User talk:WYATTKOPP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Burbeck Signature.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Burbeck Signature.gif. 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:

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. 16:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Burbeck memorial.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Burbeck Memorial.JPG. The copy called Image:Burbeck Memorial.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Code Pink. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Do not remove sourced and valid content. Instead, discuss the content on the article's related talk page. Have a great day! ALLSTARecho 03:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rough-and-Tumble

I guess you are sort of new and I wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia editing. It gets a little bit rough-and-tumble in the discussion at the Code Pink article, but I hope you are not put off by that. That's just the way it goes, and sometimes it gets way way worse than that. The best way sometimes is to back up your positions or text with Wikipedia policies. There's terrible problems with the recent edits at Code Pink in my opinion (and I do back this up with policy I think) but it is not anything personal with any of the editors debating it, we can have a civil discussion and reach a reasonable consensus. DanielM (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, what I don't like is that they want to determine what the criticism are. My position is that my edits reflect the MOST FREQUENTLY leveled criticism at Code Pink. Just do a simple internet search for "Code Pink" & "Hugo Chavez" and you will see tons and tons of criticism on the issue. I really don't care one way or the other if they keep it or delete it. I have more fun on the Henry Burbeck page. I just went to edit that page because I saw the discussion and it said the page was Code Pink PR and they were right. I know the criticism and where the sources were so I added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.99.23 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I searched like you said and the top results are rightwing blogs: Powerline, Michelle Malkin, "USA Partisan... Information from Across the Conserva-Sphere." Yeah, they are criticized by rightwing blogs, this is not the same as being criticized by notable public figures. I don't think it's the most frequently-leveled criticism at all. I think the Code Pink member who confronted Condoleeza Rice was much more heavily criticized. There should be a mention that they went to Venezuela and cheered President Chavez, but none of all that other tedious argument and dialogue from Tucker Carlson and so on, he is not a notable figure to be quoting at all. If a Congressman or civil rights leader or, I don't know, police chief or Supreme Court Justice criticized Code Pink that would be notable. A blog or political commentator I don't think so. DanielM (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)