User talk:DickClarkMises/archive4

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nazism

WP:RfM/Nazism;
The Request for Mediation in progress with the Mediation Committee which lists you as a party is now progressing, and all parties are invited to contribute.

The case is currently at the final stage of Mediation, at which parties are invited to post "Suggested Edits" which they wish to implement into one of the involved articles, as well as to support, oppose or propose amendments to existing suggestions. Further instructions are given at the Mediation location.

Kindest regards,
Anthøny 19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say thank you for your welcome to wikipedia. I look forward to editing pages on politics and history. Tango & Cash 16:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAC backlog elimination drive

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interdictor Blog

Hey Dick, thanks for cleaning it up. I didn't think it appropriate for me to edit an article about my blog anymore than I already had (mostly eliminated vandilism). See you on the list. Ikilled007 10:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. I tell people about that escapade of yours all the time, so I was interested in getting it cleaned up anyway. You know, I had lunch with your dad and Walter a number of times that semester when they were in Auburn after Katrina. DickClarkMises 23:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Foundation

thanks for leaving me a note on my talk page. Yes., i agree that the reviewed might not be 100% correct all the time and so i will await your response to the comments. Cheers Kalyan 16:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:George_reisman.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:George_reisman.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. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lokal _Profil 01:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please forward the permission to permissions@wikimedia.org. Make sure that the permission specifiec that anyone (including outside wikipedia) may use the image. Also make sure that Misis.org in the permisssion clearly state that they are in fact the copyright owners of the work. /Lokal _Profil 11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permissions statement submitted. DickClarkMises 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Once the OTRS service has vetted it they will add the recipt number to the image and remove the PUI tag. Thanks/Lokal _Profil 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as a bit silly to require that I email permissions to the OTRS people every time I upload an image from Mises.org. I have uploaded at least a couple score of images from that source and released them under the GFDL. I am not sure why each release should require me to go and confirm my own action. This is not the first, or even second, time that I have confirmed a GFDL release of such content. I think this is an issue governed by WP:AGF, especially when we are talking about users like myself who have confirmed that they are authorized to release images from a particular source. Has there been a complaint about this image, or any other image that I have contributed? DickClarkMises 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGF concerns us believing whether or not you believed that the image was free. AGF doesn't apply to whether or not the image is actually free though. Since that is a legal question we may not assume GF. What you can do is either bunch all of the filenames up in one e-mail, and thus have them all covered by the same permission. Alternatively you can try and get a blanket permission to cover all images from that webpage, and then add that OTRS ticket # to all the affected images. /Lokal _Profil 23:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged most of the images that I've uploaded from Mises.org with the newest OTRS ticket number, so that should resolve this issue, I think. DickClarkMises 14:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks for the help /Lokal _Profil 17:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I really appreciate you welcoming me to wikipedia. EtaiMiz 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Sapienza

Do you have any knowledge of Jeremy Sapienza? The article about him has been nominated for deletion. I've worked on it over the years, but it was never adequately sourced and that's a cause for deletion. The subject was also a contributor, as I recall. Anyway, I never cared about it much one way or another, but you may have more perspective. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I know of Sapienza through Bob Murphy both because Bob used to frequently address Sapienza's arguments at anti-state.com and because Sapienza wrote the introduction to Bob's first book, Chaos Theory. I did a cursory search for third party sources, and initially just found a few remarks by Bob. I think these probably confer notability, but I don't have time to revise the article too heavily right now. I'll drop some sources at the AfD and hope someone else picks them up and runs with them. Cheers, DickClarkMises 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcome

Thank you for your welcome. I don't know if its coincidence that it is you who welcomes me, but when I saw your user name I had to take a look at your user page. I cannot contribute much at en:wiki as my english is rather poor but I'm trying to make interwiki links to and from pl:wiki especially with articles connected with Austrian School as since some time ago I'm humbly trying to develop those categories pl:Kategoria:Szkoła austriacka, pl:Kategoria:Przedstawiciele szkoły austriackiej on polish wikipedia. Thanks again for your welcome! Best wishes and sorry for my poor english... --Marioosz 23:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for Your answer. So it wasn't just a coincidence :) Of course I know Mateusz Machaj from his activities on promotion of the Austrian School in Poland. He is the founder of polish Ludwig von Mises Institute Foundation and he's doing a great job publishing many articles about Austrian School. I am just a humble enthusiast of economy and AS but I contacted him via email in purpose to get some advices needed to edit articles on polish wikipedia :) Cheers, Marioosz 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd AfD on Free The Hops

Could you stop by here and weigh in on an article about an Alabama lobbying group? The AfD is getting down to the wire and we don't have consensus. I'd prefer either "delete" or "keep" to "No consensus," especially as this is a second nomination. If you know other active editors who may have a view, please invite them also. Thanks. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Two months ago, after I reviewed you, you left a question, "other reviews?" which went unanswered. I would encourage you to consider a second editor review if you would like more advice. Shalom ^Hello 07:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DickClarkMises (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Jimbo seems to have blocked me for replacing an image of George Reisman. This image was released to the Mises Institute and I have been authorized by the institute to release Mises.org content under the GFDL. I am a little unclear what the problem is, since I tagged the new upload with the OTRS ticket number that was issued for other Mises.org content. If there is some other problem, I was unaware of it, and, frankly, I wouldn't have replaced the image if any reason had been given. My action was certainly taken in good faith, and I think this block was a little over-zealous. I am eager to hear why I was blocked. DickClarkMises 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm not sure why he blocked, either, but I'll leave a msg on his talk page for you. The last time this happened it took him a few days to respond (he's a busy guy). I'm declining for now because it's Jimbo. Please be patient in the meantime! Thanks.— Chaser - T 00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Chaser, I understand your cautious posture on this. I generally trust Jimbo—I'd really just like to understand why he blocked me. If it was a mistake or misunderstanding because of, say, a poorly worded edit summary, great! If it wasn't a mistake, I'd like to know what I should have done differently. I've actually been out of town and away from my computer since Wednesday night, so I was rather shocked when I got blocked almost immediately after returning today (while working on unrelated material). Cheers, DickClarkMises 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify; the block log says that you have been blocked for a week for "reinsertion of image contra otrs request". Apparently, there are issues with the image you tried to upload and OTRS have been involved - Alison ☺ 00:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the line in the block log. To better understand why I am confused, please see the following email I sent to Jimbo regarding my exchange with OTRS about this image. DickClarkMises:

Jimbo,

I have requested that your block of my account be reviewed. It seems that you blocked me 
for uploading an image of [[George Reisman]]. I uploaded an image that was released to the 
[[Mises Institute]] by Prof. Reisman. I have been authorized by [[Jeffrey Tucker]] to 
release Mises.org content under the GFDL. I tagged the new image with the following OTRS 
reference: https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=928593

While I don't expect you to take my word for it, I was not intentionally being contentious, but 
rather attempting to provide a free image to better the project. What did I do wrong? There was 
never any indication of what the problem was with this image. I include below a copy of a 
12 June 2007 email from Mitch Hopper over at OTRS for your further consideration:

>       Permissions <permissions@wikimedia.org>
>       Dick Clark <clark@mises.org>
>       Jun 12, 2007 8:42 AM
>       Re: [Ticket#2007061110006913] Image:George_reisman.jpg
>
>Dear Dick Clark,
>
>Thank you for your mail.
>
>
>"Dick Clark" <clark@mises.org> wrote:
>
>> Please note that Image:George_reisman.jpg has been released by the [[Mises
>> Institute]] under the [[GFDL]] both for general use in Wikipedia and any
>> other use.
>>
>> (Query: Should I just go through and look up all the images I've uploaded
>> with permission from Mises.org and just send an email including all of them,
>> or is there some way to streamline this process? I have standing permission
>> from [[Jeffrey Tucker]] to release Mises.org images under the GFDL and I
>> regularly do so.)
>>
>> --
>> Dick Clark
>>
>
>We have received the permission for the image and have made the necessary
>modifications to the Image page.
>
>If you have other images, you can either reply to this E-mail and provide the
>URL or name of the image or add the text that I added to the image mentioned
>above to all the images yourself (this way will be faster). The text to add to
>the images is:
>{{PermissionOTRS|ticket=https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=928593}}
>Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to Wikipedia.
>Yours sincerely,
>Mitch Hopper

Thank you for your reconsideration of this block.

Regards,

User:DickClarkMises

Find below the latest email exchange between myself and Jimbo. DickClarkMises 01:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Clark <crotalus@gmail.com> 		 
Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com>	 
Jul 1, 2007 9:19 PM	 
Re: OTRS block	 
	 
I responded at Gaillimh's talk page here, per his request in the edit summary:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaillimh&oldid=140036262

I got no reply.

DCM


On 7/1/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
>
>   http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tibor_R._Machan&action=history
>
>   is the reason you were blocked.  You re-inserted an image without
>   discussion, even though Gaillimh had removed it.


--
Dick Clark

Here is another email exchange. I've emailed Gaillimh and asked that he weigh in on this issue. DickClarkMises 01:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Clark <crotalus@gmail.com> 		  
Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com>	 
Jul 1, 2007 9:29 PM	 
Re: OTRS block	 

Jimbo,

This image was created by Chad Parish, a Mises Institute employee. The image 
was covered by the same OTRS ticket number I mentioned earlier. He offered 
no rationale for the removal, so after asking for an explanation via the means 
the editor specified, I replaced an image I knew to be free and that was 
certified as such with the OTRS folks. I don't understand how or why the free 
status of this image is being disputed.

I am not trying to be contentious here--I am just genuinely stumped.

Regards,

DCM

On 7/1/07, Jimmy Wales < jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
>
>   And having gotten no reply, you chose to put it back anyway?  Wrong
>   answer.

Okay, Jimbo has unblocked me. Thanks to Jimbo and to the other editors that took an interest in this matter. Cheers, DickClarkMises 01:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> 
Dick Clark <crotalus@gmail.com>	 
Jul 1, 2007 9:38 PM	 
Re: OTRS block
 
I have unblocked you.  NEVER EVER EVER revert an OTRS ticket unless
you have CONFIRMED that it is the right thing to do.

What Jimbo said, basically. Many OTRS tickets are issued for legal reasons & it's best to always check with them first. Jimbo's unblock message was, "time off for good behavior" :) Either way, if you've any issues or autoblock problems, just let me know - Alison ☺ 02:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, OTRS had already been notified of the content release authorization. I checked with the editor who removed the image, got no response, and thus assumed that Gaillimh understood my rationale for replacing the image. Is it the case that any administrator's word can cause an image to be unreplaceable, even in the face of proper OTRS authorization? It seems like a terrible disincentive to the contribution of free content. The proper OTRS procedure was followed to begin with. If someone disputed my release, I should have been contacted as the authorized representative of LvMI who opened the OTRS ticket to begin with. I have been a contributor to this project since 03/2005, and I believe in it and want it to grow. Someone else though, who just came in to make free content available, would likely be very offended by this sort of treatment. This is an issue of great concern to me in light of WP:BITE, WP:AGF, etc. Were Gaillimh and Jimbo simply unaware of the previous OTRS ticket? Was there some later dispute that arose? No one seems to be willing to answer these questions about why the free status of this image was disputed in the first place. I've asked Gaillimh to reply here, but as of yet have received no answer. DickClarkMises 02:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree. There were definitely wires crossed here somewheres. I'd say best wait until Gaillimh shows up here and you guys sort out what happened. In the meantime, feel free to edit away - Alison ☺ 02:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there was a later ticket. The deletion log for the image and the removal of the image from the article both specify ticket #2007062210007884, while the email you pasted above specify an earlier ticket (#2007061110006913). So, I'd guess (and guessing is the only thing I can do with these tickets) that there was a later dispute/issue. --cesarb 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps someone with OTRS access will be willing to enlighten the rest of us as to what the issue was. DickClarkMises 18:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've responded to your e-mail. If you had e-mailed me earlier, as I mentioned in my edit summary, you would have received a more timely response. Also, it's bad form to post e-mails on-wiki like this, so I implore you to remove this content from your userpage, as the situation has been resolved. No worries, of course, it's just basic social graces. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I've not received your email. Could you try again, please? Also, could you refer me to an example discussion where the convention you mention is noted? My inclination is include all the discussion that took place. Had I not been blocked, the above emails would presumably have occurred on-wiki at a talk page. I'd like this to be an open process with no privileged communication. It is hard to collaborate if information is not available for other editors to review. DickClarkMises 02:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, it seems as if you've now received my e-mail! Expect a follow-up from me in a few minutes. With regards to your concerns/comments here on this talk page, it's just basic social graces not to publish e-mails without the express consent of the other party or parties. This has nothing to do with clouding transparency or anything (in fact, feel free to publish my e-mails sans my address and name), but with proper behaviour. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 18:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kel-Tec PLR-16

Hey, good catch on the category there! I was a tad sleepy, and guessed via caliber I think... Either way, THANKS! --SXT40 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's always the 5.7 :) Hrm, n/m only the .gov is allowed to have effective rounds for that here in the US... --SXT40 06:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gothard

Hello DickClarkMises,

Please look at my comments regarding your recent edit to the Bill Gothard article.

Thanks!

JBFrenchhorn 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've posted another as you'll see.

So you're planning on attending law school. I have thought about that. I might start in a paralegal program this fall.

(Jeffrey Bean, Jr.) JBFrenchhorn 05:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Cliffordstoll.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Cliffordstoll.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 {{di-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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 06:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppe

Hi DickClarkMises, I just want to reiterate that I do not have a personal opinion of Mr. Hoppe, and am judging his Wikipedia page solely on the lack of peer praise, and secondary sources that claim Hoppe has had significant influence on the field of economics.

(As a complete aside, I can't help but notice the freakish similarities in our backgrounds. My undergraduate degree is in philosophy, I grew up a Suzuki practitioner, and I went to Hoover High School - but it was in Ohio.)

Removing warnings

I know it's frustrating when users remove properly-placed warnings from their user talk pages. However the general consensus in the community today is that such behavior is acceptable. See WP:USER#Removal of warnings. It does mean that subsequent visitors to the talk page have to check the history, but I think we've gotten used to that now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I created a ruckus. It seems to me, though, that it may be a good idea to give a pre-warning to those of us unfamiliar with the mores of Wikipedia a pre-warning that certain behavior is considered unacceptable before a tag is placed on his or her Talk page. I had no idea reverting 3 times was a "bad" thing. I've reverted vandalism on other pages several times over. Thank you for your time, --Bremskraft 21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR warning you received was the warning. The general practice is to warn before blocking. While removing properly-placed tags from your talk page is permitted, it isn't a sign of good faith either. I urge you to review the core policies of Wikipedia before editing as aggressively as you have recently. Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset Ignorance of the policies is a poor excuse for creating a "ruckus". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, thanks for pointing out that line in WP:USER. DickClarkMises 22:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback, thank you for linking to "core policies" page. I will be sure to read it thoroughly as time permits. However, I would like to say quickly that I have been civil and assumed good faith. I did not delete anything on the Hoppe page, or "aggressively edit" the Hoppe page, and I think I brought forward a legitimate issue. Please do not speak to me as though I am a child. It does not serve you well as an administrator. --Bremskraft 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RoseWilderLane01.jpg

Hi. Thank you for uploading and donating the subject image in the 164×233×8 (30673 bytes) size. Would you still have the larger 415×593×8 (30912 bytes) size available for upload, and be willing to donate that, too? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Reserve System: Bernanke quote

No problem. The article is somewhat disorganized, so it can be hard to notice those things. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Americans For Prosperity

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Americans For Prosperity, by Closedmouth (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Americans For Prosperity is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Americans For Prosperity, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania in Atlanta!

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for welcomming me to Wikipedia. I had some old messages, including a telling off because I am on a common line, can these be transfered to me now I've signed up to prevent other users at www.wjminvest.co.nz from seeing the talkpage when they use wikipedia? Thank you Fetu's dad 23:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wp Alabama

Hi DickClarkMises! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your excellent edits on Alabama related articles. We need your help at the Alabama WikiProject! This is a new WikiProject and there is much work to do. Please head over to the project page, add your name, and help us enhance and increase the coverage of Alabama related stories.
JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 14:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Russo

Please, consider publish your photo on commons, so every user can post it in other Wikipedias. Yours, Sonlui 12:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Heather_higgins.gif

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Heather_higgins.gif. I noticed 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 {{di-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 even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 19:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Bastiat

When you have a moment, can you take a look at this external link that was added to the Bastiat article? I do not think it is appropriate, but I am uncertain: [1] When one looks at the title it's been given, Marx on Bastiat and Carey, one might think it is a direct excerpt from Marx's Grundrisse in which he deals with Bastiat and his thinking. But, in fact, it is not. The link leads to a blog in which an author offers his interpretation of Marx's interpretation of Bastiat. I think this places it outside our standards of acceptability. I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. We are in complete agreement. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Philanthropy magazine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Philanthropy magazine.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Rothbard

Hi, could you provide his free picture? All available are currently copyrighted. -- Vision Thing -- 13:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy Holidays! -- Vision Thing -- 18:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Lewrockwelldotcom.gif

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lewrockwelldotcom.gif, 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. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Keltec plr-16.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Keltec plr-16.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to include licensing info in update version. DickClarkMises (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STATS

Your argument for removing the astroturf cat is that the cat itself is unencyclopedic, and I see you've nominated it for deletion. Fair enough. But assuming the cat "survives", then your argument for keeping the cat off of STATS will be invalid, and I'll be adding back in. So you might want to start thinking of another reason for keeping it off, depending on how the deletion discussion goes.... Yilloslime (t) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are right. If the category is kept, my argument will be that the STATS article must make it self-evident that such a category is appropriate, per the same guideline that I cite at CfD: Wikipedia:CAT#Some_general_guidelines, #7. If an article doesn't assert the quality to which the category is associated, the category is simply unwarranted. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Harryelmerbarnes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Harryelmerbarnes.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Harryelmerbarnes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Harryelmerbarnes.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune Global 500

Hi, I'm not sure who to contact for this, but I thought you'd interested since you're a member of the Economics WikiProject. There is an article called Fortune Global 500. This article is a copy and paste of the list of the 500 largest companies in the world by revenues published by Fortune magazine every year. Fortune magazine lists these companies by countries and cities. They list Shell as being a company from the Netherlands and not a dual company from Britain and the Netherlands (contrary to Unilever). One British Wikipedian doesn't like that and has changed the article, writting that Shell is a dual British/Dutch company, contrary to the source from Fortune magazine. I tried to explain that the article being simply a copy and paste of the Fortune Global 500 list, we have to respect their editorial choices, otherwise it's not the Global Fortune 500 list anymore, it becomes something else. Unfortunately I feel like I'm preaching in the desert, so to speak. If we start changing things from the list based on what we think is right or wrong, then why not also change EADS which Fortune magazine lists as a Dutch company (because it is legally incorporated in the Netherlands for tax reasons), whereas in fact EADS is a Franco-German company with top management in Paris and Munich? As you can see, this could lead to endless changes to the article. I thought on Wikipedia we had to write information that matches with the sources we use. It would be nice to hear from you on this point. Keizuko (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celtics?

Please accept this invite to join the Celtics WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Celtics. Simply click here to accept!

- Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Rockwell

Hi,

I saw you created a redirect in Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. to Lew Rockwell, incidentally at precisely the same time I was doing the reverse. If you disagreed with my action, I didn't mean to just wipe out what you did -- so if that is the case, we should chat and come to consensus. I undid your action simply b/c I thought it was an accidental reaction to the confusion I created by fumbling with the redirect command for a few minutes.PStrait (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision to Shell Account

I removed the shell providers from the article because they were not considered historic (AKA from the 80s and 90s). If you read the discussion, the three that were remaining were actually historic, unlike the two that you re-added, which have existed since 2000. LordKenTheGreat (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly welcome your reversion, but I found it appropriate to revert the addition of Silence is Defeat since it was added by the owner, which would constitute an violation of WP:COI. LordKenTheGreat (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of LewRockwell.com

An editor has nominated LewRockwell.com, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LewRockwell.com and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rodericklong.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rodericklong.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. —Bkell (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcome

Hi DickClarkMises,

thank you for welcoming me. I am the translator of "Defending the undefendable" in Dutch; that's why I made that edit on Walter Block's page. I wrote a big article for the Dutch Wikipedia on the book. Dirk74 (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by user 4.240.69.116

I received a message suggesting I had vandalized a page, with the user ID listed as 4.240.69.116 This message was posted to me. However, not guilty, and I do not know why this message was addressed to me. Brews ohare (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive

Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Smith has been chosen as the first article in WikiProject Economics' first Featured Article drive

I am contacting you because you Supported the decision to choose Adam Smith as the first Featured Article that WikiProject Economics would work on. If you can, please help out and make this goal a reality! A discussion on this has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#The Featured Article drive is now closed. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SULS

Hey, I think we talked on facebook before about the SULS Libertarians petition. How'd it turn out? I'm just graduating this Sunday...had Rounds this semester for drafting. It was a great class. I hear he's pretty active with the Beacon Hill Institute and sympathetic to other libertarian causes. Pretty rare among SULS profs. -Tim Swampyank (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Women's Forum

The page you refer to appeared at Category:Articles with broken citations because the citations I repaired where broken. Did you bother to look at the result of your action. Those citations are once again broken and non functional. Now either repair the citations the way you think they should be or restore my edit. It's up to you. I'll be watching. By the way I recommend that you always check the results of your edits. If people did that then I would no be following them around cleaning up after them. --DRoll (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Disuniform" is not a word.--DRoll (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]