User talk:Buffs/Archive 10

Image and user space

Hello. I was wondering if you could remove this image from this section of one of your userpages. The file is currently tagged as non-free. Non-free images should only be used on articles. I do understand that some of the files on that page are/were under discussion as to their non-free status, but the linked file is currently marked as non-free.--Rockfang (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed now, all parties agree the image is PD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ernest_P._Worrell.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image is repeatedly being deleted from those articles by anonymous vandals. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Template:Wetappakegga

Template:Wetappakegga, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Wetappakegga and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:Wetappakegga during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Blues

This discussion might interest you: Template talk:US Air Force navbox#Air Force Blues. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:BQZip01. Thank you. Please forgive the intrusion on your talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another "run-to-admins" moment when you don't get your way? noted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wan opportunity taken when you refused to follow WP:DR. I'm sorry you see it as you apparently do. Your apprehension of the purpose of my effort is incorrect. Regardless, I concur with your assessment on its status after I find specific information about copyright notice and how it must be affixed. I've closed the WP:AN/I thread, since we agree (I think that's a first? :) ) and a warning to you on your conduct from an administrator will not have a beneficial effect. I've also posted agreement with your stance on the image's talk page. That resolved, I will now return to ignoring you, your talk page, your work, unless we happen across each other again elsewhere since we sometimes overlap in work areas, and respectfully ask you to stay off of my talk page unless there is an urgent matter at hand. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to disagreeing with any of my actions is to immediately go to an WP:RfC or WP:ANI (usually framing the argument in your favor and twisting what was said). Guess what, that isn't WP:DR, that is elevating a dispute without any discussion. WP:TALK (which is "strangely" part of WP:DR...)dictates we should use the talk pages first. Please try that first next time and listen to what is being said without jumping to the automatic conclusion that I am wrong and you are right. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for some help with Portal:American football

Heya, I've been working on reviving the long defunct Portal:American football. I've managed to get a lot of work done so far, but the biggest task is to get a complete set of "On this date..." pages created for the whole year. That's been a bit of a daunting task, and I haven't even gotten through January yet. See Portal:American football/Anniversaries. I'm looking to see if someone could pick up another month and work through it, like maybe February. I've been trying to keep each date at about 6-8 items (events, birthdays, and deaths). See Portal talk:American football/Anniversaries for a couple of websites that have events and birthdays for reference. The events website is a little suspect, so double check any events you find there with another source. Birthdays are pretty easy, but for Deaths I've been working through the "date" articles at Wikipedia and finding any there. If you have the time, would you care to help out? --Jayron32 20:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WorcestershireProject newsletter

I would just like to thank you for supporting my use of a PD coat of arms in non-article space :) --Kudpung (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a relative amateur...see here. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worcs coat of Arms

Let Hammersoft have his way - he can spend the day checking the files and the copyright & permissino notices of all the English counties ;) --Kudpung (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the ones you listed, that will take all of 10 minutes. I'm interested in accuracy, not wasting Hammersoft's time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are another 70 or so counties in England. all with the same problems. He's probably wasting his own time by drawing this discussion out, bordering on WP:CIVIL, and just not being helpful. If it only takes him 10 minutes, he could add the right © and FUR at the same time. We're all interested in accuracy.--Kudpung (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Thank you for the offer of help on the possible unfair use of an image. As I said, I just need the wording of the permission that I can ask the photographer to send and the address to whom he should send it. This shouldn't be complicated, but somehow WP culture makes it so. Your assistance would be appreciated.JMcC (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compliment

Hammersoft has requested that I not post on his talk page (not entirely sure why, but it is his talk page and I'll respect that). However, I think it is appropriate to compliment him on this action and this action. Thanks for fixing things like that, HS! — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-52 Stratofortress

FYI, I wikified the 20 mm caliber on the article for the benefits of the many laymen out there, there were none found on the page as you had claimed existed in your edit summary before reverting my entry. Read also on B-47 Stratojet and Convair B-36, which were using the M24A1 20 mm cannons but of different caliber dimension and specifications, which is 20×110mm versus M61's 20×102mm. Thus, we have to be clear in our definition and description so that everyone can enjoy browsing/reading on Wikipedia without having to scratch too much of their head, agree? Other than that, no harm done... cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the link was removed in the first paragraph. You are absolutely correct. My mistake. Thanks for providing a significant and useful link. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_January_24#File:Kubadabad.jpg

I'm afraid I have failed to make you see the point. A faithful photograph of a 2D object does not generate new copyright, a photograph of any 3D object does, even if the 3D object is a 2D work over a 3D support. --Eusebius (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see your point. The problem is that everything is actually 3D. A frame is something that is designed in 3D, the design depicted in the tile is 2D. The degrading tile around it is incidental (certainly not passing the threshold of originality). — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still miss the point. It is irrelevant whether there is a copyrightable design or not on the stone. Since the stone is 3D, any picture of it generates new copyright for the photographer (in the same manner that a photograph of a slightly 3D non-copyrighted frame generates new copyright in US case law), hence we need her permission. Anyway (and without any aggressivity or animosity), I don't really care what is done with the picture on WP, as long as it keeps a "don't move to Commons" template. --Eusebius (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur it should have a "don't move to Commons" template, but the image is 2d. As I stated above, the stone is incidental and not germane to the discussion. While it is 3d, so is the design (technically), but so is EVERYTHING in this world, but we treat a lot of flat things as 2D. Frames can be copyrighted, but they require design by a human. Deterioration over time fails the threshold of originality. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to but in, but we don't have an author or source for that image really, so it might not be a good idea to restore the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the chance to try. The image is of something from the 13th century. www.tineye.com provides a great way to find a source. There are also a few other options. In any case, all I'm asking for is a chance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, the image is a slavish copy of a 2D PF design. It is, by definition, PD, no matter what the source is. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know tinyeye works for the Commons, but not sure about here. A chance will be given, but not sure when I will be able to look at it fully (and with due justice). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Publicprivateventures.gif is public domain?

You told me "File:Publicprivateventures.gif is actually PD as it is ineligible for copyright. Use at your own discretion anywhere you wish."

Why do you say that? I have created quite a number of logo files and used them in the infobox of various organizations. Why do you say it is Public Domain? I take to mean that inherent copyright as used on their website does not apply.

Beyond that, this whole discussion started with the Wikipedia policy to not allow logos on talk pages, something I have been doing for months until a recent BOT challenged my usage. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are four more pages with logos I created from the organization website. Are their logos any different?

If you will look at the image in question, you will note that it is made up entirely of text and, as such, it is ineligible for copyright. It is therefore Public Domain, but it retains trademark protections.

As for the rest of the lead images you've noted:

The Barrister's Association image has fallen into public domain if it was first published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice (use:{{PD-Pre1978}}) or between 1978 and March 1, 1989, without a copyright notice, and where the copyright was not later registered (use {{PD-US-1989}})
The bicycle's association image would ahve to meet the aforementioned criteria in #1 to be PD. Otherwise, it has a copyright.
The PHS logo by itself might be PD. but the background is not merely text. Try and find a plain logo and verify its first publishing date. Again check against #1 and apply the appropriate tag
The reptile group needs to be checked vs the criteria listed in #1.

In all of these be sure to add {{trademark}} to those that are PD.

The issue is not that you cannot use logos, but, in fact, ANY non-free image on user pages. I would actually start more pages and spend less in "draft" form. This will avoid additional complications and the deadline for perfect articles isn't approaching any time soon. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Public Domain status of the logo for Public/Private Ventures is now easy for me to understand. Thank you for going ahead and changing the status for File:Publicprivateventures.gif.

As for the other four pages with logos, changing the status would depend on facts that I do not know. Quite frankly, I don’t see any point in researching further. Leaving the status as it is (a non-free use logo in a main-space article), would not seem to be any problem, as far as I understand the situation.

In the five instances mentioned above, I obtained the logos from the official web sites of Philadelphia based organizations, after filling in the parameters of a infobox organization template, and filling in the information of an infobox fur template, I uploaded the logo image, and tried it out in the sandbox. Yes, I sought a very good result in the sandbox before transferring the final work to an existing article. What I wanted to avoid was a long string of updates in the main-space article history when creating and adjusting minor parts of the infobox. Thank you for your explanation, and I hope our discussion here will be informative for other editors. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded PhiladelphiaSketchClub.jpg according to your information and advice. By your statements, I can now use it anywhere, including on your talk page. I intend to make an infobox, but sometime in the future. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure on that one. There is a palette at the end and, unless that is part of a font, it isn't text. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider changing it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tineye

Too hard! Maybe that came across as rude so sorry if it seemed like that. I don't recall how I set it up but when reviewing images I have a tineye button at the top of my menubar from which one can instantly call up a tineye request for that image. I thought it was in my preferences but it does not seem to be there. If I remember, I will drop you a note. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I'm just from a flying squadron where if you say something is "too hard" without throwing a "so to speak" on the end of the sentence, you'll get a lot of sophomoric, moderately juvenile chuckles. Is it under your monoscript.js file? In any case, it still would be useful to include that as a link for EVERYONE to easily click. However, I caution you to note that sometimes images appear on Wikipedia first and then other people use them. Let's make sure we take that into account. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou!!!!

thanks for helping my page xxxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiless--xo (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MQS

Thanks for joining in so early. Speaking of which, the work you do here is different from what I usually do (except for occasional intersections at articles on Universities), so i've not really had occasion to look much at it before. Are you interested yourself? DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed

Hey... I just noticed your user page. If only you were stationed down here at Barksdale instead... that would be pretty interesting. I'm probably the only editor/admin down here for 200 miles. Anyways... it's great to see a fellow Air Force editor here! — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alltel Wireless pic

Thanks for adding those copyright tags. If it wasn't for you, the pic would have been deleted!\

Thanks! --Jorge Francisco Paredes 16:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24 biggest fan (talk • contribs)

You're welcome. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching

Sorry about the delay. I'll revist this evening. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you please see here? Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

Regarding Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_March_5#File:Delahoya1.jpg i found some you mist please delete them as well.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=TicketID%3D3139952&fulltext=Search&ns6=1&title=Special%3ASearch&advanced=1&fulltext=Advanced+search

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am not an admin. Label these as possibly unfree files and tag the for deletion (we should assume a typo is certainly possible and not throw the baby out with the bathwater...). — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proper way to handle non-free fair use logos

I have listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files several logos uploaded by a user who claims to have created them and placed them in public domain. Most of these probably qualify for fair use and some are probably non-copyrightable public domain. I have concluded that PUF is not the proper forum for correcting these problems with sourcing and rationale, but I don't know what I should be doing instead. Pointers to relevant help pages would be appreciated. Thanks again for your patience. Cnilep (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think WP:PUF is the ideal place. These files are often incorrectly uploaded. While a few can be fixed, many are deleteable and should be removed post haste. I believe our upload process has a lot to do with this and simple changes there should fix the vast majority of the problems. I'm working on a decision tree for images and I hope this basic structure will help people, but until it is finished, there is no way to know how well/poorly it will help. In the meantime, WP:PUF is probably the best forum. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then. Thank you for your reply. Cnilep (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say...

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For the time and effort you put into helping sort out copyright issues at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...your dedication to WP:PUF is amazing. Noted and appreciated by at least one of your peers. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you look at the Douglas M. Webster article I put together? One editor seems keen on a speedy deletion. Tell me if you think it had validity... Thanx! Mark Sublette (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Feedback request

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just modified a closed AfD template

It may be April Fool's Day, but, you need to comply with the template instructions not to modify it. --Morenooso (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closer of the nomination said it was ok to re-open it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more cowbell

If you like "more cowbell", have you heard Jay Mohr's story about having a tail vs flying? tedder (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

[1] (not that stupid song!) CTJF83 chat 05:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, ya, twice, on the Jimbo noming himself for deletion, and on my talk. CTJF83 chat 06:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your a bad bad man ;) Calmer Waters 06:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block him for 58 seconds, and me for 27 seconds for clicking it twice. CTJF83 chat 06:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with a block like that (BTW, I showed my wife and it took me a solid 4 minutes to get it shut down...block me for an additional minute...) — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LMFAO! I just ctrl+alt+del shut it down in seconds. CTJF83 chat 06:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm maybe a Rick rolled ban :) Had wanted to set something like that up, but when I clicked to see one of the changes, damn if it was there. Ahh to be better prepared next year. now back to RC where April fool's is spilling into the main space. Calmer Waters 06:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say we sit back, enjoy the day's festivities, and at 00:00 just revert everything to its state as of March 31. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to ease. CTJF83 chat 06:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools?

I see your Mega Support and multiple voting for a RFA. See ANI for a post about new Wikipedia subscription fees (7 day comment period). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I made this response to an inquiry by Hammersoft (talk · contribs) at the Third Opinion talk page and then had this discussion with him on his user talk page. To my best knowledge, I've had no other contact with either you or he, and have had no offwiki conversations with either of you. Though I did a bit of background checking, as noted in my comment on Hammersoft's talk page, I have not delved into the dispute between you beyond taking a look at the two things linked and referenced in that comment and looking at both your and his edit counts and block logs. In short, I am acting as a neutral in this matter for the limited purpose of trying to determine whether some compromise might be possible which would reduce the disputes between you. Ultimately for that to have any chance of working, both parties must agree in good faith to at least be willing to try to come to a compromise. That's not a commitment to reach a compromise, but it is a commitment to try in good faith to do so.

The focus here would not be on determining who is right and who is wrong, which is, indeed, to be avoided, but to try to work out a way to get along and avoid — or at least reduce — further conflict. If a tacit agreement can be reached, we'll probably make it a (non–enforceable, since it can't be any other way) WikiAgreement between the two of you which you will both be honor–bound to follow.

Nothing in this comment or this request is intended to say or imply that either of you has acted improperly or unreasonably. If you do not care to participate, that is wholly your choice, no explanation is needed or requested, and no blame is to be attached to saying no. Just so you know, if you say yes, I may attempt the mediation myself or I may find some other uninvolved neutral party to do it.

Are you interested in participating? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC) (Minor clarification added 17:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC). — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK).)[reply]

PS: And I, as a tea-sip, promise that I will not use any words larger than you can be reasonably expected to understand.

PPS: One clarification: Though I came into this as a Third Opinion Wikipedian, this proposal is not made under the auspices of that project. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for any WP:DR processes that end such problematic behavior, which is why I was working with Fastily regarding an RfC. However, if issues can be resolved through other means and not bugging any other users, I'm all for it. I would like for Fastily (talk · contribs) to be included in any such discussion though as he is also working on an RfC and I asked him to jump in as a third opinion too (which would make yours the 4th?).

I have different concerns than HS, but I would first like to address his end-state goals:

"not follow the other's edits and make any sort of changes at such places based on following edits"
I think that this does not follow with WP policies (as this is just s short note, I will expound later).
"recognize that we have areas of overlap in interest but where we happen across each other to minimize communication between each other as much as possible"
Minimizing communication will not lead to resolution. It will lead to isolation. It also goes against WP:TALK and the precepts of other WP policies.
"not post to the other party's talk pages unless it is an emergency"
An unnecessary request as I haven't posted on his talk page in some time. I have not made any such request of him or any other user (well, short of banned/indef blocked users)

I promise to go into details about the above and the issues I have with HS later, but I'm on a break right now and I need to get back to work. But in general, I see no basic problem with this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at what you said above and the Fastily (talk · contribs) talk page, let me re–emphasize that if you feel that it is necessary to assign or determine blame in order to resolve this matter, then the process which I am proposing will probably not work since it will be focused on working out a practical solution, not on figuring out who is right and who is wrong. (I'm not criticizing that need, please understand, if you feel that way, I'm just saying that movement in that direction is incompatible with what I've proposed.) I'll look forward to seeing your details. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My entire goal is to stop HS behavior I believe is explicitly unacceptable, disruptive, misleading, vilifying, uncivil, and generally counterproductive to cease. I am not interested in "assigning blame", I simply want such behavior to stop. If I'm misinterpreting something, I'd like to know it as well and I'll happily back down. Obviously HS has similar concerns. Because we each take issue with each other's behavior, diffs are going to be required to prove points of contention (otherwise all we have are accusations). I say we try it. Worst case: nothing gets solved, but no harm really either. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BQZip01, I have multiple issues with you as well. I don't think we serve the best ends of this dispute resolution by going over it in any sort of detail. I want to keep this process as lightweight as possible. Can we agree we both have what we feel are voluminous quantities of evidence regarding the other's behavior and leave it at that? I don't want to get into a resolution process of diffs at ten paces. We could blast away at each, but at the end of it nothing would be resolved. I'm thinking of the scene (totally fictional btw, didn't happen in reality) where Hays and Swaggart start arguing in Apollo 13, and Lovell stops it in its tracks. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think we serve the best ends of this dispute resolution by going over it in any sort of detail." I disagree on many levels as specific actions are the crux of the issue. In general, your actions are fine (in many cases laudable), but in too many others they are not. I don't see how we can discuss the situation strictly in general terms, so I don't agree to that specific caveat. I am, however, willing to give this WP:DR process a shot. We will see what happens, but let's hear what TM has to say before we make demands as to how the discussion must be run. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you guys have some issues then? :) Is there any one specific issue you could each identify that you might be helped to reach agreement on? That would be a start.

TM, if you're willing to try to sort this then I'll throw my name in too. BQZ is familiar with my willingness to criticize directly when it's pertinent, HS is rather used to hearing criticism also, I'd expect. :) Franamax (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my proposal is diff–free. I begin by presuming that you're both Kryptonite to one another. The issue isn't what you have or have not done to one another; the issue is what can we agree upon in order to keep the conflict from continuing. As far as I'm concerned you're both monsters or both saints: whichever way it is the point is you can't get along and our task is to determine a set of protocols by which you can (or can't and won't, in whole or in part) coexist without being at one another's throat. That will involve a compromise on both your parts. The definition of a compromise is an agreement that everyone is willing to make, but no one likes. It will almost necessarily involve your both giving up some degree of freedom or rights in order to buy peace. Let me ask again: are you (plural) willing to move this way to try to fix the problem? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure I can agree to this. I do not believe in appeasement (which appears to be what you are suggesting, though that may not have been your intent). I do believe in compromise, however. There is a vast difference in coming to a mutual agreement and giving up freedom or rights. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the basic process I would foresee:

1. Most of the negotiation will take place through me by email, so you'll need to provide me with an email address through my Wikipedia email form. I'll let you know mine once I've received yours. I will not provide either of your email addresses to the other party.

2. I'll begin by asking each of you to answer two questions. I'll want your answers by email, privately, and I do not want you to reveal them to one another:

(a) What would you want your opponent to do to settle this matter?

(b) What concessions would you be willing to make to settle this matter?

Your answers must be things which can be objectively ascertained: not "I want him to stop making threats," but "I only want him to edit on Wednesdays." Not, "I'd be willing to stop being incivil," but "I'd be willing to give up editing images of alligators."

3. I'll evaluate your responses, discuss them with you privately and suggest modifications, and then see if I can split the difference and make a starting proposal.

4. I'll then flip a coin to see who responds first. All offers and responses will come through me unless I ask for an open meeting (which we'll probably have on my talk page). When you make an offer, I'll feel free to suggest critiques and changes. We'll go back and forth until we either come to an agreement or stall out.

5. If it looks like we're going to stall, I may suggest a final compromise, I may recommend a cooling off period and another try, or I may suggest some way to go forward mutually or individually. If both parties agree, I will tell you both what I think of your respective positions, but only if you both agree.

If any party — including me — wants to terminate the process at any time, he can. I will expect courtesy and civility by all parties. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 00:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I will not provide you , or almost any other Wikipedian, with my e-mail address (there are exactly THREE people on Wikipedia who have my address), but I will communicate through Wikipedia e-mail forms. It can be a pain, but it also can be done.

2. Provided HS agrees, I will send you answers to those questions.

Everything else sounds fine. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— BQZip01 — ^talk 02:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem on the email; I feel the same way and the address you'll get for me will, indeed, not be my primary one but one which I only use for Wikipedia and which I can change at will. Let me note that if you email me using my email form that it will reveal your email address to me, so we'll have to work out something where you can send email to me without using my email form. A single–purpose Gmail account, perhaps? Once I click "Send" on this message I'll be off the air for the night, so I'll look for HS's response sometime tomorrow morning (after 13:00 UTC, more or less) tomorrow. G'nite. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 02:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, BQ, but I didn't see your 02:13, 2 April 2010, post regarding appeasement until this morning. The Appeasement article here begins, "Appeasement is 'the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous.'" If that is restated as, "appeasement is the process of settling quarrels by acknowledging and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the continuation of the quarrels and/or the resort to a confrontation before the community or administrators which will be wearying, disagreeable, and possibly dangerous to one's own interests," then that is indeed what I am proposing here. The process I've proposed here is basically the same as is used to attempt to settle lawsuits through mediation, modified for the circumstances here. Like any other compromise or negotiation it will, if it is to work, require both parties to give something up to get something back. In the lawsuit context, it's usually (but not always) one party giving up money in order to make the lawsuit go away, but there's no cash to be traded here. What's left to give up is, first, your own freedom or rights through self–imposed restrictions on one's actions here at Wikipedia and, second, the degree to which you want the other party to agree to restrict their freedom or rights. Let me suggest that while appeasement may or may not be a good idea on the international scale, that on the social–interaction scale, where the stakes are much lower, that appeasement makes perfect sense and fits in perfectly with what's been proven through game theory about maximizing one's outcome in a negotiation (see e.g. Tit for tat). Realize that the stakes are even lower than the lawsuit context here: we're only talking about the degree to which one will or will not voluntarily participate in what amounts to an avocation or hobby. It is your call, and I'm not trying to talk you into it or out of it, but there's no point in the three of us wasting out time in it if there's no chance that it is going to work. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC) (Slight Rewording to clarify meaning 16:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC) — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK).)[reply]

I agree there is no reason to be wasting time if there is no possible benefit, however, I also agree that negotiation is give-and-take, not just take. I think I may just be reading too much into some nuances (in my profession, those sorts of nuances are justification(s) for war...) and that what I took it as may not be as you intended. I also disagree with the appeasement article as that historically, appeasement has been used to coddle dictators threatening war. It usually emboldens the tyrants and encourages more threats. If goodwilled gestures are to be meaningful, there have to be goodwill gestures in return. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TransporterMan, I agree to your envisaged process. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too will agree to this under the previously stated process. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to also have a third question answered: It appears to me that your primary point of conflict is in editing images and that your conflicts in other fora are merely extensions or expansions of disputes which start on image pages; is there any other type of page where the two of you regularly come into conflict or are likely to come into conflicts which originate there and do not begin on an image page? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Near as I can tell, no. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we have the basic agreement in place. I've had the questions I posed answered by HS and am waiting for an email answer from BQ on the first two. (Please understand I'm not pushing when I mention this, I'm just keeping everyone up to speed on where we are.) — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expect them later tonight...much later...

I'll watch for them. HS has told me in email that he'll be offline for the Easter weekend, so I'll probably do the same except to look at your question answers when you send them. I'll see everyone Monday morning. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Status report: Waiting for initial question answers from BQ by email. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sent last night ~2AM. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. My spam filter ate it. I have it whitelisted now. Sorry about that. Considering... — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status report: Sent email to BQ at 16:02 UTC 5 Apr, awaiting reply. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status report: Have received substantive responses from both editors and I am considering what to do next. Will let both of you know by email. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Certificate of Mediation on my talk page. (If you've seen it already, please take another look as I've just added a new subsection about my further participation in your dispute.) — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You have email. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Will do. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pocztowkapkp.jpg

Hi, BQZip01. At Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 March 9#File:Pocztowkapkp.jpg you said that a photograph created in the 1930s whose author is unknown is in the public domain in the United States, so you suggested that File:Pocztowkapkp.jpg be kept with an appropriate change in the copyright tag. The image has been kept, but the licensing tag has not changed—it is still {{PD-old}}, which makes the claim that the author died over 100 years ago (which is clearly false). Something needs to be done here. If there is an appropriate copyright tag for this situation, could you please change it?

I would also be interested in learning more about the part of United States copyright law that you refer to—I don't think I've heard of it before. What does it mean to say "the author is unknown"? If the uploader of File:Pocztowkapkp.jpg cropped off a copyright notice, say, can we legitimately claim that "the author is unknown" and therefore make an assertion that the image must be in the public domain? That seems unlikely to me. —Bkell (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly could have been more clear. This is the chart by which I make my claim. By author unknown, I meant that it was impossible to determine the author's age/date of death. Even so, the image is still PD because I see no copyright notice or any proof of copyright registration. Accordingly, and as long as it was first published in the U.S., this image is PD because it fails to comply with required formalities. {{PD-Pre1978}} would be a more appropriate tag, IMHO. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but then by that reasoning it seems someone could upload File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg without any mention of the original author or copyright situation, and we would then say that the image contains no copyright notice or proof of copyright registration and therefore must be in the public domain. What I'm saying is that I don't think we have any evidence that the original publication of File:Pocztowkapkp.jpg lacked the "required formalities"—they may have simply been omitted somewhere along the chain of transmission between the original publication and Wikipedia. The image apparently passed through at least http://www.kolej.ournet.pl and User:CCMichalZ, and I have no particular reason to believe that either of these intermediaries was especially careful to keep the appropriate copyright information (especially CCMichalZ; see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 March 9#File:Sm03002.jpg and the following 21 listings). —Bkell (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have my doubts that this image was first published in the United States. I think it is more likely that it was first published in Poland. The caption in Polish State Railroads Summer 1939 says, "Polish station on postcard, 1930s". —Bkell (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postcards are generally prints of things that have already been created, so it was likely created in the 30s. This gives us a rough timeframe and according to the aforementioned list, 1930+95=2025 as the earliest date it can be PD in the U.S. through U.S. copyright laws unless it was PD in Poland prior to 1996. In this case, we don't know exactly as we don't know who the author is (if we did know and they died prior to 1946, it is PD). Accordingly, I'm basing my conclusion on corporate authorship rules of 70 years past publication.

GREAT discussion BTW. I look forward to your response, but I think this is one area in WP where we lack concrete guidance. If you'd like to help put together some guidance, let me know. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prize

Hello! I found you on the FA team page. You description caught my eye! I've been working on the Nobel Prize article now for a while and have managed to get it somewhere between GA and FA status. My goal is to bring it to FA status. However, the article would need some more copy editing/grammar check/general prose improvements and I am not the right person for that. Would you like to help? Cheers Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help and suggestions! I'll get to work on them as quickly as I can and then come back to you. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, could you clarify what you mean with "picture groupings (ex: 5 on one row and 1 in the next in a gallery)"? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Esuzu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some help with an image

You mentioned on the PUF discussion for File:Addington Coat of Arms.png that you'd try to sort out the licensing for the image. I couldn't find a record of this specific design; I can find similar, but none with the stags so I'm not certain of the original date of this particular blazon. Similar blazons date back to the 1700s which would put them out of copyright range. Anyways, before I did anything else, I wanted to double check with you and see if you'd had any luck or if you wanted to work on a FUR like you mentioned.

I also wasn't certain about File:Eaton James Elliott Charles Addington-Barker 2005.png and File:Nicholas Edward Addison James Addington-Barker 2007.png. Clearly recent additions to the line, but assuming the uploader did create the images themselves from their descriptions (and not by copying an existing image), it was my understanding that the image creator could then release their interpretation of the blazon under whatever license they chose. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated :) Shell ^babelfish 08:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short version: No, Wikipedia is not the place for such images.

Full answer:

Images are largely date-dependent. In the case of the Addington CoA, it is PD by virtue of date in the US.
In the case of the latter two images, they are the family crests of multiple families and are copyrighted. If you (or almost anyone else creating these images) just made them for the article and they are not official, then it likely falls into the category of WP:MADEUP and are unencyclopedic. Merely making "your interpretation" of the image still has copyright problems as it is a derivative image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some confusion here. I'm not the uploader, I'm the admin getting ready to close these debates and you indicated you wanted a note before/if they were deleted. Two things:

True, if we were talking images taken from elsewhere and uploaded here. This does not appear to be the case since the uploader says they created the images themselves.
I don't think that's correct at all. For example, see Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems. So long as the uploader is really creating these images themselves from the descriptions (and I haven't found anything similar on the web to indicate that they took or copied them from somewhere), there is no "copyright" on the blazon descriptions.

I was looking for a second opinion since I deal with these so infrequently. I'll ask some of the more regular copyright admins. Thanks anyways. Shell ^babelfish 09:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AH! I see your point. In that case, your assertions are correct regarding their copyright. However, I am not sure I see the usability of the images within WP if they are not the official images of the CoA. If I misunderstand the basics (are you saying there are no "official" images, only descriptions?), then there are basically no copyrights on such Coats of Arms, but of only images. As such, one could be released under compatible CC licenses. — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:RfC: Cleared Hot

Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Notice

An RfC involving you has been started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01 and Hammersoft. Due to the nature of the dispute, I crafted the RfC to permit both bases for concern to be brought in the same RfC, as they are intertwined. I've left appropriate spaces for you to add your comments. You are of course encouraged to participate. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your attempt goes against the guidelines stated right at the top of the page (2nd sentence): "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to help you. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BQ, I've asked HS for clarification here on which RFC should go forth. I rather liked the idea of a combo, since you both have issues and certain core disagreements on policy - however if you're determined they should be separate and don't wish to discuss it further, then so be it I suppose. I'm thinking that I'll remove whichever RFC the two of you first agree is not required - perhaps I could be considered involved, but whatever, this is janitor work. Franamax (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is janitor work and I see no conflict of interest. As I stated above, delete the "joint" one. As it explicitly violates the rules, I see no reason to keep it.

I have no issue with being judged on the merits of my own actions, but I do not want to confuse the issue. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Project request

Hello! You are listed as an active member of the College Football Project! We have a large number of unreferenced biographies of living persons, but it works out to be just two or three articles per active participant. I've divided up the articles that need help and put them in a table on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Unreferenced BLPs. Please assist the project by researching and sourcing the articles that have been "assigned" (so to speak) to you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FUR plis

Hello. You said at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_March_21#File:British_4th_Infantry_Division_Insignia_.28New.29.png that you'd add a non-free content rationale for this. Could you do that as nobody has objected? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. There are also a few more at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 March 26. Thx in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted images

I did give a reason for the images I speedied. They were blatant copyright violations, taken from a 1950 publication. I also warned the uploader, Math920 (talk · contribs), who has a long record of blatant copyright violation. At some point we simply need to draw a line and impress on people that our guidelines aren't just there for decorative purposes. --dab (𒁳) 06:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on the WP:PUF page, you never gave a reason other than "The result of the discussion was delete. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did never even see the PUF page. I saw the uploader's talkpage, and the blatant copyright violation, and that was enough for me. Look, this user was a racist troll lying through their teeth about owning image copyright. I am sure we don't need to open a lengthy bureaucratic procedure on cases as obvious as that. --dab (𒁳) 07:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 March 29#File:Triforium.jpeg

Hi BQZip01. When you've got time, could you please fix this? Thanks. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Thanks for having a look at it. I'll try to email you back sometime tomorrow - bit busy in RL at the moment. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You have email. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Texas at Dallas

BQZip01! I haven't talked to you for a while. Hoping all is well for you. Currently I am attending UTD for grad school type stuff. I haven't been as active on WP as I would like. I have done some work cleaning up the University of Texas at Dallas, and I have nominated it for a peer review. Considering your considerable experience on the TAMU page, any suggestions would help. Thanks and gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment - Thunder userbox

Just wanted to let you know that we are surveying wiki Thunder fans and experts on sports userbox formats to determine whether they want User:BillTunell's style incorporated into the userbox ({{User:UBX/NBA-Thunder}}), or want to use the standard version. If you you want to comment, hit the RFC discussion page here. Thanks. Tom Danson (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I did as you asked and made some comments on the RFC page. Feel free to let me know if my challenge to the other editor helped, hindered, or had no impact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of Originality

fyi WT:NFC#Considering Threshold of Originality - defining a tighter line. I believe that this is an area you have some knowledge and interest in. Jheald (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added comments. Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching

Hi BQZip01,

I've recently returned from a fairly lengthy wikibreak, and while I am refreshed and once again in the mood to edit, I'm afraid I just don't have the enthusiasm or patience left to continue admin coaching my current students. I've enjoyed working with you recently, and I'd still be happy to answer any specific questions you may have, but I'm afraid I just can't be an effective mentor for the time being.

Obviously this isn't a reflection on you or your efforts so far. I wish you the best of luck should you run for RfA in the future.

Regards,

Juliancolton (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Portal Administrator

I am looking for an editor or editors to take over administration of the US Air Force Portal. If you think you might be interested please see the Portal Administration section on the talk page to see what is involved and comment there if you’re interested or have any questions.Ndunruh (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar

I have started a thread at Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar, which you may be interested in. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hainan Island incident

I understand you are busy but if you got the chance to look at this something has come up. Fly safe. --John (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the trouble to help out there. I appreciate it. --John (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Watson

this discussion may be of interest to you. Either way, the source you cited says sentenced, not convicted with a google translation. --Terrillja _talk 07:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence is a result of a conviction. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you as to my opinion of the subject. To editorialize, there would be much fun to have on his far reaching take on the truth. Unfortunately in the context of being editors to an article in an encyclopedia, we can only provide referenced relevant information, to document facts obtained from reliable sources. The conclusion that you formed from pulling together statements he made at one source, and criminal history from another source, constitutes original research. I agree with your conclusion as to his truthfulness, but not with the inclusion of your opinion in the article. 12Minutes to 10pm 01:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't original research. It is an undisputed fact echoed across MANY other websites. If a person claims I never did <ACTION A>. And another site shows irrefutably that the person did <ACTION A>, the two are in contradiction. There is nothing factually incorrect in that. I'm not claiming he is a habitual liar (though I believe he is) or that he's lying. I'm presenting both sides. To remove both implies nothing else happened, when, in fact, a lot more did happen. Being neutral means showing BOTH sides of a situation, not removing anything controversial. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1‎

As a reviewer of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 Texas Longhorn football team, I thought you might consider commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thread divergence

Have you read WP:SPS and WP:NPA?Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment within a given topic header
I have and believe as does franamax and others on that thread. The information simply needs to be better phrased, but should be included. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN notice

Please see WP:BLPN thread, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Watson. -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:BQZip01/Not Attack

Template:BQZip01/Not Attack has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BQZip01, would you want this template userfied if the conseunsus were to remove it from the template namespace? --Bsherr (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about changing the title to [Template:RFC preparation page]? BQ, I've been around on your journey on this particular topic, sometimes watching and sometimes participating, since almost forever. We worked on guideline wording on this once and I've engaged other editors on their "possible-attack" sub-pages too. I think this is a good addition, don't necessarily agree with your exact wording (which can be worked out), and of course it can't have your uname in it. But I do think it could be a useful template as the temporary shield c/w time limit for purpose-made prep pages, in line with my "use it or lose it" philosophy. I'll put those arguments at the AFD when I get time too, just wanted your thoughts. Franamax (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what the big deal is. If it is a naming issue, just move it to my userspace or rename it. I don't own it. Deletion is not the answer here. It seems to be either a mistake by the nominator or a poorly formed opinion. I'm also open to rewording it (such as including WP:MFD). It certainly has potential. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note...

We Americans cannot say or do enough to honor the sacrifices you military folks make on our behalf. We salute you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bugsy! — BQZip01 — ^talk

License tagging for File:Clock showing 9 to 6.png

Thanks for uploading File:Clock showing 9 to 6.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Hoping everything is going well for you. Gig em, and BTHO LSU!! Oldag07 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]