User talk:Rebroad/Archive 1

George W. Bush intro

First, I hope you read the section I referred to in my summary, and saw that the election dispute is covered in the article. Therefore the charge of censorship is just wrong.

Second, the Supreme Court ruled on the election procedure, not its results. Florida's electoral votes were cast according to the election results as machine counting had determined them, not according to any order from the court.

Third, there's really no reason for mentioning that the justices are unelected, except to push a "selected not elected" POV. Gazpacho 15:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gazpacho. Nice to make your acquaintance.

Apologies if I have caused you any offense, it was not intended. I'm sure there are other areas on Wikipedia that contain mention of the supreme courts involvement, but I would still maintain that simply deleting other people's contributions is still a form of censorship.

How the Supreme Court made a difference doesn't change the fact that they made a difference. It doesn't change the fact that members of the Supreme Court had conflicts of interest (let me know if were not aware of this, and I can elaborate) and therefore should have abstained.

The fact that this is the first time in history that a president has come into power in this way is relevant, as it strikes at the core of what a democracy is about. To many people, it's one of the most relevant things about the current president of the US.

If the "selected not elected" was a point of view then surely it's just your POV to suggest that there is no reason to mention it. As far as I was aware, the justices were selected, at least, that's what the article on the Supreme Court says. Are you saying that they are actually elected and the Supreme Court article is wrong?

Cheers, --Rebroad 19:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will say this again: the election dispute is already covered in the article.

We could cover in the intro every point that some editor thinks is the "most relevant," but obviously that would give an impractically long intro. So, Bush is the president, for two terms, and before he was the president he did other things.

I hope you don't think that these matters have not been raised, and discussed, already in the past four years. Gazpacho 00:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jesus

The edit I reverted had added "Judaea (in Palistine vis.Isreal)". Besides inserting a political opinion, two of the three words were misspelled. Rick K 23:59, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

As for the Cupertino article, I explained my reasons on User:LegitReality's Talk page. Rick K 00:00, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

And your trolling is now noted. Rick K 00:05, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you find something else to do besides following me around, undoing my edits, and tattling on the mailing list. I notice that nobody has felt the need to reply to your silly email list postings. Don't you have something constructive you could be doing? Rick K 20:33, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Links and user pages

Wikipedia is not made to promote outside links. The redirect to the external link of the Logan's run website will therefore not work. As for personal promotion, you can talk about yourself as long as it's confined to your user page. The normal namespace is reserved for encyclopedia articles. And the majority of Wikipedians isn't important enough to have their own encyclopedia article. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 15:50, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this?! --Rebroad 16:15, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because I was under the impression you made an article on Logan's run and only added an external link. And because of the comment on your user page. My apologies, if I made a mistake. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 17:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

172

Three questions. Does this set a better standard for image file naming? [1] What is wrong with removing personal attacks from your talk page? And have we ever interacted with each other? (Given the ancient and obscure examples-- not much considering that I've been here for around two years and have become one of the 50-70 most active editors in Wikipedia's history--that you provided for the disendorsement, it seems like you have a pretty narrow picture of me based on a couple of bad first impressions... I'm not responding you to give you flack for your statements, but rather as a way of reaching out to you. It seems like you have been a pretty active user lately. So I'd rather have a better working relation with you that does not rest on just a few unpleasant run-ins. 172 18:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to make an effort to vote for everyone. So far I'm spending far too long researching each person before voting, so I'm having to apply some pretty strict criteria to speed up the process! One of the things I give a black mark to is people trying to hide negative feedback. If I see just one instance, I'm opposing them. I'm applying the same standard to everyone, whether I've ever spoken to them or not. Regards, --Rebroad 19:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"As of now, arbitration seems to focus too much on personality instead of the merit of the edits". Quoting you here ([2] 2nd para), I was voting for you purely on the merit of your edits. It is nothing personal, and I hope you understand this. Cheers, --Rebroad 19:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was not hiding negative feedback. I was deleting an extremely inflammatory and hurtful personal attack. The attack was utterly illegitimate and politically motivated-- an attempt to cast me as some sort of Stalinist as opposed to commenting on the merits of the edits in question. It was an extreme affront to the professional standards to which I hold my research on Wiki and moreover outside Wiki and my beliefs (I am not a Stalinist by any stretch of the imagination). Since personal attacks are against Wiki policies of civility, I had every right to remove it from my personal user talk page as a sign that I would not dignify the comments by responding to them or by leaving them on my page... It would be different, though, if the comments were posted on a community talk page. In that sense, I did not remove-- or even comment on-- Fred Bauder's half-baked (sorry-- that's the kindest description I can think of) "disendorsement" charging me of systematically conspiring to "whitewash leftwing totalitarian actions and leaders" on Wiki, even though these comments stike me as even more mean-spirited and baseless. 172 20:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your professional standards? Oh good HEAVENS!! Just STFU 06:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo

On VfD you said that even Jimbo is in favor of episode guides on Wikipedia. I'd be happy to drop my case if that's true. Can you point me to a place where he said so? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 13:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't remember where exactly. It was on someone's talk page, a fairly well known sysop, and Jimbo commented that he agreed. I'll have a quick look and see if I can find it. Might have been Blankfaze. --Rebroad 15:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, here it is, here. --Rebroad 17:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR counting

VeryVerily

3 Dec, 11:11 [3]
3 Dec, 07:25 [4]
3 Dec, 07:17 [5]
3 Dec, 07:10 [6]
3 Dec, 07:07 [7]

Abuse of adminship

Would you care to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney ? CheeseDreams 02:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well Corwin8 couldn't possibly have included a reference for his facts. Because he had the facts wrong. Yes, I do tend to revert untrue additions on sight. Wolfman 06:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Although only an infinitely wise person would be able to recognise all of them on sight! --Rebroad 10:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

Please do not move the page. That is the consensus that has been reached, and you need community approval before making the drastic change. Have a look at Talk:Republic of Macedonia for a long background on the issue. Thanks, Dori | Talk 15:49, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC) Please stop changing the name. It's already been established by the community. Dori | Talk 15:53, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

"I was recently surprised to discover the amount of propaganda surrounding Macedonia. I'm not sure at this point which Nation is the source of the facts and which is the source of the Propaganda, but certainly one of them is!"

You are making a simple, yet common, logical error here. The correct conclusion is "at least one of them is". -- Naive cynic 08:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes of course. I kinda meant to imply that! :) --Rebroad 21:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You ask about the inscription on the stone at [8]. It is in Macedonian, of course. Bottom right text tells that the monument is erected in Prilep. Nikola 06:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Move vandalism warning

Rebroad, if you move the Republic of Macedonia article one more time you will be blocked. There will be no further warnings. -- ChrisO 21:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archiving

I noticed that you "archived" the discussion on Clarence Thomas a while back by simply deleting the old stuff and adding a pointer to the history. The preferred way would be to move the talk page to Talk:Clarence_Thomas/archive_1. Then edit Talk:Clarence_Thomas (now a redirect) to include a link to /archive_1. Regards, Wolfman 16:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this method can sometimes work, but I don't think I wanted to delete everything from the article, and I didn't feel comfortable with copying other people's contributions into what would then be a new article, as it would have made it more difficult to see who typed what. i.e. my action of copying over the text that I didn't want to delete would have counted as text I had submitted (rather than the original author). Some people might have take such an opportunity to modify the text, and I didn't want to do it in any way that might look suspicious. --Rebroad 20:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Some old discussions removed from this page. Can be found at: [9]. --Rebroad 20:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote against disrupting Wikipedia

I'm laughing out loud at you voting against disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, especially given the recent activity. :-) You have a good sense of irony, and I mean that as a compliment. Slim 15:28, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Cheers Slim. Although I'm sure any irony is mostly accidental! :-s --Rebroad 17:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the dogs are mine. One's a poodle and the other's a cross of some kind -- she looks like a cross between a fox and a Queen's corgi. :-) Slim 17:31, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Anarchist? Hmmm . . . I feel that's a little strong. How about "a coordinated series of polite requests . . ."? :-) Slim 18:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

You voted once for the policy at Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Despite a 75% support that vote was rejected by the minority. A new vote has been called with a two week limit at Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please take a moment to participate. Thanks. - Tεx τ urε 17:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human

Rebroad, did you just move Human to Homo sapiens? If you did, what happened to the page that was already at Homo sapiens, or wasn't there one? Also, I can't get Human to move back, even though it ought to if there's only a redirect there. If it was you, can you let me know what you did exactly (and why)? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

It did, in fact, move back even though I got a page saying it couldn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

question about a picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cc1.jpg

Where exactly did you get that?--Kross 00:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Nice pic, isn't it? I got it from http://www.synapse.ne.jp/~save. If you don't mind me asking - why do you ask? --Rebroad 15:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you get permission to use it? Wikipedia kind of has a rule about that.--Kross 07:44, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Of course! Although, even if I hadn't, it's use would constitute "fair use". --Rebroad 11:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:CSD

Hi, it's generally discouraged to edit Wikipedia:candidates for speedy deletion without thoroughly discussing your addition on the talk page--many people would object to speedying based on that criteria. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 16:32, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Poll

I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies. There is a poll in the talk page of the 'Macedonian Slavs' article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonians without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people possibly from the other side of the story. Your contributions to the discussion and the poll are welcomed.

Images into Commons

hi, thx for your image Image:523ss82inch500x317.jpg , but could you please upload your pics into the commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Television , so that other language wikis can use them, too? would be nice, if you would do so. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 12:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd be happy to do this, if someone could please tell me how. --Rebroad 08:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi, as far as i know, there is no feature for removing images from the en.wikipedia to the commons, so you wil have to upload it again into the commons (and plase with a more revealing filename :D). if it is up there, you or i can put a tag onto the description page of the old image, so that an admin can delte it here {{NowCommons|Image:FILENAME}})

that would be all. thx for your help and this grate picture, could you please give us more data, eg where it was taken and so on :D, grrets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 12:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi Rebroad, could you do me a favour and upload the pic into the commons as soon as possible? because on de:HDTV is a poll for "Lesenswerter Artikel" (do not know the right translation, but worth to read artice would be the sense of it) and therefor i could use your pic to insert in the article, because this article lacks of such pics. if you do not mind, i could upload you pic meself (including all needed infos, that it was made and uploaded by you for the english wiki). would that be okay for you? greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 11:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andreas. That would be perfectly fine by me. No need to have asked! --Rebroad 07:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi rebroad, personally, i hate people who upload pics for me without notizing me. perhaps it is a tick, but i want to see an "uploaded by -horn-" under the pic. so i ask other pedians first, because i want other to that, too :D. otherwise, i would not be better than them. btw. could you please add some more detaials about your pic? eg. where it was shot (looks like a expo, but where), the name of that samsung screen and espacially for my interest the resolution. and it would be interesting to know what is written in "asian" (sorroy, but i do not know what language it is exactly :D ) on that banners. would you please do that on Image:523 Samsung 82inch 500x317px.jpg. thx, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 19:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SAR

Was this a question or rhetorical? "Offer to Taiwan - is SAR an acronym for anything?" as the article this was an edit to is Special Administrative Region. SchmuckyTheCat 18:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thanks! --Rebroad 18:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ben

Hi! from Adrian. When you removed my picture of the clock (the pic without the person inserted) perhaps you didn't realise that I put it on the article because the reader might want such a pic without a person ie a plain picture of the clock, perhaps for homework or for use on another site or whatever? In other words the pic was there for a reason. It's time for bed now but tomorrow I might put it in a gallery at the bottom of the Big Ben article because a useful pic should not be lost. I know it's available on Commons but the reader is unlikely to bother to go there so it should remain somewhere in the article. A final point: six pics has never been regarded as too many in a reasonably long article so need to remove it on that count. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 22:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gates

Hey Rebroad, i reverted your changes to Bill Gates. I'm not quite sure why you wikified the the most expensive houses in the world. Maybe you wanted to start an article? --Husky 10:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source of image

Rebroad, could you add source information to the image of Jef Raskin you just uploaded? Where did you get it, who put it under public domain? Thanks! -- Foofy 13:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You recently uploaded the images Image:Gates kapor gibbons.jpg, Image:Jef raskin.jpg, Image:Ballmer gates.jpg, Image:Ballmer.jpg, Image:GaryKildall.jpg without providing source information. I have tagged these images accordingly, and they will be deleted within seven days unless you can show that they are from a free source. Please note that images available on the Internet are usually NOT in the public domain. Media is in the public domain only if placed there explicitly by the original copyright holder, or if created very long ago (over 70 years, depending on jurisdiction). Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy for more information. Thanks. Fredrik | talk 16:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding sources, but we meant accurate sources. Take Image:Jef raskin.jpg for instance. I extremely doubt Apple is going to own the rights to a picture of a guy they fired holding the model of a competing product. Also, I've seen the photo on other sites. Please update the sources. If you don't have permission, that is okay! Just cite the source and somebyd (me) can ask them for permission. Thank you. Foofy 08:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the item Jef Raskin is holding? --81.241.23.206 18:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A model of the Canon Cat. -Foofy 18:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because he is holding the Canon Cat does not mean the photo belongs to Canon!!! Please just paste in the URL of the page where you got the images (or the name of the books you scanned from). Somebody else can then determine the true source/copyright of the images. -Foofy 18:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the images to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Phase I - October 29 and tagged them for disputed source/licensing. Please don't remove the tags unless you have updated the sources and licensing. Remember that fair-use is usually unacceptable for images except things like logos, press photos, and book/album covers. If you provide sources I'd be willing to do the work getting permission etc. :) --Foofy 23:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't understand what you wanted, since you already mentioned the webpage that I got the image from. I have now updated the source to mention that web page instead of Canon (which I am not certain about). --Rebroad 15:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a quick search shows you actually got it from here. You have to get permission and proper sources before you upload images. I have written and asked for permission on the Raskin image, but the others still don't have adequate sources! Nobody minds asking for permission, but they can't if they don't know who to ask. It's very simple: don't upload unless you have permission or it falls under acceptable fair use (like a book/DVD/album cover or press photo). --Foofy 15:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Ballmer photo caption

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I have worked on articles about, say, musicians and I've been told to always use a last name, for the same reason I switched it back last time. I believe an enecyclopedia would always use a last name. So I'm going to switch it back, okay? Jacqui ^★ 14:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redirect for Sam Beauregarde

Simply because of policy suggested here. It states that any article that, in good faith, can be argued that it will remain a perpetual stub (for a lack of encyclopedic information) should be merged into a larger parent article (assuming that there is anything worth noting). As I've seen it, from the article, the book, and both movies, there is simply nothing to be said about Violet's parents that would constitute a good article, and thus what little there is to say can be put on Violet's page, leaving a redirect in its place. --InShaneee 23:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's an argument for merging docs, but I would suggest that it's not clear in this case, as the Sam article could be expanded upon much more than it currently is, and so doesn't constitute a perpetual stub. Also, Violet is not a parent article to Sam, and vice versa. I.e. it's unusual to click on Sam, and then be shown Violet. --Rebroad 18:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you think could be added? As it is, it seems like it's already pushing the boundries of what's encyclopedic. Either way, using the "#" syntax, the redirect could always be made to jump straight to a merged section about Sam on Violet's page. And really, I'd argue that Violet is easily Sam's parent page, since he's an EXTREMELY minor character, worth mentioning only due to his relation to Violet. In other words, people going to Violet's page might benefit from Sam's info, but otherwise, I can't see the page getting much traffic. --InShaneee 00:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Rachmaninoff

I've reverted your move of Sergei Rachmaninoff to Sergei Rachmaninov, since Rachmaninoff is the transliteration used throughout the article, as well as by the composer himself, and the article's location was agreed on over a year ago. If you think there's a valid reason for the move that the rest of us don't know about do let us know, before you edit this time. --BigBlueFish 16:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That South Pole Image link was dead

It pointed to File:SPSM.05.5.JPG, which appears to me to be a dead link. I admit that the link is not red, but when I click on it, the page says "No file by this name exists". Does it exist somewhere else? -- Pinktulip 11:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find out when the link went dead, or why the picture was deleted please? --Rebroad 11:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rebroad, thanks for posting the history link. It was very helpful in finding out what happened. When you uploaded the image, you didn't provide any information about where it came from. This information is important to us because it helps us avoid violating copyrights. The image was deleted in December because it didn't have any source info. There are more details about how to document the source and copyright status of an image at Wikipedia:Image use policy. FreplySpang (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, a policy that ALL such images can be deleted, without notice, was fairly recently instituted (see the "images" section of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion - speedy delete means any admin can delete these things on sight). Apparently there were thousands of images that had been uploaded to Wikipedia without indicating their source and most of them were uploaded in violation of the owner's copyright. In accordance with this policy, these images were summarily deleted. The upload instructions are now intended to be much more clear about the need for this information. I think it's extremely unfortunate that the purge resulted in at least dozens if not hundreds of perfectly legally uploaded images being deleted, and doubly unfortunate that it was done in many cases without making any attempt to contact the users who had originally uploaded the images. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction to Rick's note: unsourced images are not deleted immediately, but tagged for a week first. FreplySpang (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:FreplySpang) Well, this one just said "Buildings at the South Pole", with no source info. As an admin, I can look at the edit history of deleted pages, and that's what was there. Unfortunately, there's no way to get the actual image out of edit history. Sometimes you can get them from our mirrors, like answers.com. If you do a Google image search for SPSM.05.5.JPG , you can get small versions. (But, if you don't know where it originally came from, we still can't use those.) And, I have to admit, deleting unsourced images is such a large task that the deleters often don't notify the uploader directly. Unsourced images are tagged for at least seven days with Template:Nosource before deletion. I'm sorry that you got bitten by this process. I see that you've already uploaded a different image for the South Pole article - thanks! FreplySpang (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Lost images. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the link to this, but it doesn't appear that anyone is paying any attention to the entries that are being made there. What's the point of this list if there are no actions upon it please? --Rebroad 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that clever image finding folks may be able to help. I just looked at all the mirrors I could find and couldn't find it. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone will get punished, except maybe me for "expressing dissatisfaction" with the previous case (now the "in" remedy). Considering some of the architects of the original travesty are again "judges" (including Raul654 who called me a troll for suggesting he apologize to a user he insulted), and that Fred Bauder, though recusing himself, spammed the talk pages of my adversaries about my case, well, I'm not burgeoning with hope. But, then again, there are some good people on the AC. And thanks for your offer of help, but the ball is in their court now. Very Verily 12:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The south pole image is still here if you would like to re-upload it and can verify that it's public domain. --Doradus 16:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mb1000

Hi Rebroad, thanks for your note. It doesn't look like s/he has actually been nominated at this time right? Did you leave a message on his/her talk page to discuss the incident? If so, what was the reply? Best, Johntex\^talk 03:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What revert?

Hi Rebroad,

I don't recall making any reverts lately? Could you tell me what page you're talking about? I'm sorry if I have done something un-kosher.

--Andrew Phelps 00:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity

Hey there. Thanks for coming to me for some guidance about our policies, with regards to The Gay Ghost and vanity articles. This article, and two more about other books in the series, were very small time. Have a look at this debate, and remember the articles were written by the author of the books, and the books themselves were only sold through a small-time website. So in essence, it was purely self-promotion/advertising of a product.

Our vanity policy is dictated by a few policies - for people WP:BIO, Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles, and WP:VANITY - and the general Wikipedia:Notability policy. These give an outline as to reasoning on vanity entries and their deletion. Hope this helps; leave another message if you want more info. Harr o5 06:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Bi710.jpg

I'm not insanely worried about it. It served its purpose initially when the article for bondage hooks was lacking images that had been requested for it. TheMonkofDestiny 17:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I didn't mean to put it on your user page sorry.Thanks.--Dakota ~ ° 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs :) --Rebroad 00:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

The revert was because of the image. It was an IP edit that led to a page that had a picture that was not Angela . Perhaps the ip caught the link at the wrong time. I notice one has be logged in over there to edit.--Dakota ~ ° 00:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that another Administrator also reverted it so I believe it is taken care of. Thank you.--Dakota ~ ° 01:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay

Please note the poll about moving the article. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byte

Hi, why are you redirecting Megabyte Gigabyte etc to Byte? arent these separate subjects which deserve their own article? -- Astrokey44|talk 13:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well megabytes and gigabytes are much more wellknown then megaohm or whatever, plus since these were pages with long histories and discussion pages with large amounts of content, the decision should have been discussed -- Astrokey44|talk 13:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since what youre doing is deleting the content without merging it, perhaps you should put the articles up for deletion and argue your case there -- Astrokey44|talk 13:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bytes

Hi, can you show me where the discussion was to merge all the bit and byte articles? We already decided to leave them separate. — Omegatron 15:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any indication of a previous discussion, but given there were about 20 articles, it would have been hard to find it had there been one. It was in a bit of a mess, with some articles linking to "binary", but with the majority simply having one paragraph and then referring to byte or bit. The real problem was that now and again people were adding info which was relevant to all of them, so it badly needed to be centralised, especially given that the total amount of information was just right for the size of one article. megawatt and gigawatt link to watt, so this appears to be the standard method. --Rebroad 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. The discussion was on Talk:Binary prefix, where we decided not to merge them, but to use the navigation template to tie them together. We should probably link each talk page to there. You should really get consensus before making sweeping changes to lots of articles like that, especially since many of them have info relevant to that particular unit that you didn't merge. I'm going to revert for now. — Omegatron 15:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battered person

I see you moved the page. Don't forget to fix the redirects. Thanks for your effort.--Rockero 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bit rates

Please revert your changes to {{Bit rates}} and discuss them on the talk page. Revert wars are unproductive and strongly discouraged. You've provided no evidence for your supposed binary usage of those units, and User:Mditto and I have shown plenty of evidence that they aren't used anywhere. (Your new version is also incorrect anyway. There was no "old usage" for kibibit/second.) Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'm not reverting immediately, so you can do it yourself and learn to discuss changes instead. — Omegatron 16:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:London 10 downing street 625056.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:London 10 downing street 625056.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified 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 media 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. tomf688 (talk - email) 03:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:40inch rear projection television.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:40inch rear projection television.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. BigDT 00:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Streisand Estate.JPG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Streisand Estate.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 00:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hughlaurie305.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hughlaurie305.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. BigDT 00:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:WTC1 on fire.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WTC1 on fire.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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Somehow the source information was lost. Tempshill 22:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Tim-paterson.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tim-paterson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -SCEhard T 00:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoBack

Hi Chris, I notice you created redirect articles to help point to the GoBack article, and that this was done within minutes of me starting the GoBack article. Just out of interest, how did you manage to fill this gap so quickly? Were you simply watching the recent changes page, or do you have a cleverer method? Cheers, --Rebroad 20:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just got lucky. I was looking at the different Symantec retail software, I think. Its been a while though (May 2005!), but I don't use any other method other than the watchlist.. and the Symantec article has been on my Watchlist for some time. Cheers! --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with a bot

Hi. I saw your attempt to add an RfC about a bot adding incorrect information, but the link to the RfC didn't work for me. In any event, if you think there is a problem with a bot, the first thing you should do is try to get in touch with the owner of the bot. If he or she isn't available or that doesn't solve the problem, or there is an emergency, any administrator can stop a malfunctioning bot if necessary, and you can post to the noticeboard and let them know of the problem. Since I haven't seen your description I don't know if it's a real problem or not, so please be sure you give as much information on the problem as possible if you post. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tube station coordinates

Hello! Thanks for your note: unfortunately, I haven't got the time at the moment to adapt my bot to be able to handle National Grid coordinates (the conversions are a bit tricky, if you're going to be accurate, and I want to do it right if I do it at all), but I can, and have, extracted the lat/long coordinates I used for my list, which you can now find at User:The Anome/tube station coordinates. Please note that I have only extracted these from the de: data, and have not checked these by hand (although, where I have spot checked the data by checking against Google maps, it seems to locate the stations fairly accurately). -- The Anome 00:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the comment. When I added the multimap links to the station articles you mentioned I wasn't trying to get the stations dead centre in the maps and give the geographical coordinates but rather position the stations on the maps so that they could be seen in the context of its surroundings. That's why the coordinates don't match the actual latitudes and longitudes of the stations. Personally, whilst I quite like the idea of having the coordinates at the top of the page, I think a quick direct link to a clear road map from the external links section is also useful for many readers. Many of the links from the Geohacks page produce large-scale satellite images which are not much use as they cover such large areas. --DavidCane 01:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More co-ords stuff: you say the co-ords I added to South Woodford were wrong; I have checked them on both streetmap.co.uk[10] and maps.google.co.uk[11] and they are correct so I have re-added them to the article. However it's certainly not 2.3 miles from the tube station, more like 75 metres -- perhaps your location for the tube station is wrong?

User:Hagerman

Please do not edit the user pages of other contributors without their approval or consent, as you did with User:Hagerman. It may be seen as vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please visit the sandbox. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Orgy.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Rebroad, I was wondering where was this photo made? --Kahriman 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence (Average gaps among races)

Your right, it is unclear what is meant by black or white. I thought you had a good point, even if it was reverted right away. In order to support your idea what we need are some good sources. Do you have any? Anyway, just wanted to say, hi. futurebird 23:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orgy.jpg

Hey, Rebroad, I was wondering where was this photo made? --Kahriman 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

Fedora Core 4 as a Virtual Machine under Windows XP

Thank you for uploading this image. However, besides the effort you made to take this screenshot, it's is not acceptable to license it with {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}. The work showed on this screenshot is not yours, but rightfully belongs to Microsoft and the Fedora community. I relicensed this image under {{Linux-software-screenshot}} and {{Windows-software-screenshot}}. ThijsN 09:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slipped disc

Somehow I don't seem to be getting through. What is wrong with my explanation about the need for a speedy delete of an obsolete and misleading article? -- Fyslee 12:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider the article to be misleading nor obsolete, and neither does anyone else from what I can see. --Rebroad 12:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The expression (IOW the title itself) is what's misleading. The article had much good content, but there was no article at the time describing the condition by its proper name. That's why it was created. What is your profession and expertise in this area? Medical personnel have created the new article and were agreed the Slipped disc article was very problematic. -- Fyslee 12:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your changes to the wikilinks on many articles. This is going to end up getting you accused of vandalism, and I'd hate to do that. I suspect you have misunderstood the situation, and didn't realize a better article already existed. -- Fyslee 13:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other uses for the term?

Your edit summary:

Undo revision 72846281 by Fyslee (talk) - not always used to refer to spinal disc herniation.) [12]

What are you referring to by "not always"? Should we support and encourage misleading uses (misuses) of terminology by devoting a whole article to it? The solution that was arrived at back then was that the problem should of course be solved by creating a proper article for the correct terminology, and use all the good content from the Slipped disc article, and explain why the term was misleading. The merge was completed, and a proper redirect was left in place. -- Fyslee 13:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem at the moment is that not many people will have heard of terms other than "slipped disk", and therefore a) won't search for the other terms, and b) won't understand what other articles mean unless they use this term. I think it was going OTT to change all articles referring to slipped disk to a term that no one would be familiar with. The best way to educate people as to what a slipped disk is is to continue using this terminology but to explain what it means and also what it doesn't mean. Uses of words change over time. For example, "gay" no longer means what it used to. It should not be up to the medical profession alone to decide the future of the meaning of "slipped disk" especially if it is a term the medical profession themselves chose NOT to use. --Rebroad 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Streisand Estate.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Streisand Estate.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:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —An gr 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on David

Thanks for your recent edits on David. I thought I shou8ld stop by as I reversed most of them - sorry. I think/hope I've explained my reasons - but if you want to discuss it let's start a debate on the Talk page of that article. PiCo 03:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ATT#How_to_cite_and_request_a_source; simply removing unsourced material, unless it is attacks on a living person, is strongly deprecated. Also, your {{cn}} has stirred me to add a footnote to 2 Samuel 11:4; but you really should have consulted a concordance yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please can you let me know what I deleted? I'm generally an inclusionist, so I find it hard to believe I would have deleted anything, but rather would have added a cn tag. --Rebroad 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this edit summary a threat to delete? If not, you may wish to be clearer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It's a warning that it may be deleted by any editor. --Rebroad 23:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It 'may be deleted; but it should not be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the header; {{dablink}} is a largely pointless template call; if you want to put the inefficient thing back, fine; but it wasn't worth going out of my way to save the waste of server time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "pointless template call". What is it that is inefficient? --Rebroad 23:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dogs

Just find a few standard books, lay & professional, & list them in the references section. A longer list of books will help the article generally. Then, put one cite at the end of each sentence. Just one , and just at the end. This is not an excessive level of citation for WP biology articles. If you want to add any good ghits for turning, do. If a specific point is actually controverted, it is appropriate to source thoroughly. Do this, and you will have general support in removing any future cite tags. DGG 00:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey Rebroad, nice to see you again on my talk page. You were one of the first people to leave me a message when I started editing, so seeing your name has made me go all weepy. :-D As for barnstars, I don't know how to get them specifically. Do things that people like, I suppose. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tags etc

Thanks for your comments. The reason I assert that fact tags are not appropriate in the Wikipedia namespace is simply that consensus has been reached on this on the talk page of WP:CSB on several occasions. This is, of course, up for discussion, should you wish to raise it again. With regard to removing a statement added to that page, I felt that it had no consensus and was wholly inaccurate. I attempted to raise the topic on the talk page, giving some suggestions on how it might be improved - feeling that it would be much better to build a consensus on its wording there before adding it to the project page. As it has not attracted any further comments, it would appear that there is little interest in this point - but should you wish to work on it, please do so. Warofdreams talk 16:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Torah, the Orthodox, and the DH

Hi Rebroad

I want to avoid an edit war about the final clause on the sentence about Orthodoxy accepting/not accepting the DH. I see our views on this are very different - my pov on this is simply that the sentence sattes a fact about what the DH says about the composition of the Torah. There's no need thereafter to say who accepts or rejects that view - not in this article anyway (maybe in the DH article). What's your position? (Thanks for the collaboration on David btw - I wonder if we can make a FA of it?)PiCo 04:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes are NEVER vandalism

I noticed your warning to me for reverting your addition (of the well-discussed and often-rejected {{npov}} tag) to the Radiocarbon dating article.

I'll take this moment to make two points:

Content disputes are never vandalism so you have no cause to hand out "warnings" regarding them; stop that.
The point you're attempting to raise (with the {{npov}} tag) has been extensively debated on that articles talk page and as I read the debate, the religionists lost. Don't retag that article until you manage to change the consensus on the talk page.
I notice you've just been reverted again by another editor; please be cautious of violating WP:3RR.

Atlant 14:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebroad, regarding the NPOV tag on the same article, while you point editors towards the "ongoing discussion" on the article's talk page, you've not commented on any of the discussion for quite some time. Given that you are in a minority here, please do so. Also, you claim to have archived material from this article's talk page, but I can't find where; I think you may have forgotten to add a link. --Plumbago 14:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made to Uranium-lead dating

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Rebroad! 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 \bexample\.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 15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]