User talk:Remember the dot/Archive/3

lol
;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing :D — I was smiling to myself quite a bit after making this change. And in case you were wondering, it's not an April Fool's joke. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kernel Patch Protection
I believe your revision was incorrect. Although I will not be undoing it, the "removed information" is misleading and redundant.

It is misleading as the inclusion of Sophos in the para about McAfee and Symantec clearly links the three companies, indicating that Sophos have the same problem, except in the corporate edition of their AV software. That would be interesting but the next para explains that all versions of Sophos (and Kaspersky) AV software work with KPP as they do not approach the problem in the same way as McAfee and Symantec. So the sentence about Sophos in the 1st para is redundant not "interesting." 82.24.213.54 12:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

vector and raster
This conversation started at

I don't want to continue the thread over at the image for deletion page. The image syntax highlighting image I contributed in raster format has been converted perfectly nicely to vector by someone or another. Actually, of more need are a number of charts and diagrams I've contributed, mostly to biology-related articles (I created them all in vector applications, but at the time, exporting to PNG was the preferred route for WP contribution... I probably don't have time to dig up all my original versions nowadays). My user page lists them, if you want to go through images with a vectorizer (I have Illustrator at work, but again, time is the issue).

But my comment about "downstream uses" isn't just about what web browsers are on handhelds. That was an example, but other uses exist. And actually, what I had in mind was a little project I saw at Wikimania where the WP database was converted into some compressed and optimized format (i.e. not plain HTML/PNG) and stored on a PDA-style device (I think WinCE... yuck, but here just about concepts not implementation). That's not a web browser thing, but something else. Or sites like answer.com that syndicate much WP content might not have the SVG->PNG automation in their backends. Or the one-laptop-per-child project might have different requirements than typical "view WP on the web" usage (FWIW, I work with Alan Kay--passingly--who has helped the project, and hence I saw some early prototypes of the "$100 laptop").

It's a more general issue: Are there GFDL licensees who would benefit from a PNG version of a given file because they cannot (easily) use a SVG for the same purpose? I.e. not just WP itself, but anyone who would validly license the image (except mine are all PD rather than GFDL, but the same idea applies). LotLE × talk 14:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are, they would doubtless implement some sort of SVG viewer or run all the SVGs though a rasterization process before using them. We don't really have to worry about this, though. We use the SVGs because they are flexible not only to us but to downstream users as well. For example, a user might want to take an SVG we render at low-resolution, make some changes, and blow it up to high-resolution for use on a poster. They would be able to do this with ease with an SVG and a quick installation of vector graphics software.


 * So, the benefits we and downstream users gain as a result of using SVGs far outweigh the concerns of lack of mainstream SVG support. Compatible software such as Firefox, the GIMP, and Inkscape is free. If necessary, a downstream user could even obtain a copy of the database and write a program to rasterizate all the SVGs in it at once.


 * SVGs make our lives easier when working with images on Wikipedia. We shouldn't abandon them because a downstream user might have a problem working with them. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between free and unfree
Thanks for telling me about the mozilla license. - Peregrine Fisher 03:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"I invoke a policy that I don't usually invoke"
Is there a reason for you to be smug in your edit summaries? It's bad enough you are self-imposed arbiter of images on articles you've contributed nothing to. I appreciate your improvement of the graphics themselves, but I disagree with the decisions you make about them. Chris 05:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to be smug. You are welcome to keep the images, but I want to know what they are of. This information is critical to a claim of fair use, and I asked you to provide it before. I do not enjoy enforcing this policy, although it must be enforced on all images in the end because of the Board's unfree content resolution. Other users are more rigorous about enforcing this policy. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Towel Day discussion
Would you please see the TD disc and reply to me there? Thanks. --KOJV 12:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon Icon
But now, this picture is in the Pokemon category and the Icons category, the latter improperly as it doesn't use the template, thus placing it out of alphabetical order. Should these two be removed as well? N. Harmonik 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul Thurrott
How are you to know I'm not making it up? Because I am an admin and an OTRS volunteer. And because you assumed good faith. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Icelandic rating system
Hi. Thanks for updating my image of icelandic rating systems. I read your story on how you got the username. I'll tell you a similar story. Usualy when someone talks about the third Matrix movie, they say Revolution. Seams ok, NO, it's not. It's Revolutions. So usualy the conversation would go "Do you remeber the part in Matrix Revolution..." Steinninn interupts "Sssss". But they never nicknamed me Sssss. --Steinninn 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * lol :D
 * Another great one is when people say "book of revelations", betraying that they are not extremely familiar with the Book of Revelation.
 * As for the image fix, you're welcome. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pages requiring attention
I believe I corrected all the periods without space behind them, on the History of Bangladesh. gnomelock 03:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks! Do you happen to know if the number "1,50,000 Tk" is supposed to be formatted that way? Or should it be "150,000 Tk"? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't think of any reason for the odd comma punctuation, so I boldly changed it. :-)  Thanks.  gnomelock 04:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Any time. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you left me a message saying that several images I legally uploaded were listed for deletion. I apologize for the mix up, but I have an email from the official website of the Michigan State House that gives me permission to use and reproduce the images on Wikipedia. I have a copy if you wish to see it. I only ask that you replace all of the images you removed, if it is possible. Chflitwick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chflitwick (talk • contribs).

Re:Frescobaldi

 * I answered here. :) --「Twice 28.0 &middot;  contributions  &middot; talk」 09:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WatchlistBot
No problem. It was automatically tagged because of the currency copyright notice, but you're right, it doesn't belong. I've removed the tag and added it to the exclusion list, so it shouldn't get tagged again. Ingrid 14:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

no rationale.
Alright, thanks. I generally don't tag images so I took a shot.-- Wizardman 03:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned record labels
Thanks for the notice. On checking, all but one were removed without replacing them with anything else by anons or victims of simple vandalism! They're all de-orphaned now. Thanks again. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 04:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

acdc
What the hell has it got to do with youMindys12345 04:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no fair use problem with the Al Wilson image used in the Info box on that page. Al Wilson is a football player, the image taken of him was at a football game (a sporting event), the image is a poster, the image is a sports poster. What is the problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sundevilesq (talk • contribs).

PNG Crusade bot
Hi. While going through orphaned non-free images tagged for deletion, I noticed Image:MISSOURI2.gif. Your bot had tagged it as an orphaned non-free image, when in actuality, it is a free image. Can you have it instead nominate free images for deletion at IFD? Orphaned non-free images are pretty much just blindly deleted, but for a free image, someone needs to make sure that any attribution information needed for the GFDL has been copied. Thanks. -- BigDT ( 416 ) 00:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I usually go back and nominate the image for deletion at WP:IFD, but sometimes (like in the case of this image) one slips by unnoticed. Thanks for catching the error! —Remember the dot (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

JPEG -> PNG images (I Am Bored)
I actually just figured that out today. I wondered why mine always seemed so blurry compared to others' pictures. Thanks so much for the assistance. And as for the screen-shot, I wasn't aware. I will make sure to crop the pictures in the future. Thanks again! -  hmwith  talk   00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
I see you already put it back, that really is one excessive discussion. Btw, is someone refactoring your comments? Garion96 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The photo you added to the Elijah Lovejoy page is NOT Elijah Lovejoy, who died several years before the first known photograph of a living human being. I removed it from the page two years ago after our newspaper mistakenly printed it (it was also in Encyclopedia Britannica, although they've since removed it from their online site). I notified Spartacus Educational of the error, but I see they still have this same photo on their Elijah Lovejoy page.

It's probably his brother, Owen Lovejoy. It looks like it was taken from a full-length photo of Owen that appears on the cover of recent biography.

Fair use rationale for Image:Union of Brazilian Scouts logo.png
Are you kidding? Does this mean you will now require separately written rationales on each of the 400+ Scout logos now currently in use on Wikipedia articles, which already have what you call a "boilerplate" disclaimer/ Chris 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You've written me a lot of generic stuff on my talkpage the last few months. Now is the time for me to write an appeal to you, personally. You act as both friend and enemy in your edits-friend in converting to png where you can; enemy in that you are so cavalier in tagging the Scout images from all over the world that it has taken us two years to collect. Some of those you have caused to have been deleted have been rare, small organizations, where a little care ahead of time would have made the image perfectly acceptable for the article it went to. You claim to be "improving" the articles-see your recent edit summary at Scouting in Ukraine, but the purpose you really serve is deletionist-by-default. Your argument that "someone else will come along and tag this image" is fallacious-you are helping them to be deleted faster. Your treating the images as "decoration" bespeaks a lack of subject understanding, where I believe you really may understand what the articles are about. It would be better if you were to find an image and say "hey, how can I make this such that it can be used in this article? I know there is a whole WikiProject that has taken the time to collect these images and write these articles, this has to be good for something." You're obviously not averse to putting forth effort, I would rather see that used positively rather than to negate the work of others. Not all of us are experts on copyright or how things can be used, and the speed at which you tag things is hard to keep up with. Why not try improving how the images fit into the articles, since you yourself are familiar with what to do? Hoping this falls on fertile soil, Chris 05:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very big-minded of you, and much appreciated. You just made my day. Chris 01:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Image:Upload.PNG
Just so you know, that edit was sort of wrong. Why? Because:


 * 1) It's not a fair use image, Wikipedia screenshots are free.
 * 2) It's not orphaned, it's on my page.
 * 3) And it doesn't need 2 copyright tags.

Not to be mean or anything, though. - Super48 18:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, only the web page itself is free. Internet Explorer and the Windows taskbar are not. I could crop the browser and taskbar out of the picture, but I didn't think it was worth it. If you'd really like to keep the screenshot, though, I can do that for you. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied. Check my talk page. - Super48 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for fixing my error, but still the speed with which they get caught is astoundingTennekis 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

CO777
I explained myself enough on this picture - It was taken by a guy named Arthur Yu and it was used with permission. WhisperToMe 20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So, then, it can be deleted once a pic of a CO777 that was taken for a GDFL appears, correct? WhisperToMe 20:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt Yu is willing to relicense, so the image can go :) WhisperToMe 21:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Niterói Itacoatiara Beach.jpg
Hi! The photographer gave permission to use the low-res version in public domain. I don't think it's against wikipedia policies to use a picture released to the public domain by the copyright holder (Luiz Anciães). I don't know if your or mine interpretation is correct... Let me know if anything further is needed to keep the image, because the substitute Image:Elisa_em_Itacoatiara_2.jpeg is simply unacceptable because it does not show the beach, but only a little (beautiful) child. Anyway, since I live near Niterói, I can always take a picture myself from the beach and substitute the PD released, but contended, version from Luiz Anciães... Just let me know the outcome of your revision of this matter. Regards Loudenvier 16:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

.Net
Oh! I am a .Net programmer (mostly C#)... Interesting nickname of yours! Loudenvier 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool! Thanks :D —Remember the dot (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Electrocardiography article
The reason the svg image was changed back to jpg is because there was an error in the svg image. Please see and Depolarisation wavefront and positive electrode diagram at Talk:Electrocardiogram. Changing back for now. Best, MoodyGroove 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * OK. I ought to be able to fix the SVG shortly. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. Could you leave a little more border around the edges so the image is more landscape instead of portrait? Or even square? Best, MoodyGroove 17:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * How does it look now? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Much better! Thank you. MoodyGroove 19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Any time. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion notice
You can see it. The script must've screwed up the first time. Yonatan talk 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

RfCs
Hi, you have to certify the basis for the dispute at the RfC by the way. Matthew 07:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons images from Flickr
Why are you uploading other people's images off Flickr? Do you have their permission, e.g. for the SAGE terminal in the J. C. R. Licklider article? Dicklyon 05:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As noted on the Flickr pages, the copyright holder allows anyone to copy the images without permission and redistribute them under the terms of a Creative Commons license. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:SchapelleCorbyInCell.jpg
Hi Remember the dot. I'll see if I can get SchapelleCorbyInCell.jpg released under the GFDL. BTW, I thought your username might refer to the dot in BIND zonefiles that people always forget, but I read your explanation re VN .net Robert Brockway 05:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dot,

I provided information regarding the uploading of the image on the page itself. What more is required? I'm not trying to be difficult, I justr want to do the right thing and I'd appreciate your help.

Adamm 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DejaVu Font download
I downloaded the font that will display the international symbol of accessibility but can't find an "install" option that was outlined in the instructions. When the window that displays the font when I click on the file mentioned, it displays. When I close the file, it changes back to ?. I don't understand anything, and I don't know who else to ask for help. I asked about this on that page, but I want a timely response. You were the one that created that page, so can you help me out? Please respond on my own talk page. --Jnelson09 23:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to copy the font file to your desktop, right-click, and click Install. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I copied it to my desktop, but the menu that shows up when I right-click on it doesn't have an "install" option. I just get Open, Print, Scan, Open with..., Sweep with SpySweeper, Send to, Cut, Copy, Create shortcut, Delete, Rename, and Properties. --Jnelson09 00:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, it looks like the Install option is only there on Windows Vista. I've added instructions for Windows XP. Thanks for catching this! —Remember the dot (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping me out. --Jnelson09 01:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

lightning bolt photo
Just thought I would leave you a message about the recently disputed free status of the lightning bolt photo I uploaded a while ago. Hit me back with questions/comments. laonoodlekeemow 07:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I obtained permission to use the image in wikipedia from the photographer, who if memory serves me right, is also the webmaster of the band's sight. Thus, there is no copyright infringement and the proposed image is both not as good and also not "unfree" as it is just off of some random flickr site. Comment on my page to discuss.

Marshlink Line
Thanks for the assistance with the troublesome ... downloading the fonts worked.Canterberry 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

image:pcr.jpg
This whole image image deletion business seems to be becoming completely out of control, although it's some time now since I had several of my own images deleted without warning because they were uploaded before the tagging system was devised and therefore, by definition, were untagged. This image falls in to that category.

I had permission from Claire Rasmussen and the photographer to use it (not restricted to Wikipedia only), which I would have thought it made it GFDL by default, and this image is freely used on other websites, (which means nothing), but it was also used without further permission by a hard copy publication, Birdwatching magazine - I checked that they had used it without further licensing, since, unusually, the photographer was not attributed and they, in fact, considered it had now become public domain.

I've no doubt that having read this, you'll delete anyway, all the best jimfbleak 04:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image tagging problem
Thanks for notifying me. I have fixed the problem. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Art is Resistance logo.png
Thanks for your help with image:Art is Resistance logo.png and image:ResistanceAvatarLogo.jpg. When you have a second, could you check out the discussion page for the image, as I posted something which you may or may not be able to help with. Again, thanks for the help, and keep up the good work! Drewcifer3000 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Description pages for images on Commons
Are you sure pages like Image:GameOfLife.GIF and Image:125-36 o2.gif are in fact valid speedies? CSD I2 says that empty description pages for Commons images may be speedily deleted, but these pages used to contain (besides the indeed incorrect tag) a valid category link. Or is there some rule somewhere about (not) categorizing Commons images locally? (I'm genuinely curious about that; it feels like there should be, but I'm not aware of one.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there was no useful information on those pages. I don't think we categorize Commons images locally, although we do add "featured picture" tags if they've been featured on our project. I'm no expert though, so perhaps you should ask someone more knowledgeable. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Blackanigallop.gif
I have put a notice on my website saying that blackanigallop.gif is public domain.--Yamenah 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sniper Joe Images
Listen here, buddy! Those images were animated to add a little class and originality to that page that I'd helped craft into what it is today! Why did you have to go and "convert" my beautiful, hand-ripped GIF images into ugly, stationary PNGs? PNGs, which I might add, which seem to have flubbed both Hammer Joe and Apache Joe's images slightly! If there's some new policy I'm not aware of, please...enlighten me. Otherwise, I'd like my old, "ugly" GIFs back where they belong. At the very least, the animated ones. I can sort of see your point with the stationary ones like Skeleton Joe or Return Sniper Joe. ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 22:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two reasons why I did that:
 * Animated images like these are very distracting from the actual text of the article. Animation should be used sparingly.
 * Your claim of fair use for these images is shaky when you use animated copies. Animated copies needlessly increase the amount of copyrighted work we are using, which is not in accordance with Non-free content. To be safe, you really ought to go through these images and add a fair use rationale to each one.
 * —Remember the dot (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

template:EU image
See the discussion at User_talk:Ilse@. There are many more images tagged with this template for which this discussion is a concern. Better deal with this all it once instead of having to resort to such discussion over and over for every image. Intangible2.0 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:ATA Airlines logo 2001.png
Hi. I removed the ShouldBeSVG tag from this image after uploading a new PNG version that doesn't have the dithering problem that the old one had. There is an SVG version on Wikipedia still at Image:American Trans Air Logo.svg (it ought to get deleted soon for being unused fair use, but I thought I'd wait to make sure nobody complained too much about the change before tagging it for deletion), but User:Sox23 and I felt it was better to use this one instead because the SVG logo lacks the color gradient as seen on ATA's website and aircraft. -- Hawaiian717 05:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dornier image
Image:Dornier.jpg - This image was uploaded by me in 2003, when the image copyright schemes were more fuzzy. I am the author. The GFDL is fine. -- Egil 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image authors
Thanks for clarifying the recent image issues with my uploads. What exactly do I put as the "author" for images... especially non-free content? For example, Image:Shrek Dronkey.JPG?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uthabiti (talk • contribs).


 * The company the image belongs to would be a good choice to put in the Author field. In the case of Image:Shrek Dronkey.JPG, I put "DreamWorks".


 * Also, please remember to sign your posts. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment required
Hi there, as a fellow contributor to Possibly unfree images I was wondering if you'd take the time to comment on the proposal I've made on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images. Thanks. Madmedea 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ATA Photos
Hi Remember the dot-

I have recieved permission from the authors of both and  via e-mail stating that I can use this on wikipedia...I don't know what else I need. However I will be on vacation until Saturday June 16 so I will not be able to respond. Sox 23 17:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Requesting copyright permission probably has the answers you need. Essentially, you need to get the photographer to send an e-mail to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org with a statement such as "I authorize the redistribution of 'ATA 757-300 by Justin Cederholm.jpg' under the terms of the GFDL." —Remember the dot (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just emailed the photographers of both photos and asked them to send an email to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org So they should be getting to that shortly so please don't delete the images. Thanks Sox 23 01:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes on Template:Non-free media rationale
I'm not sure I understand some of your recent changes (see here). What exactly did you do? Did you changes make the replaceable part optional? Could you explain it here or on the template's talk page? &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the template still functions exactly the same way, but the Resolution parameter is now named Low_resolution for clarity (using the Resolution parameter will still work for the benefit of old rationales). I also made a couple of minor stylistic changes to make the template look nicer. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Notification
Hello Remember the dot! I appreciate that you are abiding by process when alerting me, via multiple generic messages, to the impending deletion of images that I have uploaded. But the volume is quite disconcerting as these photographs were uploaded over two-years ago and are consequently of little concern to me. As an administrator, I would personally delete post-1956 images unilaterally and immediately by invoking CSD criterion - but that wouldn't be process (I'm not "rouge" ;-). Pre-1956 material is conceivably public domain for a variety of reasons. If only the copyright status could be definitively determined; principally whether they were produced by an "officer or servant of the Crown". Without appearing irate (and to reach the purpose of this message), would you consider refraining from notifying me that an image I have uploaded is being considered for deletion? That is unless you wish to issue a deletion request. ;-) Regardless of the messages, I commend your efforts as examining so many images must be rather tedious. SoLando (Talk) 00:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll hold off the generic messages for you then. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as deletion requests, if you're looking for something to do you might want to clear out the 12-day backlog at WP:PUI. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:I8 Ravager of Time.jpg
Hi. I don't know where you came into all this from, but essentially see WP:ANI. User:Dm2ortiz has ignored every single attempt I had made to communicate with him on this issue, so bringing the image to IfD was an attempt to get some resolution to this. Cheers --Pak21 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note that User:Dm2ortiz has reverted your change to this image... Cheers --Pak21 13:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * do not alter a disputed image. Dm2ortiz 13:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Ericson-Molano.jpg
I actually got that image from his Myspace!!!! Are you gonna delete it? ThinkBlue 01:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright!!!! Thanks for letting me know!!!! ThinkBlue 01:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Randy_Orton_.jpg
That image I got permission to use in wikipedia!!!!!  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So it can't stay in Wikipedia? You know, I took some time-off, and I read all the guidelines to upload images!!! I understood some of the rules and some I didn't!!! And it says If you ask for permission, the image is acceptable in Wikipedia. And that's the copy of my e-mail verification!!!  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup!!!! An administrator directed me to that page!!! Listen, I don't want to waste your time or mine!!! Are you gonna delete it?  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So your saying that a "user" here knows who took this image? Hold on, I know an administrator I'll talk to 'em!!!  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, then we'll WAIT!!!!  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)