User:Aido2002/Archives5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User:Aido2002

19:31, Wednesday June 11, 2008 (UTC)

Aido2002	Photography	Archives	Talk

Hi. Leave me a message, and I'll get back to you.

Please note: some messages and other itmes have been removed from this page; you can view them by browsing this page's history. (NOT ARCHIVES, HISTORY.)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE PAGE.

To start a new discussion topic, please click here.

1 Galleries of images
2 WikiProject Telecommunications
3 Unspecified source for Image:TWiT.jpg
4 WNBC
- 4.1 Recent changes
- 4.2 Chill out
5 Cingular > AT&T
6 Orphaned fair use image (Image:NBC Peacock.jpg)
7 Orphaned fair use image (Image:NBC Peacock Large.jpg)
8 Orphaned fair use image (Image:WNBCweb.jpg)
9 Userbox
10 Orphaned fair use image (Image:CW11.jpg)
11 Orphaned fair use image (Image:New Cingular.png)
12 Orphaned fair use image (Image:S&SCurrentlogo.jpg)
13 100000watts.com
14 HI via redlinked category
15 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Late Night Sets.JPG)
16 Fair use rationale for Image:Tsst XBOX 360 Controllers.jpg
17 Marlboro Memorial Middle School Faculty and Staff
18 Re: If You Can Help...
19 Cingular article
20 Marlboro Public Schools
21 Image tagging for Image:Aido2002.png
22 WNBC-TV logo pictures
23 Marlboro Township School District

[edit] Galleries of images

The WNBC gallery does violate fair use criteria. It says this:

The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

The station logo at the top of the article and the few images of newscaters already illustrates the relevent points of the text. A gallery of images does not illustrate much of a relevent purpose and is purely decorative. If they were intergrated into a history section, about different eras of WNBC, the case for fair use would be stronger, but even then we would only need 2-3 images, not the 11 present in that gallery. Hbdragon88 22:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a history section. The logos are just put there. I asked on WP:MCQ just to see if I was right or not and the reply [1] also agreed that there weas no critical commentary on the gallery of logos. Hbdragon88 03:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Telecommunications

Hi,

I have made some changes to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications lately, which I think you are the father to. Please feel free to comment on what you think about this, and perhaps add something to the "todo" list. Mange01 00:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:TWiT.jpg

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

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember uploading it, but it must have been just a placeholder, a temporary image until we got a better one. aido2002 06:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WNBC

I did not realize I was removing valid edits when I reverted others, and that is my fault. Sorry about that to you and everyone else in the Wikipedia community. aido2002 04:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's no big deal! We learn from our mistakes. :-) —David Levy 04:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, I just felt like I should say something. aido2002 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being so considerate! —David Levy 04:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"its too bad that much of the edits to this page are either stupidity, or me reverting it..." (your edit summary) 20:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The above is an uncivil personal attack. Please refrain from claiming that other editors are stupid.

2. I have not involved myself in the logo issue, but I've repeatedly asked you to consult my discussion with Rollosmokes and our Manual of Style regarding the correct format for channel assignments. These are written numerically throughout Wikipedia, and it defies common usage to deviate from this style. Please stop reverting this element without discussion. Thank you. —David Levy 05:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack, I was saying I think that the idea that this is all that is going on there is stupid. We have discussed it, none of us changed our minds, so I guess this goes on until someone stops caring. aido2002 16:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

1. You didn't reference the stupidity of the situation. You referenced the stupidity of others' edits. Please refrain from making such statements (which certainly don't help to resolve disputes).

2. At no point have you discussed the channel assignment issue. I've repeatedly explained that the spelled-out format contradicts Wikipedia convention (noted in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the guide with which our articles are supposed to comply) and that of most people and publications. Have you read my discussion with Rollosmokes? —David Levy 16:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Your continual, discussion-free defiance of clear Wikipedia consensus and the MoS cannot be interpreted as anything other than a bad-faith act.

2. Regardless of their use in the article, the WNBC logo images were properly deleted, as the accompanying descriptions contained no source information and no fair use rationale. Re-uploading them was entirely inappropriate.

If you continue to engage in the above misconduct, you will be reported for administrative intervention. —David Levy 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-uploading them was not "entirely inappropriate." AManinBlack deleted them, and said in the deletion log that he did so because they were orphaned. Because they should not have been, and were orphaned by him, re-uploading and restoring them to the page was the right course of action to take. aido2002 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that you're familiar with our fair use criteria (which you've cited), and I direct your attention to criterion #10. —David Levy 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do acknowledge that I am not familiar with the fair use policy, so feel free to add the info. The copyrights are held by NBC Universal. aido2002 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition to copyright/source information, it's important to add a detailed fair use rationale for each article in which the images are used (explaining precisely how the fair use qualifications are met). Given the fact that the fair use qualifications probably aren't met, that would be quite difficult in this instance. —David Levy 03:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the image was by no means the correct course of action to take, the only real issue was the lack of attribution, which you could have added. aido2002 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, that wasn't the only missing information. Did you read my above reply? —David Levy 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We talked about this. the rationale is that they help the article, they illustrate what we say, and are vital. aido2002 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

1. No, we never discussed this. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

2. Your opinion that the images are "vital" doesn't make them so. I'd like to be able to keep them (as I agree that they're interesting), but there really isn't a strong fair use argument here. We have no prose regarding their history or significance, and you even removed the slightly specific descriptions that we did have (not that these were sufficient). In any event, the image pages themselves contained absolutely no fair use rationales. —David Levy 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

They are vital for the same reason pictures are vital in a history textbook. aido2002 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC

The comparison isn't valid, given the fact that the images don't illustrate anything covered in the article. I'm very interested in the station logos (and I'm considering a career in TV graphics design / digital editing), but it does appear as though we lack the legal right to display them as a gallery. —David Levy 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Go after the original uploader about the fair use rationale thing, I am the wrong person to talk to for it. aido2002 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're the right person, as you're the one who re-uploaded the images without the appropriate information. We don't "go after" uploaders and wait for them to correct the problems. We delete the offending files. —David Levy 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

amaninblack should not have deleted the images, he orphaned them, and several people were against it. He did not have a legitimate reason to, I hope you can agree with me on this. aido2002 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't. He was enforcing Wikimedia Foundation policy. It doesn't matter how many people want to ignore the policy (which cannot be negated via consensus). It would have been irresponsible for him to have not orphaned the images when he deleted them, as this would have left broken transclusions behind. —David Levy 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was that it did not violate policy. aido2002 23:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Among which users did this consensus form? How eager were they to include the logos and how familiar with policy were they? You, for example, have demonstrated a great deal of eagerness to include the logos ("They are vital...") and little familiarity with policy ("Yes, I do acknowledge that I am not familiar with the fair use policy..."). —David Levy 15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I am not firmilliar, but I can read. I couldn't tell you anything about any of the other rules, I would have to go check, but that is beside the point. They did not violate policy, and that is clear. aido2002 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

de-indent I have to agree with David Levy. The overuse of the logos does violate our policies here Aido. They were properly removed. There's been a significant amount of discussion about this, and the outcome was that such galleries are to be removed.
Also, per User_talk:Menasim/Userboxes/User_Google#Trademark I removed the font colorings from your inline google userbox on your userboxes page. The use of the font colorings violates Google's trademark/copyrights to the logo. Please do not re-add the colors. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 17:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to your request that I discuss the WNBC matter on your talk page, I direct your attention to the above. As you can see, I repeatedly attempted to discuss the spelling issue, and I provided a link to my discussion with Rollosmokes (in which I cited ample evidence to support my position). You ignored all of this. —David Levy 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I saw you had tried re-introducing numerals written as words into this article. When I re-wrote this and others, I substituted most single-digits with their word forms, and it wasn't a problem until David Levy decided to change them a month or so ago. While he has a leg to stand on as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, this is not correct from a writing standpoint, as other writer's style guides (such as the Chicago Manual of Style) suggest the same thing we agree on. However, David Levy has drank the Wikipedia Kool-Aid much too much to listen to any suggestions. In short, I agree that single-digit numbers should be written as words in most cases. But we'll have a better time appealing to someone higher than David Levy, with whom I've had problems in the past and dislike immensely. Rollosmokes 07:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Over and over again, you ignore the ample evidence of the fact that this is a clear-cut exception to the rule. I explained the distinction between a formal FCC designation and a mere word used in prose. You stated that "we should practice the same stylistic protocol as printed encyclopedias," so I quoted several excerpts from the Encyclopædia Britannica (arguably the world's most prestigious printed encyclopedia) in which single-digit channel numbers are referenced in numerical form. You quoted an excerpt from the Penguin Handbook containing an explanation that "most styles do not write out words in ... an address" and prescribing that we "use numerals instead," but you refused to explain why we should spell out postal addresses (such as "Nine Broadcast Plaza") and channel addresses (such as "channel nine").

Rather than addressing any of this, you focused on uncivil personal attacks (which you've resumed above).

Consensus on Wikipedia is clear, as evidenced by the format used throughout the site (which, to borrow your logic, "wasn't a problem" until you decided to change it). No Kool-Aid is involved, however, as this is the common style used in formal writing. Please stop attempting to impose your idea of correctness on the community.

Incidentally, given the fact that you made such a fuss regarding my age (mistakenly assuming that I was much younger than I am), I'll point out that Aido2002 (the individual with whom you agree) is 14 years old. Of course, some of our best editors have been that age and even younger. —David Levy 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

David Levy, if you want to follow the rules so much, why did you use an ad hominem, or personal attack on both Rollosmokes and I? Not only that, but it is way out of line to criticize Rollosmokes for agreeing with a fourteen year old such as myself, I am no worse an editor, or person, for that matter, than many people older than I.

As for the issue of channel numbers, we will attempt to have this reviewed. But whether you are right or not, don't act like a jerk. aido2002 22:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood what I wrote. I wasn't criticizing Rollosmokes for agreeing with a 14-year-old, nor was I belittling you by mentioning your age. Rollosmokes previously cited my young age as a reason to dismiss my viewpoint, so I noted that he's now agreeing with someone even younger than I am. As I said, some of our best editors have been your age and even younger. That was my point. —David Levy 23:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but either way, if you know, what is the reasoning behind using "4" as opposed to "four", as they out it when deciding the rule? aido2002 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask that you please read my discussion with Rollosmokes, in which I explained the reasoning in great detail. —David Levy 21:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. I'm asking the reasoning used when the rule was written. aido2002 21:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. In that discussion, I explained why the numerical format is correct. What else are you asking? —David Levy 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would assume the rule was written as the result of a discussion. Well, in that discussion, what reasoning did they cite as why we should use "4" and not "four", "2" and not "two", etc.? aido2002 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there was no such discussion. That isn't always how things work. Our Manual of Style documents Wikipedia style conventions, one of which is to write channel numbers numerically. (As you can see, this is done throughout the site.) This is the format normally used in formal writing (not merely in Wikipedia), so there was never a disagreement of this nature until Rollosmokes decided to unilaterally overrule the community. —David Levy 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, that rule makes no sense. That is not the formal way of writing, I have never seen this happen anywhere before this. aido2002 22:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Most numbers below ten are conventionally written out as words, but this is an exception.

I've repeatedly asked you to read my discussion with Rollosmokes. In it, I quote several passages from the Encyclopædia Britannica in which single-digit channel numbers are referenced in numerical form. If that isn't a reputable authority, I don't know what is. —David Levy 22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's different. It is proper to write out channel numbers in number form, however, I think the first line should be an exception. The first line is supposed to look good and open the article, and using word form looks nicer. (Notice how I only change the first line to "4", after I realized you have a case for the rest of the text.) Forget the rules for a moment, and look at this from a purely presentation point of view. It makes the article, and Wikipedia look better to open with (I'm paraphrasing) "WNBC is a television channel that broadcasts on channel four" than to say "WNBC is a television channel that broadcasts on channel 4." I know this seems like a strange argument, but think about it for a moment, and compare the two revisions in the edit history. aido2002 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the station doesn't broadcast on "channel four." Frequencies aren't written that way. As I explained to Rollosmokes, "4" is merely a technical symbol, not a means of counting through three other television stations to reach number "four." You're transliterating something that isn't literal.

Incidentally, the existence of a talk page discussion is not a valid reason to omit an edit summary. The summary is for the benefit of everyone who views the revision history (not merely the person whose edit was reverted) and it will be there long after this discussion is archived and forgotten. In general, failing to use an edit summary when engaged in a dispute is perceived as worse than if no such dispute existed. —David Levy 21:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That is kind of pushing it. Everyone sees "4" and "four" as interchangeable. As for the edit summary, we had said things back and forth right below that, anyone reading the history would know what is going on. aido2002 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pushing anything. It is not customary to style transmission frequencies as spelled-out words. The FCC assigned channel "4," not channel "four." This is a formal, government-licensed designation. —David Levy 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that doesn't make a difference, there have been instances of the FCC assigning "Four", "Two", "Seven", etc. That just comes down to the fact that they used a number for clarity. aido2002 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there have not been instances of the FCC assigning a spelled-out number. The FCC doesn't do that. It uses numerical designations. Please stop vandalizing the article. —David Levy 04:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing the article. I did come accross an instance of such discussed here on Wikipedia, when I find it I will get you a link. as for now, disagreement in opinions does not constitute vandalism. aido2002 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but deliberately defying our consensus-derived Manual of Style does. If you believe that the style convention used throughout Wikipedia (in hundreds of articles) should be changed (thereby contradicting the format normally used in formal writing), you're welcome to propose that. You are not entitled to simply ignore our standards because you want to, as doing so doesn't improve or maintain Wikipedia. —David Levy 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You yourself said that this particular rule was not consensus derived, but I understand what you are saying. However, I am going to set an example with this article of the ideal way of doing things. aido2002 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I did not say that this rule was not consensus-derived. It certainly was. It wasn't discussion-derived. Our policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive; they document the way that things are done. In this case, consensus is evidenced by this format's use throughout Wikipedia (and formal writing in general, for that matter).

2. With the exception of Jimbo, it is no one's place to unilaterally "set an example" of how he/she believes things should be done. When clear consensus exists to do something a certain way, your choices are to agree or propose change. Simply overriding consensus is highly disruptive and counterproductive.

3. Before you revert again, please see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I won't block you (because of our disagreement), but I will report you. I don't want to (as I know that you mean well), but this has to stop.

Please take my advice. I possess no more authority than you do, but my role as an administrator should tell you that my knowledge of Wikipedia procedures is sound. —David Levy 04:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(OUTDENT)
Look, I'm not trying to start an argument here, and I understand that you mean well. I am not attempting to override consensus, but rather to demonstrate how I believe this should work, to have an article to cite when I propose a discussion for it.
I agree that this has to stop, edit wars like this will not get us anywhere. For now, I will leave the article with "4", but I'll start a discussion over it, to give us a chance to debate it (I don't think following the rule shows we agree, but rather that we don't feel like doing something, or getting blocked).
Regardless, I would like to thank you for not "talking down" to me because of my age during this discussion. It is really insulting when people talk to me like I am a moron. aido2002 04:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to start an argument here, and I understand that you mean well. I am not attempting to override consensus, but rather to demonstrate how I believe this should work, to have an article to cite when I propose a discussion for it.

If that's what you seek, you can simply provide this link.

I agree that this has to stop, edit wars like this will not get us anywhere. For now, I will leave the article with "4", but I'll start a discussion over it, to give us a chance to debate it

That's precisely the correct thing to do.

(I don't think following the rule shows we agree, but rather that we don't feel like doing something, or getting blocked).

As I noted above, our policy/guideline pages are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, we don't do something a certain way because a policy/guideline page tells us too. We write a policy/guideline page because something is done a certain way.

The wording in question was added (by me on 26 November 2006) to describe a standard that had long been followed throughout the site.

Regardless, I would like to thank you for not "talking down" to me because of my age during this discussion. It is really insulting when people talk to me like I am a moron.

You're welcome! It wasn't all that long ago that I was your age, so I remember quite well how it feels to be treated in that manner. —David Levy 05:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chill out

As you know, I agree with you 100 percent. However, it's not worth getting banned for going tit-fot-tat with David Levy or any admin over any issue with a revert war. As I said before, this can and should be brought up for debate in another manner, and with someone else (or others) completely neutral to this situation directly. Rollosmokes 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

While it's a good idea for you to stop revert-warring, Aido, I want it to be absolutely clear that administrators possess no special editorial authority and that you are in no danger of being banned from the site. You could be temporarily blocked, but I would not do this myself. I would seek the intervention of an uninvolved administrator.

The last thing that I want is for you to feel intimidated, and I hope that you realize that I'm merely enforcing the community's stylistic standards. I am not in a special position of power that may be used against you. —David Levy 06:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, thanks for not acting as if you do have a superior authority, as some admins do. aido2002 04:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've staunchly criticized that sort of behavior since I began participating in this project, and it remains something that I feel very strongly about. —David Levy 05:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cingular > AT&T

I made the move, but the page still needs to be updated (it currently says AT&T Wireless is the former name of Cingular). —An gr 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves are also protected by the move protection, I reverted it back, and suggest that you try not to do it again, but participate on the discussion on the article talk page.EnsRedShirt 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not move the talk page through a redirect. The article page should be moved together with its corresponding talk page, but the former has been protected from moves due to a current conflict regarding its title. Please participate in that discussion if you are interested. TSO1D 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:NBC Peacock.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NBC Peacock.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:NBC Peacock Large.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NBC Peacock Large.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:WNBCweb.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:WNBCweb.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Userbox

Hi, where did you get your userbox from that says, "This user believes it is every citizen's duty to vote". I've been looking for it everywhere but cant find it, could you point me in the right direction please :) Thank You. Freedom4Korea

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:CW11.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CW11.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:New Cingular.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:New Cingular.png. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:S&SCurrentlogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:S&SCurrentlogo.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] 100000watts.com

I need to get a consensus, would 100000watts.com be a good source to use for a reference in an article? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. - SVRTVDude 10:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HI via redlinked category

re: Template:Cen (edit talk links history) and This is all it does (This is all it does)!

May I suggest you 'db-author' this, or properly categorize it, so others can use it. // FrankB 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Late Night Sets.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Late Night Sets.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tsst XBOX 360 Controllers.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tsst XBOX 360 Controllers.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Atomic1609 12:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marlboro Memorial Middle School Faculty and Staff

We have enough trouble trying to keep articles for schools on Wikipedia. Middle schools are much harder to provide the requisite reliable and verifiable sources to justify retention. But there is no way that an article like Marlboro Memorial Middle School Faculty and Staff will survive long on Wikipedia before being deleted. I encourage you to focus on finding more details about articles about the school, awards that have been won, sports championships, etc. that might better qualify the Marlboro Memorial Middle School article to meet the WP:SCHOOLS standard. Please let me know if I can help you in this regard. Alansohn 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: If You Can Help...

Hi. I noticed you seem to be very good at formatting userboxes, so I need to request your assistance. I have been trying to reorganize my userboxes, add a few new ones, and get rid of some old ones, but I somehow made a mistake in formatting, and my user page now has userboxes all over the place. If you can spot the problem, please repair it. Thank you very much in advance! aido2002 03:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The only ways I can arrange userboxes is in one column as on my userpage or the way I've done it on my userbox page, I've tried other ways but wasn't able to make it look good. So if you want four columns, I don't really think I'd be able to help, but I can do similar to my userbox page if you want (or you can just copy the format). — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you add the {{helpme}} tag here on your talk page, you'll be placed in a category for people looking for help, which is checked regularly by several users. I'm sure someone will come across it and be able to help you. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cingular article

I realize that the average reader of the article might be confused; however, I have yet to find one page on Wikipedia with a corporate infobox that uses "Formerly" underneath the true legal name of the company. I this practice should be utilized, why not go to the Sprint Nextel article and put "Formerly Sprint Corporation" underneath? Or DaimlerChrysler "Formerly Daimler-Benz"? I do not see the importance in putting "formerly" in the infobox, especially considering the article itself frequently repeats that it continues to do business as Cingular. KansasCity 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is to be true with all articles, why was this not done with AT&T Inc. and "Formerly SBC Communications"? Why not put "Formerly Verizon Information Services" in the Idearc article? I cannot find any valid reason why "formerly" belongs in the corporate infobox. I have yet to discover an incident when this happened. KansasCity 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel it is a precedent that should not have been started. If you feel this is necessary, the "formerly" should at least not be present on the Cingular article when Cingular is dropped altogether. KansasCity 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marlboro Public Schools

It seems as though you need to talk over the page move/rename with User:Alansohn, who moved the page from Marlboro Township School District to Marlboro Public Schools, the opposite of what you want done. Once you reach consensus, I'll be glad to do the deed. –RHolton ≡– 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you moved it, but the article located at Marlboro Public Schools should definitely be located at Marlboro Township School District. -aido2002 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that both terms are used, the district refers to itself most often as the "Marlboro Public Schools" rather than as the "Marlboro Township School District". "Marlboro Public Schools" is what appears on top of all pages at the district's website. Alansohn 02:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your changes related to the Marlboro Public Schools have been reverted. As discussed earlier, this should be handled as a move once consensus is achieved, as a cut-and-paste loses article history. I would suggest setting this up as a requested move to see if there is consensus to rename the articles (in a manner that preserves all history), or the title should stay as is. Alansohn 04:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Aido2002.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Aido2002.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WNBC-TV logo pictures

First it was too big -- 200 pixels. I made it smaller. You increased its size again, and I shrunk it again. You left it alone, and now you added a second logo. There is no need for the alternate logo, as they are essentially the same thing, only different colors and one doesn't use the "HD". Image:NBC 4.png should be the only logo in the infobox, as WNBC uses that one on-air almost exclusively now. Image:WNBC alt logo.png should be used only if we can get the logo galleries back. So, please don't replace this. Rollosmokes 07:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marlboro Township School District

You are the only one who seems to think that it should be Marlboro Public Schools, and you ignored my messages, therefore, a consensus was reached. By the way, it is Marlboro Township School District; not only do I know because I attend them, but their letterhead says Marlboro Township School District. aido2002 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The article cannot be moved via cut and paste, as you have tried to do several times. If you want the articles moved, you need to submit a move request and get consensus that the article should be moved. If this is not done, the articles will NOT be moved. Alansohn 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I had moved them properly, and they were reverted back, wishing for consensus. It has been reached, they WILL be moved. aido2002 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is only one way to legitimately move the article: via the WP:Requested Moves process. Follow the instructions the and request the move. If a consensus is reached that the article should be renamed, it will be done. If a cut-and-paste move is attempted (again) it will be reverted (again). See Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves for more about the havoc wreaked by such moves. Alansohn 21:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you don't like the current name. The changes have been reverted, again. If you would like to rename the article to Marlboro Township School District, please follow the instructions at the WP:Requested Moves article. If you have an alternative name, suggest it and let's see if we can reach consensus. The only person who has decided that Marlboro K-8 School District is yourself. That you can move an article is no reason to do so. Alansohn 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can move the article to Qxj43b. That doesn't make the move appropriate or valid. No attempt has been made to find what consensus is on the article title. Do not take it upon yourself to impose your wishes on the entire community. I will abide by the result of a move request, and I hope that you would too. Unless the article title is agreed upon, no move can be done or will be accepted. Any further moves without attempting to follow procedures may be treated as vandalism. Alansohn 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried many times to discuss this with you, and you ignored me. Therefore, consensus was reached--I was the only one who cared. If you attempt to take measures against me for what you claim to be "vandalism", I will contact an admin over this issue. aido2002 02:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You have moved this article unilaterally multiple times, violating rules on cut-and-paste moves and using an article title that has not been discussed with anyone. There is a mechanism to implement such moves and I strongly encourage you to try to follow Wikipedia rules and regulations, and not impose your wishes on the entire community. Either use the requested move process or suggest a move on the talk page. If consensus is reached that shows a majority of Wikipedians want to see the article renamed, the article will be moved as you desire. If you persist in taking action before consensus is reached, the changes will be reverted and treated as vandalism. Alansohn 02:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.