User talk:Samantha1961

Hi, Samantha. Unfortunately, there wasn't any text. Just a couple of external links. I had no idea what your intentions were. You're absolutely free to recreate the article with some content, using the external links as references. WP:YFA is a great aid. Please feel free to ask me as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I did. :)  Simply recreate it under the same title with some original text.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's something that is going to take you a long time to get to looking like a real article, then click on this red text, and create the article there. That creates the article in an area that' private to you. When you think it's ready, either PMDrive1061 or I can help you move it to where you want it to be. That way, you don't have to worry about people deleting it because it looks empty.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

http://ebv.blogspot.com/2008/09/autumn-pet-peeves.html isn't going to pass WP:RS. Any material you take from it is going to wind up deleted from the article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

talk pages
You can always go to someone's talk page and hit "e-mail this user" to send an e-mail, but, unless there's really some strong reason to keep it private, just editing the talk pages is better. That's how I figured out that you and PMDrive1061 weren't communicating all that well, for example. I tend to respond more quickly to Wiki message pop-ups when I'm editing as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just go to any talk page, and look at the left hand side. You'll see boxes labeled "navigation", "iteraction", and "toolbox". "E-mail this user" is in "toolbox", but only if you have set up an e-mail address in your profile, which you apparently haven't. If you want to set one up, click on "my preferences" in the upper right corner of the page, and go from there.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do a quick cleanup on your work so far. The blog thing is probably a non-starter. If you could find numerous students saying they were impressed by him, then maybe. Even then, people would probably remove it based on the original research policy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not bad. Better find a source for the witness protection thing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jay Bybee
First, I'm not sure you realize that I'm just an editor that saw the discussion between you and PMDrive1061, and stopped by to help. I'm not an administrator, and have no special powers.

As for the Jay Bybee article, it really doesn't look too bad. Since you are his friend, it is probably best if you don't edit the article directly. If you show me some sources that would provide a significantly different point of view (or sections of the sources that are already there), I can give specific advice about how to proceed. I'm traveling most of tomorrow (our island is too small to have an opthamologist, so they are flying me to Curacao to visit one), so it will be Saturday before I can do anything significant.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Trip went fine, even though the news wasn't great. My vision has been slowly degenerating for years, and it seems to be accelerating a bit. I'll look over your edits today. You should probably read WP:COI over carefully, and make sure your relationship with him won't give you problems.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor
We're all private individuals. It's a purely volunteer place. We all edit everything ... nothing gets locked down, and no article belongs to any individual editor. Sandbox articles are a bit more like private articles, but not purely. If you had written a page attacking or slandering the subject, any editor wold have been free to remove the attack. When you asked me to review, I took that as permission to fix it, and when you asked for help with referencing, it was much easier to edit the reference list structure into your work than to explain how to do it. The only things that an admin can do that an editor can not is protect an article from editing, delete an article, or block another editor from editing. Once your article is complete, and it gets moved into regular namespace, it will be edited by everybody that takes an interest in the topic.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference formatting
Please ... I've provided you with numerous examples of how to format references correctly. I spent time correcting all of the existing ones yesterday. There's no reason for you to still be doing it by just placing a url in brackets.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There's only so much I can do at once. I JUST typed this text in. I was just fixing typos. Then I was going to go back and fix the footnotes, which I have in piles in front of my computer. Also, I was going to ask you for HELP with that Daily Journal reference. It should be on line, but the site requires user name and password. I figure I should still be able to cite the article, right? Also, you are assuming I am perhaps a bit more computer savvy than I actually am. The first explanation you wrote to me about references went sailing righ over my head. I'm really proud of myself for every little thing I'm learning, here... like how to delete the "period" someone put after the caption. But the learning curve is only so steep! Geez...Samantha1961 (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I was right the first time. I can't wrap my brain around how to do this properly. Another thing I read elsewhere: "When writing, don't worry about formatting the references properly. Someone else will come along and do that for you. Just get them in there." So that's what I'm doing. My ex even had to show me how to do the bracketing part. So that's what I'm going to do. I will ask my ex for help with it later or wait for someone to come along and fix it. Doesn't have to be you. But thanks for making me feel stupid. And I was just so proud of myself for (re)writing what I feel is now a really balanced and informative section.Samantha1961 (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to make you feel stupid. I'll take care of them in a bit if you haven't.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still working on typos and general clean-up of the text I just wrote. Back and forth, back and forth...Samantha1961 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bybee memo
My instinct would be to expand Bybee memo and have a very small summary in Jay Bybee.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's exactly what I was thinking. I just thought I'd ask an expert! I was thinking if I were writing about Napoleon and Waterloo, I wouldn't put all the Waterloo details in the Napoleon bio, just what was ultimately relevant to his life. Not troop movements, for example. That was just my example to put what I'm working on in perspective for myself... If you plan to tackle my references, I'd encourage you to hold off for a few hours. I'm playing around with it too much right now. I wouldn't want something you did to end up being pointless.Samantha1961 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought that it was relevant to note that the author of the Bybee memo is presently serving a lifetime appointment on the 9th circuit. After reading the page on the Bybee memo, that would certainly pique my curiosity about him and our legal system. Why do you feel it isn't relevant? Vargob (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I had to research back to even find what you were talking about! A few points. First, I think that comment belongs in the Jay Bybee section, not in the Bybee Memo section. I think most people who have an actual interest in this subject will read both sections. But it is about the person, not the Memo. Second, I believe they are ALL lifetime appointments, so it doesn't make much sense to emphasize and make it sound like it was just him when it's actually normal for the job. Third, it is widely thought that he was not the author of the memo, but merely it's signatory. That, of course, does not relieve him of any responsibility for its content, but it does make your comment inaccurate. I think your underlying point is probably that W did have a rather annoying habit of rewarding individuals for behavior the rest of us considered repugnant. Perhaps there is a good NPOV way to phrase this on the JB page...Samantha1961 (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In order of your the points:

1) The sentence immediately preceding my insertion is a quote about "Judge Bybee" being hung out to dry so it fits the content.  I meant it more as an appositive to let people know why he was being called Judge than to start a discussion about him.  As a reaction to his OLC providing the Bush administration with the legal tools they subsequently used as a justification to violate US law, Bush rewarded him with an appointment to the 9th circuit, probably as a bid to help add more conservative members.  (To that end, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/washington/09lawyers.html?_r=1&hp is rather interesting and could possibly be worked into the responses section.)  It is possible, even likely, that someone would follow on to the John Bybee page if they started at the Bybee Memo page (as I did), but not necessarily.  I don't think that it is overstating to mention that he is now a life-time appointment to the judiciary.

2) Yes, circuit judges are appointed for life, but that doesn't mean that it is any less accurate or relevant.

3) How does it make my comment inaccurate? He is on the 9th circuit, a verifiable fact.

Yes, you accurately gauged my point. I still feel that there is a relevance to lead readers back to his page and to let readers know in what capacity Bybee has been appointed to "serve" the people of the US. Thoughts?

Also, when you reverted you also removed the reference correction made in the same edit. Vargob (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to contemplate your other points when I have more brain power, but as to the last point about the reference deletion, that was sheer amateur incompetence. Sorry.Samantha1961 (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Are all those quotes by Bradbury really appropriate? I haven't seen that kind of thing before in any other article.

Also, there are now redundancies concerning authorship, which is discussed at the top of two separate sections. I hadn't heard of David Addngton before. Redundancies are in P2 of The Bybee Memo and only P of OPR Investigation. I leave that to you to fix.

Other than that, good changes. More info is good info, right? But I really question all that quoting...Samantha1961 (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I spent a lot of time updating the citations and adding my own and doing research, particularly for the original DOJ documents. The Bybee memo was linked from a human rights website, not FindLaw.com, inviting the accusation of bias or fabrication. I would still like a copy of it from the DOJ site, but I spent several hours yesterday working on it, I simply got tired and my browser froze for a moment, briefly freaking me out, so I decided to save what I had.

Yoo redundancy/Addington: I agree that there is a redundancy, but I don't believe the appropriate place to discuss the authorship is in the OPR section, and was going to post on the talk page for the article that it should be rewritten by whoever wrote it, or to simply move the OPR Investigation to the aftermath section and break that into sub-sections. I'll look at that later. The reference to David Addington is from the Unchecked and Unbalanced source... I have it sitting on my dresser and should anyone care to verify it (it is there along with the AG quote). They site several references in the footnote for their claims. Addington is mentioned in the one I added, the Newsweek article, but the authors didn't directly link him there. There are three other citations that I haven't tracked down yet. One looks virtually impossible (and possibly in German) but the two others are NYT. I favor leaving it in there for now as the VP's office did work/lobby very hard for these changes. I came across several other things from DOJ that I wanted to link to or add to text, but as I said, I was tired of working on it.

Quoting: I'll look over it. It is more extensive than the 2004 OLC opinion, but it is the most recent and thus most important.

LADJ citation: This is behind a "paywall" and thus is rather unverifiable. I vote it be removed unless the Pepperdine Prof wants to have it published in something else. BTW if you check his site, the man talks a lot!

Talk: Perhaps we should copy this discussion to the talk page for the article and continue there? Vargob (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked the references again and it appears that the one in German is proceedings in German court to prosecute US officials for war crimes in relation to the Bybee memo and other actions. I need to do more research on that. Neither of the NYT articles mention Addington. There are several articles by Scott Horton in Harper's that can be used to support an Addington link, and it was apparently he who testified in the German proceedings. For more info on them look here and the specific document mentioning Addington is here, p. 7.

As for more information, I don't exactly know what it takes to get the stub status removed, but it certainly is being fleshed out. Vargob (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought about what you said as far as the quotes... Wikipedia markup has multiple variations of the quotation template: This is an example of a page that uses them with two offset quotes in the first main section.Vargob (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.
Think it's fixed now.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!! I was starting to pull my hair out. Naturally, I still don't know how to do it...Samantha1961 (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Bybee Memo" link I inserted is coming out RED because whoever created that article in the first place typed in the title as "Bybee memo". I don't know how to fix that capitalization on "memo" to "Memo" in an article title. Can you please help me?Samantha1961 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Goldsmith michael.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Goldsmith michael.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Still playing in my sandbox. Have no idea how to do this properly. I can tell you that (1)this photo was sent to me by the subject of the article and (2)it is his Professor photo, taken by BYU. Can you advise on how we should cite that?Samantha1961 (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Get the subject to send you an e-mail releasing the picture for use (license terms should by "Creative Commons 3.0 Share by Attribution", which means that people are free to reuse the image so long as they attribute it to the owner, which would probably be the professor). Once you have that e-mail, forward it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Let me know when you get the permission, and I will mark the image so that it doesn't get deleted while they are processing things.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. Please do not delete while we are working this out. I'm sure it won't be long. And it is just in my sandbox. For what it's worth, he personally sent me the photos I am using for this article--specifically FOR use in this article.Samantha1961 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not me that does the deletion: I just know what it takes to hold them off for a bit. The important thing is the license: it isn't enough to get permission to use it in the article, or use it in Wikipedia: it has to be released for the entire world to use, or it won't be permitted.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that "whole world" part. Do you think there is some kind of "fair use" thing that applies here? I've spend a good deal of time reading over the image rules and I'm a lawyer and I still can't figure out exactly what to do!! I'm waiting to here back from MG now.Samantha1961 (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Fair use" is certainly involved. The thing that confuses people is that Wikipedia's rules are tighter than fair-use: you can only use a fair-use image if there is no chance that a completely free alternative can be created. Some things are essentially automatic: images of album covers can't be created, nor book covers, nor illustrations of fictional characters. In the case of a living person, there's usually a chance that someone could take a picture of him tomorrow and license it. Thus, a completely free alternative can be created, and a fair-use image cannot be used. The exceptions for living people are few and far between: J.D. Salinger, for example. WP:NFCC certainly isn't worse than rule against perpetuities, or even the statute of frauds. I went to night law school and I can handle it, so I'm sure you will get there.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is "Kww" a username? I mean, is it just some generic name attached to multiple people, or is it always specifically YOU, as in you who were helping me out back in February and live on an island off of South America?? Because of the progression of the ALS, it is really no longer possible to attempt to get a current photo. Also, let me specific. He was involved in that major ALS event that I wrote about in the ALS Advocacy Work section. There are several photos available on-line of this event, but all are tied to news organizations. Obviously, I can not go back in time to grab a new photo of that event. Am I permitted just to take a photo from one of the on-line articles under fair use??

The article's coming along very nicely, don't you think? I want to make sure it's really good before I leave my sandbox, although, as always, I'm sure I'm still screwing up the citation business left and right. I'm getting better, though! I think I'll be done in the next 2 or 3 days. I'm not actually certain how to move it out of the sandbox, but I have a vague idea...Samantha1961 (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the same guy: I just keep your talk page on my watch list because you are a relative newbie editing in some difficult areas, so I monitor a bit to make sure you don't get into too deep of conflicts. Most biographies don't have pictures, just because of the kind of difficulties you are having. I think you'd have a hard time arguing for an exemption on this one. The hard rule to get past is WP:NFCC#8. It's usually hard to argue that the image significantly enhances user understanding.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If I need to, I can "start over" and get photos exclusively from his private collection. Maybe even have the download done on his end so he can truly say that he owns them. That should get past any issues, don't you think? What do you think of the article? To be perfectly blunt, do you think it qualifies as "notable"? I don't want it deleted. He also has a substantial publication record. Haven't done that part yet. And good to "see" you again!Samantha1961 (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be OK. His notability is a little marginal, but it's well enough sourced that you shouldn't have a big problem. As long as the licenses are registered, then it doesn't matter much whether he uploads them or you do: the issue is releasing them for reuse by all.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Licenses are registered"? I thought as long as you own the photos, all you have to do is check the box that says you own the photos and it's done! No?Samantha1961 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In theory. If it's an obvious family snapshot, that will even work. If it looks like a formal portrait, people will suspect that it is a false claim and delete it anyway. Sending the permission e-mail to en-permissions@wikimedia.org that identifies the sender as the owner of the image, and gives a real name and contact information for the owner is the best way to make sure the image is accepted.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am on it. I have contacted MG about the photo of him with his wife, which is obviously a family snapshot. I am working my way up the chain of command about the formal "professor" headshot. Please note something on both photos indicating that I'm on it and requesting they not be deleted. This is clearly going to take a little time, but I'm working as fast as I can.Samantha1961 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't tag them until I've seen the e-mail. I can just do it in a few minutes, where the office can take a week (and your image can get deleted waiting for them to act on something they've already got).&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain: (1) You can do what, exactly? Tag that it's pending? Or actually approve it?

(2) You told me where to forward the e-mail to, and that's what I intended to do. How would you see that e-mail?Samantha1961 (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can do it yourself if you want. On the picture, change the license to OTRS-Pending. That will hold it for about five days. I do it for people sometimes, but only after I've seen the permission e-mail myself. I'm a trusting soul, but I still like to see the permission. That way I'm sure I'm signing my name to something that isn't right.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Baby, I don't even know how to get into that spot on the pictures! I can show you the e-mails (after I get them). But how?? Or how do I get into that spot on the pictures? I've been making my ex help me with uploading photos, but he's all about spending as little time learning how to do it properly as possible...Samantha1961 (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Probably forwarding the e-mails to me is the best way. I'll send you an e-mail so that you have my address.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't. Both my name and address are part of my e-mail address. Might be easier if you tell me where to go to do it myself.Samantha1961 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just tell me when you get the permission, and I'll be trusting this once. Please don't disappoint me.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I take great pride in being a totally honest person. Here's where I'm at. Headshot: I'm working my way through the system to get approval. I'm waiting to hear back. Michael and wife image: I've already gotten permission from him. I wrote out an e-mail. He cut and pasted to send it back to me. But I decided to start over. In the original e-mail, I had put a list of a number of photos. I decided that might not be good enough, that it would be better to tackle one at a time. So I sent him another e-mail, with the photo attached and unmistakeably identified, and the relevant language, and am now waiting on him to send it back to me. It's a little tough because of his ALS. I can't even call him anymore ("my voice has become unintelligible") and typing has become very difficult for him. So while I already have his permission, I do not yet have his permission in the format that I need to send it on to wikipedia. I'll let you know as soon as I get that.

As soon as you mark these two photos (so they won't immediately get deleted) and I get the publications section done, I want to go public. Hopefully today or tomorrow.

Also, I want to put in a photo of him at the event under "fair use". I've done some reading and given it a fair amount of thought. Seeing him at the event, I think, really adds to that part of the article. Here is the until-recently robust law professor being held up by his son so he can throw the "ceremonial first pitch", even though he can barely move his arms. I feel it's an important image. Here is the link so you can see: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Famous-First-Pitches-ceremonial-first-pitch-New-York-Yankees-Toronto-Blue-Jays/ss/events/sp/040909firstpitches/im:/090704/ids_photos_sp/r966977988.jpg/ But my top priority is just getting this done with the current 2 photos. This photo can be added later. I'm trying to tackle it almost one at time so my head doesn't explode...Samantha1961 (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have received MG's release for the photo of MG and wife. I have passed it on to wikipedia at the e-mail address you specified. Please do your thing! :-) Samantha1961 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore picture of wife. I have deleted at her request.Samantha1961 (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I need your help. MG has requested I delete the photo and all mention of his wife's name. I have done that. But the photo and the name remain in the history. Is there anything you can do to delete the photo permanently, everywhere it exists? Ditto for the name?Samantha1961 (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me get an admin on it. They have special powers that I lack.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First step you can do:, and type at the very top (above where it says ===Summary=== ). Then save it. That marks the file as one the author wishes to have deleted. I'll have to figure out exactly how to get the text deleted.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

History has been removed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG, thank you SO much. I just got back in from looking at a neighbor's brand new baby (hospital run). I had a msg from MG saying that his wife was so upset that he wanted me to not post this entry, just so nobody would dig around in the history. And then there was the msg from you, saying you'd taken care of it. I didn't know that was even possible!! It's nice that my many dozens of hours of work on this (and the actual piece) won't go to waste.

Will you marry me?? Okay, seriously, can I send you cookies or something? THANK YOU!Samantha1961 (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My wife would get pissed off. You do still need to click the link and mark the image as db-author, as instructed above.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a good laugh! I didn't realize I still needed to do that part after you'd deleted the history. Thanks for pointing that out. I did it, but it's still there. I suppose now it will hopefully be speedily deleted. But how will I know when it's gone? And will the page with the request (and her name on it) still be there?Samantha1961 (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It should take half-day or so, and then everything will be cleaned out.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Kww: We just put in a new photo, the one where he looks young. I told my ex about 5 times to just do the photo and I would do the licensing part, but he put in that I own it and just proceeded! Anyway, I deleted the part about how I own it, but I can't figure out how to fix it. Here is the status. MG owns the copyright. He has already sent me his permission, which I have past on to Wiki in accordance with your directions (although you gave me the wrong e-mail address!). I am waiting to hear back. I've heard back on the faculty-type photo. That other one is just "out there"; I've explained myself and hope I pass muster. Anyway, could you please tell me how or fix the licensing thing to say pending and indicate that he owns the copyright? Please???Samantha1961 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: werewolves
Thanks for letting me know. :) You could also used this version of the article, by the way. It's a permanent link to the revision that you last edited, including the last line in the introduction. --Conti|✉ 18:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I was already wondering what to do about that. I will definitely be using that link!Samantha1961 (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I came across an act of vandalism in the RICO article. I "undid" the change, but I don't know how to go about reporting it... Perhaps you'd like to handle that?Samantha1961 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Woah. I see you're busy! And I thought I'd done SUCH a good job on those references!! Sigh...Samantha1961 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

ALS page history
Hi Samantha, welcome to Wikipedia. I see you have put a lot of work in to the article on Michael Goldsmith. I wanted to talk to you about a line which I have removed on the ALS page. I think the MLB 4 ALS thing was great, I've been in ALS research since 2002 and thought it was a really admirable piece of awareness-raising and fundraising. What we are attempting to do on the ALS page, particularly with the history section (which I didn't make but I think is very good) is record the most meaningful milestones. In terms of the advocacy events of this decade, yes the MLB 4 ALS is very impressive. But is it as meaningful in the long term as the discovery of SOD1 or Rilutek? I would say no. I hope this doesn't offend and happy to discuss further, all the best --PaulWicks (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I defer to your expertise.Samantha1961 (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Blakey.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Blakey.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You were too speedy for us!! I have received this photo FROM G. Robert Blakey personally expressly for use in this Wikipedia article (knowing that this puts it into the public domain). He owns the rights to the photo and has given me the appropriate permission. I have now forwarded that permission and a copy of the photo to the Wikipedia permissions e-mail address. Past experience indicates that it may take more than a week to hear back from them. If you could please remove the "speedy delete", I'd appreciate it. My Wikipedia-savvy is not good enough to permit me to do it myself.Samantha1961 (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My assistant (okay, my ex) put the photo in the wrong place! I just managed to move it. Most proud of myself. In doing so, also managed to delete the speedy deletion thing. Please don't put it back, since permission is pending.Samantha1961 (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Samantha, I have tagged this image as pending permission. Can I assume that you sent the permission email for Mr Blakey to the email account noted above ? - Peripitus (Talk) 05:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Strike that last comment - permission for this image has now been correctly recorded, thank you - Peripitus (Talk) 05:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

File:26 S Outdoor training area stretch out.JPG
Hi, the image is lacking evidence of permission and has been nominated for deletion. Regards Hekerui (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely received permission for this image from Wikipedia. The message was dated 3/9/10 at 11:39am and reads as follows:

We have received permission for your image, and have made the necessary modifications to our article. Thank you for using the Wikimedia photo submission system.

Sincerely, Elena Salvatore

The reference ticket number given was: Re: [Ticket#2009112110026897] Wikipedia -- Photo of G. Robert Blakey.

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS IMAGE.Samantha1961 (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to the e-mail you received and mention this problem. The OTRS office didn't process the tagging properly, and that's why this is coming up.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Torture Memos
nice work Decora (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
For your work on Dorothy's article - lets hope SatuSuro 01:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a special interest in it. I'll be continuing to hover!

Dorothy Parvaz
nice job Decora (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Lemming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Borgias (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)