User talk:Justmeherenow/Archive 1

Participation in Poll
Thanks for the invite. I contributed my thoughts on Obama. Staplegunther.

Wanita
The add of this information is interesting -- though I am not sure why it is interesting, it just is. However, it may not be quite in keeping with wikipedia policy regarding original research. I am not going to remove or revert it because I sort of like it, but it would be better if you had a source other than your personal memory. --Blue Tie 13:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My memory from Quicksand & Cactus read 2 1/2 decades ago was faulty. Her mother Mary Hafen Leavitt hadn't named Brooks Wanita but Waneta as verified from the 1910 census. --Justmeherenow 01:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Creation of multiple pages with same information
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, some articles you recently created contained the exact same text as other articles you created, this does not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so they were removed. Additionally, the article needs to be reviewed by an experienced editor regarding the objection posted by Gwen Gale regarding it being a data dump. Please do not recreate the material during the review process as it will be deleted. Thank you -- Trödel 01:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nauvoo Legion
The emigrants weren't murdered by the Nauvoo Legion, but by local Mormon militia. Pleae provide verifiable citations from reliable sources if you wish to assert that the assembled militia at MM was NL, thanks. Gwen Gale 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Vigilanteism

 * My PoV is why pussyfoot around with describing murder as vigilanteism but not brigandry? Young's/ Kimball's sermons circa 1857 supported vigilanteism and its incidents that arose were neither investigated nor prosecuted. And I think vigilanteism and brigandism are pretty synonymous - with California very extensive atrocities of the same period giving us the first term. Anyway, anybody reading between the lines can see *) Young's granting stock on the trail to Paiutes, **) Indian agents Hamblin and Lee - whether under orders from Salt Lake or taking initiative themselves - gathering up Paiutes to threaten and thereby extort livestock from various trains to illustrate either "Young's" or else these essentially lawlessly vigilante elements of the territories' ability to implement or withdraw protection against Indian attacks upon American settlers at will ***) Several trains' being raided in this manner ****) From out of this mix: Mountain Meadows' brutalities with regard the Baker-Fancher companies' train.
 * And this all under the cover of the militia's only having wanted to protect the trains: what a hoogabaloo!
 * Yet if the article's naming of Higbee implies Lee's a scapegoat, the numerous previous acts of ruthlessness alleged to Lee within his duties as a constable, et cetera, supports history's judgment of him as a rather unsavory character. --Justmeherenow 20:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Q about MMM
Both Denton and Carleton believe that envy the party's wealth was a factor. I am not going to say "No, way-Impossible" but I will say, I don't think so. My take on the world is that a surprising number of incidents where you would think class envy is a factor, turns out to not to be. When class envy does turn out to be a factor it is coupled with other factors usually more serious. Many a lower class has been devoted to obscenely wealthy royalty and celebrities, even obstinate jackasses. The breaking point in most revolutions has been for other reasons that make the lower class say "enough"Davemeistermoab 20:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC
I invite your comment here. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy quotes at MMM
Hey, just a quick thought: those quotes you just added to Mountain Meadows massacre are pretty long; I wonder if it might be better to post them to the talk page first and ask for help in summarizing them or quoting smaller bits that will fit better into the article. They just seem a little overwhelming given their size. What do you think? alanyst /talk/ 22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will take a look. I did note that the footnotes are quite extensive in quotations. I believe I understand the rationale behind that in getting buy-in on the certain elements of the article. Now that the discussion has died down, it may be time to pare down the quotes and just rely on the footnotes.


 * There is a citation template I will try out on one or two to see if it helps. I will also try the refname= option to enter references once and use them multiple times. It does not allow for the specific page numbers to specific usages, but might also be helpful. I used it on the article on Deaconesses to slim it down. The template also helps on editing, as it makes it easy to see the inline refs. Just a few thoughts at lunchtime. I will look tonight. --Robbie Giles 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look. I collapsed two refs into one and dropped the direct quotation.
 * I did not hyperlink to the actual newspaper article, as it is password protected by the publisher. Anyone wanting a copy can get it with the specific citation listed.
 * The same for the quotation, I left it out. It forms the backdrop of the first paragraph and readers or other editors can verify using the citation. Putting the quotation in with your synopsis is redundant.
 * If you don't like this edit, just revert to the previous. I will hold off on any further collapsing until I hear from you and other interested editors. --Robbie Giles 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Another editor (User:Tinosa) si questioning the reformatting because it loses the page numbers. Here is my answer, you can decide if you want me to continue, discuss it further, or revert some or all of the changes. I was asked to help in formatting footnotes by one of the authors who put in many of the footnotes. I am using the Citing sources article as a basis. I am also using the ref name= for subsequent references to the same material. Yes, unfortunately it loses the specific page numbers. If you feel this is hurting the article, I can certainly stop. We can revert back to an edit prior to when I started. No information is being changed. Generally when writing a sourced paper, the information from the sources is incorporated into the text of the article. It is not necessary to quote it in the footnotes. An encyclopedia article is intended to present information and verifiable sources. Should the reader care to, they can easily verify the information contained in this article from the footnotes. I'm done (stick a fork in me) tonight anyway. I'll check tomorrow evening to see if there is opposition before I attempt any more. I'll check back later this weekend to see if more work is needed, or if I should suspend. --Robbie Giles 05:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Archived photo of child survivor
In the process of editing, I think I wiped out one of your edits accidently. You now have another one, so I can't just revert my changes. It is this one: 20:11, June 19, 2007 Justmeherenow (Talk | contribs) (67,635 bytes) (→Surviving children - "see archived picture of survivor")

I will get out of the article now, as I was just checking citation links, etc. Hope you can retrieve it. --Robbie Giles 03:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Background MMM
I have a question for you here about the article. Thanks. --Robbie Giles 12:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Polishing
I will start reading sections of the article and making changes in my sandbox. When I have anything to propose, I will put it on the talk page at MMM. There are two areas I know I want to tackle first. Sorry this is so long, but I want to give you the background.

Nauvoo Legion
I am attempting to find a copy of the declaration setting up the territorial militia by the Utah Territorial Legislature, which I believe names the state militia the "Nauvoo Legion." Several editors are adamant that the NL was not involved. I believe that sources will show this stance is incorrect. See Nauvoo Legion and Utah History Encyclopedia. The NL article in Wikipedia refers to this as a private army of B.Young, but I believe this is a mis-statement, as it was actually the Territorial Militia. BY may have treated and used it as private, but there is enabling legislation.

Paiute Perspective
I have another book I am finishing now that gives oral history information from the Paiute perspective on the massacre. I hope to write a short paragraph telling the "Paiute version." I think this is the fourth leg of secondary sources. "It is my opinion (remember, never humble) that native accounts are as valid as any of the others. When conducted and researched by trained historians and social scientists, they constitute a reliable source to be considered. Brooks refers several times in her work to 'Mormon tradition.' She saw this as important, and it was her field of study. She spent decades gathering, documenting, and recording information to serve as background for her book. History of Utah's American Indians does the same for tribal tradition."
 * 1) Speeches, diaries and oral histories of witnesses or non-participants Mormons (Brooks has a wealth of these)
 * 2) Participant diaries, testimonies, confessions (Brooks, Lee, Bagley, and Denton)
 * 3) Federal reports (already cited in the article and available online for reference)
 * 4) Oral histories of Native Americans

"Book review from Western Historical Quarterly 32(4) 2001:" "As Utah prepared to commemorate its statehood centennial in 1996 and sesquicentennial of Mormon settlement in 1997, the state legislature authorized several projects, including publication of a four-volume comprehensive history of Utah, and of a twenty-nine volume county history series. Utah's Native American leaders petitioned for funding for an additional publication detailing their important place in that history. This volume is the welcome result." "The editor, Forrest Cuch, also serves as director of Utah's Division of Indian Affairs. As a Ute Indian raised on Utah's Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Cuch was committed to presenting tribal history from the perspective of an insider. He declared: 'The time has passed for non-Indian people to speak for us about 'our past,' about 'our history.' It is now time for us to bring forth the truth as we know it to be, and share it with others' (p. xi)." "Cuch involved Utah's six modern tribes in every aspect of the planning and preparation of the volume. Chapters concerning the Northwestern Shoshone, Ute, and Navajo were written entirely by tribal members, while chapters detailing Goshute, Paiute, and White Mesa Ute history were coauthored by non-Indian historians and tribal representatives. Each chapter feels separate and distinct, yet unified by a standard format and skillful editing." "The authors were asked to document their people's creation legends and folk stories, pre-contact life ways, first non-Indian contacts, and the impact of railroads, the military, and Caucasian (mostly Mormon) settlement on their lands. Each history includes a chronological summary of important events, and analysis concerning the impact of government treaties and programs, including the Allotment, Reorganization, and Termination acts." "The chapters not only draw from scholarly sources traditionally used in tribal histories, but also include rich information obtained through Native American oral histories and access to private tribal archives. The text is strengthened by inclusion of 138 excellent period photographs. Several of these poignant images appear in print for the first time in this volume. While most photographs are carefully identified and cited, one image showing a woven wickiup is used twice, to illustrate both Paiute and Ute structures (pp. 125 and 166)." "The volume includes excellent beginning and ending chapters, which place the tribal histories in perspective, and discusses recent and largely successful challenges asserting Native American rights and sovereignty in the state." "Utah State Historical Society historian Allen Kent Powell, who helped coordinate this project, feels that the tribal histories 'represent a beginning point much more than an ending point in understanding Utah's first residents' (p. vii). Perhaps so, but it is a very commendable start worthy of emulation."

Scott R. Christensen Church Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints That's it for now. I will notify the MMM talk page as I propose substantial edits. They can be cussed and discussed before implementation. Thanks for asking me. --Robbie Giles 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Good edit
This is good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mountain_Meadows_massacre&curid=170807&diff=144611155&oldid=144606153

Though I am not quite sure about the wording "led an auxilliary contigent", I think it is a vast improvement over my original wording. I particularly like how you described the swearing to secrecy of the participants as a factor in the delays. I think it was critical. --Blue Tie 15:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Image-Nancy Sephrona Huff.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Nancy Sephrona Huff.jpg. The copy called Image:Nancy Sephrona Huff.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 14:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusive editing on MMM
Thanks for trying to explain the process of editing a subject at a time. I guess it just isn't working, but we will see. It makes it so much easier to critique an edit if you actually see what was changed and/or added, but I'll survive with the wikipedia way. --Robbie Giles 05:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brigham Young.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Brigham Young.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 14:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

St George Spectrum quote in Mountain Meadows massacre?
Hi - About that quote -- could you provide a cite? Also, what about the NPOV issue? (Please respond at Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre). Thanks. Guanxi 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm lurking now
My short break is three-fold. I am actually watching the edits being done to catch anything way off. There are lots of new (to me) faces working on the article. Second, I took a new job and am working long, weird hours. Once I have all the new students workers hired and our new staff member on board I go back to my usual day shift. I'm waaaay too old to work until 11:00 pm. Three more weeks and I'm back to my regular routine. I am, however, racking up a great deal of compensatory time for use at Winter break. Oh, and the third thing is that we spent parts of two different weeks in Tucson taking our daughter to her orientation and the beginning of school at the University of Arizona. She's beginning her freshman year there. (A tiny tear rolls down my cheek.) I will take north-central Idaho climate over Tucson any day.

I still want to work on the Paiute portion and finish answering some questions on the Fancher Baker train. Bigler actually has some comparisons on how many whites and natives took part. He compares the different books done and the witness statements. I plan to incorporate that.

Thanks for your kind words, and for checking in on me. --Robbie Giles 13:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Obama'08.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Obama'08.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 17:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

MMM article
I think the article is still not very good. The breaking off of details into other articles has not really improved it. --Blue Tie 17:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you did the right thing by breaking the details into sub articles. The article was getting too big and too complex for the average wikipedia reader. There will NEVER be an MMM article that will please everybody. Too controversial of a subject. But I think this is a step in the right direction. I've been devoting my time to highway and railroad articles lately (finding working on articles that are less of a war-zone is more rewarding). But, if you would like my help please advise. Davemeistermoab 05:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (replying to message on my talk page) - This sure looks like an editing test... —Remember the dot (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (replying to message on my talk page) - Oh, OK. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fred08.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fred08.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Giuliani
Rudy Giuliani already has a navigation template at Template:Rudy Guiliani, so your template is a bit redundant. I've updated the other template with the information that you created, though...--Bobblehead (rants) 01:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto on Template:Romney that you just created. Mitt Romney already has Template:Mitt Romney. I'm not sure how beneficial two navigation templates that cover the exact same template are. Perhaps instead of creating new navigation templates you should work on improving the existing ones? --Bobblehead (rants) 02:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've nominated all four templates for deletion, but have hopefully made it clear that only two should be deleted. Please join the discussion here. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm
You may want to remove the content within the parenthesis at the end of this comment. It is generally not conducive to constructive discussion to comment negatively upon a fellow editors cognitive ability. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:McCain08 logo-blue.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:McCain08 logo-blue.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:McCain08 logo-blue.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:McCain08 logo-blue.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight 0001 16:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mitt Romney for President.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mitt Romney for President.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Allen West (retired U.S. Army coronel)
A tag has been placed on Allen West (retired U.S. Army coronel) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Carom (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Mountain Meadows massacre
A tag has been placed on Template:Mountain Meadows massacre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Obama campaign article
I've reverted your addition to the Obama campaign article's talk page as being unhelpful. Sarcasm does not translate well on text and, frankly, your comment was completely inappropriate. Please attempt write your responses in a manner that is conducive to building consensus. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader
Cool! I didn't know that he was running. He just announced that, right? Basketball 110   what famous people say  21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How many times is that? Basketball  110   what famous people say  21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. He's really not helping anyone (e.g. Al Gore, Obama) on the Democratic side (and possibly McCain). Basketball  110   what famous people say  22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
Please do not add links on articles that violate an entities copyright privileges as you did here. CNN is the sole copyright holder of the debate and the posting of clips on YouTube are not used with the permission of CNN, so they violate their copyright privileges. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Some editors actual try and make better consensus pages
hard as it is to believe right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What about sourcing that the video was said to help campaign
Huh? →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rudy "segments" nav box
I see you are adding a Rudy Giuliani "segments" nav box similar to what has been done for John McCain. However, there is a difference. In the McCain case, his entire biographical account has been broken down into subarticles, which read in sequence form a detailed biography. Hence the "Life of John McCain" title in the nav box. With Giuliani, that is not the case; only three periods of his life are represented in subarticles, with other parts (early life, prosecutor, post-mayoral businessman, etc) only described in the main article. Thus, reading the subarticles in sequence will not give you the "life" of Giuliani. Therefore, I don't think this approach is valid for Giuliani (or most other political figures we have articles for). Wasted Time R (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP guidelines say not to delete work in progress towards improving Wikipedia --Justmeherenow (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody's talking about deleting anything. I'm just saying I think you are misapplying what was done for McCain to the Giuliani articles, and I wanted to give you the rationale for its use in the McCain case.  Another article that uses this "Life of ..." nav sequence is Jan Smuts.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pasting this discussion to templates' talkpages. Thx --Justmeherenow (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Justmeherenow, with all due respect, you've completely misunderstood the purpose of the McCain bio nav box, and now you're adding them to the Hillary and Obama articles for no useful purpose. I'm going to have to put them up for deletion, just like the previous side nav boxes were deleted. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your belief that navigation boxes should only navigate among subarticles that have received content shunted off from main articles, rather than navigate among sub-articles in genera, but isn't the appropriate place for this discussion isn't on my own talkpage but on the templates' talkpage where our discussion has commenced? --Justmeherenow (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sun front.jpg
please do not tag images with speedy deletion and replaceable fair use when 2 users (including an admin) reverted your attempts to tag this image as replaceable fair use, this image is not being used in the infobox for Prince Henry of Wales, and it seems unlikely the Sun will release a cover page of their newspaper under a free license. This image cannot be replaced with a free alternative, continued misuse of tags in such a manner could be considered vandalism. Shifthours (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Rettetast is an administrator, he is perfectly justified in closing the rfu request. The image in question was actually nominated for deletion before (and kept), however it was re-uploaded under a different name, I don't have the link to the old discussion. Shifthours (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of MMMSeriesSegmentsUnderInfoBox
A tag has been placed on MMMSeriesSegmentsUnderInfoBox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Tulsa race riot
I can hardly forget something I have never known :o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ashley Dupre NY Post cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ashley Dupre NY Post cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
I have edited out my stupid looking steps in favor of the sandbox that you did. I have also changed some other pages I am working on to this. I appreciate the help... Did not realize this existed. (Nicolaususry (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

signature
How do you change the font like you have? --Fredrick day (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I went to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences Special:Preferences, checked the Raw signature box and then entered Justmeherenow  (talk into the signature box.-- Justmeherenow  (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just wanted to say 'thanks' the help with the Ashley Alexandra Dupré article - I think it's coming along really well. The scandal section still needs a lot of work - I want to expand it somewhat to provide a few details of the incident written to her perspective. I think it can be broken into subsections regarding the assignation, the media exposure, and the aftermath...possibly also the legal side of the case. The "singing career" subsection could use some polishing and streamlining also...I think there are already a few reviews of her music out there that can be quoted. Anyway, thanks again! Nesodak (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Emperors Club VIP ad-Kristen.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Emperors Club VIP ad-Kristen.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Question
What was the purpose of this?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008  00:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I simply changed it back to 1985. I have no idea what you are saying. You seem to be confused.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008  03:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

nie ma sprawy --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008  04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Nesodak (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You Have Been Smiled Upon!


WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. - Warthog Demon  05:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dupre album
Have you run across any reviews of the album, so that section can be beefed up? If it can be made sufficiently strong, it can maybe even be split into its own article. Nesodak (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a number of mentions, so I'll reference at least one. (The best the song has garnered, though, is such back-handed "picks" as "it's no worse than so-and-so's music"---while the many "pans" take the same tack, eg "It's as awful as Tila Tequila." (But then again Tila has her own WP including commentary on her music.) -- Justmeherenow (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ashley Alexandra Dupre - Unspoken Words.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ashley Alexandra Dupre - Unspoken Words.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 21:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit harsh
I realize now that I might have been a bit pointed in my response to your questions. My aim was to drive home the idea that we are to be restrained and non-sensationalistic when writing biographies, even of figures caught in titillating scandals. The vast majority of your edits to the page have been good ones. FCYTravis (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Loonymonkey (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gaydolf Titler
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Gaydolf Titler, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Non-dropframe (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please keep your april fools jokes outside of mainspace. - Bobet 16:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Just a reminder that the Ashley Alexandra Dupre article is due to be unlocked today
It will automatically be unprotected, at 23:07 (UTC). - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton Series box
At the Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC your username was menntioned as the person advocating keeping the Hillary Rodham Clinton series box. There seems to be a comprehensive template at the bottom. Could you please comment at her FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey the 6th of May was my birthday! I couldn't find the discussion regarding whether the Hillary Clinton Series deserves a template or not. — Justmeherenow  09:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do a search on "series box" in the FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, search for my user name.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

AGF
I don't know what partisanship you think I'm wearing on my sleeve, but you had the same position as I did regarding Ann Dunham's name on Barack Obama, so are you partisan? There is no requirement to assume good faith when a user has repeatedly shown himself to be not deserving of it -  it was apparent to me that  was a sock of Dereks1x, hence my comment about "her" motivation in pushing this trivial edit with such zeal. I'd appreciate it if you gave me the assumption of good faith that you accuse me of denying a disruptive editor. Just saying. Cheers Tvoz / talk 20:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oooh, nooow I get it. — Justmeherenow  18:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, to know him is to love him. Not. Tvoz / talk 01:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Sorry, got kinda busy all of a sudden. Will try to catch up later today but then will be away from the internet for as many as four days. Floorsheim (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Am desperately busy right at the moment, but will try to address this later today.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx Ferrylodge. — Justmeherenow  15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully request your comment. (Times 2)
FWIW I invite you ta humor me...if poss., of course...with your
 * INPUT re a pair of "re-titling" proposals for 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign "Controversies" daughter-articles: both here and here. — Justmeherenow   08:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It would show greater respect if you wouldn't put false allegations against me on someone else's 3RR report, at almost the same time you request my support. FWIW, I opined supporting your opinion on those separate "controversies" articles.  LotLE × talk  17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WTF
Dude.. WTF is this. It is completely inappropriate to attempt to interpret the comments by another editor as if they are a !vote of some sort. I by no means said that I agreed or did not agree with WorkerBee's interpretation of what the consensus version, I merely said that his methodology at reaching the consensus version was incorrect. Consensus is not reached by averaging out the numbers of the options presented for consensus and deciding that the option that corresponds with that average is therefore the consensus version. You've always been a bit off on how WP:CONSENSUS is applied, but this is completely inappropriate, please revert your edit. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Thanks. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing.
I'll take a look. Shem(talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:BrYoung.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:BrYoung.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BJ Talk 11:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

FLDS
Yeah, let's discuss it's inclussion on the talk page. Why don't you suggest why it's an important addition to the article, I'll read what you have to say, and other editors can input, too? --Blechnic (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it has to go on the article's talk page, since it is a content discussion, not on my talk page. --Blechnic (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A fundamentalist Latter Day Saint (at least generically by culture and or belief, although obviously not currently beholden to the Jeffs-led, specifically FLDS faith) is in the process of blogging a veritable compendium of FLDS doctrines and beliefs known as FLDS 101, blogging under the psuedonym Berry Knoll, in which he quotes extensively from the lectures of Warren Steed Jeffs and from excerpts of interviews with current and former members of the polygamous splinter group. (Insiders would recognize Berry Knoll as the "juniper-covered hill south of town" (Colorado City, Arizona/Hildale, Utah...) '' "said to be the site for the temple the polygamous church had hoped to construct...." one day.")

External links are many. Should readers follow the link to Bannking on Heaven, they'll quickly size up it's journalistic expose by Jon Kraukaeur and Ruth Cooke, featuring Elaine Jeffs, Carolyn Jessop, and Penny Peterson; should they click over to Rick Ross Institute, that they're at a Christian apologetic anti-heresy site; and should they end up at FLDS 101, that they're at an anon blog by a highly informed partisan giving his take, albeit much more dispassionately in many aspects than either of the two alternate sources I just mentioned.

"Banking on Heaven: 'In the FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints), women are chattel and young boys are kicked out so older polygamous men can have sex with young girls. Everybody does what they’re told, because the prophet, Warren Jeffs, is God [...]]' FLDS 101: 'The FLDS 'yearn for Zion,' to live in a society free from sin and contention, where all things are held in common without jealousy -- a heaven on earth. As the FLDS leadership continued to prophesy that the end of the world was quickly approaching, they taught the people that wickedness needed to be purged from their society. Jeffs taught, 'One or two covenant breakers can cause the Lord to stop blessing this people. As long as we have evil doers among us, the Lord's blessings will be withheld. Zion must be pure. We can't have evil people among the priesthood for the Lord to appear and bless us like He would like to. Be this a warning.' (W.S.J. 12/26/95) Jeffs laid the doctrinal groundwork to justify a cleansing of the FLDS. Their theology teaches that an ancient city lead by a prophet named Enoch, was taken up into heaven because of their righteousness. The FLDS believe they can be taken up too as the wicked world is destroyed.' [... ... 'Yearning for Zion,' a hymn by W.S. Jeffs; 3rd verse]: Imagine the people of Enoch of old, trained in the order of heaven/ A beautiful city the Lord called his own and forever made his abode/ Coming to join with the Zion on earth when finally the earth finds its rest/ A kingdom established in celestial laws, a people the Lord can accept/ A New Jerusalem it will be, a land of refuge, a city of peace [. . . ]|undefined"(Comment chiefly excerpted from talkpage @ FLDS.) — Justmeherenow  23:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't find this on the talk page. Do you understand this issue should be discussed with other editors?  I'm willing to do that and abide by their decision, but I can't find your post?  --Blechnic (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look it over. --Blechnic (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Once more into the breach, dear friend
Now is not the time to discuss Ayers in the Obama article. I suggest that you work on Rezko first, and then on Wright. WB74 has presented a good quality initiative and the response has been generally receptive. Rather than rejecting it out of hand, they're nitpicking about the details. Make progress there and later, you may encounter less resistance to progress on Ayers. Cheers Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent Work!
Good job finding that family tree for Lolo Soetoro. Note his name on the tree though. . Seriously, that was a great find.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lolo's Birthdate
I changed the date of Lolo Soetoros birthday back to c. 1936. The family tree you found (a great source) says he was born in 1930. Another Sun Times source says he was 51 at death, and Obama's Dreams book says that too. It seems clear the family tree at least has the year wrong, so saying circa 1936 is the most accurate we can be based on these sources.

Thanks.--Utahredrock (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd hadn't changed the year, I'd only specified the month and day. — Justmeherenow  05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I had no issue with you making that proposal, in fact I put it on the main merge page, per another user's suggestion.

I thought it made sense, even though I disagreed with it. Tvoz kept suggesting it so why not just propose it, discuss it, and be done with it?

It seems absurd that only somebody who supports something can propose it. The whole idea seems to be that things be discussed and a consensus reached.

Once it was clear Tvoz didn't want to discuss it and wasn't ready to support it, it seemed time to call it off. As I said on the comment page, if anyone wants to re-propose it any time, then they can.

Cheers,

--Utahredrock (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing thoughts (hopefully)
One more commment on this, I thought your proposal was brilliant, especially given a particular user's unrelenting request for that very proposal. I thought that that user's refusal to embrace your proposal was hiliarious and highly revealing of the bankruptcy of their logic. I do believe that user is often a very good editor, however, at least on more than one occasion, their reasoning is far too short of actual reason.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Etiquette
When you left messages on various talk pages about this, your link was broken (went to Talk:Etiquette instead of Wikipedia talk:Etiquette). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider removal
I apologize for archiving a thread you wanted to contribute to on Talk:Barack Obama. And I appreciate you recognizing that such archiving was meant only to cleanup the discussion so editors can follow it.

However, I wonder if you really need to contribute the latest post in that thread. It looks to me like it only tries to inflame tensions further, and isn't really about any specific editoral question. I'm happy to stipulate that SCJ has overreacted in some threads (I think that's your point, it's a little hard to tell), but I do not believe saying so again, with colorful language and metaphors, actually moves the article forward.

Would you consider removing your latest edit? I think that would show dignity and propriety on your part, to ascend above the squabble you criticize. Yours, LotLE × talk  21:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. LotLE × talk  21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Wikidemo's comment (in active thread Lulu just now inavertently archived)
Just being honest that my initial reaction to both you and WB74 is Shut tfu already! However, yes, my second one is: (1) Meatpuppetry? Maybe, I dunno. (2) Your to-do about WBee's line about discussing it with the missus and coming back? Isn't that's something ya could say with a smile to someone from the neighborhood at the nearby public establishment without its being any to-do at all? Then again in an unfamiliar neck of the woods with somebody who's already looking you over warily, it might be interpretted as "bringing-my-family-into-it" fighting words: ("Are youtalking to me?" etc. etc.), so I'm starting to see your point. Still, isn't your making of a big deal out of both 1 and 2 a cause of more distraction than the alleged disruptions themselves? Then again, you're trying to draw a line in the sand and insisting on civility blah blah. OK. (Hence my analogy):"There's some ruckus and when Mom and Dad arrive they're greeted with how little brother didn't appreciate Sis's taunting him with 'Little Momma's Boy always crying to momma' whereas Sis believes that Little Brother precipitated the problem by his continuing to giggle and scream loudly while Sis was trying to talk on the phone to Tanisha. Mom and Dad, tempted to yell, 'Shut tfu!,' think better of it and begin to consider that Sis's motivations to encourage Little Brother to adopt more mature of manners might be exemplary even though her tactic of energetically remonstration about Little Brother's 'always going crying to Mommy!' could have benefitted from more tact."
 * — Justmeherenow  21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A "new" article for Malik Obama
is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weight in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow  06:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ???? It was just voted for deletion. The "new" article is identical to the old one. If you don't agree with the deletion, start a WP:DRV. This article isn't going to be there by morning, I can guarantee that. And it's not that I'm particularly for or against the article, that is how the process works. Nfitz (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re your comment on my talk page: Hmm, I may well have violated protocol. If so it was inadvertent and also I apologize. Incidentally this is my first venture in this particular "realm." :^) — Justmeherenow  06:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess that's how one learns ... I'm sure it will sort itself out ... Nfitz (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Incidentally, I'm now thinking it should be merged with a new article for Obama family? — Justmeherenow  06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Though that's alredy been deleted once as well - Articles for deletion/Obama family. Nfitz (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re your comment on my talk page: Hmm, I may well have violated protocol. If so it was inadvertent and also I apologize. Incidentally this is my first venture in this particular "realm." :^) — Justmeherenow  06:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess that's how one learns ... I'm sure it will sort itself out ... Nfitz (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC X 3) I've actually argued against the straight-away deletion that will normally happen, but that's only because I see little value at this point in stopping, moving, and re-starting an ongoing discussion.  Also, I think that we should more often worry about people's feelings when were getting things done.  This does the same job (getting article discussed) with less pain (deletion hurts).


 * Also, anything I delete I'm plesed to discuss how it didn't fit with the mission brief and am always happy to work with anyone who beleieves that they have material that is suitable (in some form) to be included in the encyclopdiea.


 * brenneman
 * Thanks, Aaron. — Justmeherenow  07:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend that you renominate the article as "speedy" under G7, and instead create the article you now desire on Obama family. That would clear up a lot of the mess, in my mind. Just my advice, take it or leave it as you like. FWIW, I think I would probably vote "Keep" on a general "Obama family" article; while most family member aren't notable by themselves, I think it likely that they reach a sort of cumulative notability, even with a sentence or two on each member. But I can't promise, I'd have to see the concrete thing. LotLE × talk 07:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair$$\sim$$but I'm going to leave it be (for the moment?) $\sim$ Justmeherenow    09:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Malik Abongo Obama
A tag has been placed on Malik Abongo Obama, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Loonymonkey (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!
I am stunned that your version of Abongo is getting more favorable results. Good work and good luck. Keep up the fight for truth, justice, and the American way.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given you a barnstar . . . some other editor might remove it, but you certainly deserve it all the same.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look over the current options for Rezko language and pick one to help us get to consensus
Hi, I've noticed you've been a part of the Rezko discussion but haven't said which of the options now on the table you'd prefer. It would really help us to get to consensus if we could get your input on that. There's been plenty of discussion, but if you have questions, I'm sure other editors would answer them. The four options now on the table are the three in Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama (which doesn't contain the word "criticism"). So far, the two most popular versions seem to be Clubjuggle's Version 3 and Scjessey's. Please help us try to wrap this up. Noroton (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Lolo merge
I reverted your merge. I do not question your motives and have certainly valued your input on these topics. All the same, I believe any merge must be discussed prior to taking place. Thx.--Utahredrock (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't always ignore all rules
I think you're pushing it rather far with the massive merge you've done today, explicitly against the majority opinion on all the involved merge discussions. I do not particularly disagree with the result (nor necessarily endorse it), but this following so closely after the out-of-process article re-creation of Abongo Obama strikes me as an editor headed for trouble. I know there is WP:IAR, but one should not follow that all the time. It seems likely you are going to make some editors, and perhaps admins, rather angry with you because of this sort of edit pattern.

On a minor point, if the merge survives the likely disputes, would you please copy over my citation suggestion for Maya Soetoro-Ng. I didn't have enough details to add to the article, but the academic article I mention seems worth mentioning in the discussion of her, wherever it occurs. LotLE × talk 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, Lulu. ;^) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     17:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lulu on this - I haven't even completely decided on my own position, so discussion would be of value. I think that this massive merge without consensus is confusing and  disruptive.  The tags suggest "discuss", and talk about a "proposed" merge, not a fait accompli. That can work on a small scale but not on a massive scale like this.  Please revert your changes and leave it as a proposal.  Thank you.  Tvoz / talk 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Further: admin help is needed to undo the Ann Dunham move which was also done without consensus - we don't want to lose the article history and talk page history. I'm posting a note for assistance.  Tvoz / talk 18:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Correction : I was able to move the page Back to Ann Dunham without admin help; please go over the others if you haven't yet and return them to where they were. This is a difficult enough topic - we don't need to add to it.  Tvoz / talk 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No worriesI put it all in a sandbox! Thanks. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     18:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Just, that wasn't enough - the name of the page was wrong, and the talk pages are pointing to the wrong name - the merge proposals are now a confusing mess, and it all needs to be  sorted out.  Decide what are you now proposing, and where are you planning on discussing it, and then add merge tags pointing to the right place. And I think  the page Dunham-Soetoro family needs to be deleted by an admin completely so it is not a redirect to Ann at all. It can be re-created new if it's decided that such a page is appropriate. Tvoz / talk 18:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer all the discussions to take place on Ann Dunham, as they would most usually. (Note that, in fact, this would even be placement of the discussion as is effected by the "default positions" of the merge tags: "If a Talk page parameter is not specified in these templates, all "Discuss" links to lead to the Talk page of the destination page, avoiding the two separate discussions problem possible with [merge]." WIKIPEDIA:MERGE )  $\sim$ Justmeherenow     19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, but you had changed Ann Dunham to Dunham-Soetoro and moved discussions from the affected pages which you shouldn't do. Normally you would propose the merge to whatever you want and then have all further discussions on the receiving page, but leave a tag on the originating pages that points to the one place for discussion so there aren't parallel discussions of the same one merge - i.e., you don't want to discuss a merge of Lolo in two places simultaneously. But in this case it's very confusing because you have multiple pages that you propose merging, and they have had discussions  on their pages (and none reached consensus to merge) and the resulting destination talk page was too hard to make any sense out of.   I think the only thing you can do is have individual discussions on each of the originating talk pages to discuss that proposed merge - they are, after all, different people, different articles, maybe different editors, with possibly different levels  of notability, etc - and have, on the destination talk page, a section that says you are proposing these merges, why you are, and saying that discussion should go on the individual pages. Then we see what the sense of editors is, and consider whether we should do it or not.   But I don't think you can easily have one discussion about all mergers.  A clearer example is the Obama family, which I see you haven't undone yet - please do undo those as well.  There may be a different sense of how Barack Sr. should be handled than how Abongo should be handled, for example.    Let me know if I'm not being clear on all of this - I have to assume you weren't trying to cause disruption, but your moves did, and they need to be undone so we can proceed in an orderly manner.  Thanks.  Tvoz / talk 19:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. (P.S. Tina, you don't really think folks feign sober, tedious labor to improve Wikipedia all with a devious plan to cause disruption and bring it to a shambles do you? Please! And I'll accept whatever your nonverbal facial expression here as a subtle nod of apology. Which I accept! ) lol  $\sim$ Justmeherenow     19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I said I "have to assume" - I didn't mean I am forced to assume it by some policy (that I think is one of the less understood and stupider ones, by the way), I meant  you must have something better to do with your time than figure out such a pointless Machiavellian plan, so that could only mean you didn't intend to disrupt. Which I could probably have said in a sweeter way... Tvoz / talk 20:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol $\sim$ Justmeherenow     20:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Better be careful, Justmeherenow. Utahredrock might file an exuberant AN/I report about your mention of Tvoz' first name. :-)  LotLE × talk  19:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * no comment Tvoz / talk 20:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] Still have problems with  merge discussion tag inconsistencies (Maya's for one) - I'm on my way out now but will try to fix when I get back  if you don't get to it. Tvoz / talk 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just, I still can't make sense out of your merge proposals - you've added some that are inconsistent - like Madelyn and Stanley - one place you say merge to Ann, one place you say merge to a non-existent Dunham-Soetoro families; there is no actual proposal shown on the Madelyn and Stanley talk page and you removed some discussion that I'm not even sure where it came from. It's a mess, honestly, and you need to go through each one - they shouldn't be done through the AfD page, but on each article, and make them consistent, clear, and with a place on talk pages to discuss. You've directed to an old discussion on Madelyn and Stanley that is not relevant. Maya is also confusing and inconsistent and neeeds to be fixed. Lolo was even worse - the discussion says the merge was cancelled, but the page had a tag. This is really not ok. Please go through it all and make sense out of it, or get rid of it all and start over more coherently and one at a time. There is no way anyone is going to make sense out of this as it now is. AS for Obama family: discussion for merger of Sarah does not belong on the Afd for Malik and you had it in the wrong section of Barack Sr. I fixed that one on destination and originating, but you need to set up a merge proposal including a section for discussion on Barack Sr. As for Malik, I don't think the merge tag is proper, but I am not sure how it should be handled - probably should be removed and wait for the outcome of the AfD. FInally, did you go through the steps of listing all of these properly in the Wikipedia page for merge proposals as someone mentioned? Generally it is not a good idea to try to make so many proposals at once, and any that you do propose have to be properly done and complete if you hope to have any discussion. I don't have the time to go through each one and fix them - please take care of it or someone is likely to just revert the whole thing. Thanks Tvoz / talk 08:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree in general with the comment above
Shouldn't a merge proposal have it's own talk page, just like a deletion proposal?

I don't know the protocol, but that seems the most logical process.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, to find hoary battles over mergers between mortal-enemies Wikimicropedians and Wikimacropedians (kidding, one group seems to rarely raise an eyebrow at the other there...), go to Proposed mergers. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     17:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Lolo this seems especially true since Merging was already discussed on the talk page. When nobody seemed to support it I removed the proposal. That action in itself may have been inappropriate. I've seen guidelines on deletion, there must be guidelines for merges. . . but I need to get back to my real job for now. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Justmeherenow/Obama family of Kenya/Sandbox
I moved your sandbox article (Obama family of Kenya/Sandbox) to your userspace. Articles on English Wikipedia don't actually have subpages, as there are articles with slashes in their names such as IBM System/370. Thanks for working on the article. Kylu (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lolo merge re re proposal
I understand why you initially suggested the merge. At least I think I do--Tvoz had been suggesting repeatedly a merge and you seemed to just want to go ahead and propose it, have it discussed, and have it decided. Then she didn't support your proposal at that time even though it seemed like her idea to begin with. When her support was lacking, and nobody else was supporting the merge, I went ahead and deleted the proposal.

She deleted the second merge proposal (after I reverted the actual merge you did without discussion).

I am confused as to why you keep suggesting it.

Nobody seems much interested in even discussing it at this point, and I agree with Tvoz that it's hard to know what's proposed, why, and where to discuss it.

Of course I oppose the merge of Lolo with any other article--but do not think it's appropriate for me to re-remove the merge proposal--though you could.

If you don't want to then that is fine too, but please explain your reasoning because I'm lost.

(This is all more and more like a bad comedy!)

Best regards,--Utahredrock (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A Wiki-Rockstar
Your handling of the Abongo/Roy/Malik debate was brilliant.

Congratulations and thank you for your efforts.

I've never had so much virtual fun (and pain!).

I'd give you another barnstar but that would be redundant so I annoint you Rockstar of the WikiWorld.

Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I userfied your sandbox page
Hi. You had some text here: Talk:Dunham–Soetoro families/Sandbox. Someone wanted it deleted. I've moved it here for you, in case you were thinking of working on it: User:Justmeherenow/Sandbox/Dunham-Soetoro families. Let me know if you want it deleted altogether. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama family
A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template hangon underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Truthanado (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag and commented on the page.--Utahredrock (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Lolo and O. Family
I like the looks of your Obama family article and think it makes sense to include an even shortened version of info on Lolo in that, assuming O family survives on Wikipedia (as it should).

Beyond that, I strongly oppose merging the entire Lolo article into the new O. Family article. I guess I am also starting to see why you have been making the previous merge requests at Lolo. What are we up to four now?

I still request you remove the merge proposal from the Lolo page and focus on the O Family page with shortened info on Lolo included.

Linking Lolo's name to Lolo's own page makes a lot of wiki-sense.

Proceed as you see fit. I remain very impressed that you sparked off the major Abongo debate that just closed--even with the unsatisfactory outcome, it moved the ball forward toward his eventual inclusion. Your contributions to that debate were mostly outstanding too.

I will likely be off Wikipedia most of this coming week.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized
This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bill Ayers election controversy
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bill Ayers election controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Bill Ayers election controversy. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A better method to experiment
If you need to experiment with the code on a live page, it may be useful to copy the source code from that page to a subpage under your user page and experiment there. For an example, see User:Clubjuggle/Sandbox, where I was most recently experimenting with some table code for Pennsylvania Turnpike. Cheers! --Clubjuggle T / C  10:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! $\sim$ Justmeherenow     10:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

new source on obama family
not the nytimes but still interesting

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/the_real_american_idol/article1472877.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.96.240 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dohrn mug shot
Hi there. I just reverted your addition of the mug shot to the Dohrn article. I'm not trying to be contentious and if you want to re-add it please feel free and point to this message to show we're not edit warring. I just thought it's a kind of sad way to portray someone, not the most representative. Some people have objections on BLP grounds and there's probably an essay or even guideline somewhere on this. It goes all ways politically. I've been unhappy for some time that we use Mel Gibson's mug shot on the Mel Gibson DUI incident article, even if that's about the best looking mug shot anyone's ever seen. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Bernardine Dohrn mug shot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bernardine Dohrn mug shot.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 21:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI report
You have been mentioned in a WP:ANI report here. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"... to silence their views"
I didn't see you make any contribution to the ongoing dispute with LotE (aka Lulu) at the Project Vote Talk page, to take an example. I would think that it would be more likely to achieve a resolution if you spoke up as agreeing with LotE there than at an AN/I. Your approach just ends up throwing it right back to the Talk page and an edit war. If that's what you want (no AN/I or other administrative help at reaching a resolution), your contributions to the Talk page and your edits would be welcome.Bdell555 (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My post at Talk:Barack Obama...
...was not meant as a personal attack, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. My post was a South Park reference which was intended as nothing more than a good-natured way of saying that I didn't know what you meant. I do know that Springfield is the capital of Illinois but did not make the immediate connection or remember a recent discussion about that section of the article. Again, sorry for my part in any misunderstanding. --Clubjuggle T/ C 18:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen South Park I think 3 times: really enjoyed it each time! lol. I can't recall any of the characters personalities though, other than the main guy, whatever his name -- who doesn't seem much of a goody-goody. I'm guessing from your comment to me that the guy you compared me to (whose name I've already forgot) is characterized as a source of non sequiturs then? Like, this fat guy that says stuff out in left field and the rest of the gang say, "....Um, OK. Anyway...." That is sort of a funny comparison to me, then, if I got it right! lol. I'm certainly glad I'm not being called a bigot, despite apparently this character's often bigotry in the show, according to his WP article you linked (which I speculate its writers do to subtly mock such bigotry -- and yet make the show human(?)) Anyway, thanks for the explanation. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the entire line was a reference from, I think, the Spirit of Christmas short film that started the series. Cartman said something that none of the other characters understood, prompting one of the others to ask the question. Cheers! --Clubjuggle T/ C 20:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking? Chair? I think that you should know that I'm a McCain supporter, so if you are asking to become involved, I don't know if that would be a good idea.

J. J. in PA (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest these articles: http://www.aipparl.org/pdf/AIPemeet5.PDF

John Stackpole is possibly the top guy in the US for this. Quorum would not be an issue, nor voting as such. J. J. in PA (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to field questions, but this is somewhat removed from a normal meeting situation. J. J. in PA (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think "consensus" is a problem; the word basically means, "everyone agrees with this course of action." Assume that I am on the committee (whatever it's called) and that I, alone among the members, don't like a particular edit, I basically have a veto over it (it would make for shorter entries, but I don't think it's worth the cost).

I think it would be better to say, "If there are no objections within X amount of time (by the members of the committee), the edit is approved." When there is an objection, it could be left to a majority of the entire membership to approve it, if this is a small committee. Likewise, if the size is larger, perhaps two people would have to raise an objection within the time limit. Also, perhaps there should be some clause for withdrawing an objection with a change in wording of the proposed changed.

I also think that this should be approved with "the powers that be," whomever they are (it obviously isn't me). You are free to copy your post on this from my page to this one, if my permission is needed.

J. J. in PA (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama
Hey, not sure if I could be the chair of the talk page right now, but thanks for your offer. :-) I think I'm too busy IRL to be facilitating discussions, moderating, etc. on what is probably a very busy talk page. Speaking of Obama, perhaps you could help me by finding sources to these two sentences. I know they're probably true but can't seem to find any source for them. The previous source was removed due to POV issues. Khoikhoi 09:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain
Hi. The book cover for McCain's book Worth the Fighting For was previously removed for "fair use" reasons. The cover for Faith of My Fathers was deemed okay because it was placed next to a discussion of it in the text. The text was explaining that it was McCain's biggest seller & was made into a movie. I started a section about this at the McCain talk page today. Hope that helps. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama Request for Comment
I have just received your request for comment on the procedures on the Obama talk page. Sorry I didn't respond more promptly; I was on vacation untill this morning and unable to reach a computer.

It looks like no one's added anything new to that segment of the talk page in several days; is the discussion pretty much over, or do you still want my comments? Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi - I've been editing for a long time but some of the stuff on the Obama page made me decide to get a account (because it will be easier for people to track discussion). Broadly your proposals are unworkable because community wide policy always trumps what people decide on local pages. You'd experience the same problem that many wikiprojects have - they start to think that what they decide has weight and some level of authority - it doesn't.

As long as people follow the community wide guidelines and policies, they can do what they please. You will have absolutely no power to comply people to a) follow your guidelines or b) even discuss things with you. This for example at the same time they'd probably want to run a tight ship and not suffer their judiciously crafted admonitions to be blatantly diregarded is just a complete non-starter. As long as they edit within community boundaries, they can do what they like - regardless of what your committee, moderators or whatever you like to call them will do.

Maybe that's over negative but you just seem to be trying to replicate on a specific page what wikiprojects have tried to do a number of times on a number of pages. The end result is always the same. --Hank Pym (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx, Hank. If it's OK with you I'll add your comment over at User:Abd's talkpage, too. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     13:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Award
Hey, thanks so much for the award. I really appreciate it! :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And thanks from me to! Wasted Time R (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad – talking head.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad – talking head.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Inviting comment
Stop it. It's canvassing. I will block you if you continue. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your concern about canvassing. However, as the lede at WP:CANVASSING says, "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. This guideline explains how to notify editors without engaging in disruptive canvassing. ..." -- and it goes on to explain how to appropriately canvass in a neutral fashion. Well, in point of fact I'm following its recommendations to an absolute tee! :^)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow     05:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're sending out messages to Wikipedians who have NO connection whatsoever to these articles. I've edited on political related articles maybe 25 times in the last month, a scant 1%. The only times I'm at AfD is when I'm doing New Page Patrol. Please stop. I mean, what if you created a canvass bot that sent this same message to everyone on Wikipedia. Would that not be canvassing? NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  05:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While the wording may be neutral, you spammed nearly fifty editor's talk pages, which is every excessive, all of whom seem to have no special reason to be informed of this discussion. Therefore, it is canvassing. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To any admin out there, I throw myself at your mercey. I'd somenow got it in my head to pop out a wikilink or two to folks who'd previously commented in one particular campaign subarticle AfD's and one political satire viral video's AfD; but then, alas, after I got started, I started to notice that there was a hell of alot of commenters on those two things, but became concerned if I didn't contact em ALL I'd somehow be showing favortism of some kind, completely forgetting about the spamming thing -- or rather, I'd skimmed right by that first section at WP:CANVASSING without its registering! Oops! Although I'll never be guilty of doing it again, it's true that I'm obviously guilty of spamming -- I dids the crime and so I gots to do whatever is the time! $\sim$ Justmeherenow     06:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, glad you noticed that. No worries, these things happen... just be careful... and, at least your message wasn't biased. gren グレン 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gren! $\sim$ Justmeherenow     07:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you did go over the line a bit with numbers of people contacted, but I don't think you contacted only people on one side (I had no idea whether I'd support or oppose either one). The message was neutral, but it didn't indicate it was a general message instead of a personal one, which you're also supposed to do. Now that you say you've stopped, I think this should settle it. I don't see any real harm done, and I certainly wasn't offended. Noroton (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think its canvassing in any real sense. It's two separate questions, of general interest actually, but which many of us might not see--I for example often comment of copyvio or BLP, but usually avoid articles on either Hilton or the campaign, and rarely visit IfD. I thought it reasonable for me to be notified. So I looked at the items, realized I had in fact seen the original video,  found I   did have an opinion on each, and added my own comments--but, realizing the possibility of canvassing-- thought it wisest to not  read the discussion in detail in order not to know whom I may have been supporting or opposing. (I have the feeling that I supported the people on one question whom I opposed on the other, but that's guesswork). I think we do very well to bring a wider group of people to interesting discussions than the regulars who follow the same types of articles all the time. We need to find mechanisms to do this, and my view is that this is a worthwhile experiment. It did go outside our formal rules, and I take it as an indication we need to reconsider them. DGG (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Brian V. McDonnell.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Brian V. McDonnell.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Irony
"Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes." In terms of 'non-compliance', "Do not" is different from "It is often preferable to" e.g. if something says, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings" and you place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, then you are doing something which is 'non-compliant'. If, on the other hand, something says, "It is often preferable to place images of faces so the face or eyes look toward the text" and you place an image of a face so the face or eyes look away from the text, then you are doing something which may not be 'preferable' rather than definitely 'non-compliant'. What is really ironic is your message, but as you say it's no big deal :^). Tom (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you take a step back on Ayers / Obama
Repeated attempts to introduce non-consensus material alleging an Ayers/Obama connections in these articles before holding a discussion (you're bringing them to the discussion page at the same time as making bold edits, and on the Ayers case you reverted an edit after it was rejected). You have been told by several editors there is no consensus for doing it yet you are not only advocating it vigorously on the talk pages but making repeated attempts to insert it in two article spaces. Please slow down - this is getting disruptive, and you know full well these articles are on probation so you're not supposed to repeatedly insert disputed non-consensus material. I don't want this to become a revert war, or an incident on the probation page, so I'll ask you to self-revert. Wikidemo (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden
No worries. I'd see if you can implement the GA review recommendations on the talk page and encourage other editors also, cheers Tom (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

About mediation
I'm sorry, I should have responded to you earlier, but I got caught up in something else. I don't think mediation is a good idea just yet. I think we can come to a good consensus on the Obama-Ayers talk page. If you meant mediation concerning the Obama talk page, I'd have to think about that more. Noroton (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama comments
Would you mind explaining what you mean here by "subverting" the Barack Obama page here and trolling for comment here? Have you been forthright about your role and intent in editing the articles? Wikidemo (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hes fat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.143.229 (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon?
I thought this edit summary typo was pretty funny. I've been meaning to change my username for a while so here it is, the new me. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image
I would recommend asking the admin who deleted the image, in this case Fut. Perf, which you've already done. I'm sure they will give you a fuller explanation on the subject than I could. Until such time that the image is restored please do not add it back to Paris Hilton. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, first talk to the deleting admin (Fut.Perf, on this case). He will explain you why he did it. If, after that, you still want to "file an appeal", follow the instructions at WP:DRV (there's no quick button). Anyway, to save you some time, I believe the image was deleted because it suffered from the same problems of a recently deleted image, whose archived deletion discussion may be found. --Damiens .rf 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And for the record, if your previous image was deleted in IFD, you're not going to have much luck reuploading a new one, since it will be deleted under the CSD criteria for re-creation anyway. I would ask that you stop uploading new copies of the image since it may qualify as vandalism and you might face sanctions for it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't read my post to you. What I said was that I wanted to go to deletion review. And incidentally, what was deleted after being discussed was a headshot, while the new video screenshot I uploaded was not. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One was a crop of the other. I think the speedy was justified since the old image was a portion of the new one and the old discussion would apply in both cases. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. I can link you to lots of screenshots from the video. There's lots of headshots in it, and the one with her in the full shot isn't the same as the other one at all. But let's discuss this at review, not here. Thx. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     21:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No portion of that video is substantially different from any other portion. The entirety of the clip shows her sitting in a lawn chair in her bikini. There is no new information that can be gained from any different portion than the rest. This is the crux of the reasoning behind the G4 deletion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(ECx3) My suggestion is to wait until and unless you can find a reliable source that describes her performance and image in that ad (not just the fact that she is in a bikini and on a lounge chair, which obviously can be conveyed in text because your source will convey that in text, but hints at the image that is thereby created). Next, upload the image but with some reliably sourced commentary about the image of her as presented in the video. Most of the delete votes said that her image was not shown to be important, even that if there were such a reliable source the outcome would be different. If you do that, the initial reason for the deletion is overcome and it is not a G4 candidate. I would still wait a few days to let everyone cool down a bit. I reversed the merge by the way - you can't have a nonadministrative closure that results in a delete-and-merge and, anyway, I don't see consensus for a merge. There is a guideline section for use of actors' in-character images to depict their famous roles so, assuming the article remains unmerged and undeleted, the image would seem to qualify there - at least qualify for a deletion discussion. You don't need to go to DrV to overcome a speedy or upload an image on a rationale other than the one it got deleted for. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Bomb in Capitol Causes Wide Damage.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bomb in Capitol Causes Wide Damage.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 23:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing
This is canvassing. Again. This is your final warning on spamming user's talk pages to fish for support. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have regularly and frequently canvassed for the support of other editors on this encyclopedia, so I doubt you when you say you were simply "asking for help." Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  LEAVE ME ALONE !!! lol $\sim$ Justmeherenow     15:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cumulus clouds, it was not spam - I welcome the message. It was not canvassing - it was alerting me to something of active, current concern on an ongoing matter of dispute in which I am already involved.  Your "final warning" message is blatant wikigaming on a content dispute you are actively involved in.  The way you have gone about this whole thing, whatever your content objectives may be having to do with Paris Hilton, has been disruptive and shown a poor grasp of policies and procedrues.  I suggest you tone down the aggressiveness several notches and try to get along with other editors instead of making officious pronouncements like this.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So let me see if I have this right, User:Justmeherenow asks for help at Paris Hilton because he's fast approaching 3RR, canvasses the page of a user he knows will support his POV, that user overrides the opposition at Paris Hilton, comes back here and says it isn't canvassing? Who do you think is going to buy that argument? The only blatant "wikigaming" here is your duplicity on quoting policy in one place, and performing edits in another which are immediately and totally contradictory to that policy. Forgive me if I don't buy any of the handwringing over the canvassing issue here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, I was at 1RR. In any case, I plan to delete all further posts in this thread and respectfully ask anybody who wants to flesh out its questions in detail to do it at Wikidemon's/Cumulus Clouds' Talk. Graci. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     19:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No on multiple McCain campaign articles
We've previously discussed this, and decided not to create multiple McCain campaign articles. The situation is not analogous to Obama, because McCain's primary campaign was much shorter, and we can handle the whole thing in one article. If you want to revisit this decision, bring it up in Talk, but you shouldn't unilaterally do this. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     18:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversial moves
In future, pease do not carry out controversial moves without prior discussion. Instead follow the process in WP:RM. In particular I refer to your move of Palin to Palin (disambiguation). If you didn't realise this would be controversial, you should have checked out the other enteries in the disambig page. And it doesn't matter what we did with Obama, Biden, in those cases there are no other candidates of even remotely equal magnitude (and besides that Obama was a controversial move). By your logic, Bush should redirect to George W. Bush. Nil Einne (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your signature
How did you get your signature like that - Just point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance! --Papajohnin (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool thanks $$\sim$$  ℗  papajohnin   ( talk )( ? )  22:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:McCain-Palin 2008 logo.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:McCain-Palin 2008 logo.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. effeietsanders 18:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC) --effeietsanders 18:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look
at my new proposed language (a variation on my original proposal, with some of Wikidemon's ideas) at Talk:Weatherman (organization). I've also replied to your comment. -- Noroton (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Scrollbox
Yes, that was a scrollbox. I have reverted it on your behalf. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx. Someone put it on Family of Barack Obama. Should it be deleted there too? $\sim$ Justmeherenow     20:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed (and I have done so). Scrollboxes are strongly discouraged because they introduce accessibility problems. Also, they have been exploited for hiding spam in the past. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Donkey shorn. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     20:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain and Palin
Hi Justmeherenow. Thanks for the info about the Flickr pic of the Wasilla town hall. I uploaded it, cropped it, and put it into the Sarah Palin article, and I think it looks much better.

Regarding the picture that you recently put into the John McCain article, it's a nice picture but I don't think the fair use rationale works. The Time page says it's owned by John McCain. Any chance you could remove it before it gets gonged? Thx. We've already got one fair use image in that article (the book cover), and that could be jeopardized by a second one.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * n/p $\sim$ Justmeherenow     12:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Report on Wikidemon at AN/I about his not accepting consensus at Weatherman (organization)
Wikidemon has refused to accept the consensus of three editors to his one. I've reported his actions at See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Noroton (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: discussion at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC
Great stuff you've been adding to that page! I think your comments and citations are going to convince a lot of people. I'm concerned about your and my length of comments, however. If we write too long and too much, we may cause people to avoid reading or stop reading the discussion. I'm concerned that you, me, Wikidemo, Censei and Verklempt are so dominating the discussion that our points won't get read. I want to attract some more people to this. I think people who initially commented have been surprised and maybe chastened by what has been posted from the sources, but it's hard to tell (I'm always surprised.). I'm going to back off a bit (if I can). We should come up with another proposed passage for Weatherman, I think. I'm also going to read over past statements by others and see if we've met their objections. -- Noroton (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx! So I'll go on a little hiatus, then. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     23:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Wow! Thanks. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     14:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on conduct of User:Abd, comment requested
Thank you for expressing interest at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table in my standing userspace RfC. The first questions to be addressed are at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, which is a page for the questions and (later) a summary of consensus. Comments and discussion have been begun, by me, at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. Because the first questions address the warning issued to me by Jehochman before the block on 8/11, and should not involve extensive research, I have several times asked Jehochman to comment, but he has declined so far. I have also asked Carcharoth, as suggested by Jehochman, to look at it, but so far he hasn't found time; perhaps he will in the next few days. If you are able to look at the pages ref'd above, and comment regarding the questions, or otherwise as you see fit, it would be appreciated. I am waiting to see if these questions can be resolved and a preliminary consensus found, without going to a wider forum, such as the Village Pump, AN, or a standard user RfC. Thanks for any time you can give this. --Abd (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * People should not become involved in this user-controlled RFC - we have an RFC process, Abd has so far found nobody willing to become involved in his illegitimate version of the process. You should tell him (as everyone else has over the last month of him spamming people) that you will be happy to be involved in a real community controlled RFC, not his sham version. He wants to use the results of it to attack a number of dedicated administrators. It could be harmful to your standing as an editor to be seen to be involved in such an attack page. Send him a clear message instead - tell him to set up a real RFC. --87.115.22.127 (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's banned User:Fredrick day. Sorry, he follows me about. He tells four lies above, plus some bad advice. I posted the message above to the four users who had consented to contact re the RfC, so this clearly wasn't spam. The other notices that were put up were to users who had commented in a roughly twenty day period to my Talk, many of them administrators who also warned me or who otherwise participated (such as in the unblock discussion that resulted in my unblock.) So it's a form of response to them, also not spam.
 * Yes, we have an RfC process, and sometimes users file RfCs on themselves. My observation is that it doesn't work very well. This is pre-RfC, i.e., it's soliciting advice, but in a more formal and deliberative way than happens with ordinary Talk discussion, or even in standard WP space RfC. Since the goal is to advise me, I control it. However, it's open. Nobody has been censored, and even Fredrick day has been allowed to suggest questions; he has also vandalized it, which has simply been reverted.
 * I haven't asked my friends to participate, yet, except for those friends who happened to comment in that period or who added themselves to the list allowing notification. I expect to see at least one user comment by this weekend, possibly more. Right now, invitations have been heavily biased toward critics, who mostly have blown it off. I.e., they were willing to warn me in the middle of a drama, but not to seriously look at what had actually happened. If this affair can be settled within my RfC, they may never have to look at their own behavior, and that's acceptable to me.
 * There is no attack, as far as I know, involved in this RfC. If an administrator erred in warning me, to ask questions about that is not an attack. In fact, it's not an attack even if he was correct in the warning. Questioning administrative actions isn't attack, that's clear. In fact, that's the fundamental question at this point, since I was warned for personal attack and harassment because of a strong criticism of an admin action, on my own Talk page. It really ought to be pretty easy to answer the questions asked in this RfC.
 * Once the warning is covered, and assuming that consensus is that the warning was improper in that I hadn't done was I was warned about, I would then turn to the block itself, which was based on more specific behavior, that was likewise not blockable, in my opinion. But one step at a time.
 * If the block was improper, I'll be seeking block log annotation to that effect. It's possible that the warning admin could do this on his own, or that the blocking admin could do it. They'll be given an opportunity, once all the ducks are in a row. If they decline, and don't respond to neutral intervention, then I'd move up the ladder of WP:DR. I consider it pretty likely that this whole thing will be resolved with not much more effort. And that's part of the point, to experiment with a method of dealing with behavioral issues and conflicts without disruption. Assuming that consensus follows what I think is pretty obvious, and I expect it will, nobody is going to be harmed unless they, essentially, lie down in front of the bulldozer and refuse to acknowledge consensus. Which I consider quite unlikely with the administrators involved. For examples of admins who were, in fact, so stubborn -- or foolish -- see User:Physchim62 and User:Tango and their respective ArbComm cases.
 * And if I'm wrong, or if nobody participates -- unlikely --, then at least the project hasn't been disrupted by a debate on AN or AN/I or even WP:RfC or RfAr, unless these things truly become necessary. --Abd (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:McCain-Palin 2008 logo.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:McCain-Palin 2008 logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Suntag (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ann Dunham with father and children.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ann Dunham with father and children.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  MBisanz  talk 21:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin
Hi Justmeherenow. No offense intended, but....

Here's the link for a deletion discussion regarding Cultural and political image of Sarah Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Article moves
Please do not, I repeat do not, unilaterally move Cultural and political image of John McCain like you have been the others, unless you have a consensus from a formal request for move. I believe this article is correctly named as it is. Military culture is the starting point of the article, and much of the discussion is explicitly political (such as polarization), not the more vague "public". Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * n/p. Or, maybe, a crisp ten four!  $\sim$ Justmeherenow     19:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I also think the "Cultural and political image" section within Hillary Rodham Clinton is correctly named, for the same reasons.  These are the two I wrote and I know what's supposed to go in them and not in them, even if no one else seems to on the other articles ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol! thanks. $\sim$ Justmeherenow   

WP:FAR for Barack Obama
Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to paerticipate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Name.ext listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Name.ext, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. 24.67.215.103 (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Strong keep for all the cited reasons above 24.67.215.103 (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Obama-Biden 2008 logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Obama-Biden 2008 logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Country First logo.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Country First logo.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. ViperSnake151 01:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Logo of the 08 Presidential Debate University of Mississippi.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Logo of the 08 Presidential Debate University of Mississippi.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 23:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SDS logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SDS logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Worth reading
Top of the front page, The New York Times, October 4: Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths by Scott Shane. Article continues to page A14, where it covers that entire page, with five pictures. No scoops, just a lot of important coverage that will have implications for our coverage. -- Noroton (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Biden-Palin_debate.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Biden-Palin_debate.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 17:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brian_V._McDonnell.jpg
I have tagged Image:Brian_V._McDonnell.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Thisglad (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin image
In reply to your message on my talk, I was notifying everyone who worked on it in the hope that someone would be able to verify the permission. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Public image of Sarah Palin
Hi, I wanted to let you know that the article Public_image_and_reception_of_Sarah_Palin was redirected to the above title and about 80% of the content was removed. Please let me know what you think about this. IP75 (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Armour Dunham
Hi, I noticed that you uploaded of Stanley Armour Dunham to the Madelyn and Stanley Dunham article. However, the article appears to be about both of Obama's grandparents, so perhaps we should use extend the picture to include Madelyn Payne Dunham as well. What do you think? BTW, I recommend that you archive your talk page. Khoikhoi 01:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, so do you think I should upload a picture of just Stanley and Madelyn, or all three of them? (including Ann) Khoikhoi 04:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, have you heard the news? BTW do you think we should also include Ann in the same picture? Khoikhoi 03:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, check. Khoikhoi 04:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, have you read this article? A user commented on my talk page that he/she doesn't know how to add additional boxes to Template:Family of Michelle Robinson, but added some additional names here. You might want to check it out. Khoikhoi 05:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:William Ayers.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:William Ayers.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Stifle (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dreams from my father.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dreams from my father.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad
I have nominated Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -- Suntag  ☼  23:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC) -- Suntag  ☼  23:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (: and One With Biden.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:One and One With Biden.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

IfD
Hi Justmeherenow. I've just nominated Image:One and One With Biden.jpg for deletion. Please consider my reasons although you may disagree. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, Steve. Yet, since you didn't attempt to speedy the image, though, be sure to await the determination before deleting it from the article in question, OK? Thanks! $\sim$ Justmeherenow     15:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Error at Template:Obama family
Hi, please see (specifically this pdf). You can see there that Omar, Zeituni, Yusuf, and Said are children of Hussein Onyango Obama and Sarah Obama. However, the family tree makes it appear as if their mother was Habiba Akumu (Barack Obama Sr.'s biological mother). I can't figure out how to fix it and I was wondering if you could help. Also, the same pdf states that Omar is the "Oldest son of Hussein Onyango and Sarah Obama", so the order should probably be fixed.

P.S. For the love of God, please archive your talk page! It is taking way too long to load. Khoikhoi 00:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Khoikhoi.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow     01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)