User talk:Jerry Jones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Jerry Jones, and welcome to Wikipedia! The first thing you should know is that we encourage you to be bold. Feel free to edit and improve articles, by clicking any 'edit' link.

If you'd like to test what Wikipedia can do, check out the sandbox - just type and save the page and your text will appear. That's the beauty of a Wiki.

For more information check out our tutorial - it's designed with newcomers in mind, as is the help section. If you'd like to get involved with current projects, have a look at the Community Portal. There are always tasks for users to do, ranging from copyediting to expanding stubs.

I hope you'll enjoy your time here, but be warned, it can become addictive! Feel free to message me, I'm more than happy to help. As an added tip, sign any message you post so users know that you've said it. To do so is delightfully simple, just use the wikicode ~~~~.

Once again, welcome!

¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 05:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stormfront

Stormfront.org certainly has indirect ties to the KKK, since its founder was a former member. But it does not claim any current direct ties to the KKK. It is simply an unaffiliated discussion forum, though it may share similar goals as the KKK. -Will Beback 21:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll also find recruitment for neo-Nazi groups. If you think that Stormfront is relevant tothe articles, please insert a sentence in the text describing its relevance, with an internal link to Stormfront.org. Thanks, -Will Beback 22:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want to add it, then put in in the body of the text with a description that shows it relevance. Something like, "Stormfront.org is a leading Internet forum used by members of the KKK." or whatever your justification is. -Will Beback 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-semitism

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Please refrain from using Wikipedia as an forum for spreading anti-semitic agitprop. Most of the figures whose biographies you add "Jewish" in the first word or two are not Jewish at all, but even those who may be are chiefly notable for other reasons, and this does not belong in lead. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic descriptions

I don't understand your logic. On the one hand you seem to adding the ethnic description "Jewish" to many articles. Yet you removed the description "Scottish" from Billy Graham. May I ask what you plan is? Also, what is your source for the ethnicities of these people? Thanks, -Will Beback 20:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Will,

I am on the board of members who are against censorship. There was an article which is up for deletion on "Who is a Jew" which says Jewish criminals. I believe that the article is about to be deleted and I noticed some of the people listed on the page did not have Jewish listings on their wiki pages so I just followed every name and added that they were Jewish. If I mis labeled someone who was not Jewish as Jewish I was just following the list of people who are supposedly Jewish from the list of criminals. I assume that it was already verified for it to be put on the Jewish criminals list.

If you can please ask lolus Lulu what names were mistaken I am sorry if there is a mistake but I was just following the list so I dont know if there is a mistake or not. I would ask the individual who started the Jewish criminals article. As for Billy Graham it seemed a little out of place to put that he was Scottish in that part of the article so I just put in the categories that he was a Scottish American and removed it from teh heading. You can add it back if you like. I dont have a plan. I add ethnicities to everyone whether they are European, Jewish, etc.

Jerry Jones 21:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I only see you adding ethnicities to Jewish people, not to those of other European ethniticities. I'm not sure why you think Scottish ancestry is "out of place" while you insert Jewish enthicity into dozens of articles. It gives you the appearance of being concerned only with Jews, and of having an agenda that you are here to push. That, plus your promotion of Stormfront.org. -Will Beback 21:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I just happened to do Jewish first. I had a list of people with Jewish ethnicities that didnt have it added on their pages. I do not have a list of European ethnicities so that is why I did Jewish. I wanted to do it before the Jewish page list got deleted. You can add Billy Graham being Scottish its just I couldnt find a suitiable place for it. For me to have added it in the start I would have to had edited and rewrite the front into which I didnt want to do because it was very well written. If you can use your creativity to fit it in and not take away from the content qualify I encourage you to add it. It is just a misunderstanding and I can see why you got the impression.

Jerry Jones 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but your contributions since then have been of the same ilk, haven't they? So, in reality, there was no "misunderstanding". Jayjg (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, your previous contributions as User:JJstroker were quite similar, weren't they? So you're hardly the new editor you pretend to be. Jayjg (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that you are merely an adovcate against censorship is like Strom Thurmond saying he is just a supporter of states rights.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talmud quotes

It's POV because you're choosing which quotes to include based on one POV. I'm not saying they shouldn't be added, just discuss it on the talk page first, please. --Rory096 09:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edits to Talk:talmud

Hello, I enjoy reading your comments about The Talmud. Definitely, I agree with every word. As you can see here my edits IN A TALK-PAGE, IN THE MIDST OF A DISCUSSION were reverted without any satisfactory explanation, whereas a user above me, still "argues" that they are "false quotes". I find it very alarming, and as pure censorship indeed. Something has to be done. Zadil 23:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your response on my Talk-Page, sure censorship must be stopped. Thanks again. Zadil 12:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speeches

As I explained at User talk:Aaron Brenneman and Talk:Fighting the culture war in America, we don't post speeches on Wikipedia. And we don't post copyrighted material anywhere. So the bottom line is there is nothing that we can do with that speech unless the author releases the copyright. Once he does that, we can post it at Wikisource. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 10:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US demographics

Hi, the ethnic divisions are listed by the CIA world factbook. They also made a note that hispanics are not categorized since they could be white, asian, etc. Middle easterners are considered Asians, not white, so please refrain from deleting the ethnic group list again. You can help with the much needed referencing. Thanks.--Ryz05 08:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you point out to me where you see that the racial term "white" counts people of Asia and African descent as categorized by the US census bureau?--Ryz05 t 19:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Stone

Hi Jerry, I notice that you've removed the category "Czech models" from Jennifer Stone. Since she appears to be verifiably both Czech and a model, I thought I'd ask you to explain? Thanks. — Estarriol talk 09:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page for consistency)
I changed her category of "Czech models" to "Czech porn stars" because they are not necessarily the same thing. I changed it for categorization because other pages for example have just "German porn stars" and them "German models". Porn stars in one category and regular super or fashion models in the other. I feel that it's best to help people find exactly what they are looking for.
Jerry Jones 19:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, no arguments there, my issue was that Jennifer Stone in particular started as a fashion model of the ordinary (non-erotic) variety. However, I cannot find the reference for this currently (I'm not counting her own site, as porn stars often use "model" in the way you mention), so I'll leave it out of the category unless a proper reference for her non-erotic modelling career turns up. Not a big deal anyway, just wondered really. Thanks for your hard work.  :-) — Estarriol talk 22:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Todd Lincoln

OK, I explained my logic for switching the image from right to left side. Can you explain your logic for reverting my changes without a reciprocal explanation? Rklawton 05:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:JamieLWhitten.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JamieLWhitten.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strom Thurmond edit

JJ, I saw you edited the Strom Thurmond article to state that he lead the last "segregationalist" campaign in the U.S. versus stating he lead the last "racist" campaign. While I agree that racist is pejorative, segregationalist may not have been necessarily correct. Was the original writer trying to state that the campaign itself was the last campaign in the U.S. that was openly racist or was he trying to say that it was the last campaign to openly advocate segregation (as you have changed it to say) or both. I don't know the facts, and someone should research this issue to verify exactly what the significance of the campaign was. I just wanted to check with you whether you were aware of how you have subtly changed the meaning of this portion of the article and maybe not in the way that the original author intended or is backed up by the facts. Best regards. Remember 13:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Far-right"

Please don't just create a camapaign to remove the phrase "far-right" from every white nationalist or supremacist. It is our job as encyclopedists to correctly summarize facts. Some individuals hold views that are on the far edges of the political spectrum. It would be false for us not to properly identify their views. -Will Beback 08:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Using your logic we should remove "lefist", "left-wing", "right-wing", "rightist", "conservative", "liberal", and all similar tags. except that you are only removing "far-right", and that appears to be forwarding a POV. -Will Beback 09:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
At the same time that you removed "far left" in regard to a socialist party you added, "The BNP is accused of being far right and neo fascist but they vehemently deny such accusations." I can find no mention of "far right" on the BNP website. On what basis did you add that assertion? -Will Beback 09:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me ask that again more slowly. According to what source does the BNP "vehemently deny" being "far right" or "neo fascist". It sounds a lot like that is your own interpretation. What happened to "allow readers to make up their own mind"? -Will Beback 09:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This is from the same page:

The BNP is generally not regarded as economically right-wing, i.e., as having a strong belief in laissez-faire economics. Rather, the description of them as 'far-right' relates to their authoritarian policies, and beliefs concerning racial segregation [18]. The Thatcherite former Conservative Party Chairman Lord Tebbit has said on the BNP’s position on the political spectrum that having “carefully re-read” the BNP’s 2005 general election manifesto that he is “unable to find evidence of Right-wing tendencies” believing it to be “pretty Left-wing” in his opinion [19].

Even the same page says that using far right can actually not be accurate. The BNP officially denies being fascist. I dont know where the link is but that is their official stance. They do not say "Yes, we are fascists." as of today. I assure you they deny this as of today. If you think it's wrong take it down. I am not saying they arent neo fascists I am just repeating what they said. Feel free to read their website and talk to BNP members and they will deny being fascists. As I told you before I only set that as an example I didnt expect this sentence to stay up.

Jerry Jones 10:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You added a positive assertion that they not only deny, but "vehemently deny", being "neo fascist" or "far right". Yet, apparently there is no source for them doing so. You are asking me to rely on your personal assurance that they told you so. Do you understand why that is not acceptable? Are you familiar with WP:V? What BNP members have said to you is not usable as a reliable source. -Will Beback 10:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • How is that a positive assertion? I just tried to balance out the article from the anti fascist liberal overtone i was receiving to make it more credible. Nobody wants to read anti nationalist/racist attacks from liberals on wikipedia they do not come here to get a repeat of CNN. Let me give you an example of what I was doing. This is from a pretty big article on wiki and I didnt write it:

Johnson and the BNP are described by all commentators except those from the Front to be far right.

Do you see how this is balanced? They are not stating far right as a fact because its an opinion and describe it that way. Then they let the reader read all the information and they can make up their own mind if the people are racist or not. You dont see me removing information when the BNP admits they were racist down in the article because its a fact. I also didnt remove the term "far right" because it was used in a balanced way. I speak with these groups frequentley and a lot of the articles I do on wikipedia are about them. I know what all of these groups say I just cant find a source at the momement and I dont really care to look for one. I only added that as a sentence because i knew editors were going to go into an edit war with me and i added that to try to give them an example on something we can all agree upon. If you want to remove it I dont care just please dont put in "far right" in most cases of articles.

Btw for the Mellisa Guile page you will see that I didnt remove the statement "Mellisa is a racist person from Canada" because apparantly she admits it. I will leave anything just as long as its a fact and not an opinion.

Jerry Jones 19:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between the BNP not calling itself "far right", and it "vehemently" denying the use of the term. As far as I can tell, you either made that up with no source, or it is the result of somenthing that an BNP member told you personally. Either way, such material does not belong in this encyclopedia. Frankly, it calls into question your undserstanding of what we do here, and makes me think that you are trying to whitewash nationalist groups. -Will Beback 19:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
A new user put a comment about another article and another editor having quasi-neocon views. That comments had nothing to do with you- he just didn't format it or sign it, sorry for the confusion. Your explanation of why you inserted intentionally incorrect information with the expectation that someone would fix it is astonishing. That is barely distinguishable from vandalism. -Will Beback 20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Please stop whitewashing the bios of Neo-nazis and white nationalists. -Will Beback 04:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
And please stop whitewashing far-right political groups. Far-right is a legitimate political term used by political scientists world wide. --Michael Johnson 05:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You chose to remove "far right" from a number of European and Australasian parties. What has the ACLU or other US organizations got to do with them? What expertise do you have in politics in Australasia or Europe? --Michael Johnson 05:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It is common political usage to describe parties as centre or left of centre or right of centre or left or right or far left or far right. It is done every day in newspapers and in academic papers. I repeat what knowedge do you have of politics in Europe or Australasia? The National Front page is constantly being edited, if you read it by supporters as well as others. No-one but you seems to take offence at the term "far right". You replaced it with the term "nationalist". What evidence do you have to support this claim? This is just as much POV - where is your citation? --Michael Johnson 05:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image talk:INSIMMIGRATION2.jpg

I've made a request at Image talk:INSIMMIGRATION2.jpg. Your response would be appreciated. -Will Beback 22:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Will Beback 01:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KKK edits

You say "You accuse me of saying people are Jewish but I dont believe that I have done that even once so I have no idea what you are talking about." You must have forgotten these edits: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] And, of course, there were these edits as your sockpuppet User:JJstroker: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] etc. You're on very thin ice here. Stop lying, and stop whitewashing racists and Nazis. Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The first set of edits were made with your Jerry Jones account, the second with your JJstroker account. As I said before, stop lying, and stop whitewashing racists and Nazis. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Whats there to talk about? You are trying to shove POV down the readers throats then you accuse me of POV. I am just trying to make the article fair and non bias then you get your friends to come and stalk every edit I make. If you want wikipedia to be a joke by all means fine but I just think its sad you are destroying what other people tried to build by emulating what wikipedia is supposed to fight against.

Jerry Jones 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's POV to replace a line that says the Nazis were rascists with one that calls them patriots. -Will Beback 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
ANyway, the proper place it discuss it is on the article's talk page. Please don't restore your ideosyncratic edits until you've gotten a consensus. -Will Beback 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I certainly didn't make such a change. Please show me if you believe I did.

Jerry Jones 01:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think Wikipedia will be a laughing-stock if it cannot use the NAZI regime as an example of rascism. To change, in the article on rascism,
to
  • Nazi ideology believed that Jews were controlling the German press and were not patriotic, and were subverting the German government with Bolshevism.
takes the NAZI's from being rascists to being patriots. -Will Beback 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[30], [31]. -Will Beback 01:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Nazis were both objectively and subjectively racist and at least subjectively patriotic--neither attribute is improper to note.St. Jimmy 02:41, 18 May 2006 (UTCI)
In an article on racism, it's only their racism that is relevant. Accounts of their patriotism should go into an article on patriotism. -Will Beback 03:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I am just apprehensive to use terms like racism in any wikipedia article because they are defined by people and it's normally not 100 percent accurate. What is racist to some people may not be to others so I am against over using the term because it will become widespread if we allow it. I just would prefer to show all of the information and let people draw their own conclusions which would not jeopardize wiki NPOV policy. Racism is an opinion not a fact when it comes down to it. I just dont think we should allow to over use the term because it will be broadly defined by a certain group and people and this is not right. I think its better to show the readers why so and so is racist by working to improve the body of the article which would greatly improve wikipedia instead of just saying "so and so is racist". Show the reader dont tell them.

Jerry Jones 02:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We certainly can call a spade a spade. It is a fact that the Nazis were racists, if the concept of racism has any meaning. If you'd like to delete the racism article you're free to nominate it. But until then please do not remove it when validly applied. -Will Beback 03:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I dont think we should say they are racists you should show they are racists which would include the quality of the article and people can come to that conclusion themselves without it being told to them. This way all sides are happy and everybody benefits especially wikipedia.

Jerry Jones 04:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's odd that you are so eager to label Jews "liberals", but so reluctant to label Nazis "racists". You are incorrect: racism is a fact, and racist behavior can be described. Please discuss your edits on the tallk:racism page if you want to make further changes. All edits need a consensus. -Will Beback 05:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
When did I label Jews liberals? Please stop accusing me of being someone else. If you would care to look over my edits you will see I don't remove the word racist every single time. I only remove it when its overused or stated as a fact. I worked on an article for Represenative John E. Rankin and I didn't remove that he was racist. He refused to sit next to a fellow rep who was black just because of his skin color. He didnt even know the guy and he didnt do anything to him. That is pretty much racism so I didn't remove it. I just am apprehensive to use the word racism every sentence and label everything relating to race issues racism because 90 percent of the time its an opinion stated as a fact. There are plenty of articles where I dont remove racism. I also left the word racist in the KKK article as an ideology that the KKK preached but I removed it at the bottom and everyone jumps on me. I just dont think it should be stated every sentence because

1- Its obvious 2- It makes the article seem amatuer 3- Its overused. 4- It can be debated much of the time 5- We should show why they are racist and not tell. It makes the article much better in quality and shows the reader why they are racist. It's like a math teacher. Don't just give the student the answer show them how to do the problem and let them figure out the answer for themselves. Telling the student the answer is not going to get them anywhere and it certainly defies the purpose of being a teacher.

Jerry Jones 17:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

Please do not plagiarize material. Copying and pasting unattributed, copyrighted material written by others is grounds for blocking. [32]/[33]. It is dishonest and counterproductive. -Will Beback 06:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph [[34] is copied from this source [35]. Do you deny it? -Will Beback 07:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Kevin MacDonald merely cited Nuerger word for word and I merely re cited it because I thought it was a good paragraph. I put the reference at the bottom. Is that a problem? I have read Nueringer it has great information.

Jerry Jones 07:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem. You did not cite your source for the paragraph - instead you fraudulently added the verbatim sourcing from the MacDonald text. If you are quoting MacDonald or Nuerger, you are expected to place those quotes in quotation marks. You tried to pass it off as your own writing. To edit war over plagiaraized text is especially unacceptable behavior. -Will Beback 07:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jerry Jones/JJstroker. -Will Beback 10:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

If you make any more personal attacks, you're likely to be blocked. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Its hard not to when Will Beback harrasses me and I make a sincere effort to resolve our problems and he keeps ignoring me while trying to get me banned. He is committing slander and he ignores all of the positive edits I make and he cherry picks edits and takes them out of context to make me look bad without even letting me defend myself. If that is how you want to operate wikipedia go ahead but its not fair. I would be happy to do whatever is necessary to resolve this if you will let me.

Jerry Jones 17:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Doesn't matter what your excuses are. No personal attacks, period. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Then you need to ban Will Beback for personal attacks. What he is doing is slander. Are you guys going to ban me or not? Just go ahead and make your decision and stop dancing around this issue and harrassing me this has been going on for too long. But it would have been nice to actually be able to defend myself but I guess that is how wikipedia operates. Have a bunch of politically correct moderators take over the admin positions and only accept people with certain viewpoints run the show. Will Beback has accuses me of breaking wikipedia rules but he continually breaks wiki NPOV policy and accuses me of doing harm.

Jerry Jones 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


You certainly may defend yourself at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jerry Jones/JJstroker. However, attacking me is not a good defense. -Will Beback 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
So what is your defence? Yet another user blocked by the cabal.--Tess Tickle 01:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppeteer

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jerry Jones for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familliar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Will Beback 10:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:22Helena_Christensen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:22Helena_Christensen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Charleslindbergh2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Charleslindbergh2.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:2510046347.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2510046347.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. User:Angr 08:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:JohnRaleighMott.jpg

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Raskob.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Raskob.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. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with 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. —Angr 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/r/User_talk%7EJerry_Jones_14aa.html"