User talk:VeritasAgent

Jeremiah Wright comments

I've responded to your query on the Wright controversy talk page. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is implying that everything that came out of his mouth was controversial, which isn't true. The IPs edits were bad too, so I'm working towards the middle. Grsz 11 17:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits summaries like this indicate that you have no intentions of being neutral and objective. Please try to do so. Grsz ^talk 14:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we've recently had some problems with edit warring on Jeremiah Wright controversy, I've made a post about working together constructively at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Working together. I'd appreciate it if you could add any thoughts you have there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

Hi, VeritasAgent. It's not terribly important, but if you're expressing an opinion in support or opposition to the proposed move of Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy, it would probably be a good idea to move it from the "Discussion" section to the "Survey" section, and place your !vote in bold. Otherwise the closing admin may not notice it. Again, not a big deal, but if you want to move/fix the comment that would be great. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While your Support note has since been moved to the survey section, you still might want to clarify which proposed article name ("Jeremiah Wright political controversy" or "Jeremiah Wright controversy") you are supporting specifically. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 03:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful about reversions, please

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jeremiah Wright controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. The other editor who has been reverting material has also been warned, and I've reported him to WP:AN3 and WP:AN/I. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Update: he's been blocked for 48 hours.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I'll be more careful about my edits and try to use discussion more often. VeritasAgent (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wright picture

hey man thank god you made your voice heard on the Wright talk page about the Wright/Clinton page. I really wanted to put the Wright/Obama picture put up, but a moderator, ThesIB is letting his true colors show and trying to argue against my fair use rational for non free photos. Because this picture SHOULD be up on the Wright page, as it has had far more relevance than the Clinton picture, I would appreciate if you can help keep this picture on, and possibly put it on the Wright page, and get more to do so, with everyone pushing their case as how it belongs on the page, which may eventually push the picture onto the page, as I won't be the only one trying to do it. Because it "is the subject of sourced commentary," even tho it is an AP photo, it is not in violation of copyright rules, as the mods try to falsely argue. Also, it meets their standards, because if the Clinton pic is "part of Wright's life," then so is this, even more so. This picture is used in commercials and TV/newspapers all the time, and thus has had consequence. If you argue with me on the Obama/Wright picture on the talk page, then it could possibly make itTallicfan20 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the Wright page, someone has done something to it which is completely uncalled for. He cropped the Clinton picture and put it as a lead pic.Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Obamawright.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Obamawright.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 22:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CyberAnth Wikiquette

Hi VeritasAgent, I noticed that User:CyberAnth personally attacked you, as well as Trilemma and myself at the Wright talk page. Well, for those actions and others, I have listed the user at the Wikiquette alert page. I though you may be interested to comment: here. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberanth redux

User talk:Tiptoety. Please see this talk page as some of the info might bear a bearing on the TUCC page where I believe that ewenss/ cyberanth, et. al. have abused the system to publish original research.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]