User talk:TruthCrusader

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1[1]

Archive 2[2]

Archive 3[3]

Contents 1 This eventually will be Archive 4 2 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Boapython5.jpg) 3 Chadbryant 4 Mediators needed! 5 Thank you 6 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 7 Thank you for supporting my RfA 8 Could you have a look at this? 9 Calton got furious :-0 10 Edit warring 11 This will be of interest to you 12 Chad 13 Thanks 14 Your trolling on RSPW entry 15 Completely unacceptable behavior 16 Jehu Eyre 17 Image:Ourgarden.jpg listed for deletion 18 Possible downgrading of A1 GP WikiProject to Taskforce status 19 Your dispute with Calton 20 This is too much 21 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Boapython5b.jpg) 22 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pythonhunter.jpg) 23 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Boavspython.jpg 24 Edit 25 Whats this

[edit] This eventually will be Archive 4

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Boapython5.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Boapython5.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

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. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chadbryant

Thanks mate, Will do. DXRAW 08:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediators needed!

Hiya! I'm contacting you because you're listed on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal as "will take anything if you ask". Well, we've got a bit of a backlog, and I was wondering if you'd look over the current list of new cases (I've copied it here for convenience) and tell me if you'd take any of them? I'd really appreciate it! :D

• 2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy
• 2006-10-07 Joe Sharkey
• 2006-10-08 BSA
• 2006-10-08 Nicole Kidman
• 2006-10-09 Hinduism
• 2006-10-09 Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples
• 2006-10-10 Udit Raj
• 2006-10-12 Sweetest Day
• 2006-10-13 Scott Davis and Miami,Queensland
• 2006-10-13 Unification Church
• 2006-10-14 Personal attacks
• 2006-10-14 U.S. Roads naming fallout
• 2006-10-16 Deletions by user Kdbuffalo
• 2006-10-16 Turkmenistan
• 2006-10-16 Vigile.net as a source

I think you might be interested in the Hinduism and Turkmenistan cases, they're both somewhat difficult (I think) yet very interesting, but you may also be interested in the Sweetest Day case. Thanks again! ~Kylu (u|t) 21:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I've finally had the time during my long Wikibreak to thank the voters and commentors on my my RfA last month, and I thank you! I'll try again as previously planned in the late of spring, and hopefully I'll win it. When I get off this multi-month Wikibreak I'll be back to the Wikipedia, visting xfD everyday in addition. I was glad to see that you wrote a bit on why you opposed my nomination, unlike most. I understand your opinion, however I believe I will stay a firm believer of the possesion of academic credentials and number and quality of publications is definitely a plus, but a lack does not necessarily provide a negative impact. Many qualities can be used to make helpful generalizations, but when analyzing a single person, the generalizations should be thrown out. Do you have any tips or suggestions for me on being a good Wikipedian or administrator? Thanks again, X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)08:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. Though the RfA was unsuccessful, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you have a look at this?

Hi,

I do not understand how the discussion so much left from the core issue that has been recognized earlier (it has never been clear that GRB article or link in Ecological Economics do not belong in Wikipedia) now Calton got it to be about Spamlink, uncivil language (Provoked by him for a long time) and warnings here and there... We totally missed the issue is or is not information aboutGlobal Reserve Bank something that should be on Wikipedia or not? Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swedenborg (my talk) and please tell me what you think about it? --Swedenborg 03:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calton got furious :-0

Hi again,

Now Calton put my articles like ecotheology for deletion and attacking Swedish article about Ecological Economy, this is really bad stile and I do not feel good about this at all..--Swedenborg 03:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

You've been engaging in repeated edit warring at Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. Please pursue dispute resolution instead, or you may be temporarily blocked from editing. Dmcdevit·t 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant is not banned. In any case, the IP is being used for edit warring by itself, so it wouldn't be any kind of abusive sockpuppet use. It's clearly not vandalism. The only problem here is that the two of you are not pursuing dispute resolution. If you can prove that the other editor is clearly making edits against consensus, then this is cause for something like an RFC or arbitration, not edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 00:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You're only edits since the last block expired have been further reverts to the page. This is not a case of sockpuppetry, as there is only one editor reverting you; please read WP:SOCK. This is also clearly a content dispute, not vandalism. If the anon's edits are against consensus, then pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring with him. You have been blocked for another 24 hours. Dmcdevit·t 05:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't need an ultimatum. It's simple. Keep edit warring, and you will keep being blocked. All you have to do is pursue normal means, rather than edit warring. I've pointed this out to you. The edits made are clearly not vandalism or bad faith. What they are most clearly is edit warring, just as your edits are. If they are against consensus, this is not a reason to edit war, but a reason to seek help. If mediation fails, use RFC or arbitration. Use normal means, or keep edit warring and find yourself blocked: your choice. Dmcdevit·t 09:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are also attempting to start an edit war at Craig Roger Gregerson. I do surmise that if you would bother to check the references cited, you would find that Gregerson did indeed plead guilty to murder and kidnapping on Monday. Your petty feud/harassment/stalking of Chadbryant aside, you should at least attempt to edit in good faith, even on subjects you clearly lack knowledge in. 205.124.145.254 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the talk page at the Gregerson article. You need to fully investigate the matter before you once again insert incorrect information. Thank you. 67.2.139.221 10:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This will be of interest to you

The end of an era quite possibly [4] 81.155.178.248 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chad

Thanks for the heads up. He needs to find better things to do with his time than annoy people. DXRAW 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear.... [5] One Night In Hackney 04:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Who wants to request a checkuser? DXRAW 06:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well volunteered ;) I'd do it myself, but I'm not overly sure of how it works and plenty seem to get declined. One Night In Hackney 06:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Same here. DXRAW 06:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Another possible sock? PizzaAzzip DXRAW 06:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just wanted to say thank you for helping me out. DXRAW 11:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your trolling on RSPW entry

Your trolling on the RSPW deletion entry is unacceptable by Wikipedia standards and is obviously nothing more than a personal attack on one or more users. Please cease such behavior immediately before you find yourself on the unpleasant end of an administrator's banning abilities. You will be reported to multiple admins should your behavior continue. --Thad Tryant 05:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WOW another Chad Bryant sock.....hilarious! Im not going to delete this its so funny. TruthCrusader 09:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not one but multiple admins! I like also how he says you will be "on the unpleasant end of an administrator's banning abilities" Chad has had many experiences with that one. DXRAW 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be because it will take reporting this to several before he finds one "green" enough to block for this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completely unacceptable behavior

I am sure that you have read the personal attacks policy, including the part about Off-wiki personal attacks. Your behavior here is completely unacceptable and I would expect better of a long-term contributor such as yourself. Comments such as "we beat the fat mormon niggerstain before" are extremely offensive, and you cannot attack any Wikipedia contributor at any point, on or off-wiki, including contributors who have been banned. —Mets501 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that was SO obviously me.

• rolls eyes*

TruthCrusader 23:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jehu Eyre

Hi. I'm a relatively new contributer to Wikipedia, and recently stumbled across an article that interested me about the Revolutionary War. I looked up more sources on the subject and posted them, along with the facts stated in those sources. The article is now tagged as a possible hoax, and I am searching for objective analysis of it from multiple users. If you could please take a look, and urge others to take a look as well, I'd be very grateful.

SwedishConqueror 20:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

[edit] Image:Ourgarden.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ourgarden.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MER-C 13:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible downgrading of A1 GP WikiProject to Taskforce status

Several users have started a conversation at WP:MOTOR about the possible downgrading of the A1 GP WikiProject to taskforce staus. I have notified you because your name is on the A1 GP Members list. The discussion is ongoing, and is located here. Davnel03 18:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your dispute with Calton

Okay, you and Calton are edit warring over at Will Geer. There's nastiness in edit summaries, ugly talk page messages, and insinuations of off-wiki harrassment. I have laid out the situation on AN/I as best I can and asked for review, but it would be helpful if you could offer some sort of context or explanation in the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Calton and TruthCrusader dispute. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE emailed Arcom several times and CBD put up a request for clarification, ALL met with stone cold silence. is this how YOU really want Wikipedia to handle such things? TruthCrusader (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And how does one do THAT? TruthCrusader 21:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Per this you can send a message to any member of the committee and they will forward it to the ArbCom list. --CBD 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing admins- there's a AN/I thread which sums up the whole sordid conflict. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you I couldnt find it since they moved it to archives. TruthCrusader 22:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well since this is the only place I can write here is another comment. The blocking admin maintains that the reason for this is alleged "OFF WIKIPEDIA "attempted" harrassment". Look at the edit summary of this talk page...'Attempted" harrassment is listed as reason given. That makes no sense, as it is either harrassment or it isnt. Second, this is because of an alleged OFF wikipedia incident/incidents. Do you realize the slippery slope we are now on? Do you see the Pandora's box this admin is about to open? It is not an over reaction to say that this could lead to bans due to personal webpages where an editor expresses an opinion that someone on Wiki feels insulted by or disagrees with. This could lead to people being thrown off Wiki due to their religious/political beliefs being at odds with other users on Wiki who have the ear of an admin. laugh at this is you want, but THIS is where censorship starts...with something this blocking admin is trying to do. I still have been refused in my request to see the evidence on which this block is based on, provided ONLY by Calton, and the authenticity of which is suspect. Lets look at these facts: 1. Calton claims he was harrassed on a web blog or something of his. 2. Calton claims the IP of the attacker matches the IP of me here based on an edit made tot he Will geer article. 3. Calton has only shown this evidence to the blocking admin and "several ArbComm individuals who I (Calton) trust". 4. Calton then claims he has been continued to be harrassed, but this time by person/persons from a DIFFERENT IP. 5. Calton maintains these attacks are me, through a proxy. 6. I asked for admin intervention on this matter, not Calton. 7. I put forth a logical explaination for this alleged attack, as I was myself a victim of harrassment by a now banned user named Chad Bryant, who had many times impersonated me. It was/is my theory that this is just another incident involving him. 8. Other admins put forth the contention that any IP log provided by Calton, or anyone for that matter, could easily be forged and therefore should be considered suspect. 9. Another admin put forth the contention that IP spoofing is very easy to do and could be another explaination. 10. I have repeatedly asked to see the evidence this block is based on but have been refused. 11. I received an email from Calton, from what appears to be Calton's work based on the headers of the email. I forwarded this threatening email to admin CBD, but have had no response. Why isnt Calton being blocked for the same apparent reason I supposedly am? 12. Again, this is all because of incidents that are alleged to have taken place OUTSIDE Wikipedia. Do you realize the precedent this could set? TruthCrusader 06:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked the blocking admin for input, see User_talk:Jpgordon#TruthCrusader_vs._Calton. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I received an email from Calton, from what appears to be Calton's work based on the headers of the email. I forwarded this threatening email to admin CBD, but have had no response.

And why didn't you forward this to Jpgordon? He already has all the evidence and can certainly compare your "evidence" with it. He can certainly compare the prose styles and IP headers. What's stopping you? --Calton | Talk 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First off if what Calton says what was written is true then I also deplore and object to it. However, as I have stated time and again, I did NOt write such a thing. In point number one Calton claims that the IP of the message matches mine here. Fair enough...lets see it...oh wait, Calton and his friend the blocking admin have refused to show it to me. OK...ever hear of an Ip spoof? See here: [6] How easy is that? Pretty easy apparently. No way to verify the authenticity of the IP spoof, and Calton and the blocking admins refusal to make the "evidence" available to me is highly dubious.

Point 2 of Caltons message: he maintains now I am using some sort of anonymizer. Well....if thats the case then how can Calton make the claim that its ME when he cant prove it since, he just stated, the message is through an ANONYMIZER.

Point 3: Calton states "The stuff documented publicly isn't the worst thing that TruthCrusader seems to have done" SEEMS to have done? Thats not the same as "Definitely proven to have done". Of course, there is the matter of the email I got from Calton, which I submitted to an admin (who is NOT the blocking admin because to be honest I find him to be biased towards Calton so I sent it to a neutral one), nor the fact that during this blowup it has come out Calton was, in his words, "rumbled" by Amazon.com for harrassing people there (which should have no bearing here one would think but since we ARE talking about off Wiki behaviour it seems...)

And the fact that Calton, an editor, is "advising" an admin on what to do in this matter is HIGHLY dubious and I am of the mindset to email Jimbo about this because this is about to cross a line that i am not comfortable with. All I wanted when I asked for Admin intervention was for Calton to leave me alone. As a result, he has continued to insult and be crass to other users (including admins who were trying to work on this case) with NO warnings from them, and I am the one close to being thrown off Wikipedia forever. Does anyone else see anything wrong here besides me? TruthCrusader 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, the use of the anonymized IP came immediately AFTER I advised you that blog comment software records IP addresses (which had recorded a real, non-anonymous IP directly associated with you). See duck test. You also seem to be afraid to pass on evidence that could be compared to you directly with the evidence already in hand, sending it instead to an admin (who is, in fact, not neutral as you claim) who has no way to compare it and simply has to take your word for it -- which, given his non-neutrality, I'll bet you were banking on. Just put up or shut up: send your "evidence" to Jpgordon, already, and let him make the comparisons.

And as for that loon's paranoia about Amazon you're waving about, I won't dignify that with a response. --Calton | Talk 15:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You are expecting this guy to send his evidence to YOUR party, but you refuse to send your evidence to anyone outside of your circle of "trusted" friends? Why should he have to do the very thing that you are refusing to do? And since you are so insistent that HE do it, how about you show some good faith and send your evidence to the admins who have asked for it above? 66.35.123.205 15:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He's not "my party", oh single-purpose-hiding-from-the-world-anon, he's a long-time admin and a member of ArbCom and one who has all the evidence already in hand, including the private stuff. I'd say TruthCrusader's afraid of being discovered -- kind of like you, hiding your identity behind an anonymous IP like you always do.

Man, the worst thing about this affair is all of the rocks it seems to have kicked over. --Calton | Talk 15:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The post you are referring to used to be [redacted]. It was signed by ED, which probably stands for Encyclopedia Dramatica. Since the post happened right after you tried to blank information about yourself on ED, my guess is that it was done by someone from ED.
2. I have a blog on Blogspot and don't see any option to see the IP address of commentators on my site.
3. JPGordon is not the only person who deserves respect. TruthCrusader is a professor of philosophy. I find it hard to believe that a person who has mastered the ideas behind right and wrong would troll.
4. Even if what you say is true, it is one comment. You have made thousands of such comments and have not been blocked indefinitely. That's a pretty big double standard there.
   --Whenwith21 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, I did receive an e-mail from TruthCrusader forwarding an abusive message stated to be from Calton. However, since TruthCrusader seemed to indicate he was leaving and I can see no way to authenticate the message, I took no action. While I have no cause to challenge TruthCrusader's veracity (i.e. I have never seen him say something I know to be untrue) there are, hopefully obvious, problems with taking action based on unprovable allegations of what went on 'off Wiki'. As Jpgordon has blocked based on a similar off-wiki incident he presumably felt that there was some way of substantiating the charges in that case. I'd offer the e-mail I received for similar analysis by anyone interested, but it contains what is purported to be personally identifying information. If a checkuser/ArbCom member wanted to look into it and TruthCrusader agreed (Calton, per above, apparently already has) I could forward the message on. --CBD 12:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead and forward it. I am not leaving until my name is cleared. TruthCrusader 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is too much

I now refer to THIS....

1. The post Calton is referring to used to be here. It was signed by ED, which probably stands for Encyclopedia Dramatica. Since the post happened right after Calton tried to blank information about himself on ED, my guess is that it was done by someone from ED. 2. I have a blog on Blogspot and don't see any option to see the IP address of commentators on my site. 3. TruthCrusader is a professor of philosophy. I find it hard to believe that a person who has mastered the ideas behind right and wrong would troll. 4. Even if what he says is true, it is one comment. Calton has made thousands of such comments and has not been blocked indefinitely. That's a pretty big double standard there. --Whenwith21 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't block him based on that one; that's the least nasty of them. By the way, creating new accounts solely for the purpose of engaging in other people's drama is not what Wikipedia is for. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Read that last one carefully. jpgordon, the blocking admin, has just stated that he has NOT banned me due to the alleged first incident of harrassment of Calton where it is maintained that it is somehow my IP address. NO, jogordon has blocked me based on THE OTHER INCIDENTS WHICH CALTON HAS CLAIMED CAME FROM A PROXY SERVER. Which means they do NOT match what he claims is my IP address in the first incident. So how does Calton and his friend jpgordon know 100% beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt its me? Because Calton said so? That seems to be good enough for the blocking admin. However, his admission that he has blocked me due to a harrassment from A PROXY SERVER THAT DOESNT MATCH MY IP ADDRESS AT ALL is grounds for me to now ask that this block is removed. I appreciate that a neutral admin has to go through all this, but I am getting frustrated at what is starting to look like some sort of combined effort by Calton and jpgordon to get rid of me. I have been very civil during this whole messy ordeal. I have not insulted, badgered, harrassed, or flamed anyone but I AM running out of patience. I ask whoever the review admin is to please please take ALL this into consideration. I feel like I am being railroaded here for something I did NOT DO. Ask yourself this: How can jpgordon justify NOT banning me for what Calton claims is harrassment from MY IP address, but justify banning me due to harrassment from what Calton admitted WAS A PROXY SERVER WHOSE IP ADDRESS DOESNT MATCH MINE. And ALL of this is OFF WIKI......really I need to go have some tea now. TruthCrusader 17:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So how does Calton and his friend jpgordon know 100% beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt its me?

See Duck test. Also, this - you've mistaken this place for a court of law. --Calton | Talk 04:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

SO Calton continues to be sarcastic with users [7] but NO warning is given nor is he blocked but Arb Com has yet to get back to me on my request. Lovely. TruthCrusader 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered just taking a break from monitoring User:Calton's edits? I had an editor who was just making me crazy for a while, and when I removed his userpage from my watchlist, my stress levels went way down. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

All I am doing is pointing out that while I am still waiting for Arb Com to get back to me with my appeal, Calton continues to insult and abuse other editors with No action being taken against him. He also used what he claims is another editors real name, which is DEFINITELY against Wikipedia policy, and AGAIN nothing is done to him. TruthCrusader 22:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok well I have still had NO contact from ArbCom despite my emailing them. So this is what happens when someone tries to follow normal procedures to over turn and unjustified ban? TruthCrusader (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI I asked for info about the status of this review. No response as yet. --CBD 19:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I can see now WHY my situation is NOT being addressed. [8]. TruthCrusader 15:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well Calton is back and still abusing other editors meanwhile ArbCom keeps my situation "top secret" and refuses to disclose or comment on this so called 'evidence'. TruthCrusader (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Boapython5b.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Boapython5b.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pythonhunter.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pythonhunter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Boavspython.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

Well since Arbcomm is dragging their feet and I know several people have this page on watch, there is vandalism in the entry for Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand [9] Specifically in the Assassination entry, by an unregistered user. Go fix it TruthCrusader (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whats this

Stumbled across this today: [10]

" Wikipedia Issues Apology to Kal Korff for Printing False Claims Written by Public Relations Friday, 04 April 2008 05:25

CriticalThinkers.org announced today that Wikipedia has issued a written apology to Kal Korff for publishing false claims about him for more than one year.

"Wikipedia is an open-source online project, anyone can write anything and post it, even if it is not true," explained Korff.

"After seeing them publish false claims for more than one year, lies made deliberately by certain parties we have now identified, we are taking action, which is only right.

"To prove that we are exposing who these people are, and will have a line of products out shortly which consumers can buy to learn the truth, there's a man who goes by the screen name of F1 Racer who is one of these guilty parties.

"This man is in such denial of the truth, that he doesn't believe that Martina Tycova exists, despite the fact that she wrote to him in Czech, which I do not speak and certainly do not write. He refused to believe any of this. If I had not seen with my own eyes this exchange on the computer, I would not believe it myself. But it did happen.

"We look forward to naming more people who will be exposed, but please remember that many of them don't dare use their real names when they print their lies. It's because they're cowards or think they can't get caught."

Developing... "

Since I cant do anything because ArbCom is IGNORING my repeated requests for a block review, anyone watching this page (and I know you are) want to investigate this guys claim? TruthCrusader (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)