Talk:The West Wing presidential election, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Requested move 1.1 Survey and discussion 2 ("Congressman" vs "Representative") 3 Disagreement with merging 4 Why was this page moved? 5 Democratic primary map 6 Possible reasons for election date 7 New Clue to Election Year Being 2005 8 Peer review for The West Wing 9 Sam Seaborne Speculation 10 Picture requests 11 State by state returns 12 Titles of West Wing related events 13 Transition 14 Popular Vote Count 15 Electoral College Map Error 16 Democratic National Convention 17 Other Candidates 18 Other Candiddates someone has added fictional info 19 Do not keep it too serious 20 Santos military service 21 Hoynes 22 Fair use rationale for Image:Bartletvinickandreo.jpg 23 Fair use rationale for Image:Joshelectionnight.jpg 24 Fair use rationale for Image:Revbutler.jpg 25 Fair use rationale for Image:Santosannouncement.jpg 26 Fair use rationale for Image:Santosreserves.jpg 27 Fair use rationale for Image:Santostillman.jpg 28 Fair use rationale for Image:Santosvictoryspeech.jpg 29 Fair use rationale for Image:Vinicksullivannomination.jpg 30 Fair use rationale for Image:Draftbaker.jpg

[edit] Requested move

[edit] ("Congressman" vs "Representative")

Regarding the title congressman v. representative is similar to conversation v. protocol. In the case of Matt Santos, a fictional elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas, would in conversation be addressed as congressman. While in the Chamber of the House of Representatives or in a historical context, protocol would be used and addressed as Representative Matt Santos of Texas or in the AP style, Rep. Matt Santos (D-TX) which is the style C-SPAN uses.

Although congressman is technically a term for members of either house of the US Congress, "Congressman/woman" is used almost exclusively to refer to members of the House of Representatives in formal address. Although technically correct a member of the United States Senate would feel offended being called "Congressman/Congresswoman". -- fdewaele, 10 April 2007, 18:51.

[edit] Disagreement with merging

The West Wing television show article is for discussing the show in general and its characters and themes, etc. This is a very specific event in the West Wing universe. It is possible to leave a basic summary of the events thus far on the main page, but a separate page should be maintained in order to make the Wikipedia a thorough resource. Other shows and books have entire articles devoted to specific episodes, characters, and events that are all fictional. For references, see a List of Star Trek episodes, a page about fictional Dr. John Carter of ER, and a page about the fictional Battle of Yavin. All of these pages have been deemed worhty of a place in the Wikipedia. Why not a page about a special event in the West Wing universe?
- Scm83x 18:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Should there also be a page for the 2002 presidential election in the West Wing universe as well? --Blue387 03:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I would say that after the election is over, a brief summary might be made and merged with the main article. But until then, the separate article should be maintained certainly. - Scm83x 04:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Perhaps it should be merged after it's over, but until then it's nice to see a separate and more in-depth article on it. But do the actual rules address something like this? iKato 05:35, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the actual rules: The policy on fiction is here but that's not the be-all-and-end-all of writing to describe fiction on Wikipedia.

The amount of detail in this article is actually what concerns me; given that it's non-factual, we have to ask ourselves: is it necessary? I can imagine that it's kind of fun to write and to work it out, but how much does it actually inform readers, who are probably just looking for a summary of the series' major plot events at most (Btw. I'm an enormous fan of the show)? It seems to me that this article solemnly treats the event as a real election, going into all the possible factors and all the throwaway mentions on screen (in some cases, extrapolating beyond what is actually revealed in the episodes), whereas all we really need is something that would allow a non-regular viewer to follow the course of the show's plot. I sympathise with wanting to put all the nitty-gritty in here, but I have to say I'm not really sure if it's encyclopedic. Slac speak up! 13:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-regular viewers who want to learn about the series will never have been directed to this article; they will be reading the main West Wing article. Kidburla2002 23:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is too much information here to merge the article with The West Wing article; it would result in an unwieldly artice verging on a warning for excessive length. Whether it is a waste of server space is a matter of opinion; my take is that it is a far better usage than listing every minor Star Wars character with its own article, and we've pretty much done that. I agree that we don't need to go too far in to interpretations and extrapolations, but the show is fairly detailed and where it deviates from reality is usually discernable. Apparently the 2006 election is being held in 2005 because the writers needed something new a year before it would really have been due; I'm wondering how deep we're going to see them go into the Santos Administration or whether next season will be a midseason cancellation correspoinding with the apparent end of Bartlet's second term

• I don't think this article should be merged with the West Wing article because it's such a distinct part of the show, not just a minor subject. -- Old Right 03:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• I do not think this should be merged for the time being Youngamerican 15:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Old Right. The next season will probably be focused entirely on the election. I recommend other things for the page such as candidate debates, campaign logos and pictures from episodes of election events. --Blue387 08:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Merge: I concur with the commentary above.
  --Baylink 02:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Merge: I also concur with the commentary above, particularly as this is a two-season story arc which will conclude the series. -- Lisasmall 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why was this page moved?

Why was this page moved from "U.S. presidential election, 2006" to 2005? I thought it was 2006 in the West Wing universe and 2006 fits into the West Wing chronology of presidential elections in 1998 and 2002. --Blue387 19:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. TWW episodes started at about the same time in the story as they aired, which explaines the 2002 presidential election. Somewhere during the beginning of the 6th season, they jumped a year forward, but there is no mention of calling early elections. Instead, Toby often speaks of "7 years of service" and the such, which means that the election is held in 2006. It's a year ahead of airing time. Wouter Lievens 21:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I moved it because I thought calling it "2006" would simply confuse people looking for information on the show, since obviously it's being broadcast in 2005. Also, while many facts point to the first election being held in 1998, John Wells stated at one point that the first season started "1 1/2 years in to Bartlet's first term". While I don't mean to defend John Wells necessarily, I think it's impossible to be definitely determined. All the show's writer/producers have been acting as if this is when election was supposed to be. That's why I think it's best to call it 2005. If people are concerned about the missing year, they can read part the part of page on the time line mess up and decide for themselves.--Newsjunkie 21:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I really think we should be more concerned with accuracy than reducing confusion. Everyone who watches the show knows that elections took place in 2002, and therefore the next ones should be in 2006. There is no reason to move the article title year forward. Doing so present falsehoods and is completely and utterly incorrect. - Scm83x 04:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

But the problem os that there is no definite way to determine if it is accurate, since the year is never explicitly stated on the show (I thinkt the closest they may have gotten was the "millenium disucssion" in In Exelcis Deo). JW might argue that by his timeline the 2002 elections were simply late. All we really know for sure is that it is being broadcast now and that those in production have been acting as if this was the correct year all along. And, I would think most of the viewers will think of it as the "fictional election" "taking place" in 2005, even if it doesn't make sense - for example I could imagine the media referring to the "fictional election taking place right now". That's why I think we should stick to what we know for sure and what the "offical line" is (even though many, including me, don't agree with it) and put all the arguments as to the timeline being messed up (which I do agree is the case) under that heading. I think that set-up is more clear for people who are looking for information on the show and who don't know it so well. At the same time this set-up calls more attention to the time-line mess up, because people will wonder about the missing year and think "Huh?", and can then read the explanation below. By calling it 2005, we make the accurate fact such as it is absolutely clear: That John Wells completely messed up the time line without regard to continuity. --newsjunkie 08:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Or you could just do the maths. Toby says "7 years of service"... and something about "one year left". If there's a fictional 2002 election page, there ought to be a fictional 2006 election page. If we can't agree on the year, then I suggest we ommit the year entirely and call it "seventh season election" or something like that. Wouter Lievens 12:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Or change it to "broacast in 2005". Or "Santos/Vinick" election. --newsjunkie 14:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Get a sense of proportion, guys! Much as we all wish Josiah Bartlett was running the country, this is getting out of hand. We don't need a whole article treating this television programme as if it was real life! If your sense of reality is too warped, then at least put the word "The West Wing" somewhere in the title. DJ Clayworth 04:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, sir, first, it is Josiah Bartlet. Second, in my opinion, if we can have articles on the TIE fighter (of which there are several), the Battle of Sector 001 (which I wrote) and Turanga Leela, we have room for a page on this (fictional) election. Plus, although it would be nice to live in TWW universe, we have enough sense of reality to place the word "(fictional)" in the title. I also think that once we get on-screen confirmation of the election year, we should adapt the page accordingly. --Blue387 05:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic primary map

Just in case anyone's curious, my sources for the map of primary and caucus results I just put up:

• About half the states are taken from dialog, mostly from 2162 Votes, but some from earlier episodes.
• The remainder are taken from freeze-frames of the delegate-counting whiteboard which appears in several scenes in 2162 Votes.

The combination of dialog and the whiteboard yields information on all 50 states plus D.C. In the real world, Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Democrats Abroad all also elect delegates, plus there are several hundred superdelegates, but the writers have either deliberately or accidentally ignored them.

Yeah, I was really bored. - Polonius 12:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• I was planning to do the same thing. Thanks for the map. --Blue387 08:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible reasons for election date

Are you kidding with me? The ENTIRE explanation is non-canon, and not mentioned in the show. Even the assumption that Ford was president because his COS was mentioned, or that Reagan was president because a building that has his name in our world exists in WW, is rediculous. Wikipedia is NOT the place for fancruft (as I learned with my Firefly addition) Staxringold 19:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, and by the way. You want a single reason why that WHOLE THEORY is fancruft? Ronald Reagan Hospital (in our world) existing in TWW world (though never called that) means Reagan was president then? Then let me ask you this. How did Clinton pass Don't Ask Don't Tell which is explicitly mentioned in Season 1, when Lassiter was president in your theory? Hmmm? If the election dates are actually 2 years in the future from what's shown on the show, why were there EXPLICIT signs that said "Bartlett in 2002" for Bartlett's re-election campaign? It's because this is bogus fancruft material thrown together without any thought for the simple facts. It's shown both to be false by the dates show right in the show, and by the president's who would have to have existed for the things in the show to exist. Staxringold 23:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm tagging this as original research. It reads like someone's homework essay on the differences between The West Wing and real life. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Clue to Election Year Being 2005

If you look at the "campaign blog" for Santos, the first entry is Wednesday, August 3. August 3rd was only a Wednesday in 2005, not in 2006. Since we know it's only a couple of weeks/days till Election Day, it looks like the Election is in 2005. In the same way, Vinick's blog is dated Thursday, August 4. --newsjunkie 15:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

In a recent episode, Josh Lyman is meeting with a DNC field operative from Illinois and the operative asks Josh if he wants an organization up and running by November 8th. Election day in 2005 was Novemeber 8th. --Blue387 05:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As a counter example, the episode before the first part of "Election Day" takes place on October 31st and I remember in the episode "today" being referred to as "thursday", which is true of October 31, 2006. Alex 19:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the next time October 31 occurs on a Thursday will be 2013. In 2006, it's a Tuesday. Highway99 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for The West Wing

As the show winds into what may be its final season, there is definitely enough material to create a featured article at The West Wing. I believe that what this page represents is a good start toward that and have started a peer review to begin the process. I am hoping that a peer review will broaden the perspective on the article to include those who don't watch or maybe have never seen the show. Because this article is related, I have posted it here. Thanks for all comments!! -Scm83x 15:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Seaborne Speculation

I believe any speculation about John Spencer's replacement should be removed unless it can be attributed to a source.

[edit] Picture requests

Can someone get some good pictures from the events in the election - the conventions and the debate? Here's one: http://www.footnote.tv/picftvww139.jpg

[edit] State by state returns

Warning: Potential SPOILER. Should we include the state returns from this image? --Blue387 09:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not looking at whatever this is because I don't want my West Wing spoiled. However, general policy that TWW editors have adopted is to not post any information regarding episodes that haven't yet aired. Therefore, no, we should not include these spoiler returns. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 09:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that the episode has aired, I will try to use that cap and any others I can find to fill in the state returns. PLEASE REMEMBER not to post any spoiler info if discussing it on the talk page. Staxringold 11:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, nevermind. Go anonymous IP for adding that data (must've downloaded the episode somewhere and watched the last scene with Josh filling in the final state to get all that data). Staxringold 11:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article that Nevada is a strong Republican state... In 2000 Bush beat Gore 49.8-46.2 with Nader getting 2.5 percent. In 2004, Bush beat Kerry 50.5-47.9 with Nader getting 0.6 percent. I wouldn't call Nevada a sure bet for the GOP in Presidential politics... as both the 2000 and 2004 elections were relatively close ones in Nevada. fdewaele 11 April 2006. 22:50 CET.

[edit] Titles of West Wing related events

Does any one else think having United States presidential election, 2006, 2002, etc is a bit misleading, due to their similarity to real-world events. Perhaps changing these to The West Wing presidential election, yyyy would be a better idea, especially as it's possible that there will be other fictitious presidential elections that take place in those years (such as |Commander in Chief if it isn't cancelled) Alex 20:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article names are misleading; they should incorporate the show's name in some fashion. U.S. presidential election, 2006 (The West Wing) already exists and would be better than the current name 66.167.252.90 11:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC).

The article should be disambiguated when there is a need for it (such as Commander in Chief holding an election in 2006, for some odd reason). Until that point pages with one meaning are not disambiguated onto a more complex name. Staxringold 12:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue with the name is that the article is not about an election, it's about a story arc for a U.S. television series, and thus its name is misleading, particularly to those unfamiliar with the show or with U.S. politics. I agree that simpler article titles are better — perhaps The West Wing election, 2006 solves both the complexity issue and the need for the article title to reflect the distinction between an actual election and an arc in a TV show. 69.3.70.211 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC).

I agree with the suggested move. This is a lousy title for an article covering a fictional event, even if this is the only prominent "election" set in 2006. DCB4W 03:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the current title is entirely inappropriate for a fictional event. --Russ Blau (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transition

Now that the election is over, we perhaps could create a subtitle "Transition" with regards to the post election/pre inaugural happenings, like Santos' selections for his cabinet and other appointments. fdewaele 9:37, 10 April 2006 (CET)

[edit] Popular Vote Count

Where do these numbers actually come from? I can't remember seeing them in the episode at all, and I haven't seen them mentioned anywhere. Penguin22 23:30, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

I have no idea. Maybe someone found a cap that showed a news station reporting popular vote counts? Unless someone can point to a source, that should probably be removed. Staxringold 23:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove those as the exact popular vote has yet to be discussed. Furthermore, according to that chart, almost 30 million more people voted in 2006 than in 2002. Especially as they spoke constantly about Vinick being unable to attract conservative bible-thumpers to the plls and on how voting was done in a bunch of states, I really doubt that so many people would've gone to vote in this election. RPH 23:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, where are the popular vote results from? I know the series is over now, and so if we don't know yet then we never will, but I didn't see any confirmation yesterday.Penguin22 17:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral College Map Error

According to the stated Electoral College results, the map would seem to be correct with one exception. New Mexico has five electoral votes, not four. If corrected, the map would reflect 272 votes for Santos and 266 for Vinick.--68.95.234.160 01:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it up. Penguin22 12:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic National Convention

I wanted to mention something from the Eric Baker talk page that the convention had the exterior of the HP Pavilion in San Jose, California (see this article) but the televisions in the background say the convention was held in San Diego according to this screenshot here --Blue387 18:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Candidates

According to this article, Governor John Atkins of Rhode Island and Senator Joe Clarkson of Michigan sought the Democratic nomination, and Senators Allard of Kentucky and Bennett of Alabama sought the GOP nomination. Also, the article makes the claim that Senator Rafferty was from Oregon.

Can anyone cite a source for any of this? I watched the show religiously, and I don't remember any of that being mentioned (I remember talk of "Atkins" having run for President as a Democrat, but no specifics). And Google turns up nothing.

Pending citation, I'm removing the information from the article as unsourced material. Thank you.

-Craverguy 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Candiddates someone has added fictional info

It seems someone has added fictional information about Rafferty, Clarkson, and Atkins. Rafferty home state was never mentioned. Atkins was a far left Governor who stood for the nomination see "2162 votes" and "Election Day part 1". Clarkson was mentioned in "King Corn" and "Freedonia" as a candidate. Also note that there first names and states where never mentioned. As for the Republicans Allard was mentioned in "King Corn" and Bennett in "Wake Up Call". Bennett as far as I know as someone who watched the show religiously like Craverguy,the name of the Republican Vice Presidential candidate was never mentioned. Even know a throwaway line in the series 7 epsiode "The Wedding" does make it seem Bartlet did beat someone named "Eisenhower" in the 1998 election. like the Dems the Republican candidates first names and job titles where not mentioned. I suggest the names are placed back in the article- but only as there where previous. Rafferty rom a unknow state, and just the surnames of the other candidates.

[edit] Do not keep it too serious

These articles are quite funny -- you guys write them with so much energy and passion to let them sound professional and real, trying to describe the "West Wing presidential election, 2006" as if it was a real and really important event. But cool down a little bit -- it's only fiction what you're describing there and I really think you shouldn't get hung up on it too much. Don't be so -- sorry for me saying it -- nerdy on this topic. If you're so good at getting the details out of fiction do a couple of essays on the unexplored parts of literature or REAL art -- not ANOTHER television show -- I think we all get what those are about if we read the main articles but not stuff like "Background dancers in songs featured in the West Wing presidential election, 2006" (sorry for me exaggerating, but some of your lines really sound like that) Don't get me wrong -- I like Wikipedia VERY much and use it nearly every day but I do not think those articles do us any good at all. Such talented writers as you are -- don't waste your time on such articles sounding like scientific reports on -- once brought into actual context -- nothing. Try to let your own mind escape the fantasy of some Hollywood storybook writer and think about it yourself -- don't you have your own mind and own fantasy to think about something? Do you always need someone else to tell you what to think about like the "West Wing presidential election, 2006" ?? 84.179.85.252 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.179.85.252 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Santos military service

Changed the reference to Santos' service from Army to Marine Corps. He states service in the Marine Corp on three separate occasions, and noted he graduated from Annapolis (Naval Academy). --NCC-1701 (USS Enterprise) (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hoynes

Hoynes is listed as "Former Vice President and Senate Majority Leader from Texas". The show does very clearly show plenty of times that he was a Senator before he became VP, but when does it say he was Majority Leader? EJB341 (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Image:Bartletvinickandreo.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:Joshelectionnight.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:Revbutler.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:Santosannouncement.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:Santosreserves.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:Santostillman.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:Santosvictoryspeech.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:Vinicksullivannomination.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:Draftbaker.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)