinion, an acceptable photo (it is small, cloudy, and slightly blurry) just because that photo is "free" does not seem to be a good move. If two photos are both available for use on Wikipedia, we should choose the one that is the best fit for the article. I am hard pressed to believe that the replacement photo is the better of the two. I ask that you consider reverting your change, at least until a "better" replacement photo can be found. -Nick<sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#FF9900;">talk 23:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Block
Hello Jkelly. I am not sure how the system works, but I think user: 202.74.160.138 is due for blocking. Please see sexist, racist vandalism in article on Greece. Thanks Politis 12:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference, fortunately that user seems to have lost interest so I will leave it at that. Politis 16:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Back? Back...
Hey, thanks! I've been such an infrequent editor lately, I didn't think anyone was going to notice I was gone. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 00:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Duplicates
I'm currently uploading some pictures that I've edited (even though they look the same, there is something that I've changed). Whoever wants can delete the originals of the "duplicates" from Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to. Garrett Rock

Appreciation
Jkelly, I'd just like to express my appreciation and thanks for how you have handled the 200.138.194.254 issue, and also the edit dispute at Christina Aguilera. I don't know; it seems every time I get involved in a dispute with an editor who refuses to listen, I'm tempted to just become a "Wikirecluse" and edit articles on the most obscure of topics, returning to the "Wikiworld" only occasionally and inconspicuously to send my work through peer review. It's as if the number of level-headed editors can't keep up with the growth of Wikipedia, and soon in some little corner there will be a stubborn and unresponsive editor reverting somebody else into submission and getting away with it. But editors like you give me hope (okay, that sounded stupid). Thank you. :)Extraordinary Machine 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:SharpshinnedHawk23.jpg
I have added a source URL for this page. I hope that this is what is being requested. The wording being generated to notify the original uploader seems to be so generic as to make no sense in the context where it is applied. As the image originates from a US government site, "who created the content" is a moot point; from the statement linked from the copyright tag associated with the image in question : "If an image on one of our sites is not restricted and does not say it is copyrighted, then you can assume it is in the public domain". It would be useful if some links to examples were provided for the suggested format for the source information to be added. While a URL may allow for verification of copyright status, a URL can be a transient thing. The amount of information provided was considered adequate at the time that the image was originally uploaded and, fortunately, was sufficient for me to be able to locate the source URL. --Big_Iron 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Other User's Comments on my Discussion Page
I did not see it stated that it is okay to remove banned user's comments off of my discussion page on the policy guideline you directed me to. If you cannot come up with this particular policy I will politely add the user's comments back to my discussion page and hope nobody removes other user's comments in the future.--Dark Tichondrias

Do not remove other user's comments from my page again because I will consider it vandalism.--Dark Tichondrias

Requests for comment/Maddyfan
Okay, I just thought you should know (since you protected the article) that an RFC regarding user:Maddyfan's behaviour has been filed at Requests for comment/Maddyfan. Extraordinary Machine 00:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the kind words. Thank you as well; it's really a team effort :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff3000 (talk • contribs)

Odd deletion requests
Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Clash pic


It's there. You just have to search for it...

Painbearer 09:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Masha Allen
Can you comment (rm image about to be deleted) ? --213.137.247.86 14:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel
Talk to me...what is it that you do not get about the very clear edit summary that I communicated on this reference link?? The link is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the statement at hand, as it provides a link to the original language (Hebrew) for the word "Israel." I'm getting a little frustrated over the un-getting-it-ness on this link, as my notes have been quite clear as to this SOURCE DOCUMENT's function. What's up??--8.2.208.4 17:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornell010
Actually, I managed to email Alex Sergeev, and he said it was okay. Also, for the biocrawler/cornell law library picture, talk to User: Xtreambar, he was the one who posted it on biocrawler.--Cornell010 21:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * alright, I will try to email him again.--Cornell010 21:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornell Law Library picture
I have reposted the summary, and now it can be used. Just go to this link: .--Cornell010 22:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this link []. Or this text:  All contributions to Biocrawler are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). This specifically ensures that Biocrawler will remain freely distributable in perpetuity. Please do not submit any content that is copyrighted without permission of the copyright holder. (See Copyrights for more information). Does that help.--Cornell010 22:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornell Pictures: Alex Sergeev email
I got the following response from him:

Dear Mr. -,

Thank you for your interest. Sure, please use pictures from my web site for the articles in www.wikipedia.org. I read several articles from this website, and I think that it has quite good quality and a potential for further growth.

Sincerely,

Alexey Sergeev

> Dear Mr. Sergeev, > My name is -, and currently I am involved in editing a few > articles on www.wikipedia.org. This web site is a not-for-profit open > editing encyclopedia, and many of the articles are in a desperate need > of pictures. I was wondering if you would allow us to use some of your > pictures. I hope to be able to augment some of the university articles. > I will use these pictures in a manner so that they can only be used on > that one particular article,thus, you will not lose any rights of > control over those pictures. Also, I wish to congratulate you on your > excellent technical abilities, as the entirety of your photographs are > of exceptional quality. Thank you very much, and I hope that you will > allow us to use your high-quality photographs. Respectfully, >


 * Should I still have him email you guys at www.wikipedia.org, or should I forward his response to the wikipedia.org--Cornell010 01:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornell010: Pictures scheduled for deletion
I have emailed Alex Sergeev, the holder the pictures in question, using one of the prepared letters issued forth by the Wikipedia organization, and he has assented to the use of his pictures. Also, I have forwarded the email response of Mr. Alex Sergeev to the Wikipedia organization, at the address of permissions@wikipedia.org. Since, the above mentioned steps have occurred, I believe the the time has come for the scheduled deletion of the photographs on the Cornell University page to be suspended. Thank you.--Cornell010 17:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My talk page
Jkelly, I just checked the deletion log for User talk:Extraordinary Machine and was wondering what "speculation about personal details" you removed? It's just that a message I received about a New York Times article suddenly went missing from the edit history, and it didn't seem to contain anything to do with my personal details. You can email me your response if you think that's more appropriate. Also, thanks for reverting the recent vandalism on my user page. Extraordinary Machine 22:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't worry about it- a simple mix up. There was no commotion at all- 'twas no problem. I'm happy to know there are such dedicated, watchful admins. -- Kicking222 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kicking222. It's reassuring to know that there are procedures in place and people on the lookout if such a situation were to arise. Thanks again. Extraordinary Machine 23:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Puerto Ricans
You know years ago I would normally be very angry at anyone that I thought was messing around with Puerto Rican related things but, not with you. I truly believe that you are doing what you believe is right. I didn't agree with you at first because section 8 doesn't name the "lists" however, I do see your concern and I respect it. The image of Puerto Rico wasn't properly sourced as you mentioned so I went and added two sources and the proper Tag. Tony the Marine 23:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times mentions your protection on the Christina Aguilera article.
Check out Talk:Christina Aguilera Do you think we should unprotect it now? I'd like to get back to editing. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 01:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Greeks
Why you deleted the images? Mitsos 08:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the image made the article better so I don't think it's a serious problem. Mitsos 08:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Virtual Boy games
Hello, I see you have protected the article List of Virtual Boy games, I would like you to reconsider the removal of the images, the do not break any of Wikipedias official policy on fair use, and as such you have no substantial right to remove them. SeizureDog asked for mediation, and it was rejected because non from the other party wanted to take part in it. This is a dispute which has been ongoing and you have gone in and taken a stance against it, without prior knowledge to the subject matter at all. I will be asking other WP admins to look at this, someone who does edit the CVG article space, because your removal and protection of the page is without any real cause. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 08:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment on the talk page before acting.--BradPatrick 03:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Havok (T/C/c) 06:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Neopagan
Hi, I was editing neopagan to include links to verifiable cited sources, but you reverted my edit, as part of a big edit (I was doing the bit on eco-magic). If it wasn't a mistake, I'm at a bit of a loss. I've spent quite a bit of time chasing references and tidying, and it seems difficult for me to explain. Could you explain, if there was a reason? Thanks. Rainonwood 17:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the revert. I'm quite new to this business, you see, and I wasn't sure what I'd done wrong. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainonwood (talk • contribs)

Image:Lynah salute nov 5 2004 jpg.jpg
He is a friend of mine, he gave me the image to upload, it was not illegaly taken. Please email him and ask if you doubt. I'd appreciate your help in properly tagging it, as he requested that I protect his ownership somewhat, was creative commons not the best license? Cornell Rockey 18:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly would he have to write to <permissions at wikimedia.org>? "I took this picture and authorized wikipedia user cornellrockey to upload it, blah blah blah?"  Cornell Rockey 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. Will the wikimedia permissions people change it back to the proper tag once he has emailed them, or ...?

No offense though, a warning on my talk page that you had implied that my friend's image was uploaded in violation of copyright would have been appreciated; had I not been randomly browsing my past edits, I wouldn't have noticed that it had been flagged. You also assumed bad faith on my part. Had you checked his website more carefully, you would have noticed that he displays his images as shockwave files or something and has a huge copyright logo display on them as they are viewed, making theft of them difficult at best. Clearly, I have communicated with him to get the image.

As a person who takes great pains to be a proper, rule- abiding wikiuser, I feel that administrators need to really give wikiusers who behave ourselves a break and instead concentrate their efforts on those who are editing/uploading with vanity, vandalism or POV goals in mind. Having to constantly defend, fix and RV my good-faith uploads and edits is very frustrating. Cornell Rockey 18:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bug you again, but I do need to know if I have to reflag it CC/GFDL/whatever personally, or if the wikimedia people will take care of it when they receive proper notice. Cornell Rockey 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Corfu Article tag
Can you please explain the tag? Thanks. Dr.K. 22:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

lol
Damn free use guidelines. I thought that was pretty funny =D. Anyway, no bad feelings. --mboverload @ 23:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright
Hiya,

I notice you have (manually or automatically) tagged the following images as possible deletions: In fact these are being used under "fair use". The source for fair use in fact doesn't matter, and is irrelevant, since the basuis for use is not that the author has authorized it, but that the use is "fair" regardless. In fact the author (as with many urban myths/casual snaps) is unknowable.
 * Image:Yak and mare.jpg
 * Image:Cow and tractor.png
 * Image:Dog and toy.png
 * Image:Racoon and dog.png

The rationale is as follows: The subject matter is rare, and the use legitimate. Images on that subject are almost non-existent and undoubtedly are legal "fair use" in the article concerned (Animal sexuality) should a copyright holder present themselves. This is stated and tagged on these image pages.

The notice you posted states:
 * "If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia..." and that "If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags."

A genuine "fair use" rationale would be applicable regardless of source.

In the circumstances removal of the tag added should be automatic. I don't want to remove without your agreement, so please let me know that you're okay with it now it's explained.

Thanks :) FT2 (Talk) 00:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I've read it, and also checked the commons (thank you!). There's 4 points you raise, all reasonable ones:
 * Policy #1(a) "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." This is the case - no free material is found to replace most of these.
 * Policy #1(b) "Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way..." This does not prohibit photos being used. Its an injunction against trying to get round use restrictions on copyright material by tracing it (etc). Not applicable.
 * Policy #10: "The image or media description page must contain proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) where possible... An appropriate fair use tag ... For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a 'fair use rationale'..." Thus we see that fair use anticipates some material whose origins are not known, and only say attribution is needed "where possible". The other terms (tagging) are obviously complied with.
 * Counterexample #2 signifies use of copyright material where an equivalent non copyright version is easy to obtain, in this case a specific illustration of a rose for a generic article on "roses". Not applicable.
 * Counterexample #8 would be at issue, except policy #10 already has stated that fair use can be allowed, where genuine, even if the source is not known. The counterexample does not contradict this, for it is discussing images that "incidentally" contain the matter, and says this would "almost certainly" not be acceptable, not that it always would be.
 * However, the main reason is as follows: US law gives a basis of 4 factors for acceptable use, listed in the fair use policy. Reading those four, I determined that I am satisfied all 4 are complied with. The purpose is educational (policy requires "educational or critical). The copyrighted work's nature is either of old works of art, or rare events very problematic to re-source. The amount and substantiality is minimal. The effect upon the source is most likely to be negligible to non-existent. I considered this policy and read it carefully. The above gioves some idea of the basis for that conclusion.
 * Hopefully this helps clarify why I feel copyright is (I agree, unusually) not at issue. FT2 (Talk) 00:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughtful reply.


 * The main issues are that these are images whose use is not likely to harm any source, and represent a hard to document bona fide matter. fair use becomes quite generous when it's a rarity that's hard to find other sources, if one is modest with material used.


 * I haven't said "any image, from any source, that shows something we want to discuss". In fact, what fair use says (as I understand it) is, if you have any prospect of obtaining source material from other sources, then that usually prevents (or makes less likely) a "free use" claim. Fair use is strongly influenced by the difficulty of finding other illustrations, and by purpose, impact and proposed usage, and in this field it's very difficult to find other similar images. Don't read into it, that the same claim would hold true for other cases where the source material was under less pressure to be "that picture".


 * But I think you are right in conclusion, it's what I was starting to think too -- we should ask some more expert opinion on it. That way we'll both be more sure, whatever the outcome in this specific case is. I'll look at that tomorrow or tuesday, if that's okay, since it's 4 am here and time for bed :) Thanks again for the thoughtful reply. FT2 (Talk) 03:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a job to do cleaning up the much vandalised neuro-linguistic programming article for the rest of this week, it's a nightmare area. I'll sort out some consultation on those images as next on the list, probably weekend or early next week. Would that be okay? It'd help as I have a lot on my plate with the NLP tasks right now, and i don't want to take on more till that's under control. Agreement to put off action for a week or 10 days to give time for returning to them and discussion would be appreciated :) Thanks -- FT2 (Talk 00:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Corfu Images
I think that I provided a fair use rationale that showed that my images are integrally connected to the article. Yet you removed them again without any warning. This runs counter to consensus building in Wikipedia. If we cannot communicate then the matter must go to arbitration. Dr.K. 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

isoHunt Logo
I noticed that recently the isoHunt logo was removed by you from the IsoHunt page without comment in Talk. May I request some kind of justification from you on this? TorrentSpy still has their logo intact. Appreciated. IsoHunt 20:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Opinion.xls
I have no hesitation at all in allowing the file to be deleted. doktorb | words 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Elvis Presley
Hi. The Elvis Presley article is in quite a state. Can you give me some feedback on the user issue and the process involved? Jkelly 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "give you some feedback". Can you please explain what you would like me to do, possibly in small words because I'm not feeling too well at the moment? :) Stifle (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Being a war refugee myself, I can't see why we should tolerate people making political statement that are divisive and inflammatory, being them pro or against. This is an encyclopedia not a battleground. They'd attack me for "censoring" or "violating freedom of speech", but I know it's the right thing to do. Once all divisive userboxes are gone, people may look at each other as what we truly are, human beings. Best wishes, TheCooler

Fine
I'm sorry, alright? I didn't mean to cause a commotion or something. It's just... I don't agree with somethings on Wikipedia. For example, why can't I use this template instead of this one. Personally I find the first one way better-looking. 200.138.194.254 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, from now on I'll discuss with other users when there is any problem! 200.138.194.254 19:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll check them. And don't worry, I'll soon get an actual account. Thanks! :) 200.138.194.254 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you be-liiiiiieeeeeve in life after love, after love, after love, after love, after love?
Hey JKelly, was wondering if you could do me a favor and move Believe (Cher single) to Believe (Cher song)? Looks as if it used to be "song" and got moved... now when I try to change it back I get the message that something already exists at "song". I understand that this can only be done by an admin? If so - please and thank you! -- eo 20:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and sorry! :-)  -- eo 20:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornell University
JKelly, I was wondering if you could critique the Cornell University article? Thanks!--User:Cornell010 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Deucalionite
Hi Jkelly, thanks for taking action about Deucalionite and the Aris Poulianos article. I saw you were asking about my "plagiarism" charge. The version Deuc. has been reverting to was a text very closely paraphrased from his source, Poulianos' own vanity biography on his "Association's" website. I'm not quite sure whether the amount of superficial paraphrasing would be sufficient to make it not a copyvio in the technical sense, but plagiarism it is IMHO. And what's more, it introduces all the vanity elements unfiltered into the Wikipedia article.

I need to explain at this point that this edit conflict is part of a far larger affair - I've been on a systematic campaign tidying up all of Deuc's work, which I feel is full of quality problems in its entirety. Copyvio problems are just one part of this set of issues. I've tried to be fair and open about this, and to get third opinions about my actions as much as possible, but I've no doubt he feels I'm stalking him, and can understand to some degree that he's upset. Explanations are on this page: User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Deucalionite, and documentation of our encounters so far on the associated talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

CBC image in the Canada article
It "makes a mess of the layout"? Please explain. Also, how's it any more superfluous than the picture of Niagara Falls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.158.166 (talk • contribs)
 * I see, not a big deal, I never took screen resolutions into account. 24.224.158.166 01:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

KISS
Nice job finding the free KISS concert image. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)