User talk:OtherPerson/Archive

Blanking Pages
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  07:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I thought it was a good idea so readers don't confused. 07:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * Could you expand upon this explanation? "I thought it was a good idea so readers don't confused" makes little sense and really doesn't explain your blanking of the Palm Beach, Florida talk page. Captaintruth 14:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it says that the Palm Beach, Florida talk should be tagged, yet this was prior to it being an alright page. In others words, the reader would be confused about if it's going to be tagged or not. 18:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * Maybe I am an idiot, but I have no idea what any of this has to do with the fact that you blanked (deleted all content) on the Palm Beach talk page. Captaintruth 02:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever, just archieve it... 04:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * Just wanted to give your chance to explain you apparent vandalism. Since you have not provided a rational explanation, I imagine most users will conclude from this discussion that your actions did amount to vandalism. But, of course, you'll probably try to prevent them from reading this by deleting this exchange from your user page, thus repeating another type of vandalism you have committed in the past (see my comments below, which you have chosen not to respond to. Have a good night. Captaintruth 05:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried to tell you as well as I could, now just forget it! 01:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * No worries. Just wanted to make sure to establish a record of this incident and your justifications for it. Captaintruth 02:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Usertalk Deletions
I just noticed that you have deleted some comments from your usertalk (eg my comments regarding your initial WPB edits, user:Mike Halterman's comments regarding your overuse of a public domain tag for your early copyrighted images). Removing old discussions from your usertalk is considered vandalism. Please restore all deleted discussions. Captaintruth 14:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for Mall Picture Tags
I notice that you've put the same "copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights" tag to every single mall picture in the Tampa area. Can you give me a justification for such a tag? There is no rationale on the picture pages. Mike H. That's hot 01:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the University Mall image was from a page that doesn't exist anymore. The WestShore Plaza image is a few years old. I do not no where I got it, but the picture was/is possibly copyrighted with rights allowed to websites like this. 03:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

Image Tagging Image:Dadeland Mall Main Entrance.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dadeland Mall Main Entrance.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. - SCEhard T 05:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the source on the image, please removed this after you say it's ok. 03:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

Your test has been reverted
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Please cite your sources before making bold POV edits to articles, especially in the Palm Beach area. If you are going to say "crime has decreased" cite a study showing that it has. Also your comment about Boca landowners committing robbery was nonsense. Please do not insert that sort of thing again. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  02:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an opinion people say, I'm not actually saying that THEY DO. Also, look at the discussion for "Palm Beach City" (People DO call it that) for city data on crime. 03:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

Image copyright problem with Image:Boca_Raton_Skyline.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Boca_Raton_Skyline.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 09:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Cityplace.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cityplace.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 09:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Downtown_Boca_Raton_in_early_nineties.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Downtown_Boca_Raton_in_early_nineties.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.

Image copyright problem with Image:Boca_Raton_Airport.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Boca_Raton_Airport.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.

West Palm Beach Edits
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Captaintruth 14:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia (specifically, West Palm Beach. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Captaintruth 14:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading the various images you have added to the West Palm Beach page. However, the images may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy). Captaintruth 14:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Marshalls Exterior.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Marshalls Exterior.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Captaintruth 23:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I assumed that this wasn't copyrighted, since I didn't see any text saying it was. 23:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * If you peruse Wikipedia's copyright standards, you will find that they are quite a bit more

demanding than than. In fact, you should know this because similar reasaoning has gotten you into trouble in the past. But of course, one must go through your usertalk history to know this because you have deleted those past discussions (which, as I pointed out above, constitutes vandalism). HTH. Captaintruth 23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just delete the picture then. I'm acutally not using it on the Marshalls page that I just did since there's no room for it. So, I won't upload images with no copyrights or stuff like that in the future. 23:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

Target
Can you please explain why Target is not a Retail company of the United States? (And Toys R Us and Wal-Mart is?)  J.reed  04:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And how is it a supermarket? Only a small percentage of stores are supermarkets.  J.reed [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|25px]] 04:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Target isn't a small company like many are on the list. 15:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

Image Tagging for Image:Wal-Mart_Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wal-Mart_Logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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 Image legality questions. 13:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:The Falls Main Entrance.jpg -- is this really free use?
Can you provide some evidence that this image is in fact free use, as you have tagged it to be? I ask because you have a history of falsely claiming that images are free use (see discussion above). Captaintruth 03:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no purchasing stuff on the website... 23:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

Copyright problems with Image:Volusia Mall Main Entrance.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Volusia Mall Main Entrance.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Nivus  (talk)  08:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is it a violation? I gave the source and the copyright says nothing about rights being reserved. 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * Yeah. And don't forget to add that "theres's no purchasing stuff." Captaintruth 00:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly... 03:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

I added the copyright on the image. Please remove the warning if this is eligible. 15:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

Image copyright problem with Image:Jordan Marsh in Orlando.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jordan Marsh in Orlando.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the copyright on the image. Please remove the warning if this is legible. 15:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * Um yeah. I see you removed the warning yourself. I added it back. The image is copyrighted and there is no indication that it is available under a free license that would make it compatable with Wikipedias GFDL license. Some "unfree" images might be used under fair use, for example if the exteriour of this department store have changed significantly you might argue that the image is non-reproducale and of historic interest, but please read the Fair use page first. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not to sure on what your saying. What do I do in order to make this image eligible? 17:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

Image Tagging Image:100px-Rache-des-Papstes-k2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:100px-Rache-des-Papstes-k2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. - SCEhard T 19:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This image was on Wikipedia. The only thing I did was made it smaller since it spaced a page out too much. 12:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * The MediaWiki servers can resize images on their own when the page explicitly calls for it. There is no reason to upload smaller versions of already existing images.  If you don't know how resize images using the Wiki markup, then I suggest you read WP:EIS. The original image he's referring to is Image:Rache-des-Papstes-k2.jpg. Looks more like he cropped out a lot of detail opposed to how I interpret what he said about resizing it.  68.226.61.4 17:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there anything we can do about this repeatedly distruptive user? Captaintruth 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd hate to be rude, but you're being rude. I gave my explanation and I'm asking what I'm supposed to now.


 * Look at this talk page, my friend. You repeatedly upload images with unclear copyright status. You have made several disagreeable edits. Thus, it seems objectively true that you are being "distruptive". At some point, I will feel compelled to seek administrator assistance...I just wanted to give you a friendly warning and request that you change your ways. Captaintruth 01:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Captaintruth, you might be interested in reading WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL. The only thing you're more recent posts have done on this talk page is contribute to an uncivil environment.  I also think that you're starting to be rude and judgmental.  Sorry if the tone to what I'm saying just sounds wrong.  As far as this image goes, I think this should be resolved already.  Since it is derived from a GFDL image, then that implies that this cropped version is also GFDL.  Alexzero77, go ahead and post on User_talk:SCEhardt, telling him to tag the image as GFDL because it is derived from Image:Rache-des-Papstes-k2.jpg.  It is apparent that he doesn't watch this page and will not receive your response.  Don't know how he would respond to it though, since if it was me I would've resized the original image anyways without cropping out the detail, but then again I'm not familiar with what this image is about.  68.226.61.4 06:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything I have said is based on this user's activities. I just really wish he would stop violating wikipedia policies at every turn. What is uncivil about that? Captaintruth 21:45, 19 April 2006


 * Alexzero77, the admin SCEhardt has marked this image using  since it is derived from another GFDL image.  In the future, you might probably want to explain this on the admin's talk page instead of your own to get a faster response.  68.226.61.4 20:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Recent edit made to Target (Australia)
Hello, my comment is about a recent edit you made to this article. Here, you removed the Notes and refernces section, along with the  template message without providing reason, things that I added while justifying myself on the article's talk page. I went ahead and reinserted this. Going into the future, if you think a template message should be removed, please provide your reason on the article's talk page and look into the talk page for the reason that it is there in the first place before you choose to do so. Thanks. 68.226.61.4 19:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Will it never end, Alex? Captaintruth 05:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

CityPlace image you recently uploaded (Image:CityPlace.jpg)
Do you have any evidence for your assertion that the copyright holder as revoked all rights on this image, as you claim. I ask mainly because I am familiar with your past (false) claims regarding the revocation issue. Captaintruth 05:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, read the summary. 17:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

CityPlace Image
I read the summary -- that's where my question came from. All the summary indicates is that you claim the author has released all rights. You have a record of claiming this for numerous pictures and an administrator user:Mike Halterman raised doubts as to the verity of these claims. Do you have any evidence for your assertion that the author has released all rights? Captaintruth 22:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is no copyright or a reservation of rights, but it's not a ".org" site, so I really wouldn't classify it as that. 02:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * Assuming isn't enough. You actually have to know that the author has released his rights. Captaintruth 04:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Target Corporation...
Hello, I see you removed Category:Retail companies of the United States from the article. I don't know if you checked the article history, but if you did you would've seen me ask that it be brought up on the article's talk page before removing it again. I went ahead and recategorized it anyways, but if you really think it shouldn't be in this category then please bring it up on the talk page of the article so consensus can be reached among the other editors. (Personally I think the current category hierarchy is flawed and I am willing to discuss this, but not here.) Thanks. 68.226.61.4 03:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This goes for anything that has been removed once for this article and you feel it should be re-inserted. (Discount Department Store mainly). Please bring it up on the talk page. J.reed 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:CocoWalk_Main_Entrance.gif
An image that you uploaded, Image:CocoWalk_Main_Entrance.gif, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dr Zak 02:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, one does not have to assert copyright to own the copyright. I'll take a replacement picture next time I'm in the area (on the weekend) and upload it. Dr Zak 02:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

S-protected
Hi, please do not mark articles as semi-protected if they are not. Thanks. RexNL 22:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok??? 19:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

Image Tagging Image:Westshore Plaza Main Entrance.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Westshore Plaza Main Entrance.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. Sherool (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Will it never end? Captaintruth 00:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rowland Macy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rowland Macy.jpg. The image description 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.

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 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 20:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Holy moley, Alex. Captaintruth 04:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Rowland Macy Image
(copyrighted Rowland Macy Image previously posted here)

Please remove this copyrighted image Once again, your rationale for inclusion does not make sense. The phrase "all rights reserved" (or similar) does not need to be used for an image to be subject to copyright. Captaintruth 13:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is probalty in Public Domain as it's a Pre-1900 image. I tagged it as such. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image content on Computer page
Please read the talk page discussions on the image at the top of this page instead of repeatedly putting back a picture of some PC or other. Just think about this for a moment. Suppose you are a reader of Wikipedia who looks up 'Computer' - do you REALLY need to know what a PC looks like? Think about this - what are they 99.9% likely to be sitting down in front of at the time?

Really - every single person who uses Wikipedia knows full well what a PC looks like and that it is a computer. Using that at the picture at the top of the page provides absolutely ZERO new information to any of our readers.

However, it does have the negative effect of reinforcing a possible confusion. If our supposed naive reader thinks that ALL computers look like PC's (a reasonable assumption for people who need to look them up on Wikipedia) - then we would be doing him/her the disservice of reinforcing that stereotype. By deliberately picking something that DOESN'T look like the PC that person is sitting in front of, we are providing new and thought-provoking information.

Anyway - even if you don't agree with this point, please DISCUSS changing the image on the Computer talk page rather than just changing the image that's been agreed on only after quite a lot of discussion amongst other contributors. We didn't arrive at this decision lightly.

Thanks!

SteveBaker 20:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

copyright status (yet another issue...)


Please provide a justification for permissive copyright status. Thanks Captaintruth 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * When a store puts out something (mannequins in this case), it's promotional for their work since they wear merchandise sold at the store. 04:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * The copyright at issue is the photographer's, not the store's. Captaintruth 13:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:IBM Personal Computer.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:IBM Personal Computer.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Jusjih 06:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The source has no copyright information, so it is possible that it is from public domain. 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * Wikipedia guidelines require definitive evidence that an image is in the public domain. Lack of source information is not enough. We've been through this before, Alex. Captaintruth 12:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete it since the website doesn't say what you want. 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

Reverted out-of-process move
To let you know, I reverted your cut-and-paste move of Sears, Roebuck and Company to Sears. I did this because it was done out of process, and does not preserve the edit history, which is required by the GNU Free Documentation License.

Since you could not move the article directly using the [move] tag since a redirect already exists at the intended destination, if you still want to make the move, you will need to formally make the request at Requested moves.

Meanwhile, I have submitted the article for cut-and-paste repair to fix the edit history for GFDL compliance. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good one, Alex. Captaintruth 17:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to be funny? It's not working.

Why I do what I do
Alex, I think you know that I don't just keep an eye on you to be funny. I care deeply about wikipedia. This is why it frustrates me to see you to repeatedly upload images with unclear copyright status, make edits that detract from articles (and, in the case of the unincorporated areas near Boca edits, that reflect your inferiority complex over not actually living in Boca). Thus, it was doubly frustrating for me to see that you had moved an article 1) without initiating a discussion on the article's discussion page (which should be done for as high profile a page as Sears) and 2) without even following correct techical standards as to how one moves a page. I'm sure my comments may seem annoying and on some level I'm sorry for that. But, Alex, your destructive behavior on Wikipedia really irks me. Captaintruth 14:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:The Florida Mall Main Entrance.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:The Florida Mall Main Entrance.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. 06:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:The Florida Mall Main Entrance (Food Court).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:The Florida Mall Main Entrance (Food Court).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. 07:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Boca Del Mar, Florida
I'm not going to argue or pick a fight with you because I have better things to do. One statement you made in your edit summary that was striking, yet more arrogant. I caution you and reminding you about the three-revert rule that is laid out by Wikipedia. Be careful, Alex. --Moreau36 00:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Watch it, Alex! --Moreau36 01:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see for the milage info of communities surroung Boca del Mar, which supports my claim. --Moreau36 19:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw it, but will now leave it alone as you put the info about its address there. 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

Oh Alex
My favorite wikipedia buddy...Captaintruth 02:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you ok? 03:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * I'm doing very well, thank you. How are things down in the greater Deerfield Beach area? Captaintruth 00:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well, except for the fact I don't even live in Broward County... 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * But we all know that, regardless of county lines, Boca Raton and its nearby unincorporated areas are located in the greater Deerfield Beach area. Captaintruth 13:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But being a more populated area, it's called the greater Boca Raton area. Or maybe great Ft. L. area.


 * But what you are missing is that Deerfield is so much more awesome than Boca. Plus we have more hot Brazillian chicks. Captaintruth 05:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You live there? I'm gonna go to your house and set your grass on fire. Just kidding, I don't care about Brazillian chicks. The soccer team are show-offs who beat Japan. If it was baseball, the would kick ass. I might blank this to piss you off, lol. 05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77


 * Come on, we don't let Boca types like you across the Hillsboro Canal. And I don't think you'll blank me. I am almost on the verge of being nice to you. But you're wrong about the Brazillian chicks, though I don't care about soccer. Oh, and I guess all along I've been assuming you're a male, but you very well might not be. Captaintruth 05:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh really? I just went there today to go to Books a Million. The only place I don't really like in Broward County is Coral Springs because the mall their is really outdated and everything is so depressing. Deerfield Beach is coming out nicely with all the new beach shops and enclosed parking. Also, the urban Target is cool. I remember there was a Zayre there where my mom got scammed before I was born. Oh, and I'm a male. 05:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

TJX
Why did you remove that 9/11 information from the TJX page? Associates were on the plane that crashed into the 9/11 building. It hit the company very hard and many people have never been the same. You should get your facts straight before you go taking things out of places. For your information, there is a mermorial garden in the corporate offices in Framingham, MA dedicate to those victims on the plane that day.


 * Which "9/11 building" was it? The WTC or Pentagon? Also, a source would be nice. 03:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

Image tagging for Image:WGA_Logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:WGA_Logo.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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. 11:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Winn-Dixie
Thanks for cleaning it up! Isopropyl 06:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem! It's people like you who make me smile, lol. 02:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Alexzero77

Bloomingdale's in Town Center at Boca Raton.JPG
Will you put Image:Bloomingdale's in Town Center at Boca Raton.JPG into Wikimedia Commons? Then we can use it in 布魯明黛 in Zh.Wikipedia. Thank you very much! --mingwangx 07:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would if I knew how to... 02:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Alexzero77

Unspecified source for Image:Aventura Mall Burdines.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aventura Mall Burdines.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - SCEhard T 20:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade Pikachu Balloon.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade Pikachu Balloon.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 free image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:WGA Notification.jpg
Hey there. I noticed you uploaded Image:WGA Notification.jpg in JPEG format, but it would look heaps better if you took another screenshot and uploaded it in PNG. Thanks! —  Jeremy  Talk  07:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_Logo.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_Logo.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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. 12:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)