User talk:Mactographer/Archive-1

License tagging for Image:Bartlett-grave.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bartlett-grave.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. 07:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:PL-amphitheater.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PL-amphitheater.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. 12:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the FPC page
Hi there. You commented "In any case, it’s been highly rated in other forums. Only this forum has seen fit to shred it.". I believe this is probably because on wikipedia, we're more concerned with the factual and encyclopaedic content of our images than other forums, where skill and creativity are more valuable to an image. Wikipedia is striving for an encyclopedia that is both high quality and free of any restrictions (other than basic attribution). Surely you can understand why people were not impressed by the link to your website, as that is something very much discouraged and borderline considered spam. I can also understand your desire to retain some control over the image but unfortunately, that is something you have to give up when you donate images to wikipedia. I've had to do so for some of my most prized images (eg here and here). Diliff | (Talk)  (Contribs) 10:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

MX-2900ZOOM
Please expand this article. It is not clear who makes it, what kind of camera is it. Also, it might be more appropriate to merge it into a more general article. —Centrx→talk • 19:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Disderi's camera-
In response to your query about patent dates, I don't know. The information came from Appareil_photographique_historique. If you don't understand french, you can try Babelfish.altavista.com. Anyway, to be precise, the article does not state that this image is of the 12 shot model. Nor does it mention anything about patent dates, so I am no help to you. Perhaps you would be interested in the 8 shot image in that french article though. Oddly, french wikipedia has no article on their own dude. Maybe they should learn english so that they could learn more about their culture. Just kidding. Heh heh.

-If you want to get ahold of me faster, contact me on Commons: User talk:Makthorpe -Mak

License tagging for Image:Bride-groom-walking.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bride-groom-walking.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. 08:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Spot color photography
Hello. Thanks for the edits, but you didn't go far enough. Upon further research, it appears another article covers the topic. However, I think there are some neutrality issues with the Pop Culture section. The author calls Selective Photography "old hat" and I think that demonstrates a personal POV rather than neutral fact. What do you think? But I am reluctant to tag it as such since it might appear I am taking issue due to my conflicting listing of Spot color photography.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mactographer (talk • contribs) 12:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Doh! I should have checked for other similar articles, really - I should have expected a fairly well-known photographic technique would already be covered. Anyway, yes, I think you're right there - that section is definitely POVish and the language is too informal. It really should be worded more like "the technique has become less popular in recent years", or something along those lines. However, that is still POV, or at least an unreferenced assertion - if there is proof in some third-party source that spot/selective colour processing gained popularity as a result of Schindler's List, then dropped off again, then that's okay and a reference should be added, but otherwise that whole statement should be removed altogether. ~Matticus TC 13:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply
I'm not monitoring your user page but I was monitoring recent IP edits. Pleas log-in next time other wise recent changes patrollers will take those as vandalism. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  Walkie-talkie |undefined 06:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, thats called WP:RCP

♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  Walkie-talkie |undefined 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Separation of church and state dispute
Would you kindly visit Talk:Separation of church and state so we can resolve the NPOV dispute with User:Jonathunder? (I've invited him as well, and I'm not taking a side in this.) Thank you. :) Collard 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And also...
I can't believe I was so rude as to not thank you for your photographic contributions to Wikipedia, so here's a big thank you for your very professional photos. BTW, if you haven't already (and I'm too lazy to check ;)), I'd suggest putting these files on the Wikimedia Commons; you can link to them from Wikipedia the same way you do photos uploaded to Wikipedia itself.

Anyway, thanks again for your time and support. :) Collard 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Collard. I appreciate your kind words! I have started using the Commons more now for uploading. I didn't understand the difference between the Wikipedia upload uses and the Commons upload uses until somewhat recently. Mactographer 22:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Digital Photography edit undone
I undid your edit to the digital photography article. I don't think the edit substantially improved the article. Furthermore, the illustration was an animated GIF. GIF images are not appropriate for photographs because of quantization issues. I realize GIF was used to do get the animation to work. However, animations are also annoying to many people, and I think in this context having two separate pictures side-by-side would be more appropriate. The animation would be completely lost to anyone reading through quickly, having a browser with animation turned off, or for a printed version of the article. Victor Engel 01:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your memo. Most editors don't bother to do such. And I understand the various arguments against animated gifs, but I've seen it used in many other articles here on Wikipedia.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jupiter_Great_Red_Spot_Animation.gif


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rivertree_thirds_md.gif


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AnimECHECS-Le-coup-du-Berger3.gif


 * I also believe the very nature of animated web media lends itself to more advantages than disadvantages. We are using browsers on electronic machines, not pen an paper or books to view the web, thus the media is different. I also think seeing the dramatic differences in such an image has more impact than doing a side by side comparison as you suggested. Someone can look at the various areas of the image and see exactly where the changes were made with an animation. This is much more difficult and less noticeable with a side by side illustration. To completely disregard the benefits of web media for the sake of deferring to "old" media is, in my opinion, to try to grandfather the need for buggy whips when the automobile has clearly made the need for buggies obsolete.


 * Thus in this case, I default to the Wiki no firm rules policy.


 * --Mactographer 03:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Indian Bride picture
The rules on this are deliberately left rather vague; the FPC page only mentions that the image needs consensus. Personally I don't have a strict numerical figure for promoting, but a two-thirds majority would normally be the minimum I would feel comfortable promoting at. Raven4x4x 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your photos
Hello, I just saw your pictures from your post to Dark Tea's page, they are beautiful photos man. I love the fact that however many racist Americans ther are, there are always going to be Americans who are ot so stupid, especially when you have such a god College Football season. Alun 00:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisting
''I think delisting a photo from the past is like taking a gold medal from an athlete who won it in the 1936 Olympics because a modern athlete has performed better. Once you win an award, you should be able to keep it.''

That is exactly what I think of delisting! Furthermore, when we delist a picture we are, in some way, "erasing the past" like in Georger Orwell's 1984. I have once raised the issue here but, as you can see, without much success. - Alvesgaspar 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the NPOV dispute...
For the record, I am not an administrator, nor one possessing authority to force a resolution over possible POV (which is why I asked if we could consider the matter closed, rather than declaring it to be so). Indeed, if you chose, you could add all that material back right now, if you chose. The only thing stopping you from doing that would be the fact good editors like yourself generally keep out of edit/flame wars. I have not, therefore, decreed in any sense the content of the article; I've done what I think is best for it and offered a justification that is (hopefully) persuasive to you and others, in the hope of avoiding a less-than-civil dispute over it. (The line about a "unilateral dispute resolution" on the talk page was merely meant to be amusing.)

I offer my sincere apologies that I have, evidently, acted in a way to make you think to the contrary.

As for the dispute itself, discussion convinced me that an aside on the practice of Jefferson & Friends™ in an article that is meant to have global scope, especially in a section discussing the origins of a phrase, made for an unnecessary diversion.

Keep up the good work, anyway. Yours and stuff, Lewis Collard 20:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Image work and one userbox
Hi David! I just wanted to stop by and say I was very impressed with some of the wedding imagery you've done. In particular, I really enjoyed Image:Wedding-rings-02.jpg, Image:Ringbearer-boy.jpg (that expression on the girl is fantastic!), Image:Bridemaids-girl.jpg, and Image:Bride-groom-walking.jpg. Nicely done!

Also, I wanted to let you know that I removed a fair use image (Image:Democratslogo.svg) from User:Mactographer/Userboxes/Demsupport. The use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace is not permitted per terms of our policy at Fair use criteria item #9. Thanks, --Durin 15:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Durin. Thanks for the compliments =) and nice intro into why you felt you had to edit my userbox per "the current understanding" of the Fair use criteria. The reason I used "quotes" was it seems there is a bit of a dispute over what the policy actually should or shouldn't be. In fact, as you know, it's currently locked at the moment due to the disagreements re: the policy. But I will work around it ... whatever the policy may or may not be now or in the future.


 * Maybe you can tell me if you would see any problems if I generated wholly original artwork. If there are no issues to my creating a donkey shape and overlaying it with a flag, I might go that route. In the mean time, I hope using "DEM" will not put me in policy violation as it may or may not be at the moment.


 * In any case, thanks for your tactful approach to my violation. =)


 * --Mactographer 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "current understanding" of fair use policy was implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation. Any comments from users aside, its highly unlikely it is going to change. I hope you understand my compliments on your images were sincere. I've done thousands of these image removals without commenting on people's talk pages. --Durin 06:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You were very kind. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. My question was sincere about creating my own image. Will it fly, or is there another wiki rule I might be breaking? Thanks! --Mactographer 06:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So long as the original shape of the donkey is not from the Democrat Party donkey, you'll be fine. If you want me to review it after you upload it, feel free to ask. --Durin 13:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:Flag-donkey.png...Nicely done! --Durin 21:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was just uploading it now, and wasn't quite sure I liked how it shows up small in the userbox. So I tried a cropped version ... didn't like that either. So I'm just gonna leave it for now and try to improve the 45pix version later. But I didn't even get a chance to notify you before getting your message. Called it a flag donkey so as to avoid any logo issues via naming convention. Thanks for the notice! --Mactographer 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing replies?
What in Heaven's name are you talking about? I responded to your list; what word of it did I change? Please give diffs Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello – Based on your significant contribution to one or more San Francisco Bay Area-related articles and/or stated interests on your homepage, I thought you might be interested in this project:

Peter G Werner 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Peter G Werner 02:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Jumpaclass
This is an invitation to use WP:BAY's Jumpaclass option for improving articles. If you're working on any Bay Area-related stub, start, or B-class articles, simply add their names to the list, and if any of the articles improve a class within a week, you'll be recognized for your contributions. If you have any questions about how it works, post on the talk page or on mine. Thanks for reading! — Emiellaiendiay 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Civil Union Wedding
Hi there. You changed the photo caption on the Wedding page from same-sex wedding to same-sex civil union. A wedding, as discussed throughout the article in question, is an event. It was traditionally associated with marriage but now, as we have civil unions, weddings can also be the event to enter into a civil union. One can call it a marriage ceremony, civil union ceremony, wedding ceremony. The article is about weddings and as the event in question was a wedding for a couple getting civil-unioned, you should respect that definition and not change it to 'same-sex civil union'. Enzedbrit 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(posted from my site) I'm sorry, but I disagree. If a same-sex civil union was a wedding, then legally they would be called weddings and thus form a marriage. Legal battles remain to be fought over the legality of creating an institution called gay marriage in most countries and states around the world. However, at this time, most countries and states still don’t recognize something called a gay marriage. Specifically in New Zealand, there is no institution called gay marriage. Thus the image shows the legally binding definition of a “civil union” as it is defined in that country. Even the definition for “Same-sex marriage” on the Wiki site delineates the two different designations. I merely corrected a miss-definition within the caption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mactographer (talk • contribs) 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC).


 * That's the problem. Wedding is not a legal term. Marriage is. Wedding is an event, etymologically attached to the term in old English which meant 'pledge'. People can enter into a marriage or a civil union by a wedding, by signing at a registrar's office, by a small gathering that has a celebration but isn't self-classified as a wedding, etc. Gay marriage is not legal in New Zealand but civil unions are open to same-sex couples. If a gay couple wishes to have a wedding for their civil union, then so be it. Wedding does not equal marriage, and vice versa. Therefore the caption as I had it is correct: it is a same-sex wedding. The wedding is the ceremony and civil union entered into through a wedding Enzedbrit 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eve-of-destruction.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Eve-of-destruction.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.

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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2007, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Selective Colour
Hi,

I have read your comment regarding my contribution to the article. I don't feel I made my reasons that clear for changing your image; the reason I changed it was because I feel that the article gives the impression that this very effective technique can only be applied to wedding photography, which looking at your work appears to be a field you excel at :), so i changed the image to show another application of the technique/process.

keep up the good work

--Lukebishop 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice reply to my my rather rude and terse message. I was up late when I penned it, and was not in a jovial mood.


 * Point well taken that the selective color process is indeed not limited to wedding photos. However, besides seeing one of my favorite images removed (which is neither here nor there), it seemed to me that your replacement image wasn't (if you'll pardon me) particularly well framed or composed.  Also, the sign in question was such a small part of the image, it almost gets lost.  In other words, I think it is still quite possible to take a more visually interesting photo of the same subject matter to illustrate that selective color can be used for applications other than wedding imagery.  I would suggest getting a bit closer to the red sign and framing it in a manner that corresponds with this tutorial.  A clinical or informational photo need not look like a snap shot, and with a bit of attention to framing and subject matter can be improved to a great degree.


 * In any case, thank you for a much more gracious reply than I deserved.


 * --Mactographer 22:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for your reply! Don't worry about your original comment, I would be miffed if the same thing happened to me. As for your remark about my image, THANKS!! :) I understand where you are coming from and I am always open to criticism with regards to my hobby. The image was not meant to be anything special, it was just a quick scene I snapped while walking through the local park in Hastings with my girlfriend. Hopefully when my Canon gets fixed I can get out there and get back to taking some real pictures.
 * Hi,

Thanks again, --Lukebishop 21:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your addition to the Suriving Veterans of WW1 page
I've removed the link to your photograph from this page. It's mostly because the photo has no relevance, the subject isn't on the verified or unverified living veterans list. Regards, 87.194.97.107 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:GG-ftpoint-bridge.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:GG-ftpoint-bridge.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:GG-ftpoint-bridge.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:GG-ftpoint-bridge.jpg, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:GG-ftpoint-bridge.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Correction
I ran across this image of yours of Lake Castaic, but it's actually Pyramid Lake (California) which is upstream of Castaic. I took pretty much the same picture in 2005 so I recognized it. Pyramid Lake doesn't have a picture so you could toss it up there, but you should probably rename the file and whatnot. You probably took the picture from around hereToasterb 02:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good eye. You are exactly right.  Thanks for catching my error.  I've fixed the links, however, I don't think I can change the actual NAME of the photo.  Do you know how, if possible? --Mactographer 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ha, I don't have a clue, I was hoping that I could just put that proposal out there and maybe by chance you'd know. Nice work on the rest of your photos btw. Toasterb 00:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ken Burns photo
I was just browsing the USGov PD category, and I realized that Image:092205burns023.jpg is mistagged. It's got the Template:PD-USGov tag, but it's a work of a state government, which is specifically excluded in the fine print of the template.

In addition, http://www.uncwil.edu/www/copyright.html seems to contradict what you were told, but permission is permission. :-) I figured I'd leave it for you to straighten out as you like.--SarekOfVulcan 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Eucharist
Yes, I accidentally bumped the return key while typing my edit comment. I removed it because an image in that location with a navbar right opposite made for an ugly layout; by occupying the lead position with a large image of a Catholic altar it violated WP:NPOV; it provided no information because there was no caption explaining to the reader what it was; and even if there was a caption no useful information would be conveyed because it did not actually show the Eucharistic elements "being used" as the description page claims. It furthermore does not show a typically laid-out Catholic altar since it was evidently cropped from someone's wedding photo and it's set up specifically for a nuptial mass, which I suppose explains that one very weird candle. I furthermore had no idea what you intended to convey with your edit comment: what's an "Editorial photo"? TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The weird candle was the arrangement in the center, with the flowers and the big candle that had the heart shapes molded onto it. That's not something you typically see on a Catholic altar. I'm a little surprised to see something like that even for a nuptial mass.


 * I assumed the photo was cropped because the comment from when it was uploaded said, "A bride's casual portrait." I naturally figured that since no bride was visible that she had been cropped out. I suppose it was an erroneous comment to begin with though: they're automatically inserted from the "Summary" text, and I imagine you just pasted it in from another upload and corrected it after the fact.


 * "Ugly" isn't just my POV. I maintain a couple of templates, and for one moderately sized infobox I have one user complaining that it's too wide and needs to be shrunk. Here we end up with the text getting squeezed between the image and the navbox, so if anything it's worse than any infobox could be. It's for this reason that you almost never find images in the intro outside an infobox or navbox, and I very much think that if I hadn't reverted, someone else would have. I don't think it's really suitable for the kind of decorative image you have in mind, though. For one, it's relatively large as such things go; and it's insufficiently abstract to represent the subject in a general way. It's the lack of generality that speaks to the POV issue with regard to its placement: even without a caption it's clearly a Catholic altar. The intro needs to be a broad summary of the article that follows. Devoting so much space to an image of one church's version of the Eucharist is therefore out of place.


 * That's not to say the image isn't suitable for somewhere else in the article. I had run out of time just then, which is why I didn't comment on the talk page as I should have when my edit comment went awry, but I do intend to place it elsewhere. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 02:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Washington Monument Photo
How does your photo add any value to the Washington Monument page? There was a problem with overcrowding photos on the page, and yours was one of the casualties. If you want to replace you picture, I suggest using a gallery. Oh, just wondering, who is the 13 year old editor you're referring to? If you mean me, your facts would be wrong on my age, contrary to Wikipedia's policy on facts: only facts. Thank you, and have a nice day. Flap Jackson 13:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to "Washington Monument Photo"
Responses to your comment left on my talk page today:

"It shows the view from the top. Much more valuable and unique in "my opinion" than the one you added of some statuary my precocious teen."

I have to disagree. Hear me out on this. I've been to the top of the Washington Monument, and everyone is taking pictures. I took pictures. Millions of tourists take picture up there each year. I think that is a logical argument to say that the photo is not unique. If you disagree with that, take it up with an administrator. As to my photo, I consider it to be important because it's dedicated to the man who the monument was named after. Besides, there wasn't a picture of the monument's namesake on the page. If you come up with a better one, I'm all for it. Or, if you completely disagree, take it up with an administrator.

"Your opinion, but not that of any others from what I can see."

You probably missed it, but I did it because Cadby brought it up on Talk:Washington Monument under the topic "Regarding Pictures".

"The same suggestion back at you regarding YOUR photo, my son." "My son"? What's with the put-downs because I'm 16? Age doesn't matter if a hindrance is not being created. If you have a problem with me, take it up with an administrator.

"Sorry, I guess you would be about 16 by now. So much older and more mature than I previously suggested. For comparison though, I have a pair of sneakers old than you, son.

"By the by, does the AG church teach anything about humility, respecting others and especially your elders?"

Again, what's with the age deal? By the way, not "By the by", I'm not some young gun trying to ruin the website, I'm just trying to help. If you don't like me, please take it up with an administrator. Flap Jackson 00:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Blackbeard photo
Hi. Could you provide a little more info on of an actor portraying Blackbeard? A caption says that picture is from Pirates of the Caribbean. Is that from a Disney Park show, or from the ride? I don't remember that character in any of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Thanks. --Dan East 10:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Someone probably assumed that was from Pirates of the Caribbean.  Amazing how much pure speculation ends up in Wikipedia.  --Dan East 10:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Rachelward-2.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Rachelward-2.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)