User talk:Jkelly/Archive06

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jkelly. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks! [1] It's fun, and rather satisfying, to write those up. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the greeting and information, Lostcaesar 17:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

JKelly, these images were taken from the Greek Ministry of Culture website, which states that all images within it are open to the public domain (as it the case with all Greek Government Ministries). Why is it going to be deleted?—Preceding unsigned comment added by NickOfCyprus (talk • contribs)

I erased the collage on my user page.

It just burns you up that I avoided being indefinetly booted doesn't it? I want to let you know that every single edit that I make on wikipedia, every one, is a way of me saying in your face, ha, ha. I won, and you lost. Despite your best efforts, I am still on wikipedia. Travb (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see user:Duk's page. Please unwatch my user page, please quit wikistalking me, if you are. Please lets go my seperate way. Whether you like it or not, I will continue to be an editor on wikipedia. You have no say in this. Under the circumstances, your actions maybe considered harrasment, especially considering that I have not edited fair use or any of the pages relating to fair use, as per the agreement that I would be unblocked.

In addition, you are selectively focusing on me for fair use rules, ignoring others. This shows your action, under the circumstances, are not done in WP:GF, but instead to punish a user who you have had agruments with in the past. Travb (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this article Mario 64 really a featured article? Because it doesn't seem anywhere near as good as others that have a featured article tag.--150.203.2.85 06:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jkelly, Sorry for the late reply - been out of town.

I've left a note with Travb as requested and will re-impose Cyde's block if there are any more problems with fair use. --Duk 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again about this, but it doesn't look like 200.138.194.254 (talk · contribs) has made any effort to make sure his/her edits to song and album titles are in compliance with the MoS, or discuss them with other editors; see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Extraordinary Machine 13:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've asked him/her to stop editing in violation of the MoS; I think if (s)he does an edit like that again, the IP should probably be blocked again. I'm not sure for how long though, and this is just my opinion. If (s)he contravenes the MoS after the block expires, then I think an RFC is (unfortunately) the next logical step. Extraordinary Machine 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! (I didn't want to create a new section for this in case it cluttered up your talk page.) Hmm...like I've said elsewhere, I'm worried about breaking something accidentally, but hopefully that won't happen. Extraordinary Machine 23:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I noticed your comment on Talk:I Still Believe, and I was wondering if you could take a look at the article Number 1's (Mariah Carey album) (the album Carey's version of the song was recorded for) and leave a comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Number 1's (Mariah Carey album)/archive1? You don't have to, but I really want to make sure I haven't missed anything. Extraordinary Machine 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've taken a look at the Aradia article; it's really good. Also, on an unrelated note, please take a look at this edit to Dangerously in Love 2 :(. Extraordinary Machine 15:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, You have put a temporary ban on my account, please remove it, as my account was hacked into whilst I was on holiday.

a swift reply would be very much appreciated.

Joshuarooney—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.42.228 (talk • contribs)

I would like to complain about your rudeness towards me when you banned me.

I am going to enquire about having your adminship revoked.

--Joshuarooney2006 12:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already made one for Greeks - Image:Greeks.JPG - I was waiting for the other two to be deleted (might as well keep them in the article for as long as possible). Mine has the obvious flaw that it has no one from our (or the previous) century. --Tēlex 10:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

JKelly, That image was freely available from Comedy Central and I edited the image to provide VALID fair use description AND put the proper License tag on it. I even worked with another admin (Triddle) to make sure that I fixed it properly. Your unilateral decision to delete the image and revert the article was uncalled for. Looking at the comments below it looks like you do this sort of thing on a regular basis I guess I will need to bring this to someones attention --Argash 17:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just been reviewing the Featured Article criteria, and I reckon Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches would be a very worthy candidate. Well done! Fuzzypeg☻ 21:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jkelly - you welcomed me here once and invited me to discuss an article I first looked at. I guess now I'm requesting that you take another look :)

Please could you pop along to talk:witchcraft (to the "Famous witches in history" section)to review and discuss recent additions by an anonymous user. Crimsone 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The image Image:Arecibo.arp.750pix.jpg is "courtesy of the NAIC - Arecibo Observatory, a facility of the NSF" according to the Arecibo site, the image's source. The NSF is a US government agency, doesn't that make the image public domain? —mercuryboard^talk 00:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say that that photo has "no rationale." In my opinion, as far as capturing his persona, it's about as perfect an illustration of Allin as any other. --Birdmessenger 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm slow. You were referring to copyright issues. Sorry.--Birdmessenger 18:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure! In both topics it was suggested that there would be some exclusions for Fair use. In the first one, people (note that I wasn't one of them, I was the one who brought the discussion to there) kept putting a Fair use image of PlayStation 3 because, according to them, the free available was "obsolete". The discussion brought some interesting points:

1. If the free image was extremely obsolete, it could be justified to use a Fair use image until a free one is available (FUC #1: No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.).
2. If the changes between the up to date fair use image and the free image are small, the free image can be used, adding a caption explaining the differences with the up to date one.

In the second case, the PlayStation Portable picture was a free one. Apparently the user took it while lying on his knees. A user thought the free image was offensive material, and replaced the Free image with a Fair use one. The discussion was brought to the Fair use talk page, where it was pointed that:

1. If free images are available, but the current one is "offensive", the image could be removed from the article until a "less offensive" free image is uploaded.
2. If possible, the free image can be edited to remove the offensive part (the applied solution).

I believe these four points are good to spread, since images are uploaded by casual users who think their image is better than the current one (especially when replacing a free image with a promotional one). Note that I am one of those who believe free images have the highest priority in Wikipedia (in fact, I was the one who kept reverting the promotional PS3 image with the free one, and the promotional PSP image with the "offensive" one). However, I also believe the workarounds must be explained for users who are not likely to ever drop in the WP:FAIR page unless they are informed their images are going to be deleted. -- ReyBrujo 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So do I. But uploading and keeping images in Wikipedia (at least for some time) is easy, just upload an image and select a license. Thus, new users are likely to upload images shortly after doing some typo and grammar fixes. And new users (and probably long standing ones) do not know there are certain requirements to qualify for Fair use (look all the discussion with the screenshots in lists, in example). I am usually tempted to use "Uploading images to Wikipedia isn't that easy" in summaries when warning a user with a {{nosource}} or {{nolicense}} tag, but I have (so far, I believe) resisted the temptation. Our best alternative is informing in talk pages (being that the article or the user's) why the image has been removed. Templates do not really work. Have you noticed that {{Image source}} tells users to tag images with {{Fair use in}}, and even gives an example about how to do it? So, a user who had not selected a license when uploading will just copy the example when warned. He only learns that, by adding that magic line, the image will stay at Wikipedia. There must be several thousands images that have that generic tag when they could be using a more specific one. And while the rationale of a image tagged as {{screenshot}} could be generic, the rationale behind {{Fair use in}} depends on the user who has uploaded the image. I am betting over half have no rationale.

Thus, while I agree we must stay as free as possible, and we must eliminate fair use images that are only decorative, etc, I believe we must also teach what little we know. In example, after seeing the images being used as decorative,^[7] I posted a small note about them.^[8] And in a couple of hours, all those images had disappeared.^[9] Sure, they ended in another article, but at least every character gets more than just a single line of text and the image as list pointer. If they don't react, I would go ahead and remove them by hand. But I like giving them the opportunity of doing the right thing. That is why I believe discussions like the ones I pointed out in AN are very useful, even though their contents may be already known by many of us. -- ReyBrujo 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello again; I just wanted to draw your attention to the discussion at Talk: Stephen Harper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Harper#Free_Use_permits_use_of_copyrighted_photo_.22for_effect.22

I've reverted the photo that you earlier blocked me for, but wanted to do you the courtesy of explaining why. It is a good faith edit based on my re-examination of the Wikipedia rules that were posted in that discussion. If you read through the discussion on the talk page, I am confident that you will reach the same conclusion as myself and User:JGardiner have, that a "fair use" studio portrait does not neccesarily HAVE to be replaced by a poorly composed "free" image - the discussion there goes into the reasons in detail. Please contact me directly if you still have an issue with this as I am quite keen on building consensus, but in this case, the proposed changes by "Rob" were, in my opinion, increasingly (no doubt inadvertently) insulting to the subject matter. Thanks for continuing to perform the difficult job of helping administer this site.Michael Dorosh 04:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You've reverted my pages often enough for me, so I'm glad to get the chance to repay you! By the way, I saw your message at User talk:Musical Linguist/Photos, and I have a question for you. A few years ago, I did a Pâtisserie course at the Cordon Bleu School in Paris. Each day, we had a demonstration, a practical, and a demonstration, or a practical, a demonstration, and a practical. In the demonstration classes, Chef would make a few stunning-looking (and tasting) gâteaux, and we'd be allowed to photograph them at the end of class, before tasting. Each of those class would be followed by a practical, where we would have to produce one or two of the cakes, under Chef's supervision. At the end of each practical, we'd photograph our own cakes. I still have all the photos, and am particularly fond of a frog that Chef made out of marzipan. Now, obviously, my own products don't look as wonderful as Chef's. We were under a huge amount of pressure during the classes, with Chef shrieking "vite, vite, vite, vite" all the time. Also, Chef's cakes were put onto plates and made ready for photography, whereas my own (croissants, etc.) were often just photographed while still on the wire tray. Do I own the photos I took of Chef's cakes, or does he? I'd love to upload some of them onto Wikipedia. Any ideas? Cheers. AnnH ♫ 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As you can see, I've uploaded the frog photo. I'd love to say I made the frog myself, but that was so advanced that we weren't even asked to try it! Chef did a rabbit as well, but it would probably be overdoing it a bit to upload that as well, especially as the marzipan article isn't long enough or significant enough to have multiple images. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 00:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that'll be the first article we're not bitching too much about! :-) :NikoSilver: 22:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

howdy! i have another one for you - would you be so kind as to please move "Karma Chameleon (single)" to "Karma Chameleon"? I get the dreaded error when I try to do it myself. Please and thank you! -- eo 11:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my post, many free use images have now been moved to Commons. If you look at images used in pages, most are free: free use images are used much more frequently than fair use images (thank God!). The last survey I saw put the figure as high as 97% of images visible on Wikipedia pages as free use (this figure counts image uses, not image files). In other words, deleting every fair use image (which I don't advocate) would only reduce WP's illustration by 3%. --Physchim62 (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you take a look at User:209.184.113.254, which you previously warned? They are making very strange edits that are quite counterproductive. Qutezuce 22:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This user has continued to make the same kind of edits after the warnings given. Qutezuce 21:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Since it's wiki'd, I don't care about the change - but you'll find that a large number of Wikipedia users don't know North America is a continent. Debates on the issue rage across a few pages - the one I know best is Use of the word American, but there are others ... just FYI WilyD 00:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Dorosh keeps belittling me in his comments on the Stephen Harper page. What do you suggest I do. I think I can't assume good faith any longer. -- Jeff3000 17:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

--Wikindian 15:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jkelly, could you help me in solving an endless dispute that appears to have erupted in Rotary International, between an editor very critical of Rotary, User:PierreLarcin2, and the other editors. What's worst are the tones of the dispute, that blatantly violate WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I've tried to convince User:PierreLarcin2 to refrain from personal attacks and rudeness, and it was all useless, and I don't feel it would be correct to use my new admin powers as I don't feel to be fully neutral on the issues, and reverted some of Pierre's edits a few weeks ago. Could you help me solving the problem?--Aldux 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

days ago i put up an image of MJ from 1983 (the one currently added to the page) and it was continuously edited by Crestville and another user. the reason given was that it's "wiki policy" to use the most current image of a figure for the user page.

however you added a picture of MJ from 1984...and you yourself are an ADMIN.

so does any such policy exist? i'd like to know. Drmagic 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You may not know that one, so I'm thinking I won't get it stuck in your head like the others. Please O Wise Administrator Dude, would you move This Is The House to This Is the House? I am unable to as someone already screwed it up. Please and thank you in advance. -- eo 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly- i left some very rude and uncalled-for comments on your page several days ago, and I am sorry for it. I will be dedicating my "wikipedial" time to a clinc for vandals who are willing to change along with User:GangstaEB and i lokk forward to working with you in a possitive sense in the future.Betty Yves 04:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a question. If there is a freely-liscensed image, and a copyrighted picture with all the information of where the image was found, why use the free use image? The copyright image looks better. (Example the The Edge (U2) Page.) I had a image up there and you replaced it with a free use image. The original looked better and you could see what he looked like.

--koolgiy 17:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it was a minor edit while reading... I am not confused about what it means. Britain may refer to many things but the usage of just the word 'Britain' is more common. Perhaps 'The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' would do...or maybe not?. 'Britain' should suffice in that article. I hope you are not confused by my explanation. Thank You. Raymond Fogarty 02:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert my image change? I explained on the talk page why the image change was made, and I don't understand what your explanation of "(rv to rm image about to be deleted)" means. My change was valid and I'd like your reasoning please. Pacian 15:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if the use of a still image from a television show is not within fair use, why is there a pre-entered selection for "capture from TV show" within the list of potential image explanations? The image I used was COMPLETELY acceptable, even within the rules lain out in the link you provided. I am at a loss to understand your reasoning. Just because an image is a capture from a T.V. show does not mean it is inadequate as a photographic representation of another subject. If that were the case, I can list well over a thousand other articles with unacceptable images, starting with Lisa Whelchel. Pacian 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you checked the signing of my posts on the R.I. talk page. I noticed that you are an administrator. The fact that the IP is used to sign is some bug. I sign on on french wiki , I come on the English wiki ALWAYS WITH SIGN ON, and sometimes I "loose my signon", which means that I am forced to re-sign-on multiple times. If you check my talk pages modifications, you will notice that I modify sometimes just the ip signature by an IP signature. So I did just a few minutes ago, then noticed with surprise that you gunned me with "THE SOURCING on the Rotarian facts - +unsigned)". Well no, do not be afraid, it is just a bug. I always sign. Let me just the time to correct. By the way, I have sight problems and viewers, it is not always possible to verify immediately a fault or an omission.

I have a few questions :

• 1/ I would like to know where your interest was attracted on that Talk Page. Thank you.
• 2/ Since monthes, [we are two here working on that, and this edit war is REALLY time consuming sometimes] we receive blanking attacks from User : Bridesmill.

Recently, he reverted and blanked a list of conferencemakers who gave conferences at the Rotary, four times. He did that on Rotary International wiki on

• 14 JUN 16:19
• 15 JUL 16:00
• 15 JUL 16:10
• 15 JUL 16:33

We think it is a violation of the Wiki laws. Would you be so kind to check that, and if possible, to give him [or us if you find so] a sanction ? We think it is better to block him for a few days. The evident multiple revert he has done is documented in the Talk page. Thank you. Best regards. PierreLarcin2 20:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A last remarks : I contacted 'Angela' (who resigns from Wiki) several monthes ago about the problem of wiki fiddling on Rotary. I asked on her advice a Request for Comment. BridesMill even continued the edit war in the RfC itself. Here is the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society%2C_law%2C_and_sex&diff=59706683&oldid=59682811

Please note that I placed THREE RfC's (on 3 subjects : religion, politics and society), that Bridesmill modified just one of them, the two others staying with details, and that I will re-define them on tomorrow, as I need more advice on that before asking, as promised an Arbitration. For the moment I have a Mediation proposal deponed on BridesMill page. Have a good night. I go to sleep now. PierreLarcin2 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that on each occasion I removed this very biased list, I requested that if PiereLrcin wished such a list it would need citation and balance; his response was to ignore the request and simply replace. I am personally not sure of the next step here; we obviously have some significant differences in understanding of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:POV. Your input would be appreciated.Bridesmill 00:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Additionally, while PL appears to believe I am a Rotarian 'agent' of some sort, I first started appearing at that article precisely becuase of one of the abovementioned RfC.Bridesmill 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I've added a fair use rationale to this image. Not to hot on image licensing, is this right? If not could you offer some advice please? Thanks -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'm not bothering you with my song title move requests  :-\ ...can ya please move Blinded By The Light to Blinded by the Light for me? I'm unable to due to blah blah blah. Thanks yet again! -- eo 07:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite true, quite true... Bulgarians do speak Slav. Propably should start editing the text with more time at my hands. But perhaps you could do it for me...

Problem is that as it is the second part of opening phrase does seem to make sense.

"The Macedonians today live in the Republic of Macedonia; there are minority communities in Greek Macedonia with their own dialect and history but where the overwhelming majority consists of Greeks (who are also known as Macedonians in the region), as well as in Albania and Bulgaria."

So what kind of minority communities exist in Greece, Bulgaria, and Albania??? Are their ethnic, linquistic, cultural, religious, large , small, selfaware? Does the overwhelming majority of the community members consist of people who define themselves as Greeks? Or do they consider themselves something else in contradiction to Greeks. And what does the poet mean by saying "as well as in Albania and Bulgaria". Do all these apply there also? I am sure the Greeks would be more than happy to here that! Greek majority everywhere.

And what about is this different history... Saying something like that should require some serious refferences to back you up!!!! This is erroneus and pure speculation . I can prove it just by quoting the rest of the article in several passages. Same goes of course for other lines in the text. Who put that there??

Am i not entitle to change this passage? May i ask the reason? Does it seem perfect perhaps?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Haas K. D. (talk • contribs)

I added a source for Image:JeanTalon.jpg --Dennis Fernkes 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Source: Musée de la civilisation

I guess I have no opinion on what else to do. This copyright tagging has grown so big, I don't have a clue as to how to handle it. --Dennis Fernkes 11:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm still having a hard time understanding coyright on images. Would you mind looking at two cases for me? This is from the CDC - how can I be sure that is public domain? Image:Tourettecollage.jpg

And I can't tell if the images in Asperger syndrome, which is an FA currently in FARC [10], are in the clear. I'm sorry to trouble you with a personal request, but the legalities in images go right over my head. If you have time, thanks, Sandy 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'll paste the AS comments on that talk page, but the tourette collage is for me, on Tourette syndrome. It is the only image having to do with TS I could find in the public domain, so I went with it. I didn't realize we could create our own: can I ask someone to do that? I just want something colorful on the article, to offset all the pictures of the old men. Sandy 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again (steep learning curve ahead :-) Sandy 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There's an editor over at the Jonny Quest article who insists the article needs four images to illustrate the first few shots of that show's closing-credits sequence (which, by the way, are leftovers from a scrapped Hanna-Barbera Jack Armstrong pilot). After posting the policy about fair use images, and the idea of keeping their nubmers down (and therefore avoiding fair use galleries), it doesn't seem this fellow understands what I'm talking about. I hate to have to resort to moderation for something as silly as this, but...can you help us resolve this dispute, please? --FuriousFreddy 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that 5 days ago you marked Image:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg for deletion because there is no source information? I would appreciate it, if you would follow normal practice, and have left me a message at that time, rather than simply tagging the image, where few would notice it.

I must confess I'm not clear, nor have I found information, on how one is supposed to source an image. Given that that the photograph is clearly well over 100 years old, and obviously outside of copyright, I marked it as such originally, and thought that would suffice. Can you point me towards information on how source data should be presented, and I will gladly do so? Nfitz 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I notified the most recent uploader here. I note that the image remains improperly sourced; there is nothing at the URL given about this image. Jkelly 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That user is apparently inactive; all he did is resize the image a little. I did add source information to image as to where it came from. They have reorganized their catalogue since I originally obtained the image, and I can't find it again, but I can verify that it was there when I originally obtained it, and it was shown to be outside of copyright at that time. Nfitz 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been having a rather difficult time convincing a couple of users not to add material to Pentagram that has nothing to do with pentagrams. I feel like I'm arguing with a brick wall, because they're supplying little in the way of evidence, and not entering into proper discussion; it's very hard to argue with someone who won't actually explain what their point of disagreement is. I have tried to gather the debate back into one place (it was scattered all over the place) and list all the evidence supplied for both points of view. It should be much easier to assess the debate now. I'm hoping they'll either leave the article alone or discuss things rationally. I've asked them not to add the material back unless they give supporting statements at Talk:Pentagram#Are five-pointed stars pentagrams?.

Could you please just have a look in there once in a while and make sure it's a discussion rather than a revert-war? I'll need to ask for arbitration if this keeps going on, but I've never done that before... Any suggestions about how I could handle this better would also be appreciated. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 06:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You can probably imagine how frustrated I was getting! Fuzzypeg☻ 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding your comments when I said, "Reverting Fuzzy's vandalism - A =five pointed star is a pentagram," that was not a personal attack. I was describing the action, and not the person.

Despite Fuzzypeg's protestations, he has refused to compromise on this, despite numerous sources and valid arguments. I take personal offense that out of nowhere you accuse me of 'personal attacks.' if fuzzy is frustrated, maybe he should go back and look at the facts, "a five pointed star is a pentagram." The information presented on that page is wholly appropriate. Fuzz's continual reversals are not. --evrik 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Clarification of FUC#8 for a larger discussion. You will find it here: Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. What you won't find is Ed g2s announcing his amendment on that page, which to me is him acting in bad faith because he cannot argue his way to his definition of the very subjective term "decorative." Cburnett 22:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you've been listed as an editor here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 Pentagram vs. Five-Point Star. If you'd like to participate, you are more than welcome. SynergeticMaggot 05:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

On your earlier suggestion: yes, it's about time. See particularly this (making much play of a misinterpretation of the word hustler). I perhaps should not do it as I'm now perceived as part of the problem. I note that He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research whereas it's the vigorous ("aggressive") attempt to pump up the significance of peripheral and tabloidy information, of course for peripheral and tabloidy purposes. Given ten days a week, I might investigate more of what he "cites"; when I did look at one article in the Guardian, I found he mischaracterized it. Cluebat time? -- Hoary 06:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, can you pleeeze move the following articles back to "(song)"? Thanks! -- eo 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speed of Sound (single)
• Clocks (single)
• Yellow (single)

You said on my talk page:

Per your probation arrangement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone, you are hereby banned for two monthes from Elvis Presley. When this band expires, please begin a practice of asking other editors to review your contributions for you in order to help you avoid creating new narratives in articles and to avoid lapsing into idiosyncratic readings of source material.

I do not understand why I have been banned from the Elvis Presley page for such a long period of time. Could you explain to me what was wrong with my contributions? I have always cited my sources. Would you please list below some examples of my contributions which you think were not in line with my probation arrangement. Thank you. On the other hand, other users such as Lochdale have included false information in the Presley article. What about this user? Onefortyone 18:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Jkelly, I am not satisfied with your commentary on my talk page. You said:

Hi. Regarding your question, I'd like to begin by pointing out that "other users such as Lochdale" do not have a history of derailing the article that stretches back to 2005 and has been the subject of an ArbCom case, and are not on probation.

This user has undoubtedly included false information in the article (see [11], [12], [13]) and frequently deleted whole paragraphs I have written which were well-sourced. This is not acceptable.

The entire point of our laborious dispute resolution process is to get to a place in which normal article editing can proceed. What has been happening at the Elvis Presley article, and to a lesser degree at Talk:Elvis Presley is that all attention has been on your adding content to lead a reader to conclusions that Presley was incestuous or homosexual.

No, this is not true. Most parts of the relationships section, several parts of which are also from my pen, deal with Elvis's relationships with women. Claims which support the view that Elvis may have had an incestuous relationship with his mother and a sexual affair with Nick Adams are only mentioned in passing in this section. Some additional information is partly given in the footnotes, where the sources are cited. But I think this is necessary in order to support the contributions.

The ArbCom remedy specifically mentions violations of WP:NOR, which itself discusses the creation of new narratives -- precisely what you have been engaged in by cherry-picking quotes.

Quoting from different independent sources is fully in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. Would you please provide evidence that my quotations are wrong. In most cases I have given the exact page numbers. Lochdale is the user who has deliberately included fabricated material.

If you are genuinely confused about what the problem is, all I can do is to point you to what I suggested above; accept that your editing at Elvis Presley has been meeting with strong resistance for close to a year now, accept that your behaviour continues to lead other editors to believe that the situation is unresolvable except through ArbCom sanctions, and commit to proposing changes to other editors instead of editing the article directly.

Sorry, you haven't provided evidence that my contributions are not well sourced. As far as I can see I am the only editor who has contributed to many different topics (Elvis's youth, Elvis and Colonel Tom Parker, Elvis's movies, his relationships, his drug abuse, the allegations of racism, the FBI files, etc. etc) and who has frequently cited his sources. If somebody else would like to include further material, he may do so. But he/she should also cite his/her sources.

I'd suggest using the next two months to try out such a system. Jkelly 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think that it is a good idea that only Elvis fans should contribute to the article. This is no good idea. Onefortyone 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jkelly: Hello there. I'm NicholasTurnbull, one of the mentors from Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee assigned to the Onefortyone mentorship. The user has recently left me a talk page message requesting assistance regarding your ban of the user from editing the Elvis Presley article. I have read your notice under the "Blocks and bans" section of the arbcom case page, but I am, alas, somewhat in the dark about exactly what happened, and would like to work towards some sort of compromise whereby the ban could be lifted in exchange for Onefortyone not carrying out the behaviour which lead to his banning from the article. I would be most grateful if you could answer the following questions for me:

• What was the specific nature of Onefortyone's actions that violated his probation - as in, what did he do that was wrong?
• In order for me to advise Onefortyone on how to improve his behaviour, what could he do to avoid being banned for the same reason?
• Which edits (diffs if possible), or issues of contentious editing, were the cause of him being banned from the page.
• The note on the arbcom page references the concerns of other users, but not the specific edits that were in violation of his probation. Do you think you might be able to add diffs to your entry to aid those trying to remedy the issue?
• Would you be prepared for me to coordinate some sort of agreement with Onefortyone to cease performing the actions that caused him to be banned from the article, in exchange for lifting the article ban?

I am most grateful for your assistance, and I thank you very much. Also, if I can be of any assistance regarding Onefortyone, please do let me know. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 16:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It happens all the time. Posting as an anon is a really good way to see how "the other half lives" so I do it often. :) (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 21:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me to restore that page "Sapphire (astral projection writer)" for me?

Much appreciated! Or what else should I do to retore it?

Sapphire—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphire (AP witer) (talk • contribs)

---

Your words:

"Hi. I want to make sure that you understand what I wrote here. Wikipedia articles are going to be re-used all over the web, and will be edited by other editors. Are you comfortable with that happening to your writing? Also, Wikipedia:Autobiography has important information to know when creating articles about oneself. You can remove the copyvio notice from the article if you are comfortable with your writing being used commercially and being edited mercilessly. Jkelly 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)"

My answer "absolutely!" if I do not have the courage, I will not be here. Bring it on. :)

Sapphire (AP witer)

---

Please restore it, your name here is more powerful than mine. :)

Sapphire (AP witer)

Hey, Thanks Sapphire (AP witer)

Sorry, I know nothing about the upload or the image. Probably a misalignment in a list which you were using. --Ancheta Wis 06:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I clicked on the version with my name on it to discover that version is a cropped picture of Elvis with a US president, taken from Wikipedia. But the current one I know nothing about. --Ancheta Wis 12:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you've recently edited Wikipedia talk:No original research. User talk:01001 seems to be grinding an axe about OR (with regards to Talk:Fox News Channel controversies), on Wikipedia talk:No original research and elsewhere. This user recently had a bunch of OR edits to Human height reverted [14], whereupon he (nine minutes later) deleted a paragraph [15] explaining on the talk page that "it is OR" [16] because he felt that a study cited in the paragraph (published in American Journal of Epidemiology) did not accurately support the statement being made (generalizing childhood disease effects to the general population). It seems that this editor has a thing about OR and V, and I suspect his deletions are a WP:POINT. In any case I restored the four sentence paragraph, with a bit of rewrite, and added two more published papers (each sentence in the section now supported by a seperate reference), and he reverted again, deleting the entire section [17] with the complaint that the one reference was off the point. His complaint is off the point, and he clearly hasn't read the text he reverted. Pete.Hurd 06:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jkelly: Thank you very much for your clear explanation to me on your end of the editing dispute; you've shed a lot of light on the reasoning behind what happened, and having reviewed the situation I think your implementation of the ban on Onefortyone editing the article was correct, as I've told Onefortyone in response. Also, thank you for requesting Hoary to provide his end of the events; his explanation was greatly useful to me in piecing together an analysis. I've done quite a large (essay-length) investigation on the matter in response to Onefortyone, here (diff); your opinion on what I've written to Onefortyone would be greatly appreciated. Should Onefortyone have any further issues relating to this matter, you can always direct him to me, since I am meant to be his mentor regarding the arbcom case. In the course of looking into the matter, it seems to me that it may be a good idea to ban Lochdale (talk · contribs) from editing the article in a similar manner to Onefortyone as this user has engaged in similarly fixated editing, performing a cursory glance at contribs, and as per arbcom precedent users engaged in fixated editing on articles may be banned from the article (such as in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair) - it would also be fairest, I think, in the light of Onefortyone's ban. I would greatly appreciate your input on this. Once again, many thanks for your assistance; if I can be of any service to you in this matter, please let me know. Peace, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The redirect of Dsamun to DSAMUN looks right from the point of view of a correct acronym, but the second article doesn't exist. The redirect should probably either be reverted or the old text should be copied to DSAMUN. RainbowCrane 06:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I myself was very confused about the copywrite issues regarding images so I can understand how Phaedriel could be as well...given that this was obviously a simple mistake and she has now made corrections to the most recent questioed image upload, some latitude is in order. I can see little reason to expect us to know every in and out of Wikipedia and it's policies, and I can assure you that the chance that a perfectionist like Phaedriel is going to err again with an image upload tag or whether it qualifies as fair use again is about zero.--MONGO 18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hum, yes I see...she asked me to help her via email, but honestly, I am still a bit baffled by the copywrite issues...so after I messed up monumentally over at commons when I added images there a long time ago, I decided that for me, the only images I was going to upload were ones I had taken myself or those from the Federal Government that are clearly within the public domain. I directed her to talk to those that fully understand our copywrite regs and if you think you can aide her in developing a better understanding of the regs then that would be great.--MONGO 18:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear J, since I have MONGO's page on my watchlist, I couldn't help but to notice your comment. I contacted both him and Kimchi regarding the image issues, and as I told them, I am truly sorry about the mistakes I made in that sense. Just like M comments above, the matter is one that I must familiarize myself with extensively. As of now, I've decided not to upload pictures that aren't unmistakably PD-old. And still in that case, I intend to ask more experienced users in the matter like Kimchi, or you if you wish to help me, just to make sure I'm not mistaking. Uploading pics is not my forte, other areas are; and I strongly have promised, like I do to you now, not to take one more step in that direction without proper guidance. I hope this helps - I'm truly very super sorry :( Regards, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 18:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, dear J, and just like I've taken every commitment I've made here with utmost seriousness, you can count on me doing the same with this. I swear to you that I've never taken the image issue lightly, you may see that I always took the time to tag them with the license I honestly believe to be correct, and provided a source (well, maybe at one of my very very early uploads I messed up badly :( But it's still pretty clear that I have things to learn in that matter. I'd be delighted to ask for your help, if you don't mind having this silly girl knocking at your back door everytime I need to upload something... :) Thank you for your trust and confidence in me, dear J - it means a lot to me. Big hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 19:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you undid my change on CSD... Sorry for making that in error, but I'm pretty confused now. This is the response I was referring to - [18]. But more than that one other person was also wrong, it just seems that images in that category aren't being deleted. Also, the bot that puts images there claims it does not mark anything for deletion, which would not be true if that category does so. If it is a CSD, what is the need for the other category to be separate? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What I was confused about his response was not thinking that licence-less images couldn't be deleted, it was that he said they had to be tagged with {{nld}} in order for it to happen, which is not the tag on pages in that category. Also, that that category has much more backlog than the other (nld-placing) category (which still seems identical to me, just differently worded), making it seem like the images were not being deleted after 7 days. I do understand that none of it is done automatically, hence the delay, I was just confused why one category was so much behind the other, while both seemed like simple CSD (ie, "It has a tag, it's been 7 days, hit delete") - is there something that must be done to those in the more backed up one that isn't done to the others, that is causing a larger backlog? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well, that makes me feel like I'm not missing something obvious anyway. One last question (not that it is entirely relevant to me now, but I would like to do admin-work at some time in the future), is it correct to say that images in either category (and tagged for over 7 days) could simply be deleted at any time, such as just going through the category deleting, or is there something else that must be done first? Of course, an attempt to find a proper licence first would be good, but apart from that, is there anything? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. Also, I suppose (without counting, just a guess) that the category the bot uses is probably much more populated simply because it is a bot, leading to the longer backlog. Anyway, thanks for the help. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you're an experienced admin, I wanted to ask your opinion on acting with a banned user, User:Iasson, the classic troll. This editor creates an incredible amount of socks, many of which create new articles, inserting maliciously false sourcing and mixing true and false to make more difficult to detect wrong info. What do you think I should do, delete the article he creates, and remove the "info" he adds to articles? And do you have any idea what I can do to stop this moltiplication of socks? It's wearing me a bit down, I must admit.--Aldux 11:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, and lets hope I don't end getting blocked! ;-)--Aldux 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well 1) He is blocked 2) Why is he editing i he is blocked. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well ed edited the page (see the history) after the block began. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at the 3RR backlog please?   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

At least in Bulgaria the issue still remains. I'll check on the other aticle. Thanks for responding.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no self-reverts in Macedonism that I can see. My report remains unchanged. Also look at the persistent edit warring on Bulgars, Republic of Macedonia and History of Communist Bulgaria   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Some patterns of behaviour for that user should be established.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That must have been part of the new Greek background establishement, to differentiate from the prior Romania-fixation.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid patronizing me. The tag was clearly put in as a result of the prior assertion that my edit was less POV. It is difficult to WP:AGF when such tags are added to a particular sentence, especially when so many more outrageously uncited assertions in the article purportedly pass muster w/o the faintest hint of controversy. My calling your tagging that sentence "trolling" is a reflection of my view that you are far more interested in maintaining the one-sided view portrayed by the article [please review WP:NPOV], than a personal attack (you might do well to review WP:TROLL and WP:NPA as well, in light of your fallacious assertion). Trying to beat me over the head with threats of "blocking" for characterizing your clearly POV citereq tag as "trolling", does more to demonstrate that you are being incivil and indimidating, than any other goal you hoped to accomplish. If you're really interested in getting citations for every statement made in the article, perhaps you should add citation requests all over the place...or perhaps you'd be better served, as would the Project as a whole, by doing a quick google search, as I did, and adding in citations yourself. What you've done instead, is waste both of our time, with the only apparent purposes being (1) to maintain a clearly POV assertion in the article by implying that it was unsupportable and (2) attempting to intimidate me with empty threats for pointing out the lameness of your citation request. If you're actually interested in contributing constructively to the Project, instead of acting like a policy wonk and slapping citereq tags on sentences you don't like, why not expend your efforts on actually improving the article? Seriously, what do you think you have gained by either adding the tag or by attempting to verbally brutalize and demean me? Tomer^talk 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, in light of the preceding discussion and your contributions on Talk:An Inconvenient Truth, you have, in my book lost any remotely legitimate claim of impartiality or the ability to act as a NPOV editor with this edit. Tomer^talk 06:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Until you can desist from your denigration of my character as a means of vainglorious support for your comments and actions, I must request that you desist from commenting on my talk page. Thanks for your coöperation, and good night. Tomer^talk 09:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification. I appreciate it very much. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Woops! Thanks for pointing that out. I had forgotten about that. Re-reading the policy on 3RR, I see we also include a provision about reverting edits in your own user space. Johntex\^talk 17:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• There is obviously disagreement on what the intent of the policy is, so let's clarify it. I have proposed a policy clarification on use of sports team logos at Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. Johntex\^talk 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jkelly, on the RfC, I see you already have your second endorsement, which is good. I think Mathew did get carried away. I need some time to think about whether I can support your sumary or whether I want to offer an outside view that is generally supportive of your assertion that Mathew got carried away. Johntex\^talk 20:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I have now offered the outside opinion. I had touble phrasing my thoughts succinctly, but I hope the general idea comes across. Johntex\^talk 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The image Image:Phycobilisome structure.jpg does have a fair use rationale attached to it. Here it is:

Here is the address of this work so administrators and users can check the copyright notice:

http://www-cyanosite.bio.purdue.edu/images/images.html

This is what is written on the website with regard to image use:

The images in this gallery are uncopyrighted freeware and are provided for educational purposes. Please contact the webmaster before using any of these images in a published work. A policy for image usage has been established. Images from Cyanosite have appeared in many publications including textbooks, review articles, and news reports. The images also have been used for presentations and museum exhibits worldwide.

More specific information is available at the site's image use policy page.

I believe the image is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia.

I want it to be used with too different articles though. Is this allowed under the fair use terms? If not can you delete the links on the two associated articles [19] [20] and ”freeze” or delete the image until we can reach an agreement. Thanks. Miller 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The original licence agreement says they are not copyrighted, a contrast to the fair use template which claims that they are copyrighted. Do you think I should switch to free licence or uncopyrighted of some other kind? Miller 18:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I will immediately contact the webmaster and ask for permission. I will contact you if and when I get a response. Do you wish to leave the image in place until then? Miller 18:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You want to remove it for me then. Miller

Hi Jkelly, I just wanted to know if I could ask you some other questions concerning dealing with banned users. Would it be right to delete immediately articles created by checkuser ascertained socks of permanenently banned users? And in the case of socks I or others banned without passing threw checkuser, because their identity was obvious, would it be right to delete, or should I bring them all (dozens of acounts) to checkuser?--Aldux 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll do as you say and inform the AN of the issue. And Grazie mille! :-)--Aldux 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not joking or experimenting you are in the wrong i demand an appology and adress me properly i am an earl. Roger the fourth earl of lower upper north pombensusleby 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's very kind of you! By the way, I'm soon getting an account, I'm just thinking about a nickname.
200.138.194.254 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

On the Dylan page. You know that photo is fair use, and the ^{[citation needed]} tags are just too much. If you would just chill, these things will be addressed. JDG 04:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Added in response: You're so in the wrong, Mr. K. But I bow to your power as a functionary. In fact, I'm done with the Dylan article. See you. JDG 04:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent work enforcing wp:fu and helping to make wp free —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.128.174 (talk • contribs)

Greetings JKelly! Regarding this recent edit, I believe the image you removed complies with WP:FUC, as it's merely a montage of photos provided here. I think it's the copyright status of the provided image that should be updated. But you surely master the subject way better than yours truly, so I leave it up to you to decide.--88.152.85.85 17:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on Wildlife of North Carolina. Keep up the good work and vigilant patrolling! Nimur 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

might be required at Big Eight Conference, before someone gets in trouble. ed g2s • talk 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Are you subscribed to wikien-l?" - I am now. ed g2s • talk 14:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kelly. I've been having some problems over pictures, both on wiki and the commons, which I think are problematic. Having made some mistakes in how to list them for deletion, I have finally been pointed in the correct direction as how to list them.

However I have had a bit of a bust-up with admin Miborovsky. So he now has it into his head that I am some sort of war crimes denialist that wants to get rid of pictures because I don't like the war crimes allegations or something. On the contrary I know full well what went on, but as a historian I react strongly to "shoddy" research and use of evidence just because it is convenient to make a point, etc. Thus I have called into question a few images. I'll point them out to you as follows:

Image:Body everywhere.jpg
Image:Nanjing ditch.jpg
All Nanjing Massacre pictures (bar "Nanjing Ditch" and "Slayers")
(Both the last two on Deletion requests, Wikipedia Commons)

I think I've explained the reasons why I think they can't be used, bar one which also has no source information at all (Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg on Commons), on the relevant deletion pages. They purport to show Japanese war crimes in Nanjing, yet there is no evidence as to that anywhere on the URL links provided. No author, date, location, etc. I've never said the pictures are fake, more that their actual content is impossible to verify. So how on earth can they be used in articles saying "this happened here", etc?

Any thoughts you have on this would be appreciated. I guess I should have come to you sooner, but I've only ever deleted images via speedy tags before and never had any problems until now. John Smith's 21:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I have stopped using speedy over these pictures recently after the guy above you pointed it out. I even reverted all the tags on commons. The pictures are now listed on both the correct pages on wiki and commons as you said.

But Mib is digging his heels in and doing all he can to oppose deletion under any circumstances. He refuses to acknowledge there can be anything wrong with them.

I wouldn't want to ask you to get involved in this mess, but I'm not sure what else to do. I don't suppose you could throw your two cents in on those deletion pages could you? I'm not asking you to back me up, just give an outside opinion. Thanks, John Smith's 21:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you've already looked at the wikipedia deletion page. Thanks for that. If you have time to look at the commons listing, that would be great too. John Smith's 22:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. John Smith's 22:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This might sound a little rude, but would you be willing to consider changing your vote over Image:Nanjing ditch.jpg vote on the commons? [21] According to this old document, the events in the picture actually took place in Hsuchow, which is a completely different settlement from Nanking/Nanjing. It's a distance of some 300km between the two places. I wanted to ask you before I put this new piece of information up, as to whether you thought it was worth it, etc. John Smith's 23:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Standarised text? Not that I know of. This is a fiercely contested topic, because it has become a "crusade" for so many people, such that even fair comments are often rejected from historical accounts. The main problem is that the most popular book on the subject, written by Iris Chang, had loads of problems regarding photographs. However her fans refuse to accept the criticism so use her book as gospel. It's a bit sad because properly citing photography doesn't mean the massacre never occured.

If the picture is renamed, would you support me in removing it from the Nanking Massacre article? Other editors have tried, but Mib and others often dig their heels in and complain it's ok to use anyway. John Smith's 00:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What are your thoughts about converting the reference templates to use the cite.php system? Punctured Bicycle 23:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Eerie indeed! But I refuse to look at that article, at least for now. I'm celebrating my recent release from a feeling that I had to keep an eye on an article about somebody of huge US middle/lower-brow interest; damned if I'm going to rush into the subject of "dylanology". Still, I learned one interesting thing from my recent and belated reading of a book about EP. Seems that one time back in 1956 or 1957 (yes, those prelapsarian I-like-Ike 1950s), the sweet and docile EP was so frustrated/amused by all the screaming going on (rendering his singing completely inaudible) that he clearly mouthed as his greeting "Fuck you very much." This perlocutionary bombshell also appears in Get Your War On and I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere among these of some interviewer asking David Rees how he came up with it.

Today I celebrated freedom from the EP article by creating Kęstutis Stoškus. I don't think he'll appear in Entertainment Weekly or National Enquirer any time soon, not while their typesetters can't even find the diacritics needed to render his name. So the article's pretty safe. (Incidentally, the book whose cover I scanned is excellent and inexpensive; I bought my copy in Vilnius 11 months ago.) -- Hoary 14:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to Jkelly for his conscientious approach to image copyright issues here on Wikipedia, and for taking on the very unpleasant and thankless job of trying to enforce our policy, but without resorting to bullying or to trampling on other editors. AnnH ♫ 19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)