User talk:Staecker/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks for your contributions to Lefschetz fixed-point theorem. Note that there I made a link from homology to homology (mathematics) &mdash; so that it is more accurate. I also removed the second link to homology, as one link per page is enough, according to the manual of style (see above). Enjoy editing! Oleg Alexandrov 07:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Using the NYC-stub
I appreciate your working on stub sorting, but please be aware of the difference between New York the U.S. state and its largest city, New York City; currently there is only a stub for the latter (though confusingly of course the city is often called just "New York"). If you have any questions on particular cases, feel free to ask me or just err on the side of inclusion. Keep up the good work.--Pharos 09:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Check your x|y work
x is the link, y is the text. Mirror Vax 21:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that- serves me right for making lots of edits at once. Staecker 22:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for writing the article about Ludens. :) Are you planning to write more areticles about Noon Universe? --Koveras 09:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually The Time Wanderers (whose article I also started) is the only Noon book I've read (apart from Hard to be a God which I read a long time ago, and doesn't have too much to say about the Noon Universe anyway). The books are very hard for me to find (I'm American and don't read Russian), so I'll be contributing as I'm able. --Staecker 23:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyway, it's still very nice to know that Strugatsky's books are read outside Russia. :) --Koveras 09:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars
Thanks for removing the funny vandalism. I've added it to my user page as a badge of honor ;) &mdash; Phil Welch 30 June 2005 00:33 (UTC)
 * Right on- keep fighting the good fight. --Staecker 30 June 2005 04:55 (UTC)

JM copyvio (not)
A 'declaration of faith' or a 'statement of faith' published by a religious ministry is a public delcaration and is not copywrited. Think of it as a 'new release' because just like a news release it is an announcement to the world. Religious organizations hope, and even intend, that individuals and other religious organizations would 'copy' (adopt) their declaration of faith. Despite that, the article is about Joyce Meyers and therefore is attributed to her and her organization. KeyStroke 12:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make much sense to me. The text that you copied was (partially) biographical in nature. Are you suggesting that since Joyce Meyer is a Christian that she wants you to "adopt" her biography? That doesn't even make sense. The fact that the article is about Joyce Meyer does not mean that we should copy material from her and her organization. What biographical article on Wikipedia obeys that guideline? And there was no "attribution" of any kind.


 * That's my personal disagreement with you. Now for some facts: The page from which you copied clearly says "All rights reserved" at the bottom, with a link to JM.org's Copyright Policy. I'll bold in the relevant bits:


 * Restrictions: All information and or content provided by Joyce Meyer Ministries website is protected by copyright laws, and is owned by Joyce Meyer Ministries. This information and or content includes, but is not limited to, graphics, images, photographs, audio clips, video clips, text, articles, and the Joyce Meyer Ministries Logo which is a registered trademark of Joyce Meyer Ministries. You may not publish, modify, copy, distribute, sell, transfer, or reproduce in any way the material on this website without prior written permission from Joyce Meyer Ministries. You may not, without the permission of Joyce Meyer Ministries, mirror or frame any material which is contained on this website. The unauthorized use of any of the material contained on this website may violate certain copyright laws, trademark laws, communications regulations and statutes, and laws concerning privacy and publicity.


 * Sounds pretty clear to me. (and I hope they'll forgive me for copying that portion of their website) --Staecker 13:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:200TengeNote.jpg has been listed for deletion

 * Just hit it with a fairuse template, which I didn't know about until now. Thanks- Staecker 21:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Biblespeak
Yeah, BS should redirect to Christianese, though that should probably be moved to something like 'Christian jargon'. Metaphoriacal language I dunno - if it were developed at all I would defend it against any claim of NOR, but as it is its fair game. Old stuff from like three years ago, IIRC. Regards, -St|eve 02:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Quick Question
What's good!? I am sorry, misunderstanding. My cousin is using the Wikipedia under my name to edit his views about 50 Cent and G-Unit. Include that in the biography part! My cousin is a big fan of 50 Cent and he sometimes uses the Wikipedia site to edit under my name. Yeah, keep it good with the article and make sure we keep those vandals from using it. Real and truthful. Good looking out and keep making good articles. LILVOKA.


 * Is that article in the biography section of 50 Cent? (There's a lot of vandals trying to revert and add rhetroic and (bias) comments to this article. It's getting real old!)

Did you add the "politics" piece in the article on 50 Cent? Nothing personal, I think that doesn't apply to the article. LILVOKA.
 * No I didn't. And I agree that it's a pretty weak section. Staecker 12:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Stalker
NO, the image shown is of the original novel, Roadside picnic. Thanks. Attilios-

Jesus
Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 22:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

References for Apple Interactive Television Box
Howdy. Do you remember the references you used when you wrote Apple Interactive Television Box? If you could add them in, it'd improve the article. Thanks in advance, Lupin|talk|popups 03:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Attempted censorship by you, possibly for religious reasons
Please don't try this sort of thing. I note that you stated that images containing nudity (as well as one containing a photograph of a tattoo that states in the description it was taken by the user) were "unencyclopedic" (UE):

Please note, you are wrong. Wikipedia is not censored for the sake of any country's government, political group, religions, minors, nor anyone else. See also Content disclaimer: Wikipedia may contain content you find objectionable, but that does not give you a right to unilaterally remove everything that "offends" you.

Just a few of the many many examples:
 * Commons:Category:Sex
 * Commons:Category:Breasts
 * Commons:Category:Body parts
 * Category:Images of body parts
 * Breasts
 * Clitoris
 * And many more

Thanks, -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  20:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow- that's a pretty serious accusation. I'm not sure if there's anything I can say to convince you, but I think you've misinterpreted me on this one. I assume that you cite "religious reasons" because my userpage says that I'm a christian. I hope that didn't throw you- I certainly didn't mention religion in any of my afd notes.


 * I hope you'll believe me when I say that I didn't ifd that stuff because I thought it was offensive. My UE claim wasn't the main reason, either (except maybe for Image:Cannabisleafback.jpg). I am quite familiar with Wikipedia's censorship policy, and support it wholeheartedly. (I'll even leave the links you put on this page to allegedly offensive images.)


 * The images I called UE are fairly obviously (although of course I couldn't prove it without more research) copyvios from other sites, tagged with the almost certainly inappropriate "CopyrightedFreeUse" tag. They deserve deletion for this alone (as I think you'd agree). As for my judgement of UE, perhaps I was a bit hasty. The first one of these that I saw was Image:Biancaprincess4.jpg which I then saw had been uploaded with some other stuff intended for Latex clothing. Based on the fact that there was no latex in that particular image, I judged it UE for the apparently intended subject area. My own criteria for judging UE on an orphaned image is: if I can't think of an encyclopedic subject that this image illustrates, then it's UE. I suppose that Image:Biancaprincess4.jpg could be used to illustrate breasts, Bianca Beauchamp (yes, I've done my homework now), princess, tiara, pink, and a few others. But all those pages seem to have adequate images. I called the others UE too, but I'll admit that what I said above doesn't apply to them all- so that's my mistake.


 * The one image I tagged which doesn't seem to be a copyvio is Image:Cannabisleafback.jpg. I don't find this image offensive in any way. There are much more illustrative images at cannabis, tatoo, and human back of the subject matter, and plenty of pot-culture images at cannabis (drug). I really don't see where this one fits in. Honestly when I first saw it I expected it to be a userpage image, but it's not. So I said UE.


 * Didn't mean to upset you- next time, I'd appreciate some warning (or inquiry) before you label me a Christian anti-nudity censorer. I am christian, but not those other things.


 * By the way, wouldn't it be better for you to respond to my UE claims on the ifd page, rather than deleting them? I'll put it back in a bit if you don't. Staecker 21:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The IFD page isn't meant for discussion from what I know. but ok put them back.


 * Sorry for perhaps over-reacting a bit, I can see I misunderstood your intentions now and thanks for explaining. had a recent bout of people attempting censorship on wikipedia (for example a recent one would be Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy where a guy is trying to censor even "obscene" bare arms from the article) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  21:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks- and I'll check IFD policy before I make any changes. Staecker 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

wheaton college
the trivia you added about the professor being fired for converting to roman catholicism bothers me. i know it was in the wsj, but the school does have professors of different denominations. though i may not know the whole story, i have heard that the layoff was for other reasons, and i would rather not have the school appear biased. would you mind its removal? thanks.

Sidmow 03:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I do mind. I read the WSJ article and it bothered me, which is why I put it in the article. I'm a faculty member at a Christian college myself, which is why the story was especially concerning to me (although I have no intentions of becoming a Catholic). I suggest that you post a note at Talk:Wheaton College, Illinois about the issue, and explain your reasons for the proposed removal. That way different people can state their views- so it won't just be you and me. My own opinion isn't any more authoratative than yours, but I think that removing the statement to improve Wheaton's image is a very bad reason.
 * If you can give a (sourced) description of the "other reasons" that this guy was fired, then that would be a very good reason to change the article (though probably inserting your "other reasons" would be preferable to deleting the whole bit). Personally, I hope that there were other reasons- Staecker 04:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * i can only get word-of-mouth. the dean of natural and social sciences stated they don't believe this hurts the schools reputation, since it does want to maintain a protestant curriculum. the wsj article has stirred some controversy in the local area imo though.
 * If you're actually there on campus (sounds like you are), maybe some kind of campus newspaper is printing some of this "word-of-mouth"? Then we could insert it into the article. If not, then it's no more than original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Staecker 20:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Project-2 40.jpg deletion
Hi, If you can please delete that image I would appreciate it. I dont know how to do it once its uploaded. I have two version of the picture, one pornographic and one non pornographic. Please delete the pornographic one. I uploaded the wrong version by accident instead of the edited non nude one. Thanks and sry for the mix up.

JJstroker 04:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note- but I can't delete the image (neither can you) since only administrators can delete articles or images. You'll have to post your request at the listing over at Images and media for deletion/2006 January 15. Just add a note under my listing that says you are the uploader and you agree it should be deleted. That'll make things go faster. Staecker 04:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be confused. I have two identical images. One is non pornographic and fits wikipedias standards while the other is not. The one which is pornographic may be deleted while the other one has proper copyright status and is relatively decent headshot. That is why I took the schedule for deletion off on the decent image and left it on the other.

JJstroker 20:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion- As far as pornography goes, there are no "wikipedia standards". Nudity in general is not prohibited from Wikipedia, and many images considered pornographic by some are acceptable here. My objection to your images (both of them) is that they seem to have been taken without permission from copyrighted websites. For that reason they would be in violation of wikipedia standards. If you can document that either you produced these images yourself (i.e. you actually took that photo with your camera), or that they have been released into the public domain by their copyright holders, then they would be acceptable. Staecker 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Synoptix
Well done for fixing Synoptix without biting the user. I have speedied the mainspace article. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use gallery
By definition, fair use images are only permitted for use on a particular page. You can not include them in user space (see Fair use). Thus, you should either change your gallery to link to images rather than include them (by putting : before every image name), or delete it. I know this is annoying, but it's a pretty necessary part of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Superm401 - Talk 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey- you're right. I hadn't thought of that before. Thanks for the note- Staecker 13:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Omega Point
Regarding your deletion of my addition, the discussion about the use of Omega Point in current Transhuman literature is an important addition to the issue of Omega points. It is also an important addition to the work of such theorists as Frank Tipler, who is quoted on this page.

For this reason I am interested in reversing your delition.

Regards

John D. Croft 03:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine- but I think just a sentence with a link to technological singularity would do better. The content you added seemed to be just a summary of that page. I was also a bit turned off by your using omegapoint.org as a source. This is certainly not a reliable source- see the section on Bulletin Boards at WP:RS. Staecker 13:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:AbdirovStatue.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AbdirovStatue.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 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. Stan 14:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Zen mood image — what happen?
I'm sorry, this is quite mysterious to me. User:Geogre uploaded a new version of Image:Zen Wikimood -02.png today, at my request. I'm not sure if it had the same name as the old (yet surely if it did, he wouldn't have been able to upload it without overwriting the old one, would he?) And then what happen? One of them got deleted? The other experienced a name change? I still see the new one on my userpages (which is what I wish), but I note that the old one is still on Commons. You're not planning to delete the new image, are you? Bishonen | ノート 15:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC).
 * First, someone set up us the Special:Newimages gallery. As I browsed, I get signal that there were two identical images called Image:Zen Wikimood -02.png and Image:Zen Wikimood -2.png. One was being used on your Moods page for great justice, and the other was beginning on your user talk page. I moved both zigs over to Image:Zen Wikimood -02.png, and marked to speedy take off every Image:Zen Wikimood -2.png. I hope I did the right thing? I didn't realize that either one was on commons, but I'm not sure if it makes a difference. Staecker 16:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How are you gentlemen! Sounds cool, thank you. Bishonen | ノート 22:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Restoring prod tag
Don't. Removing the prod tag is the correct way of objecting to the deletion. Prod is for uncontroversial deletions only. Please see Proposed deletion. On the other hand, I think it's clear that Janna is a middle-schooler whom someone is making fun of and have tagged it as speedy. I know, it wasn't that big a deal that you reprodded it in this instance, but I just wanted to make sure you knew that you should almost never do that. (If someone blanks the page, I revert it, because blanking doesn't seem like an objection to deletion.) NickelShoe 17:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK- I thought it'd be ok since they clearly were just trying to keep their own nonsense from being deleted. I should've read the prod stuff more closely- Staecker 17:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

*waves hi*
Didn't expect to run into you here... are you going to write an article on snoc? ;-) Catamorphism 03:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Kirsten- good to see you're still up to your old tricks. And you gave me some nostalgia reading up on catamorphism. But what about anamorphism, and hylomorphism (I mean with their real meanings), to say nothing of mutumorphism? You don't actually study these, do you? I get a hankering for the subject every so often, but then I get back to work. I can't believe I remember those words. Good luck at Berkeley- Staecker 21:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't even the one who started catamorphism, though I meant to get a round tuit :-) I should add those others to my to-do list, though I haven't really done much with any of them in two years. Catamorphism 22:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

/* Friendly talk - Papa */
Mr. Staecker, I have no intention of attacking you, but I do believe that the English you write has a lot of improvements to de desired (that is not to say that my writing is approaching perfection - no).

What I find in your writing can be summarised as "stylistical and morphological violations for the sake of consise laconical expression", i.e. you tend to express yourself in a dry, single-pattern, often morphologically incorrect form, that nevertheless retains the key meaning - which seems to be sufficient as far as you see it/read it.

What you need to be able to do - is expand your linguistic topography: from minimum Nielsen units into dynamic systems that help you predict a range of shapes (and not a single value!!!)

You should be able to inquire into things from multiple perspectives, otherwise you will fail in your communication efforts as others have all sorts of different perceptions that you won't be able to bridge... —Preceding unsigned comment added by papa7 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, Papa, I think you've fairly summed up "informal speech" as contrasted to "technical speech" or "academic speech". The use of informal language serves to emphasise certain meanings, rather than detract from them. It shouldn't surprise you to know that native speakers of English (even those with PhDs) use informal speech in most of their discourse, spoken and written. I'm perfectly capable of formal and technical speech, which you can see if you read any of my technical writings (really I don't expect you to, but your whimsical references to my background suggest that you have), but I use it only when appropriate. See if you can detect my dry morphological violations at fixed point index. On Wikipedia talk pages, people (not just me) are generally informal. Staecker 13:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

hmmm...
Dr. Staecker, I presume? Lesliestng 00:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fancy meeting you here... Staecker 02:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, quite the surprise. Hope you are doing good service on service day. (whatever that may mean) Lesliestng 17:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Tarkovsky at work
Hi! About Image:Solyaris1.jpg and Image:Solyaris2.jpg... I think - You right - this images may be from Mirror film. But I'm not sure. All information in images description I take from museum of Tarkovsky in Yuryevets, Ivanovo Oblast description photofiles - perhaps they mistake. I think, we can some wait another opinion of users and remove images. And about copyrights - I scaning original photoprints this images in different museums of Ivanovo region (including museum of Tarkovsky in Yuryevets - ), but in musems description don't have information about photographers... P.S. How You think - may be some images of "Tarkovsky at work" features on Andrei Tarkovsky wikipage?

IPAAT 08:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

(Now this images removed to The Mirror (1975 film).)

IPAAT 12:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Apple Interactive Television Box
I've recently come into possession of a prototype Apple Interactive Television Box (which I identified with the help of your article--I previously thought it was a Pippin). How did you come into possession of yours? I'm considering selling mine--any tips? Thanks! — Phil Welch (t) (c) 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I got mine on eBay in 2001. I think I placed my bid on September 10 with a few days left, and then nobody outbid me. I got it for about $20, in the hopes of playing around with it and then selling it. I'm not sure how much they're worth now... in a tragically rushed move from coast to coast I had to just throw it out. You didn't get yours from a dumpster in Santa Monica, did you? I suspect it would be worth a fair amount if you had the remote, which controls the thing. I never did, so couldn't get it to do anything but give me a green screen and a startup chime (which was satisfying, though brief). Staecker 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I got mine from a friend who himself isn't quite sure where it originally came from, but he got it around 2001 or 2002 as well. I didn't get the remote for it and I haven't had a chance to hook it up yet. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tarkovsky template
Well, I do have an objection of sorts - I believe that Voyage in Time should be under the "feature films" list. It is a 62-minute-long documentary made just before Nostalghia. Esn 02:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll add it in- or your can by editing Template:Tarkovsky just like any other page. At the time, I was unsure if Voyage was really a Tarkovsky film (in which case it should be included), or if it was just some sort of "making of" film about Tarkovsky, in which case it should not be included. I've seen it now, and I suppose I've decided it was a real Tarkovsky film, so I'll put it in. The Voyage in Time article doesn't really clear this issue up, though, as I think it should. It should be explained that the film was written and directed by Tarkovsky and Guerra (see IMDB for details). Staecker 13:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Constructive criticism
dumb ogl scrub —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dat1337vet (talk • contribs). Section heading by Staecker
 * This comment retracted by Dat and replaced by Staecker 22:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wizards
Removing important information from articles like you did could be interpreted as vandalism. (Ibaranoff24 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC))
 * I know it could, but only if one assumes bad faith. And I think you know that calling me a dolt in the edit summary could be interpreted as a personal attack (and I'm not sure how else I am meant to interpret it). Of course you're free to replace the information I removed if you like, or start a discussion at Talk:Wizards (film). I didn't start a discussion because I think my edit summary sufficiently explained my reasons to remove, but I'd be happy to debate if you think it's warranted - I'm watching it. Staecker 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HipHopYoda.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HipHopYoda.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

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. Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on this (or point me to a discussion)? Isn't the template enough to establish rationale? It states the reasons why we believe the fair use claim is justified. The  that you put specifies its use for images with the generic fair use tags, which this image doesn't use. Thanks- Staecker 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I could have used a better template then ... but if you look at Help:Image page it states that GFDL is very strict on inclusion of copyrighted materials in articles, and that a full explanation is needed. isn't really enough, as if you were to use one with high enough resolution then it wouldn't be fair use. Reading Fair use and WP:FAIR states the things that are normally included in rationales. Hope this explains. :-) --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 09:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks- but I still think the template is enough. It does specify that "web-resolution" is an important criterion. I looked over at WikiProject Fair use, and saw that they were doing an image tag reform to (among other things) make the tags state rationale. And their WikiProject Fair use/Fair use tag reform page says that they're done with it. That makes me think that in their opinion the specific image tags do state rationale sufficiently. I'm not averse to adding in some more stuff about Yoda in that image, but I'm not sure what I would write. The resolution issue is addressed in the tag. Further, I would say that if the tag really isn't providing sufficient rationale, then the tag should be changed, rather than manually adding rationale to what I assume is thousands of images with no rationale beyond the tagging. Staecker 12:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright then. Perhaps you should tell them to get rid of the note at the bottom of every fair use tag that asks for a detailed fair use rationale if they're clearly not needed. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 18:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a bit strange- and I didn't even see it until you mentioned it. I'll look into it. Staecker 18:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Central Asia
WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created! If you're interested, please consider joining us. Aelfthrytha 21:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

untitled 2007 Woody Allen Film
I saw your db tag on the article An Excellent Picture of Yolanda (2007 film), and I agree that something seems amiss with this thing. I first noticed that the article creator had put in a picture for Scoop, the Allen film opening this summer, and he has details from both films in the article. A search under the given title brings 0 ghits, and the information on IMDB for a projected 2007 Allen film does not match some of the info in the current article. Given all this, I am going to put the article up for AfD for highly inaccurate crystalballism and lack of references. ---Charles 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. The text was the same as at Scoop when I db'd it, but changed a few minutes later. After a totally empty google search, I'd assumed it was vandalism. We'll see what the AfD turns up. Staecker 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I am thinking at this point. Only one AfD response at this point, though. ---Charles 03:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The ACT
What interpretation is there with which to differ? John Howard used his role as Prime Minister to overturn the ACT's Civil Union legislation. That's it. That's what happened. There are not civil unions in the ACT. Enzedbrit 20:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry- I meant to revert the anon's edit about interpretations of Leviticus, but I somehow reverted too much, and I guess I screwed up some other bits. Of course there's no interpretation issue in what you're talking about. Hope I didn't cause too much problems-- Staecker 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there weren't any problems caused, and you inadvertently highlighted an issue I believe with the description of the topic in question! Enzedbrit 20:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)