User talk:AmeriCan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re: Stephen Harper for PM

I didn't know that template existed, thanks. Although I'm going to leave it off, because one Conservative box is enough (and, as I mention, I don't think Harper is that awesome), it's good to know it's there. Lord Bob 20:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User NRA

A free use image basically qualifies as any copyrighted image (in this case, the NRA logo) that is being used on Wikipedia without the copyright holder's permission. Wheras we can use these images on articles, they cannot be used on userpages. A userbox, which goes on someone's userpage, therefore cannot have any free use images on them. Morgan695 20:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Love your userboxes! Kudos. Эйрон Кинни 20:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fellow Conservative

Hello! I am new here- feel free to discuss at my page. I love being a conservative too. It is great, isn't it? Here's a great book-"The Right Nation: onservative Power in America." I am probably a little more conservative than you, but i dont know enough about you. Totally agree with your presidents list- So, who do you think should be next? Iran, N. Korea, or China? Or someone else I haven't listed? User:Valento


[edit] greetings

I'm new here so I thought I'd introduce myself to some of the people here--ChaplineRVine(talk ¦ ✉) 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Nice User Page

Just don't make your user page an article.

[edit] Sam Johnson entry as USAF Thunderbird pilot

Sam Johnson entry as USAF Thunderbird pilot was deleted by a vandal's edit. I reviewed the article to see that you included it in his bio. Was Sam Johnson a Thunderbird pilot? If so, you may want to re-edit the article. Ronbo76 20:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage

Please read WP:SOAPBOX and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Userpages are not intended to be used to express hatred and intolerance toward other individuals. What you have on your page amounts to trolling in my opinion and I have nominated the page for deletion (P.S. And just a little personal advice, all this page is succeeding in is is making your own political group look bad.)--Azer Red Si? 01:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting in order to influence Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_19#Category:American_liberals. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice"1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines found in Wikipedia:Spam. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking2. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And by the way -- I nominated it for "discussion" not deletion; I did so not because I am a "liberal" but because I saw a lot of miscategorizations of people who are, manifestly, not "liberal" but of other political persuasions. FYI. --lquilter 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse by Jasper23

Have a look at the edit abuse by Jasper23. He is responsible for the attacks on your user page. Particularly look at what he's been doing to [[Cracker (pejorative). Let your conscience be your guide. Thanks. Sacrificial Ram 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet of scran/cant stand ya. Jasper23 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jasper23's behavior and edit abuse are testimony to the fact that he can't stand to be challenged - even when he is 100% wrong. Sacrificial Ram 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My nom of your userpage for deletion

This had nothing to do with free speech. Please read WP:SOAPBOX and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It is against policy to use your namespace as a rant against certain people or groups of people. If you want to do that, there are free online blogs available. Thank you.--Azer Red Si? 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Free speech"

There is no free speech on Wikipedia. This is a privately owned website which sets its own rules. You have two rights here: Fork the site to your own preferred version, hosted elsewhere, or else leave. Other than those two rights, everything else you do here must follow Wikipedia policies established by consensus. And soapboxing is not one of those rights. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage

Please respect the consensus achieved at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AmeriCan regarding your userpage. Many of the userboxes you recreated on you page are in violation of WP:USER. Please do not use Wikipedia as a place to advertise your beliefs. I have deleted your userpage per WP:CSD#G4. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Van pete.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 01:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Userboxes

Howdy! I came across your user page today and the first thing I noticed was a bunch of userboxes expressing your political view point. When I first joined Wikipedia I also added a lot of POV to my user page as well, later after I had more experience I realized that these userboxes do not help Wikipedia and further more can tend to alienate other editors who have different political views. I removed the userboxes from my userpage and I suggest you do the same to yours. This is not a policy but it would help Wikipedia if you removed them. Thanks. -Mschel 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs are not reliable sources.

Please review Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Italiavivi 19:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Copyright Violation on User:AmeriCan from http://science.howstuffworks.com/green-beret.htm

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. -- JLaTondre 23:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric L. Haney

Thanks for expanding the section on Haney's post-mil career. Some of the text, however, doesn't quite pass muster for no original research. I understand that the details of his post-mil career come from Haney himself (thanks for providing the link to the interview), but that info still needs to be verified from another source. You can check out the article's Talk page for details. Alcarillo (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race

You recently made an edit to Antisemitism linking it to Race, a disambiguation page. Please note that internal links on Wikipedia articles are not supposed to link to disambiguation pages, they're supposed to link to relevant articles. In this case, the correct link was to Race (classification of human beings), which I have changed it to. There is an ongoing Wikipedia project to repair links to disambiguation pages, Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. It's always a good idea to check the links you create to make sure they go where you want them to. Since I see that you don't believe in the existence of races except as a social construct, I'm a little surprised that you created the link, but upon perusal of the article, I think it's worthwhile. Thank you for your kind attention. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:LionelRivera.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:LionelRivera.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to MSNBC appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. - Mike Beckham (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of text from userpage

Please do not add text from a copyright book onto your userpage. See our non-free content criteria for more information. — Dark (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MSNBC

I have, once again, reverted your POV-problematic edits to the MSNBC article. I've discussed my reasons in my previous edit summaries. I've also explained my deletion of one of your edits on the article's talk page, which is where you should go if you truly feel your edits are suitable for an encyclopedia. Discuss the issues at hand before continuing to simply add material of questionable material/tone to the article without explanation.

FYI, familiarize yourself with some of the basic rules of wikipedia, such as what wikipedia defines as vandalism. You should refrain from hurling that accusation at any other editors until you have read and understood the definition. If you are familiar with wikipedia's definition of vandalism, then please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, since calling another editor a vandal without basis is a clear violation of the policy.

Also, please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's NPOV policy. Many of your edits in the MSNBC article violate this policy. As an example, describing Olbermann's criticisms of the Bush administration as " vitriolic denouncements" is a clear violation of NPOV.

In addition, please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's verifiability policy. Your claim that MSNBC "ran a series titled Bush League Justice with the explicit purpose of attacking the U.S. Justice Department under the presidency of George W. Bush" appears to be a violation of the policy, as you provided no source indicating that the investigative series was created with that "explicit purpose". If you re-add that particular info, you MUST have a reliable source (network memos, interview with an MSNBC insider, etc) clearly expressing the network's intent to investigate purely to "attack" Bush's DOJ. Be advised that I have previously discussed this particular material on the article's talk page.

Feel free to further discuss your edits on the MSNBC talk page. Understand that wikipedia is a collaborative environment and that discussion of potentially controversial or simply problematic material is always the best course of action. Failure to do so may convince other editors that your edits are being done in bad faith.

I'm particularly interested in why you believe its necessary to have the following two sentences presented in the article in two separate areas, repeated word for word: "MSNBC has received criticism from various groups and individuals for its programming and journalistic ethics. Critics have accused the network of allegedly promoting both a liberal and a conservative agenda." Having this exact same material in the article in two different sections is completely redundant, as I explained in my edit summary. You have repeatedly reinserted this back into the article w/out explanation. Please use the talk page to discuss your reasoning.-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)