User talk:Grandia01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 King Abdullah 2 re: From grandia01 3 Personal attacks 4 re: in reply to your "proof" 5 Ahmedenijad comment 6 Signing talk-page messages 7 Ozonation 8 re Image:Seldon1.jpg 9 Idea generation tools 10 Removal of your edits from Muhammad 11 License tagging for Image:Islambouli iran.jpg 12 License tagging for Image:Bahrain king.JPG 13 Baldwin II of Jerusalem 14 Disruption on Muhammad 15 Foretelling of Muhammad in the Bible? 16 Three revert violations 17 Muhammad 18 Barnabas 19 Regarding edits to Knights Templar 20 Peter Beter 21 Peter Beter 22 Salam 23 Top Rank 24 Personal attacks (again) 25 Fair use rationale for Image:Roger-ailes.jpg 26 Image tagging for Image:Rupert-murdoch.jpg 27 Idea generation tools 28 Non-free use disputed for Image:Annapurna-dawn.jpg 29 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Annapurna-dawn.jpg) 30 Hitler 31 Image:Baldwin_II.GIF listed for deletion 32 Honey 33 Replaceable fair use Image:Rupert-murdoch.jpg 34 Replaceable fair use Image:Kelly_bundy.jpg 35 Replaceable fair use Image:Peggy_bundy.jpg 36 Image:New_york_times_scan.jpg 37 Replaceable fair use Image:Michael_Hart.jpg 38 Replaceable fair use Image:Roger-ailes.jpg 39 Replaceable fair use Image:Toujan-f.jpg 40 Replaceable fair use Image:Hercules1.JPG 41 Replaceable fair use Image:Islambouli_iran.jpg 42 Photos 43 Orphaned non-free image (Image:David icke.jpg) 44 Image:D icke.jpg 45 REQUEST FOR A NEW TAG(REFERENCES) 46 Eep 47 Orphaned non-free image (Image:D icke.jpg) 48 Copyright status of Image:Chr applegate.jpg 49 AfD nomination of Risk communication 50 Warning you again about Personal Attacks 51 comments 52 Image:David Ic..jpg 53 NCIC 54 Thanks 55 Orphaned non-free media (Image:New york times scan.jpg) 56 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bormann.jpg 57 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alundra cover.jpg 58 Karl Dönitz FAR 59 Image source problem with Image:Kissinger-trial.jpg 60 Your comments on my talk page 61 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Philby.jpg 62 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hessrep1.gif 63 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hessrep2.gif 64 Your note 65 Orphaned non-free media (Image:K-philby.jpg) 66 Reference Template 67 Toujan al-Faisal 68 Joke edit on Paul is Dead 69 January 2008 70 Image on Adolf Eichmann 71 Image:Robert ley.jpg listed for deletion 72 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Robert ley.jpg 73 Robert Ley 74 Image 75 help needed for configuring image copyright 76 Image copyright problem with Image:Filbi.jpg 77 Image:Chosroes.JPG listed for deletion 78 Image:Chosroes2.JPG listed for deletion 79 fair use rationale missing 80 Image source problem with Image:170px-Burgdorf Wilhelm.jpg 81 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Beter.gif) 82 Orphaned non-free media (Image:170px-Burgdorf Wilhelm.jpg) 83 3 Revert Rule 84 read before undoing edits. 85 listen 86 Image:Gustavk.jpg listed for deletion 87 Image:Gustavk.jpg 88 Image copyright problem with Image:Captain-Tsubasa-II--.jpg

[edit] King Abdullah

hi, with all do respect to your opinion and to you contributions, the facts stated in the cotrevercy section are not acurate. i have looked through all of them. the israeli general didnt quite say that, his remarks were that there are fears from the situation in iraq. and the i didnt delete the one for human rights watch. and as for the los angeles times report. he doesnt have enough credibility with his opnion to be quoted in a biography. i have almost rewritten the military and achievements ares.. which in fact a user kept going in and removing alot of them. im not biased im basicly getting my information from official sources. please discuss with me how we can put the article in a "wikipedia acceptable" format with out any personal issues bieng involved. i look forward to you responce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• ok about the israeli general, read http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4743244.stm ... it has better information about the issue. it doesnt mention any of that. any how you do have a point i acted hastfuly in editing. because i tried discussing it several times but my remarks keep getting deleted. any how. the language the controversy section is written in is very unprofesional in my opinion. with all do respect to the person who wrote it. ive been to the pages of several heads of state and there were no critisisms with such a sharp tone. and again. i can provide you with official/articles that contrididct the los angelous reporter. please help to rewrite some of the page to delete all bias from all sides

i look forward to ur responce

[edit] re: From grandia01

hi, can you please prove to me how the st. barnabas bible is a forgery??or is it just plain easy to say something like this from you?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs)

From Gospel of Barnabas: "The Gospel is considered by the majority of academics (including Christians and some Muslims) to be late, pseudepigraphical and a pious fraud; however, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier apocryphal work edited to conform to Islam." I'm not sure that language could be any stronger.

Second, please avoid personal attacks (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) and conform to the 3RR rule (WP:3RR). Thanks. -Patstuart 10:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -Patstuart 10:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: in reply to your "proof"

1)no muslim scholar denied the authenticity of the gospel of st. barnabas. 2)just because "some" scholar denied it doesn't mean that what he/she said is 100% right because you still didn't provide any logical stand-alone proof.for example:just because bush said that iraq had wmd's,does that mean that iraq really had wmd's?? 3)who are and what are the histories of these "scholars" that you mentioned??not a single name is given... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs)

First off, please understand, I am not trying to make an enemy out of you. I am trying to explain what I wrote. It is now twice that you have personally attacked me, and more times than that that you have simply been rude. I would appreciate if we could keep this discussion on civil grounds.

To explain, I actually took that quote right from Gospel of Barnabas on Wikipedia. That was not my own quote. Someone else wrote it. Secondly, when I called it a quackery in the edit summary, I was mimicking something that someone else had written earlier. So I am certainly not alonen in my position. If something is controversial, it is standard procedure that it is discussed on the talk page before it is added. This happens often; it happened with one of my edits earlier today. Please respect this. Thank you for your patience. -Patstuart 10:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I believe that you are slightly mistaken in your facts. You have stated "no muslim scholar denied the authenticity of the gospel of st. barnabas." This is a blanket statement, and I find that highly doubtful. http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/gbar/index.htm, a non-partisan site, describes the text as solely adopted by Muslims, and completely rejected by western scholarship. Thus, it is not "some scholar" who says it's wrong. If anything, it is most of any scholar who says it wrong, with some notable exceptions in the Muslim world. -Patstuart 10:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to have a discussion on the talk page, I am certainly prepared to back up my statements with reliable sources.

i ask god to show all of us the right path. - that is my prayer every day. Let us, then, do our part, and pray to listen, rather than speak to be heard (I speak as much for myself as for you). God bless. -Patstuart 10:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmedenijad comment

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -Patstuart 10:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ahmedenijad, thank you for your advice.i guess i have to learn how to hold my temper.ramadhan mubarak!! :)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Signing talk-page messages

As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).For further info see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 14:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ozonation

We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Ozonation, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.pure-aqua.com/ozonation.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on Talk:Ozonation. Then you should do one of the following:

• Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:Ozonation where we can find that note; or
• Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Ozonation.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! FreplySpang 07:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re Image:Seldon1.jpg

Why is this image not in the public domain? It looks plenty old enough. But as on your upload you indicated that it was not free, I've deleted it. Herostratus 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idea generation tools

This article has been nominated for deletion (or has already been deleted). Don't be discouraged! Many of us have had articles deleted, especially early in our wikicareers. Deletion is not a reflection on your editing but simply the application of our standard rules, particularly WP:NOTABILITY (and WP:BIO for persons, WP:WEB for websites, WP:CORP for companies, WP:MUSIC for bands, and so forth.) Looking forward to your future contributions, Herostratus 05:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of your edits from Muhammad

The Gospel of Barnabas is widely considered a forgery. No sources you referenced for commentary on the Didache make mention of Islam or Mohommad. Please stop adding them to the Muhammad article. Frotz661 07:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It should by now be obvious to you that this addition is not accepted by the editors to this article, and will be removed on sight. If you continue with this behavior, you will at some point assuredly be blocked. Until then, you are merely wasting everyone's time, including yours.Proabivouac 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Islambouli iran.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Islambouli iran.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Bahrain king.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Bahrain king.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baldwin II of Jerusalem

It appears that your addition is a cut-and-paste off the Columbia Encyclopedia online here. We are not allowed to copy in that fashion, it's considered a copyright violation. Columbia Enc. would need to give explicit permission. Wjhonson 18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my Talk page. In general it is fine to quote and cite the source, providing your quote does not make up the majority of the article, and provided your quote does not replicate the entire underlying source. Those are the areas where we get into hot water. So you could quote and cite one sentence say from the Columbia Enc. but if you quote the entire entry that's a no-no. Also if our entire article is simply one big quote, that's a no-no. The best articles have a mixture of direct and indirect quotes, plus summations of other sources all mixed together. See for example Krishnamurti which happens to have a lot of quotes and citations. But again, it has summations. It pulls together many sources into one article. Wjhonson 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption on Muhammad

Grandia01, your repeated restoration of tendentious material without discussion and in total contempt of consensus has reached the level of disruption.[1], [2], [3] Please desist from this unacceptably dysfunctional approach to editting Wikipedia.Proabivouac 05:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foretelling of Muhammad in the Bible?

Hello Grandia01 thanks for your polite note. The primary reason is that the material you're entering is considered to be somewhat of a fringe theory on the Muhammad article. This type of material can generally be removed per the undue weight clause of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. What I would recommend you do is consider creating an article about that idea and write it with well sourced attributable citations. The better sourced the material is (with scholarly sources, etc.) the more likely that it will remain on Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 06:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly novel. I've never seen anything like it before. Any source, if quoted, that refers to the Didache as a Gospel seems a bit suspicious. Perhaps Grandia you could quote and cite the complete section to Talk first so we can see what it is. Wjhonson 07:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted, please see the Talk page of Muhammad where I've opened a new discussion on whether the Gospel of Barnabas should not be mentioned in the article somewhere. Wjhonson 07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandia01, sorry you caught me as I'm right in the middle of working on a template. I'm going to be a bit busy with that and then I will go to sleep... so I won't be particpating in that discussion for now. If it is still active later on today I will join in. See you. (→Netscott) 08:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert violations

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Muhammad. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Avi 07:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of Grandia engaging in 3RR violations. Avi, please don't be heavy handed when there is no need for it. Thank you. Wjhonson 07:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

Hi Grandia01,

We need secondary sources per WP:RS to add that. I remember I have read that somewhere but don't rememeber where. I'll add it as soon as I find it. Cheers, --Aminz 21:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnabas

Grandia01, I'm reading the thread right now. I'm not at all familiar with the Barnabas story so I need to familiarize myself with it a bit more before I comment but at this point I wouldn't be too inclined to include it. Let me read up on it. (→Netscott) 08:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Another editor suggested we move some of the more contentious references to Muhammed into a new article. I would not be opposed to that. As far as the Gospel of Barnabas is concerned I'm a bit ambivalent. I can see the argument that you propose, but I can also see the argument, that from the point-of-view of the Muhammad article, it's a bit tangential. It's a very late work, or at least first attested in a late context. It also has elements that tend to speak perhaps toward a source among non-Trinitarian Christians instead of Muslims. The specific ways in which it speaks of Muhammad might be considered blasphemous by Muslims or heretical perhaps. I think most of this is discussed on the G.O.B. page, perhaps we should leave it there. Wjhonson 23:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to Knights Templar

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Grandia01! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \burbandictionary\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 07:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Beter

Hi there. I would suggest thoroughly reading and understanding Wikipedia's policy about no original research. Your belief, although you think it is interesting (as you stated), does not belong in Wikipedia because it has not been published in any reliable sources.--Dcooper 17:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to warn you that you are one edit away from violating the three-revert rule.--Dcooper 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to find sufficient reliable sources about Beter, despite looking at numerous database and sources beyond Google. Maybe you can find some sources, but I don't think there are enough available to support Wikipedia having an article on Peter Beter. As such, the article is nominated for deletion. I only found sources that talk about him, in reference to Jonestown. If there were enough sources, I would be willing to help improve the article. It's possible he can be mentioned in that or other articles, provided that suitable sources are given. You can weigh in on the deletion page. Regards. --Aude (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you removed the article for deletion template from Peter Beter with this [4], claiming that there is no discussion about the deletion. You can find where it is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Beter. Feel free to contribute to the discussion, and to vote to keep or delete the article.--Dcooper 17:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Beter

I don't know much about the article, I closed the AfD based on the discussion (where no consensus developed). Re sources, yes, in principle you can use audio sources, but it would be better if you can find an online transcript of the recordings and cite that. Also, bear in mind that the article shouldn't rely fully on primary sources from the subject themselves; on Wikipedia, independent secondary sources are preferred. See WP:RS and WP:ATT for more information on sourcing. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salam

Will you like to help in improving Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies using references. Thanking you in anticipation. --- A. L. M. 22:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top Rank

[5] dear brother we do not need it. It is not a useful information. We do not need a western author support to tell other his contribution to our lifes. Many western authors say him bad but we do not also quote them. Because they are not relavent. We should try to tell history in clear way. :) :) --- A. L. M. 07:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

ALM, you are absolutely correct.Proabivouac 03:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks (again)

Grandia01, this edit is completely unacceptable.[6] Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia; do not make them.
Bear in mind that Wikipedia aims to discuss topics from a neutral point of view; this is not the appropriate venue to prove that anyone "is the greatest person who ever lived."
Finally, Wikipedia operates on the principle of consensus. Repeating the same edit against consensus, as you did for some time early with the "Gospel of Barnabas" material, and as you are doing now with the Hart quote, is disruptive. Use the talk page to try to obtain consensus (though it seems unlikely that you will) and refrain from personal attacks. Thank you.Proabivouac 03:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Roger-ailes.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Roger-ailes.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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. The Sunshine Man 16:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Rupert-murdoch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rupert-murdoch.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idea generation tools

A tag has been placed on Idea generation tools, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Gavin Collins 01:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Annapurna-dawn.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Annapurna-dawn.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Annapurna-dawn.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Annapurna-dawn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

Grandia, if you don't have that passage then it is not saying anything about Hitler's religious beliefs is it, so what relevance does it have to the article? There is some reason to link Hitler's thought to broad ideas about Indo-European thought, especially as mediated by the German Idealist tradition. These points are discussed in detailed literature on Hitler's religious thought such as the papers published in the Journal of Contemporary History earlier this year and Michael Rissmann book Hitler's Gott (Zurich, 2001). Paul B 16:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. The Nazis believed that the Aryans originated in Germany, following the ideas of Gustaf Kossinna. They thought that the swastika was a symbol used by the Aryans in their travels, and that it eventually ended up in Iran and India. They did not think it originated there. Actually the more "paganist" of Nazis, such as Himmler and Rosenberg, were much more influenced by Zoroastrianism than Hinduism. The point is that this passage is just confused about the nature of Aryanist religious ideology. Paul B 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the BBC article itself. As I say, much of it is copied from what I wrote anyway! It's the interpretation that's at assue. However, this section could probvably be expanded, so I will add material from scholarly sources later. Paul B 17:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Baldwin_II.GIF listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Baldwin_II.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Nv8200p talk 04:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honey

Nice addition there about Organic honey. You might want to consider combining that paragraph with the existing paragraph on organic honey. By itself, it seems out of place. The resulting larger section would likely work well as an Organic honey subsection to the Types of honey section or Honey as a product section. Also: I moved the cholesterol-related references you added, and made a comment about them on the talk page. I'd appreciate if you could respond to that. -- Bigwyrm 06:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Rupert-murdoch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rupert-murdoch.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  But|seriously|folks  08:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Kelly_bundy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kelly_bundy.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  But|seriously|folks  08:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Peggy_bundy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Peggy_bundy.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  But|seriously|folks  08:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:New_york_times_scan.jpg

I have tagged Image:New_york_times_scan.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you.  But|seriously|folks  08:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Michael_Hart.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Michael_Hart.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  But|seriously|folks  08:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Roger-ailes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Roger-ailes.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  But|seriously|folks  08:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Toujan-f.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Toujan-f.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  But|seriously|folks  08:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Hercules1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hercules1.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  But|seriously|folks  08:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Islambouli_iran.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Islambouli_iran.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  But|seriously|folks  08:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you,i followed condition# 1.Grandia01 15:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Hi, the fair use rationale said the images were replaceable. Replaceable fair use images are not permitted per WP:FU. -- But|seriously|folks  16:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:David icke.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:David icke.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:D icke.jpg

Hi Grandia, the image you uploaded of David Icke can't be used under our fair use policy, because it's of a living person and easily replaceable. I've left a note on the talk page. This is to let you know that the image will be deleted in 48 hours unless you can come up with a fair use rationale that satisfies the criteria laid down by Wikipedia:Fair use. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REQUEST FOR A NEW TAG(REFERENCES)

Hello,can anyone make a template for articles/sections that cite the same source(s)repeatedly throughout its paragraphs???thank youGrandia01 08:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually that already exist - if I get what your saying. Try this - when you first cite the source put <ref name="Something_You_Can_Remember">(ref goes here)</ref> and then when you want to cite it again just type <ref name="The_name_you_put" /> --danielfolsom 15:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, here it is - it was already created: Template:Onesource - sorry for the confusion--danielfolsom 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, well actually, that doesn't exist and it can't. There used to be a template like that - Template:More_sources - but it was deleted. Sorry bout that - really having 2-3 sources though, is fine. There's no policy against it - you just have to avoid having one source.--danielfolsom 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

AHH - nevermind! Template:Refimprove - the article needs additional sources--danielfolsom 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eep

long essay added to my talk page. --Alvestrand 05:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:D icke.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:D icke.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status of Image:Chr applegate.jpg

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Image:Chr applegate.jpg. For legal reasons, we will delete copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24339916@N00/272115408/ in this case) or from printed material.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Image:Chr applegate.jpg with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article's talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Image:Chr applegate.jpg with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own original words to avoid any copyright infringement. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Risk communication

Risk communication, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Risk communication satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk communication and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Risk communication during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Smashville 06:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning you again about Personal Attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk communication. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. It should be noted that you have been warned numerous times about making personal attacks on other users. In particular this edit [7]and this edit [8] are completely unacceptable. Please don't force me to report you to an Admin. Thank you. OfficeGirl 06:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Smashville 16:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

with all due respect,what are you talking about??after officegirl i didn't say anything to anyone!!!Grandia01 18:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This revision and this revision. Smashville 20:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Smashville, 1)I may agree you about saying the word bull**** there, and i apologize for it, but, in all fairness, did you say the same thing to the ^*&#$ who said it first???i may be overly sarcastic but i didn't initiate downright filth like that guy 2)calling someone a professor sarcastically is a personal attack?do you have experience living here on earth or in a different planetSmashville????Grandia01 21:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the sarcasm very clearly, hence the warning. Smashville 21:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the editor claimed the article as "bullshit" in an AfD. That was his Delete reason. Maybe not the best argument, but it wasn't a personal attack directed at anyone and wasn't made in bad faith. Smashville 21:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

not on bad faith and not a personal attack,then he is being respectful then eh??oh so after all it's ok for him to use such words in wikiepdia right??good luck finding anyone who will buy your justification.whatever manGrandia01 21:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your only warning.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Grandia01, you will be blocked from editing. Removal of talk page comments - specifically personal attack warnings - constitutes vandalism. - Smashville 04:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

oh you're the so-called editor who condoned the use of the word bullshit on wikipedia.leave me alone and get a lifeGrandia01 05:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking only as myself, but it seems last warnings are being chucked around rather freely in here. They are meant to serve the purpose of stopping really disruptive users, but I think they can also be quite provocative and menacing. While I also don't condone Grandia's behaviour, I think they got offended by something and overreacted to it, and the above is just continuing the wikidrama and provoking further reaction. Unless something major and new happens, there doesn't seem any point in dropping any further warnings and hopefully Grandia will move on quickly. Should also be noted that blanking a section of one's own user talk page is foreseen by WP:TALK and does constitute acknowledgement, so the last warning for "vandalism" was pretty much invalid - although I'd also note that blanking disruptively, or removing valid warnings with the intention of hiding them, is another matter. Orderinchaos 03:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your unbiased interference Orderinchaos. you hear that Smashville??your last warnings are "distributed" irrationally and your last "warning" is simply invalid. Orderinchaos, thanks for clarifying this and seeing things from my perspective, i apologize. as for you Smashville??i'd say that your warnings are nothing but bullshitGrandia01 05:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually think Smashville (and others) were acting in good faith but got carried away, just as you did in making the initial comments. Usual situation of sometimes it is possible to get too close to a situation and not see the forest for the trees. Orderinchaos 07:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks again Orderinchaos, per your words of wisdom, i'll try my best to calm down first hopefully to see the big picture before i judge anythingGrandia01 07:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comments

From your other contributions, it would be my belief that you signed up to Wikipedia with the intent of improving it. However, it's easy to get sidelined into battles, some of which are quite pointless and use up a lot of energy. I don't actually see what the one above is achieving for either party. Firstly, when someone disagrees with you in a debate, I would suggest not taking it personally. I've read the AfD concerned and the vote made by the person you seem to be most upset about would almost definitely get ignored by the closing admin. By getting in and fighting with them, all that happens is your own credibility suffers, and you accumulate enemies. Secondly, as a result of being sidelined into this dispute, only 4 of your recent edits don't relate to it. My advice would be to forget about it for a few days and contribute to other articles which you can improve - that will go a lot further to establishing your credentials than debating above, as I think it's long past the point where anyone can win. Orderinchaos 03:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:David Ic..jpg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Image:David Ic..jpg article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. DWaterson 13:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCIC

Looks good to me (all the changes I made were formatting ones, except for the addition of a lead sentence). One slightly confusing aspect re the refs is that they seem to call it the "...executive" rather than the "center", and the AAAS link suggests the Executive replaced the Center in Jan 2001, but seems to be no problems otherwise. Also worth a look is Template:Infobox Govt Agency, a fairly new infobox template for government agencies. Overall, great :) Orderinchaos 06:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Grandia01, everything looked fine except for the name of the office, which was changed on Jan 5, 2001 - the original organization was created in 1994 (that's where you got the date 5 January 1994.) I was about to move it to Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, only to find the article already existed (albeit not a particularly impressive one.) So, I merged your material with what was present, with a redirect from the old name. I'm honestly not certain how to do this and remain in compliance with GFDL: I credited you with the material in the summary and stated which article it was moved from, which provides a link to the original edits should anyone wish to follow up.
We have a "primary sources" tag, because the original article had no second-party sources. Thanks to you, we now have one, but we need more to justify removing the tag.Proabivouac 07:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

BIG thanks to both of you,can i ask you guys to "audit" my contributions more often in the future??thanks again and againGrandia01 07:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

______________________

• Grandia01, Nice Artistic illustration of Beibars in battle. Do you have a nice illustration for Sirat al-Zahir Baibars ? Thanx

Samsam22 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

hmmm,this can be tough,you will have to-most probably-scan the book cover or some of its pages(if it has any in-book pics/photos).give me some time please and let me see what i can find.thanks for the suggestion.Grandia01 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. take your time. yes I have many books of it but the problem if I scan and put will be a copyright matter.

Samsam22 01:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

its no biggie really,there's no copyright issue as long as you: 1)indicate that this is a scan of a book's cover 2)provide a fair use rationale to make sure that ur not violating anything.hope you do!!!Grandia01 01:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ok. Thanx . I will scan .

Samsam22 10:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Grandia01 , no I did not yet. I havn't been on internet for a few days. I will scan soon. I have a few .. I'll let you know when ready.. regards

Samsam22 20:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Grandia01, thank you for your supportive comments awhile back.Proabivouac 04:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

my pleasure buddy,you've always been there to correct/improve my edits on pages like peter beter's and Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive's.after all this,the least i could i do is vouch for you to show my gatitude.if you don't mind me asking,what's stopping you from becoming an admin though??does it make a difference in anyway for other editors to voice their opinions on who to nominate for adminship??please let me know.thanksGrandia01 08:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In defending the weak and despised, I've made far too many enemies. All the people who would keep us on our knees…. My current username is shot, a Flying Dutchman corpse only useful to continue existing discussions in which the introduction of a new sock would be inherently suspicious. Were I to seriously continue, I'd have to do so under another username, rack up yet another 5-10k edits and another 10 barnstars, and even then I'd have to be wary of hostile RWI trolling from the IRC crowd and the Arbitration Committee.Proabivouac 09:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

that's sad man,i remember a while back you were actually offered to be an admin but you refused.i guess you have no choice but to keep on making good edits hopefully you can change the opinions of other admins about you.hey did you think about messaging the admin who offered you adminship??try that and see what happens.best of wishesGrandia01 00:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:New york times scan.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:New york times scan.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bormann.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bormann.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alundra cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alundra cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Dönitz FAR

Karl Dönitz has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Kissinger-trial.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kissinger-trial.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Tom (talk - email) 23:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

At best, this is misleadingly described, which at least borders on vandalism. - Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on my talk page

I'm not going to warn you on your civility or personal attacks because you already know this isn't acceptable. My block of Matt57 was designed to halt his stalking and harrassment of Elonka over related articles and because of the amount of disruption that seems to follow him round. The block was endorsed at ANI by several other administrators and there was no tangible opposition from what I remember. In short, I'm happy with the decision. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Philby.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Philby.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hessrep1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Hessrep1.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hessrep2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Hessrep2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hey, thanks for your note. Let me look into the article history and figure out whether I think it's getting vandalized enough to be protected. If it's only a couple times a day, in my opinion that's not enough to merit protection, because it could lose us good edits. I think a good edit is way more valuable than an vandal edit is harmful, so I hate to protect unless it's absolutely necessary. So I'll get right back to you. Peace, delldot talk 06:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey again. Yeah, I don't think that amount of vandalism merits protecting. One thing I do think we could do to prevent the section from being removed continually is to make it more neutral in tone, since it reads like it's critical of the leader. The person may just be removing this because they think it's an unfair treatment of the subject. I'll try to work on this myself, and I recommend you do to. Thanks for keeping a lookout for the page! Definitely let me know if the vandalism gets much heavier. Peace, delldot talk 06:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely! I'm working on it now, but I haven't gotten to the contentious part yet :) Let me know what you think when I'm done. Peace, delldot talk 07:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey again Grandia, I couldn't figure out what you were referring to, but I was pretty tired last night, so I probably made an error. If it's an obvious mistake, go ahead and replace the ref and remove the fact tag, then show me the diff of your edit. If it's not, could you show me the diff of my edit where I did it, and point out the part of the particular part of my edit where I did that? I looked briefly at the 3 edits I made, but didn't see what you were talking about. Sorry for the mixup, Peace, delldot talk 05:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you were referring to. I changed that because I checked the reference and I couldn't actually find in it where it asserted what the article asserted. It was just a list of human rights violations. I think that reference is not that good of one anyway. What we really need to do is find the specific article where they say that, and link directly to it. Because having a reference for a fact that's not in the reference is really bad, in terms of honesty and verifiability. Again, I was really tired last night, so I might have missed where it said that. Can you point me to it? Thanks much, delldot talk 06:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, let's take this to the article's talk page, so others can be involved in the discussion and it's easier to keep the thread together. We can leave each other notes when we've posted there so we'll know about it sooner. Peace, delldot talk 06:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I posted my note, it's at Talk:Abdullah II of Jordan#Issue with references. (Look out, it's long!) Thanks for the hard work you've put in, sorry to keep bringing stuff up. Peace, delldot talk 07:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to take so long to respond! I replied at User talk:Delldot#vandalism on King Abdullah II's page. Peace, delldot talk 10:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you think? :) delldot talk 12:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I responded on my talk page. Peace, delldot talk 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Grandia! Here's my thoughts on the article's talk page. Thanks for doing such a good job getting the additional info I asked for. Sorry to bring up more objections.  :) Peace, delldot talk 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:K-philby.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:K-philby.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Template

There already are those templates the can be found here Ctjf83 ^talk 21:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

try using {{refimprove}} this one, it is as close as it gets Ctjf83 ^talk 21:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toujan al-Faisal

Aw, thank you for your kind words! Sure, linking to Toujan al-Faisal sounds fine, especially since the ref you provided is more directly related to democracy in Jordan than to Abdullah himself. Of course, I hope you'll take my suggestions on Talk:Abdullah II of Jordan into account when doing it. The more refs you can find on the subject the better! Peace, delldot talk 17:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joke edit on Paul is Dead

Thank you for your contribution to Paul is Dead, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. Thank you. -- Dlabtot (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, in case you somehow really didn't understand waht happened inthat clip: Huckabee had been confronted about the 'subliminal message' in his christmas season advert. as a means of dismissing the charge against him, he referenced The Beatles, whose white album, or abbey road, i forget which, had been the subject of an urban legend wherein if played backwards, some song or other would say 'Paul is dead, Paul is dead'. Thus Huckabee was jokingly referring to the Beatles, who were jokingly refering to Paul McCartney. Fox News' ticker simply happened to run the summary news of that topic during an interview with Ron Paul. Hope this helps, and if not, then your'e being deliberately obtuse. ThuranX (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

deliberately obtuse??at least i'm no jew!!Grandia01 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

[edit] Image on Adolf Eichmann

I've posted a note about the image you put on the article about Eichmann here. I'm simply unsure if the image you've posted or the one you replaced qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. AniMate 08:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my post at WP:AN I just said that I was unsure about the rationale for your photo and the other. I have no stake in which picture is in the entry, and of course will abide whatever the consensus is. Peace, AniMate 08:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Granadia, done. Note that the fair use policy is pretty strict, so you can't use fair use images except in a pretty narrow range of circumstances. On an unrelated note, what on earth was this about? Why would you want to harm the project that way? I find that quite upsetting, but I'll assume that you're not going to do anything like that again, right? If it wasn't you, have you taken steps to secure your account, e.g. by changing your password? Peace, delldot talk 15:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the apology. I'm so pleased to hear it wasn't you. Definitely change the password right away, and I'd also suggest having a look at Wikipedia:Security. Be careful when logging in on public computers like school computers, for example don't leave yourself signed in when you get up from the computer. (Incidentally, security is why I'm editing from this alternate account right now: I'm editing from a computer at work, and I like to take paranoia about my account getting hacked to a whole new level =] ).

As I understand it, the change you showed me was not correct because it would be the original picture's copyright, not that of the website it happens to be on, that matters. But I'm not the biggest expert with this, so I'm going to let other folks on ANB handle it. I asked that editor to explain their change to me.

I'm not aware of the rules governing copyright of seized Nazi property, can you point me to them?

One minor thing: it's customary per the talk page guidelines to post new messages at the bottom of a page. If you do that on my talk page, it will increase the likelihood that I'll actually see it quickly ;) Thanks much, Delldot on a public computer (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would have waited to see if they responded to my note or tried to discuss it first, before just reverting. I'm not an expert in image matters so I wasn't sure about the original copyright either. But at any rate, hopefully the way it is is cool. If someone has a problem with it, we'll have to figure it out with them. Peace, delldot talk 22:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Robert ley.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Robert ley.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Trixt (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Robert ley.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert ley.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Ley

Hey Granadia. Sadly, the copyright policy is very strict, so absence of copyright info does not mean that it's not copyrighted, and the burden of proof is on the person who wants to keep the image.

You did a good job with the fair use, I think it should be ok, since he's dead it may not be replaceable. You should check first, though, to figure out whether you can find a free image. The reason the speedy deletion template's there is because you haven't provided a fair use rationale, as explained in Wikipedia:NFCC#10c. basically you have to fill in this guy: {{Non-free use rationale |Article= |Description= |Source= |Portion= |Low_resolution= |Purpose= |Replaceability= |other_information= }} or find a more specific one in Category:Non-free use rationale templates. There's more info at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. You have to provide the rationale before the 31st. Do you know the other people in the deletion discussion? How did they come across it? Not to jump to conclusions, but I hope you didn't canvas them. Anyway, let me know if you need help. Peace, delldot talk 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Has it? If so, and you can demonstrate it, definitely go for that. delldot talk 14:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry, but I don't think that will work. As I said, you have to actually be able to demonstrate for sure that it's not copyright, not just assert a common sense reason why you don't think it would be. I think you should change the license back unless you can demonstrate for sure what the copyright status is. However, the fair use claim would probably hold up. Peace, delldot talk 06:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I still see that as absence of evidence, not evidence of absence of copyright. You might have to ask someone that's better at image copyrights, I'm kind of an amateur. But my belief is that it still won't work without positive evidence of the image's source. Why not go the fair use route? delldot talk 07:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the unknown copyright tag that you had would be the right way to go here, unless we can actually figure out what the copyright is. I have never heard of fair use being disallowed for free images, it just wouldn't be as good, since fair use content is so much more restricted. Why don't you ask on the help desk? Maybe someone with more of a clue than me can help figure out how to deal with it. Peace, delldot talk 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I hope that works out. Thanks for working so hard on it! Peace, delldot talk 13:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Sorry, this one's way above my head. Though the others that have posted in that thread seem to know what they're talking about and have reasonable suggestions. If you're not sure of the copyright, I'd go for the unsure fair use again. Unless you can find an actually free image, or figure out more about the origin. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] help needed for configuring image copyright

I have re-tagged the Eichmann image similar to the Robert Ley image. -Nv8200p talk 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you sirGrandia01 (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Alex Spade (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

it's a work of russia's federal gov and its not non-copyrighted??man i had enough of this crap and from nitty-picky (*&%^# like you guys go ahead and delete itGrandia01 (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This image is not PD-RU-exempt. If you want to use it - you can retag it with respecite fairuse license tag and rationales. Alex Spade (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

oh gee if you know how to keep it then why did u nominate it for deletion??would be nice from you if you could choose the more helpful path to help other editors rather than create unnecessary crap to make everyone's life harder.patheticGrandia01 (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chosroes.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Chosroes.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Nv8200p talk 02:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chosroes2.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Chosroes2.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Nv8200p talk 02:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC) ...

[edit] fair use rationale missing

No, the image does not need to be removed from the article right away. You should tag the image as appropriate, and the deleting admin can remove it from the article. Someone may add rationale and the image will not need to be deleted. -Nv8200p talk 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:170px-Burgdorf Wilhelm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:170px-Burgdorf Wilhelm.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

the author is a nazi officer and i got this photo from another wikipedia,whats so hard about that??and who the hell will claim copyright to it??nitty picky idiots like you who have no life are the main reason why im starting to loose interest in all that crap.go ahead and delete it,oh yes,and get a life

Where's the proof of authorship? Just because the photographer might be a nazi officer does not wipe out his copyright on this image. You can't use an image just because of a bogus claim made by you or the uploader in the other Wikipedia. --Denniss (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

ok let's really see how smart you are and answer this simple question(would be happy if you could prove me wrong),does the united states(or any other country in the world for that matter)recognize ex-nazi properties as copyrighted properties in any way??would be glad if you could actually help now.thank you

as expected,dumb ass couldn't reply to this one.go ahead and delete it,i don't care anymore.way to go fool

Do not remove the no source template again, it may be considered disruptive behaviour or vandalism and may lead to a block. You are the uploader and you have to provide the original source/author regardless of what you believe is right or not (and it's not right what you believe). I do not respond to personal attacks like you did above. --Denniss (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

my question above wasn't a personal attack and yet you didn't respond to it because you know that i have a point(and this-obviously-makes your argument invalid),your behavior is not helping other editors improve their edits in any way either mr good guy,stop being deceitful.i will keep on interrupting you untill a fair admin sees both points of view.

You made several personal attacks and you have no point in your view on this image. It is you (the uploader) to provide information about the uploader. You have not done this but claim a bogus "made by Nazi officials, no one will claim copyright on this". This claim of the Nazi official is not confirmed, the copyright argument was never valid and is not supported by any copyright law in the world. --Denniss (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Beter.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beter.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:170px-Burgdorf Wilhelm.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:170px-Burgdorf Wilhelm.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Revert Rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Peter Beter. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. erc ^{talk/contribs} 03:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

oh gee how about engaging in active discussion with us to sort this out instead of flexing your copy and paste muscles at us??

[edit] read before undoing edits.

i posted that i will be removing those entries a week before i did and we had a discussion on the king abdullah page, go see the discussion, it clearly states that. also it clearly says dicuss before reverting edits. an openion by an extremly biased new organization is not exactly the best source. further more when i deleted that portion i consulted 3 proffesors from my university and also relied on a U.S DOD report made in FY 2003/2004. please let be civil and discuss the changes. i was praised on most of the changes that i have done to the page. and i consulted with admins when i did it, please see disssion page. thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

will continue what i'm doing.please wait for my discussionGrandia01 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] listen

your editing style is reckless, i have notified 2 administarators that you edit before consulting, i have posted the topic for disussion for about a week i didnt get a reponce from anyone, i have gone by the RULES. YOU ARE NOT. forget about what my proffessors and their years and years of experiences in various political fields in the middle east and what not. look what this DIA report says about stability in jordan http://www.why-war.com/files/currentthreats_jacoby.pdf listen, i dont want to start an editing war with you, u already have alot of those going on from what i see on your profile. Please dicuss before re-editing again, please, this is the way it is supposed to be on wikipedia, go read the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mangojuice^talk 12:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

alright listen, we are going no where and nowhere fast with this, lets discuss it, delldot told me to get a good source and then change it. i did i got his source, and it is a report made by the department of defence inteligence that says jordans stability is due largly to his popularity and to the allegiance he is given. please read it. further more i have lived there and i know the connection that the rporter makes is imaginary at best, both scenarios are very different. ive also looked into some of the rporters work, seem awfuly biased. and as far as my proffesors go, they have great experience, and they are specialized in such political issues. so please lets at least talk about this and get blocked for edit warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

that's ok with me then.just please chill out from filling up that article about abdullah's "good virtues",a proper encyclopedic article has the right to mention good and bad points about every major political figure.i believe that i'm being fair with you that way,and i expect the same from youGrandia01 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

yes i understand your view point about that, i was trying to come up with a fair view, before i started editing, there were no mentions of reforms he had done, or about any achievments. yes it should be balanced and unbiased, i understand. as far as the reporters comments, i read through them,

• A: He is not a scholar in the matter. his specialties are Iraqi matters and Iranian matters
• B: He did not cite any sources other than refering to them by "thy refused to tell their name". how can i be sure of the cridibelity of those sources
• C: He was making a prediction, and did not explicitly say hat the wikipedia article cites from him
• D: Knowing Jordanian culture, military and security forces are loyal to the king religiously, Jordanians of Jordanian origin are loyal to the king religiously in a way i havnt seen in many other palces
• E: The Iran and Jordan comparison did not realy click with most scholars i asked, very differnet situations, pahlavi of iran was not popular, abdullah of jordan is very popular, and in iran the religious hiarchy was the one that was behind the removal in iran. Such a religious hiarchy does not exist in Jordan!!
• F: the source i brought is an official report from the U.S department of defence that says jordan remains stable to to high alegiance to a very popular king.

any how. i hope you understand why i wanted to remove this perticular part, and i hope we can make that article an A rated article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

i understand your perspective and i agree with you.your point is valid and i appreciate your time in writing this clarification.but please don't do any other major changes before consulting other editors from now on.by the way,is this really you writing this stuff topsecret??Grandia01 (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, i knew we could resolve this matter, i will go ahead and remove it (hope you dont mind). and as far as your question, yes thats me writing, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 04:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gustavk.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gustavk.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Denniss (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gustavk.jpg

I have tagged Image:Gustavk.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Captain-Tsubasa-II--.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Captain-Tsubasa-II--.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)