User talk:Iamunknown/Archive 4

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you tagged Image:Bono honolulu.jpg with a {{PUIdisputed}} tag. Check the talk page for the image. If you read through it all, it should be clear that although the image is copyrighted, all rights have been released (I contacted the author myself). I've swapped the appropriate tag back in. Let me know if there are any concerns or if I did anything in error. Chupper 20:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! Damn Windows Update made me have to shutdown my computer, and then I got sidetracked. I will re-add them. Cheers. --TV-VCR watch 05:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly needs adding to Image:Disney_Channel_2002.svg to be considered as to have a detailed fair use rationale? I've added a rationale, and have absolutely no idea what else to put on it. Unfortuantely, I only make the occasional edits to Wikipedia and therefore have no idea about detailed fair use rationales (and yes I have read the help pages on it - they made no sense). —The preceding

Thanks for your message. My edit was meant in good humor, as a response to this. I have no problem with Kelly's positions on these issues, and in fact largely agree with them, when it comes to "capitalised gibberish" and RfA thank you notes at least.--ragesoss 03:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply there. Thanks. –Pomte 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just left a help message there. I know this pisses some people off but all I've done is tag images for problems in line with Wikipedia policy! An image must come from somewhere - and it should be sourced. Would have been good if the user that is now reverting all my edits had actually left a message for me first. Madmedea 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre! It didn't warn me there was an edit conflict, and I'm sure I didn't delete the text. I'm sorry about that, if it was somehow my fault it was purely unintentional. Thanks for letting me know it happened, in any case. Komdori 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, we said the same thing anyway :) Now if you'd advocated for protecting, things would be different ;) – Riana_ऋ 04:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your notes. It strikes me I might as well take snapshots of this place myself and upload that. Yeah?

If you are nearby Forchtenberg or can go there over a weekend, that would be great! Please let me know when you upload them, I'd love to see them.  :) --Iamunknown 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I did post on the talk page, but the unregistered user did not respond. I also asked for protection last night. The unregistered user continues to vandalize the Queens College page. I reverted a few times, posted on the talk page, even asked for the page to be protected, but nothing. I don't know what to do next. The warning is unwarranted. Enigmaman 12:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

the vandalism doesn't stop. unregistered user at 208.120.89.146 and 208.120.88.167 continues to ignore everyone and keeps going. Enigmaman 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Enigmaman, I didn't mean to offend you by warning you, I just don't want the situation to escalate into an edit war, so I warned all parties involved. I understand your frustration and I am now watching the page (and just reverted some information). The editor needs to be warned and talked to, though, so that he or she knows that what he or she is doing is not appropriate. If the editor does not comply, I would suggest

third opinion); of course, that requires getting the editor to the talk page first. --Iamunknown

20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I stopped editing after getting your warning. But unless that user's IP is banned, they'll keep doing it. It's a very persistent vandal. Anyway, can I get the warning thing removed from my talk page? It's mildly irritating. Enigmaman 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the uber-late reply; I replied at your talk page. --Iamunknown 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The expression is a shorting of "stands in for" in the same sense that Bob might stand in for Tom in a staff meeting. Thats how I use/read it. ---

I know, it just sounds weird :S, anyways I seem to have forgotten to commit the revision even though I typed it into the edit summary, so I guess I'll just leave it as-is. --Iamunknown 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the sunflower. Regarding help, just keep commenting on images listed there, your comments are always helpful. And yes, I noticed you are not a fan of barnstars, see User:Iamunknown/Barnstar!. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should have one of those anti-barnstar barnstars. :P I certainly like compliments and like giving them (hence the sunflower :-)), but I prefer things to be informal. I must say, however, that I was totally taken aback when you gave me that barnstar, as it was the first one I have ever gotten; thank you. That I marked the page for deletion wasn't necessarily because I dislike barnstars, but was more because I got very stressed out throughout April and thought that I might be able to cut back from Wikipedia (obviously not, though, I'm still here).

Anyways, thank you for the barnstar, and I hope you like your sunflower :-) I'll keep it up at WP:PUI. --Iamunknown 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well..I guess I have an ego, so the sunflower still goes on my userpage. :) For now anyway. Btw, it might be practical to have a statement on your talk that you also respond here. Makes it easier. Also, to make life less stressful on wikipedia (yes, that was sarcasm for sure) have you ever thought of nominating yourself or be nominated for adminship?

Damn, while I was previewing this I got your message. Yes, I did! :) Garion96 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I didn't know you would but I should have suspected it.  :-P I'll add a note to the top of my talk page about my talk page habits. About adminship, thought of it, been asked if I want a nom once, and turned it down. I'd like to help clear backlogs and such (as opposed to create them) but, mainly (besides residual fears of RfA), I have issues in real life that I am trying to manage and I fear that taking on adminship would make said attempts more difficult. So maybe later. In the meantime, I can make more backlogs if you would like!  ;) --Iamunknown 22:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA is not that bad (well...it is but hey), I passed it, so must not be that hard. :) But I understand, I also turned down the first time I was asked, only about 6 months after that I accepted. You simply should do what you want, making backlogs for admins to clean up works too. Garion96 (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can you please explain this edit ? Thanks. --Lysy^talk 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert Betacommand? --Iamunknown 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's not paying attention to what he's doing. He ignored the fair use rationale provided with the image and removed the tag explaining this. I'm surprised you reverted without understanding this. --Lysy^talk 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you reverted without understanding that a separate fair use rationale, separate from the image copyright tag, is required for each use...that basically explains why he tagged the image with {{

no rationale}}. --Iamunknown

20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please can you help me out and explain why a separate fair use rationale is required ? Possibly in a friendly manner. Thanks. --Lysytalk 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Very late reply at Lysy's talk page. --Iamunknown 14:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for removing the fair use images from the

Spread the love! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove

and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by copying this message and posting it their talk page, along with a friendly message.

You made some suggestions for replacing this template with "no copyright holder". Do you know of any bots that can help here? >Radiant< 09:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I'm sorry I somehow missed your note regarding

Template:PD-ThaiGov on my talk page in May. I don't know of any bots, but it looks like you did the tedious replacements yourself; thank you. --Iamunknown

14:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

THanks for that. For some reason that film production seems to have been abandioned - the film then needs to be removed from Snipe's filmography. I have deleted the article but agina much apprecaiation and respect for informing me. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I read

Mattderojas, I'm sorry for the delayed reply, I've replied at Image talk:IONTelevision.png. --Iamunknown 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Did I ever get back to you about this? Is there something that currently needs doing? Jkelly 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) No, (2) I don't know, I am not privy to OTRS e-mails. The last statement left was something like, "It would need a fair use rationale" and, since we don't currently do fair use rationales for articles, I figured it should be left at that. --Iamunknown 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about not getting back to you. We used to use HTML comment tags to include fair use rationales for text in articles. It's not obvious to me that this is actually helpful for editors or for reusers, and we seem to have stopped doing it. I suppose that, in theory, there should be some machine-readable way to do this, per the Board resolution. Jkelly 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that {{

User:Eastmain, who I guess is more patient than I, was kind enough to expand the rationale for Image:Yeongwol.jpg. However, as far as I can tell everything included in Eastmain's rationale was rather obvious from my much shorter explanation.

At any rate, thanks for your efforts in keeping Wikipedia free. Cheers, -- Visviva 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I was misusing the template. --Iamunknown 14:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Laarn how to do wikipedia dates on biographies or stick to stubs! Just stop doing what you know very well is wrong [1] to gain effect, because it makes you appear very stupid.

... actually I didn't know that it was "wrong", still don't think it is "wrong", but I am unwilling to edit war over it, and I'm unsure why you think I am trying "to gain effect" and are so keen to tell me I'm stupid, infantile or whatever insinuation you will come up with next. It is mentioned at

WP:DATE#ISO_date_formats if your interested, but now that I read over that section again, it mentions that anonymous editors and editors who do not have their date preferences set will still see the ISO date format, as opposed to the formatted date. Whatever, Iamunknown

21:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The ISO date format that you introduced is actually standard where I live... but why on earth did you put it into a pre-existing article on a UK topic? This approaches a nuisance edit. It's "wrong" all right, on several levels. Please see the MOS, here: [2], where it says not to use it in ordinary prose at all (even apart from the UK standard business). Bishonen | talk 21:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for parsing that.  :-) I read that section, didn't fully parse it, and assumed it should be used! Is there a specific date style that should be used? Or does one do whatever? (Or should I go back and fully read

WP:DATE?  :-() --Iamunknown

05:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I already left the following on your talk page the last time you tagged this image. If I'm doing something in error, please let me know. Otherwise, please stop tagging this image and read the information below. Chupper 12:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you tagged Image:Bono honolulu.jpg with a {{PUIdisputed}} tag. Check the talk page for the image. If you read through it all, it should be clear that although the image is copyrighted, all rights have been released (I contacted the author myself). I've swapped the appropriate tag back in. Let me know if there are any concerns or if I did anything in error. Chupper 20:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry. Could you send your correspondence with the author to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org? --Iamunknown 17:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

E-mail sent. Chupper 02:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

but try not to do this, Unknown. Just letting these fellows quietly stump back to their caves is good enough :) Cheers mate, – Riana ⁂ 04:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I shouldn't have, and when I saw that you'd replaced my comment, I felt a sinking feeling. I write my vandalism warnings on the fly (w/o templates), so sometimes they get inappropriate. I'll try harder next time to be nice. --Iamunknown 04:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's OK - when I'm doing RCP late at night I have to often try very hard to keep my temper in check ;) I understand. Take care, – Riana ⁂ 04:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh the hypocrisy! Clearly this longstanding issue of why some copyrighted images were allowed with permission and why others weren't wouldn't have been an ongoing issue if you'd been watching the discussions all along.

However, you might want to wait for Jimbo to respond before running off to rid Wikipedia of the euro. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:16, May 22 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of long-standing images issues that need to be resolved, even at the Wikimedia Commons (see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face for an example). I'm not sure I would call it "hypocrisy", because it is my opinion that those who have created these templates and uploaded these images did so in good faith. I don't intend to rid Wikipedia of the euro, but restrictions placed upon other non-free content must also apply to it (which they currently do not).

As for Jimbo, best wishes to get a statement from him, lately he is rather silent (I have his talk page on my watchlist, so I see when he posts). --Iamunknown 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons has very different rules than we do, and by the by I wasn't quite referring to you when I said "oh the hypocrisy". Why not bring everyone who has a real stake in this issue out of the woodwork and deal with all of Category:Currency images and then move on to Category:Flag images? If one tenth of the people who edited regularly on half of the effected pages came out of the woodwork--now that would be fun. And lets face it--those countries could sue us any day. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:37, May 22 2007 (UTC)

The issue I am concerned with is not necessarily law suits (though it is always a concern); you are correct, I doubt a country would sue us for using pictures of their currency. I am concerned that we claim that this content is free when it is in fact not free; currently, all non-free images (which are images which provide neither commercial reuse nor derivative works nor both in their license), must be identified and treated as non-free content. If the policy changes, then our treatment of these images changes; if not, then not. --Iamunknown 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not identified and treated as non-free content, but identified and treated as all-rights reserved content, no? Because those euro images are tagged as copyrighted--it isn't a question of are they being handled procedurely properly. My issue of course is two-fold. I think that our behavoir here is totally incorrect, and I think that one of the reasons it isn't being addressed is that we're allowing many of these images to continue being used. If we kept the euro from being used on everything but the article (or two) which fair use allowed, people might pay attention. Instead, we have these images on talk pages even because people take photos of bank-notes and release the photo into the public domain, so the image is tagged as such (is sometimes even on commons that way) and no one ever realizes that it violates our policies. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:48, May 27 2007 (UTC)

I agree that is problematic (we agree on something! :-)). That should be addressed. --Iamunknown 04:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The license terms on the image are correct. MECU≈talk 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are free terms. Attribution is okay with free and the "requested" to be contacted it merely a request, not a requirement of the license. MECU≈talk 19:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you asked

Thank you, Byrial! I'm sorry for the late reply. I've been fiddling with my installation, but it is difficult to get working on Windows. Specifically, when I try to access importDump.php, I get a 403 permissions error. I don't know how to fix that.  :-( Any thoughts? --Iamunknown 04:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I cannot give advice regarding working in a MS Windows system as I don't do that. But the scripts in the maintenance directory should not be called from a webbrowser (403 sounds like an HTTP errorcode). Open a terminal window, go to the right directory and invoke the php program directly with the XML database dumpfile as input. In a Unix system you will typical type something like "php importDump.php < database-dump-file.xml" at the command prompt. I have no idea of the exact syntax in Windows. Byrial 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still disturbed by the comment that you made at the MfD. To broady assert that "some users" (who?) would block users solely for disagreeing with them impugns the character of dozens of administrators whose only crime is to use IRC. That you would do so apparently on the basis of the actions of one administrator, who was sharply repudiated by administrators left and right, including the many of the very administrators who you've just impugned, is saddening. If there are administrators going around threating to block people for disagreement, they need to be hauled in front of arbcom, not alluded to obliquely in some deletion debate. Comments such as the one you make only further an already precarious divide between administrators and users (rather, people in both groups who consciously think in such terms) and that's not healthy for Wikipedia. If there are problem administrators who actually abuse the blocking tools then dispute resolution is called for; regardless, the climate on Wikipedia will improve only if all users are prepared to treat one another with respect. I hope you're willing to help. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my comment, I was typing in frustration and haste. It is unfortunately true that, of late, I have become distrustful of many users, not limited to administrators, and have felt marginalized; my comment reflected that, though it was not the appropriate forum. I shall strike it out and leave a note.

I am also frustrated that editors, you included, so readily refer everything and everyone to

dispute resolution

; I know that process is the correct process, and I know that process is what everyone should do in order; it, however, is so bureaucratic (think, the hoops one must jump through to validate a user RFC), so lengthy (month-long or longer ArbCom cases) and so hopeless (editors becoming exaserbated and leaving, others picking up sockpuppeting).

I have unfortunately engaged in meta discussion that is over my head considering what time I have available to commit to Wikipedia; I think that my frustration is largely due to that. I wish I could help in areas for which I simply do not have the time or the will available to commit. That I express such frustration on MfDs is inappropriate; I hope you, however, from my comments here and

situations of pedantic mockery on RFA talk pages, will at least begin to understand where I am coming from. Thank you, Iamunknown

05:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm an utter unforgiving fool. I apologize. --Iamunknown 05:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing made the + link for new messages stuffed up, I just have to leave it out --Adam1213 Talk 10:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

for reverting vandalism to my user page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help! ^_^ --Iamunknown 04:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In your revised fair use rationale, you state concerning the logo that "...its use in the article "America One" to visually identify the network in question...is assumed to be a fair use..." and that "Any other use on or off Wikipedia may constitute copyright or trademark infringement." I'd like to more fully understand the intent of the rationale. Specifically, do you mean to imply that the use of the network logo is limited solely to the article about the network? Thanks. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I do. --Iamunknown 04:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a Wikipedia policy to back up your implication? I cannot find one. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(A reply is forthcoming, hopefully tomorrow when I am more composed --Iamunknown 06:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

• No reply is forthcoming, I'm not interested in investing time in this anymore. --Iamunknown 14:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Copying the Google-cached version of a Wiki page does not violate copyright. All wikipedia articles are released until the

Wikipedia is not licensed under the GPL, it is licensed under the GFDL. Read Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, your assertion is false. Do not remove the speedy deletion tag, let an administrator review the request. You may add {{hangon}} if you wish to contest the deletion. --Iamunknown 01:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation. It's merely restoring the text that was deleted previously. Wjhonson 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, what you are doing constitutes infringement of copyright. --Iamunknown 01:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"This text may be copied and distributed verbatim". How is a copy infringing? The license states it may be copied.Wjhonson 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied at

WP:ANI. --Iamunknown

02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The article you linked even has an example, which I've copied verbatim. If you still think there is something wrong with that example, from the page you linked, let me know. Otherwise I'm going to restore the deleted text. Wjhonson 02:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Something is wrong with that example, which I have explained at

WP:ANI. --Iamunknown

02:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet it's in the article you linked. Are you proposing that that article is wrong and should be modified? Wjhonson 02:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No. --Iamunknown 02:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Then what? Hard to try to give direction when the very article you link says the opposite of what you claim. Wjhonson 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "modify" anything, Wjhonson, so I'm not sure what you are asking me. --Iamunknown 03:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Address in what specific way my disclaimer fails the license requirements. As can be seen, not all interpretations agree with your assertions. Wjhonson 04:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What in the world, are you doing placing a speedy delete tag on this image? It is a school picture, released by his family when he went missing. The source of the image is a San Diego newspaper site. The image has been been there for nearly 2 years now. He is deceased, not a living person anymore. Fighting for Justice 03:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is the copyright holder? If the picture has been "released by his family", where is the evidence, and why is the image tagged with a non-free tag? --Iamunknown 03:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no copyright for the image. The evidence lies in the fact that the boy was MISSING!!!. You don't look for a missing child solely on his name. The family had to release an image, so the public knows what to look for. It happened 14 years ago, when the internet didn't exist. Sometimes I can't find evidence on things, I know happened, from two years ago. And you expect evidence from 14 years ago? Good God, get with the times. Fighting for Justice 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What evidence says that there is no copyright for the image? That the boy was missing is no evidence. Please do not remove the tag, an administrator will review the image. --Iamunknown 04:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The image is fair use. Fighting for Justice 04:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? Unfortunately essential copyright information is missing and, as such, I am reinstating the speedy deletion template. --Iamunknown 04:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the kind note on my talk page. It seems from that that you're at least unlikely to oppose? I'll probably try an RfA in the next week or so. Thanks also for the great work you do on image copyright issues. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to make promises, but I would likely support your request.  :-) Your nice, helpful, already do quite a few admin chores, and could use the tools! --Iamunknown 15:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have reverted the changes made by Gene poole and left a comment at Talk:New Utopia explaining my reasoning. In essence, I've argued that the consensus at AfD was to keep the article about the scam and also noted that multiple editors expressed that they would have recommended deleting an article about the micronation. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assesment of the consensus. Thanks for leaving a note (I left you one since I saw you were a major player in the AfD), Iamunknown 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already begun receiving vandalism on my talk page. Please lock my talk page. Thank you. Rhythmnation2004 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so I cannot protect pages. You may wish to request page protection at

WP:RFPP. Regards, Iamunknown

23:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mc202example.ogg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Discobotter.ogg both were written, performed and recorded by myself. I am the copyright owner and I chose to have it PD for Wikipedia as there were no listening examples. If you doubt we can make music at all check out our myspace: [3] - another tune with a 202 on it or go to [4] - loads of noise with 202,303,404's and so on ;)) Hope this helps. Cheers, Sven.

--audioschotter.net 13:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sven, I'm sorry I didn't believe you at first, I admit I tend to be hasty in listing media I think have copyright problems. I'll check out those MySpace pages sometime. Cheers, Iamunknown 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey I contacted them on MySpace for permission. That's probably a first in the history of OTRS permissions. -N 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ya, both those pages have an OTRS template now, so I'm satisfied. BTW, nice pic (a new addition?). --Iamunknown 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My uniform pic? Yeah, I've started dabbling uploading stuff to Commons. Thanks. -N 14:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee whizz, what pressure, and thanks for the flower. Four months seems nothing, but maybe she's a returning editor, then it's no prob. I think the smiley irritated everyone. Gold♥ 12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people tend to get uppity when they see images in signatures - and when a million other things happen. BTW, if you want to short your signature further, you can change the code to Gold♥ ([[User:Gold heart|<span style="color: #0B0; font-family: Bradley Hand ITC; font-size: +2;">Gold♥</span>]]). It renders the same for me yet is a bit shorter. --Iamunknown 14:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. (Yes, I'm the photographer.) Thanks for checking up on copyright status! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Bob Brooks' email is <r>. One question, though, where is this permissions page that you're talking about? Can you provide a link? I'm not even sure where I'm supposed to put his email. Thanks for bringing this up.--PericlesofAthens 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied at talk page. --Iamunknown 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page! Have a cookie. --TV-VCR watch 05:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's not the world's greatest proposal, but it'll do. If you want to add some legal, technical mumbo-jumbo, go ahead. Don't think it will do much good, but it is worth a shot. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, as a fellow contributor to

Sounds good to me. --Iamunknown 14:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to