User talk:Veracious Rey/Archive 1

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes ( Redwolf24 04:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC) ) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes ( Redwolf24 ) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

Image:17-year cicada.jpg
Thank you for uploading this great image. Did you take it yourself? If so, you should add to the image description page. If not, you should give the source (where you got that image from) and tag it with an appropriate image license tag. Also, would you mind if I cropped it to center on the animal? Lupo 11:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the same goes for all the other images you've uploaded. Could you clarify their licensing status, too? Thank you. Lupo 12:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * You wrote: Can you leave me some instructions on how to add info to pics I have already uploaded?


 * Sure. If you click on the My contributions link on the left, you are shown a list of all your previous edits. From that list, I see that you have uploaded so far the following images:
 * Image:17-year cicada.jpg
 * Image:DCP 2156.JPG
 * Image:DCP 2155a.JPG
 * Image:Grand Children June 9 2005 102.jpg
 * Image:Bryce2.jpg
 * Image:Bryce1b.jpg
 * Image:Rapturetattoo.jpg
 * Now you just have to click on these links and add a statement like "Image taken by the uploader. " or "Photographer:  ; Image source: [  ] ", followed by an appropriate license tag (see the list of image license tags).


 * In the future, you might want to choose more descriptive image names ("DCP 2155a.JPG", while having a high probability of being unique, doesn't tell anyone what the image is about), and you might even put license statements such as the examples I gave you above directly in the upload comment: in that way, they will be added to the image pages automatically.Lupo 12:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello! Putting the info in the upload comment only works for the initial upload! For already uploaded images, click on the links listed above, and then edit that page (by clicking "edit this page"). Lupo 14:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Re:
See my talk page. Redwolf24 (Talk) 00:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * K I'll delete them. at 01:17 UTC I will be promoted to admin. Anyways, remember to sign with ~ . The wiki software changes it to your user name and the date. This way we can track back to you. Redwolf24 00:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Please don't blank sections of articles. --Golbez 04:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Blanking
Do not blank whole sections of the George W. Bush article. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --MONGO 04:01, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * It does not add neutrality. One hour block. If you want to discuss this instead of just blanking, take it to the talk page next time and use the edit summaries. That page is being vandalized far too much for be to coddle you. --Golbez 04:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if the block went long. But the block log for me states that you were blocked for only an hour. Blanking a section twice with barely any comment in the edit summary, at that moment, since that article is being vandalized far more than any article on Wikipedia, was taken as vandalism. You were blocked for an hour. I have since changed my methods, though, and I do apologize that you got caught up in it. But please don't blank stuff without an edit summary. --Golbez 05:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being understanding. It was just getting a bit much. Sorry again. --Golbez 06:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Nurse
Links to comercial nursing career websites have been removed from the page before and generally most links of that sort are removed from wikipedia, so I removed the link. I also removed the picture that you added because 1) It's an unfree image for which we have a free alternative, 2) it's marked fair use but you've given no rationale for the fair use in the nurse article, 3) There's no information on its source. But we welcome any free images that you have to offer. Matt 15:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I appologize for not being more specific on the first point. You'll find that on What Wikipedia is not it says that "There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." There is already an extensive list of links on that page, I don't see what the Johnson and Johnson link adds. If you put it back in, I won't get into a revert war over it but I think you'll find that others may remove it too.
 * As for the second point. I disagree that "only gave a vague reason" why it was removed. In fact, I gave three very specific reasons why it was removed. but I'll elaborate, please read Fair use.
 * 1) "Always use a more free alternative if one is available." We have free pictures of nurses (even modern ones, see the page history for details) So I don't want this page encumbered by a non-free image. Remember we're making a free encyclopedia here.
 * 2) "Remember there is no 'general rule' about fair use, each 'fair use' must be explained and a rationale must be established for that specific use (in other words every page that uses the image will have a distinct rationale for using the image on that page even though fair use is claimed on the image page)." If you don't understand fair use, I don't think you should be using it. But any fair use claim should come with a rationale. I can't think how you would possibly consider the use of that image in the Nurse article to be fair use. I appreciate that providing justification is often not done on wikipedia, but there are people other than me who feel that this laisse faire attitude to copyright law needs to be changed.
 * 3) (from special:upload) "Provide detailed information on the source of the file in the text box". You didn't. I don't know what more to say on this. It's pretty straight forward. If you are not the copyright holder, then you must tell us who is. For ALL images that you upload you need to tell us where it came from.

I will remove the picture if you put it back into the article. Matt 16:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply
Re this comment - as the person who wrote most of that article, you're welcome :) &rarr;Raul654 18:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits
A saw you made a change to Tattoo. Aside from the merit of the edit itself (scarification is a broader category than tattoos, methinks), you marked the addition of a sentence as "minor". This is not proper use of that indicator. You may have your settings configured to call edits minor by default; you can either change that, or can watch for the checkbox when editing. An edit is minor only if it literally changes no meaning in the page: fix a typo, correct broken wiki formatting, etc. Anything that adds, removes or modifies an actual idea should not be marked as minor. 70.109.229.212 20:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Image removal
Hey, I reverted your image removal on Oral sex, but I see you've removed it again. I don't believe there's any kind of consensus for the removal of such images, per discussion on the talk page. Would you mind putting it back until this has been discussed? Friday (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -- Rama 19:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The part you pasted to my talk page is exactly the part I just read before leaving the note. This is not concensus for removal.  Please stop edit warring over this issue.  You've now been reverted by more than one editor; this is a good sign that there needs to be discussion.  Also, please be aware of the one revert rule and the 3 revert rule.  If you violate 3RR you could get blocked from editing.  Friday (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point with this edit. There are no "executives" you need to convince. Editors agree on article content by consensus. Repeatedly calling it "porn" and making fun will probably cause most editors to take you less seriously. Since you're apparently new and unfamiliar with how things work here, I recommend taking some time to read policies and guidelines. The five pillars of wikipedia is a great place to start. Friday (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Area 51 2002.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Area 51 2002.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Mount St Helens
Did you mean to delete the mtnbox on the Mount St Helens article? 164.107.187.42 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note, I believe at the time the template for the box had a penis picture in it and that is why Reynoldsrapture removed it (temporarily). He did the right thing. --Etacar11  19:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Spidey
I decided to repond here because it was more of an appropriate place. During the SECRET WARS Spiderman torn his suite. The symbiote was located on the planet that they were fighting on and it bounded to him and formed a new suite, a black suite. It gave him addition strength and speed but it also corrupted him mentally. He wore it back home and that is when it started to really do a number on him. He started to become more egotistical, reckless and less caring. He realized that it was alive and attempted to rid himself of it. When it separated from him he thought that it was dead, but it wasn't, it was just weakened and it leeched down into a church and attached itself to Eddie Brock, who then became Venom. The rub is that the suite knew Peter's secret and so that meant that so did Brock, now that he had the suite. Plus, the suite leeched Spidey's abilities and gave them to Brock making him just as strong if not stronger than Spiderman. In the Ultimate Spiderman Universe, Eddie Brock and Peter are friends and Peter and Eddie's fathers created the suite as a way to cure cancer. They were killed and later, after Peter became Spiderman they found the symbiote, and then you can just play out the rest of the story. Either way, at some point Spiderman wears the symbiote, then removes it, it goes to Brock who learns everything about Peter and becomes Venom. Bignole 20:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Sandman doesn't. Actually the Sandman is a far more interesting character than most would have you to believe. He drifts from ciminal to anti-hero quite frequently. He has a lot of personal problems that led him to start criminal activities. For the Venom story-line (if the movies goes that way) he has no part. Also, in the Fox cartoon series, the symbiote was brought back by JJ's son, from outer space. Think of it like Species II, when the alien lifeform leaked out of the soil that was collected from Mars and infected the crew. That was how the symbiote came to be in the cartoon, which it then attached to Spiderman (who thought it was some kind of tar from the road) and then to Eddie. Raimi said that this movie will stray the most from the comic than the other two. If you remember the other two, they weren't exactly tight to the comic themselves. No Gwen Stacy in the original. She was Peter's first love and was killed in the comic by the Green Goblin. Plus, Raimi has said he doesn't like Venom and never plans to use him. So you may never see Venom, though that doesn't mean you won't see the symbiote. He could completely bypass the later part of the symbiote story and still make for a great film. Bignole 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since his role has not been confirmed it would not be appropriate to say Venom, or Eddie Brock. Even then, if it is confirmed that he will indeed play Eddie, we can't say that he will become Venom. So, we have to wait for a confirmation before a role can be cast on that page for Topher. Bignole 21:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Bryce1b.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bryce1b.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  15:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: TBU
I'll be at work all day tomorrow so I'll have a chance to look at it and let you know what I think. I'll need a couple things though, mainly links so the right edits so that I can quickly compare the two. But, as an editor he has the right to rewrite an entire article, but only if it is in the best interest of the article and not as some justification to his preferences. I'll look at the edits tomorrow and see which it appears to be. I haven't been watching the page so I don't know the quality of it before he rewrote the whole thing, like you said, but I would have probably gone to the Talk Page and discussed it first since it sounds like a large edit (but that's just me....though I do plan to do just that for some of the fictional character pages, like Freddy and Jason, when I get a chance, but that's because they are completely and utterly wrong right now). But I'll look at it tomorrow and let you know what I think, just send me a couple links so that I can quickly compare them. Bignole 05:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I had commented on Bignole's page, and I noticed your comment about The Bourne Ultimatum (film). I compared your last edit on the article to Gunslinger's most recent edit, and the two main differences seem to be a rewrite of both the lead paragraph and the plot. Generally, the lead paragraph is written to be as current and concise as possible where most extraneous information is trimmed. Usually, if new information comes out, it should not be added to the lead paragraph. You can create a Production section (similar to the Plot section) in the body of the article and include detailed production information there. In addition, it seems that Gunslinger removed some of your external links because they may not have been considered "Further reading". Generally, external links are a source of supplementary material, so if there's any information you used from an external link in the article, it's best to cite accordingly. You should contact Gunslinger on his talk page and open dialogue with him, see what can be sorted out. Let me know if you have any questions about working on articles like these. --Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 16:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Erikster addressed many of the things I was just about to. It seems Gunslinger's main objective was just to clean up the article, and not to overrun it with his preferences. I didn't like how he removed some of the production information, which I think should be there. I don't know about the external links, because I'm not aware of what they actually go to (I'm at work and most websites are restricted), but if they were just fan stuff then you can leave them out. Might I suggest that you look at The Dark Knight (film), and use this as a model for the Bourne article. Both are films that are in production, and The Dark Knight has become a very good article on information that isn't just restricted to fan stuff. It will help you with an idea of what types of sections to include in the article, and also how to properly cite sources as that is one of the most important things for an article. I hope this will help you with your article. If you have any other questions feel free to contact me, or Erikster (because I know he'd be happy to help, and he has proven himself a diligent editor for film articles and making sure they are good quality). Bignole 16:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that. I tend to get some flak for my comments because of the length of them, but I feel that sometimes you have to provide some detail to make sure people correctly understand you. One thing I want to mention, I noticed that in the production information that was originally there it just read "according to IMDb" or "according to....." but there wasn't a link to the source material. Never forget to leave a link to where you got it. I would personally talk to Erikster about citations because he's real good about creating a detailed "in-text" citation, and can help run you through that process. I generally use some of the easier formats because I had some trouble using the ones he does, but his are much better for chronically where you get your information. Bignole 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedster (comics)
Hi. Sorry to bother you, but it looks we might have an edit war at speedster (comics) between myself and Ace Class Shadow. If you could chime in with your opinion on that article’s talk page, so that we can achieve some sort of consensus, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream 10:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Constitution page 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Constitution page 1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image use
Greetings! I noticed you re-inserted fair use tagged images on your user page after I removed them from your page. Please be aware that fair use tagged images are not permitted outside of the main article namespace per Fair use criteria item #9. This proscribes their use on templates or on userpages. Please do not re-insert these images onto your userpage. I have re-removed these images from your userpage. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. All the best, --Durin 16:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * When I tagged the image as orphaned fair use, it was truly orphaned; it wasn't in an article. When I checked back, it was. I removed the notice. No worries about the userboxes; we all learn sometime.
 * In short, finding sports logos and foxnews logos isn't going to happen. Logos of such organizations are protected; it's a marketable resource for them. Any free license version probably isn't going to represent the team the way you would want. What people tend to do with such userboxes is to put, for example, "FN" in place of the missing logo, and use colors frequently associated with the organization. --Durin 16:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Content Box
Check it now, it should be there. Bignole 03:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually it's standard, but sometimes when you archive pages it will get lost. I think that is what happened to it before. Anyway, there is also a code you can put in (if you open the "edit this page" tab and look just below the 'talkheader' tags, you'll see the "TOC" code) to bring up a new one. There is a standard "_TOC_" that you can put in, and then there is the one I put in that has the option to align it whichever way you wish (for us it was "left"). Bignole 04:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are creating them on your user page. What you need to do is give them their own pages. See here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Hulk. Look at what I did here. You create a "template:user" page, and then, after you've created the page you go back to your user page and simply add the tag on your user page. The code gets its own page, and after that you simply put in the user tag on your page. Hope that all makes sense. Bignole 06:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's no problem. If you have a question about anything else just let me know. Bignole 14:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Blue flowers
Sorry, but I have no idea what kind they are. I had taken this pic a long time ago. I think that they were originally more purplish, but they showed up as blue on the camera. Anyway, thanks for the compliment. Ilikefood 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks a bunch. Even if they didn't make it to featured in the article I am very grateful. Thank you for putting it there. Ilikefood 22:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Flower article
Hi. While I was excited to see that someone had taken an interest in updating the flower article, I can't help but say that I was sorely disappointed in most the edits you made. You added/moved useless flower images (ex. the "unknown blue flowers"), deleted some of beautiful and informative ones (ex. the bee covered with pollen), and unnecessarily enlarged images that clutter up the page now (uniformity of image size does not make an article more encyclopedic, or even always aesthetic). While I would have preferred you leaving section headings that still lacked text intact as a reminder to editors to add material, I can understand your taking those out. Additionally, you cleaned up the external links fairly well. However, why in the world did you erase ALL the interlanguage wikilinks?? Well... thanks for your effort in any case. There's a lot of cleanup to do now, but leastways you've reminded me that I need to turn some attention to this article again. I don't have time to mess with it right now, but perhaps tomorrow... --NoahElhardt 07:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize the article is nowhere near featured article status. The biggest reasons are of course its lack of references and the fact that entire section that are completely missing from the article (ex. the headers you rightly removed since they didn't yet have text). I am not planning to work on the article in a way that will get it close to FA or GA status (mainly because I lack good sources to reference), but I'm hoping to at least end up with a well-balanced, decently thorough article since it is such a central topic in Botany.
 * The image you added of the boy smelling a flower is a good one. I plan to leave it there - it illustrated the section far better than did the image it replaced. Cheers --NoahElhardt 02:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Importance scale
Personally, I enjoyed hearing your thoughts. I think ThuranX just went off on you (disappointingly so) because addressing the importance scale was a done deal to him. I don't blame him, although his wording was a bit strong and unnecessary. Maybe it's just the article maintenance that makes us, ah, anal quirky. We've dealt with a lot of annoying business, as you might've seen, with the Jameson dispute being the most recent. (The attitudes of these new folks really irritate me, actually.) I suggest just gauging discussions better; if the discussion seems pretty much finalized, brevity is the key. I assume ThuranX reacted the way he did because of the length of your comment. If you mentioned the Matrix trilogy as an example of not putting this film on "High", then asked if the change should be made now to the importance scale, that would've been an act of brevity. I think it's something about when a census is pretty much being reached, someone enters the discussion and makes a statement like there's still an ongoing dispute. Hope you understand. I think he should've known better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You reverted Wiki-newbie's comment. I assume this was an accident.  I restored his comment, but returned the scale to "Mid" for the time being.  Setting it to "Future" seems best, though, as to avoid any guesswork in determining a film's importance before its release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I know, haha. That's why I'm in complete support of this setting — would've gone with it if I knew the option existed.  Wiki-newbie was the one who set a few upcoming film articles to various importances, so I guess he found out that "Future" would be the optimal choice instead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I kept the importance at "Mid" when I reverted your accidental removal of Wiki-newbie's comment. Feel free to add your comment on the talk page.  I think the overall "Future" setting is appropriate because the setting is intended for a future event, of which additional information about the film, as well as the film's impact, cannot be predicted.  Our original support for SM3 at "Mid" was using a historical basis to predict the future, which is kind of original research.  Hence, I think it's probably better to wait till the film comes out.  I've stated such on the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure. I asked Wiki-newbie if he read somewhere about this change being the most appropriate or not.  Category:Film articles by quality doesn't mention anything about the importance scale, but Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria lists all except for "Future" itself.  I guess there's an area that's not covered, between these two articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SM3
Perhaps I was a little too close to biting. THanks for the heads up. ThuranX 21:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Annoying thing about this person is that he seems to be using a new IP address each time, so I'm not sure if he gets talk page messages. I dropped a message at User talk:125.238.122.12 asking for a citation, but no response to that. It's ridiculous how he's continuing to make his unvalidated argument... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, it's a tricky slope when it comes to that. It's not a clear-cut case of someone being uncontributive.  The heart of his argument is a content dispute, so it may not be the best course of action to revert him.  I'm going to ask the others (you as well) to withhold any kind of response if he makes another unhelpful and rude comment.  Don't feed the troll, you know?  We'll see how it works.  And yeah, we tend to be bitter about folks like him. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Ford gerald family1974.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ford gerald family1974.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 01:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've taken care of the copyright problem. Veracious Rey   talk  ↔  contribs  02:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ford Edit Conflict
Thanks for your quick note. I restored the birthplace and ancestry info. Thanks again for your note. I don't have it on watchlist since there's so many changes. Americasroof 15:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ford ref
Ref 30 is a repeat ref referring to another link that has been deleted, without knowing what that original ref is, I can't fix it. Were you a Boy Scout or Eagle Scout? You may want to join the Scouting WikiProject.Sumoeagle179 17:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * found missing ref link, someone deleted it earlier today.Sumoeagle179 17:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Johno95
He continues to make somewhat malicious edits by trying to rewrite history and delete whole paragraphs/sentences. I think he needs a warningBrian23 17:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You wiped out my updated ref when you reverted Johno95. Be careful please.Sumoeagle179 19:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia
I'm new to wikipedia as far as editing goes. I've been browsing for years, but decided to create an account recently. My latest contributions have been to the Gerald Ford article and Brevard County, FL articles. Thanks for compliments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian23 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Gerald Ford
Thanks for understanding, and I have watchlisted the Gerald Ford page. =)  Nish kid 64  19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You wiped out my updated ref when you reverted Johno95. Be careful please.Sumoeagle179 19:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a current event article, and someone felt that semi-protecting such an article would not be beneficial. It was only protected to temporarily prevent vandalism. If you look at the article's history, there are IP users who have made contributions to the article. If there are 20 IP vandals, and 4 good editors, I would never protect the article. It defeats the purpose of Wikipedia.  Nish kid 64  22:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Btw, this is just for now. I probably will protect soon, if the level of vandalism continues.  Nish kid 64  23:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I said 20 vandals and 4 good guys; not the opposite way around.  Nish kid 64  23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I semi-protected Saddam Hussein. The level of vandalism on there was insane. Alright, I'll also protect Gerald Ford now.  Nish kid 64  03:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Execution
I think since the pic is a larger one, it should not be put on top of the page, it just throws it off, do you think you could put it lower down the page more? maybe it might look better. {just a suggestion.} Mcoop06 10:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 203.109.209.49 10:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I provided a source, copyright tag, and rationale for usage. Veracious Rey   talk  ↔  contribs  11:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin withdraw
I suggest you withdraw from your current RFA. It is likely people will pile on the opposes due to your lack of qualifications.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  05:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's very brave of you. I wish you the best of luck.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  05:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe the voters will be in a good mood due to the New Year. :-P  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he is related to you, judging from his contribs. However, there is something definately fishy concerning his account. His old account was that of MAR-C, which is similar to MER-C, who had to create multiple accounts in order to prevent impersonations (I obviously don't suspect MER-C, as he is an established Wikipedian). I already tagged 2 of Nimbat's articles for speedy deletion, as they were utter nonsense (although 1 might be mergable). Right now, I'm just keeping a watch on that guy.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not sure how, as I have never run for Adminship. I would suggest you ask an Admin who is currently online or of the others who already voted in your RFA. There should be a proper withdrawal procedure on that page (or one linked to it).  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the way to withdraw is to strike the 'I accept this nomination' bit and put "I withdraw this nomination" after it. Yuser31415 06:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. A little bit more experience, and I'll be happy to support you! Cheers! Yuser31415 06:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

New Years
 Wishing you a Happy New Year from  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  07:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)