User talk:Vanished user svinet8j3ogifm98wjfgoi3tjosfg/oldtalk2

=Talk from 7 January 2005 to 15 April 2005=

Roy Bourgeois
Can you PLEASE help me with this article, add some info, review &c. Thanks Edwin 08:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mormon
Hi. Thanks for editing Mormon. I unfortunately think your recent edits muddy the waters further rather than clarifying, since there is no connection between Mormons and Quakers. The addition of the nuance you added makes it possibly appear that otherwise the groups are the same. Would you consider reverting? Tom Haws 19:41, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Micahmn. My concern is that once we start listing differences, where do we stop? Do we say, Mormons were polygamists (and some still are), but Q & M never were, Mormons have new scripture, but M & M don't. Q & M are trinitarians, but Mormons generally are not. It could get ugly. Isn't it better to avoid mentioning any specifics at all other than "Mormons and Q & M are all distinct." Tom Haws 20:58, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

A rewrite! Cool. Have at 'er and I will do my best to support your boldness. Tom Haws 16:45, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

ECWI edits
Hey thanks. This wiki thingy is cool ;-) TShilo12 08:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work!
For your great contributions to Wikipedia, I award you these three barnstars. Display them proudly; you've earned them! It is a rare privilege to receive such honor. Keep up the good work, and more recognition will surely come! Rad Racer | Talk 00:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I assume this is in response to my barnstar bashing on my user page. Anyway, I said that before I got these well-deserved barnstars. Now that I'm drunk with power, I'm going to print out these barnstars and pin all three of them to my jacket, and wear them proudly for years to come! Does this give me the power to distribute them to others like candy? Are they like indulgances that I can sell? Sadly, I see barnstars as more like an STI than a badge of honor. Thanks anyway. MicahMN | Talk 03:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Special Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded for your great wildcard"ness". EdwinHJ | Talk 04:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:PhilEssex
Hi Micah, I reverted a couple edits by User:PhilEssex that appeared to be vandalism to me. If they are not, or you know him and don't mind his edits, let me know and I'll stop. Thanks! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 00:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem; I'm glad to help. As you've listed User:EdwinHJ as a friend, I assume his edits are welcome. Happy editing! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 01:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome
You're welcome. Academic Challenger has warned him. If he does it again he'll be blocked, and if he is not please let me know as I'll block him myself. -JCarriker 04:55, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Micah, I've removed vandalism from User:PhilEssex on this page. EdwinHJ | Talk 19:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyright
I found out that Minnesota government images are in fact not public domain (so secondarily I need to delete the template/image tag Template:PD-MNGov under which e.g. Image:Amy_klobuchar.jpg is placed.) If you can find another image tag under which to put this, it would help a lot - thanks! Schissel : bowl listen 03:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Fair use - I'll think about it, I assume you've read or at least taken a look at Fair use which is (probably more or less) for WP's purposes the guideline here? Or contact owner of website/copyright of image/...? Schissel : bowl listen 05:11, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

PromoPhoto: *looks at the template* I'd go with it, then of course seek permission or seek fair use exemption of course... *nod* Thanks! Schissel : bowl listen 12:21, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

CoJ
No problem. Thanks for the heads up. Meelar (talk) 05:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Titanic Movie Leo Kate Kiss.jpg
Well I was just concerned that it was a pretty clear picture and obviously not just a smudgy video capture (believe it or not, for copyright reasons, that worried me!) I asked User:Quadell, who does a lot of image sleuthing and often maintains IfD, and his response was that this kind of still is assumed to be fair use. I'm happy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my point was actually that it looked to grainy to be a (good) copy of a production still, but rather it was probably a screen capture. MicahMN | Talk 16:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)