User talk:MurderWatcher1

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MurderWatcher1.

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Fountain Avenue on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Danski14 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ramona_Moore.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you've been contributing to the Imette St. Guillen article and other related articles and I thought that I would point you to the welcome page since you are a new user. The reason I point this out is that it will greatly help you to understand wikipedia. Another great resource for understand how wikipedia looks is the Manual of Style. Anyway I hope this helps. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from. The reason why I messaged you is to give you the manual of style and the welcome links, since your editing style deviates a bit from is practiced around here (eg. bolding of texts and referencing). Regarding Wikipedia, it is supposed to be neutral and factual; non-truths and "Political Correctness" have nothing to do with it, so I hope that eases your mind. If it can be sourced and verified (using reliable sources) then it can go into an article. I have no connection to the case, to the bar, or to the family who owns the bar or anything to do with Imette St. Guillen but I do edit wikipedia. I applaud the substantial amount of information that you've added to the article but it makes the article easier to read and looks better if you follow a standard format, which is why I suggested those links. In any case I do hope to get the article into shape, finishing the references up, within the next day or so but in the meantime reading those links and just browsing wikipedia (especially featured articles) will give you a general idea of how an article is supposed to look. Additionally I would consider looking over the username policy since people might get upset over the name that you've chosen. Anyway I hope all of this clears things up and helps you with editing. --ImmortalGoddezz 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click this User:MurderWatcher1/Chanel Petro Nixon and you can have your very own test page to work on until the article is ready. pw 20:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. However, are you quite sure about the spelling? I changed it based on (1) the greater number of hits for "Romona" over "Ramona" in a Google search, and (2) the spelling at the Hunter College site (http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/hunter?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=romona+moore).

I based the spelling upon a number of newspaper articles that I have read. Your links, however, have me thinking! I'll do more research when I can--MurderWatcher1 15:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you added both the underconstruction tag and inuse tag to Imette St. Guillen. I've also noticed that you've added the exact same tags to some of the other articles you edit.

I'm not sure if you've noticed what the tags themselves say. The underconstruction tag is if you're editing intensely over a few days. The inuse tag is if you mean to edit it intensely for a few hours. Either of them are not meant to stay on a page for more than a few days or so, particularly not the inuse tag. If you look on the underconstruction tag it specifically states "If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template." Please read over the pages for the templates: Template:Inuse and Template talk:Underconstruction they explain how the tags should be used.

I do not think these tags are appropriate for any of the articles that you've added them to. Why? You haven't been intensely editing them. You place them on the page and then you might not edit the same article for three days. This means that somebody who wants to work on the article sees this sign that says 'in use' and doesn't edit. You've left both of the tags on one of the articles, Chanel Petro-Nixon for nearly a month. They need to go they're not being appropriately used. I've noticed today that you've made a lot of edits to Imette St. Guillen's article,[1] It would have been appropriate to use the {{inuse}} tag at the beginning of your edits, not using both inuse and underconstruction on the article. I haven't seen you edit the article since putting both of those tags on. I'm going remove the tags from the articles that you've added them to. When you start to edit a particular article again, then you can feel free to insert a tag for the period that you're editing, but please remove it when you're done.

Also remember every time you edit an article you don't need to tell everybody you're editing it. The tags are for nitty-gritty 'I'm going to take a few hours/day to fix this up' not 'oh I'm working on it for a few months.' Anyway I hope this helps you with your editing. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Chanel_Petro-Nixon.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Chanel Petro-Nixon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the POV is from the articles in the section 'one year and tributes' they're nice and all but they add pretty much nothing to the article that couldn't be summed up in a paragraph. I've taken a lot of that out, summarized, and referenced it. You really should not quote a whole article on a wikipedia page, even if you have the proper citations for it. Quoting small sections is fine, the whole thing not so much because you're entering murky law areas about ownership and intellectual property of the article blah blah blah. I've also removed a lot of the links from the page because most of them have been integrated into the article itself or the links are extremely similar and bring no new information to the article.

The section headers should be as brief as possible so I've tried to whittle those down. Also info doesn't all need to be under it's own section header, if that makes sense. For example the funeral section just had a couple of sentences, which can easily be put into the section above it. Before I forget.. you cited her name as being 'Saint Guillen' and provided a blog link. Blogs are not reliable sources and generally should not be used WP:RS has a lot of 'what is good what is bad'. As for the 'I also want to add a section or sub-section in the AFTERMATH part about Imette's mother's grief and how they spent the day in Florida before her murder.' I'm not sure how her mother's grief belongs in an encyclopedia. I know that seems harsh but it's true. I've mentioned in the legacy -> personal impact section that her family might be starting up a foundation in her name which would be an appropriate place to add the things that the family is doing that is really notable.. whereas grief or description of her last day would be more suitable for a memorial page, which this is not. Anyway I hope it helps/answers questions.. if I didn't hit everything I apologize as i'm kind of scatterbrained at the moment. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it's still not a good idea to have the full article in the page. Read over this: Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". --ImmortalGoddezz 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Nightlife legislation, by ImmortalGoddezz (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Nightlife legislation fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Nightlife legislation, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you made has been moved, by me, to Talk:Imette St. Guillen rather than Talk:Nightlife legislation since there is no article for the latter. There's no reason to insert the {{hangon}} tag on St. Guillen page. --ImmortalGoddezz 22:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely read over your question about images before, I apologize. This Wikipedia:Images is a pretty good guide to how to 'format' the images on here once you get it uploaded. Wikipedia:Extended image syntax that has a lot more detail to it and shows you a lot more options that can be used when formatting images. Additionally this is a very good guide to the templates on wiki, Wikipedia:Template messages.

Also you mentioned that you felt that people just skimming through St. Guillen's page would just read over the Nightlife legislation stuff. I personally feel that it deserves a separate page because you've included not just St. Guillen in the description but others that have had an impact on it as well. Since not only has St. Guillen had an impact on the nightlife legislation then it's not really fair to have it all on her page, it doesn't really belong on the page anyway since you're dealing about a law that has been created because of her. By that I mean she might have been the factor that caused the law to be created but the law stands on its own now and many other variables can affect it. For example it's like George Bush signing in a law. He signed it so it's there but there are other factors that influence it and help it grow and evolve. So that law might merit a mention on his wikipedia page but the law itself will be on another page so it can get more detailed. When the information is moved to another page it creates the opportunity for more information to be added about those various laws not just in relation to St. Guillen, Moore, or Petro-Nixon. Anyway I hope this makes sense. I'm not going to move anything just yet but thought I'd open up the topic for discussion. --ImmortalGoddezz 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do Not make personal threats against any other user on wikipedia. That will get you banned.
2. Warn the user using templates that can be found here Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace
3. I cannot block anybody. Only administrators can do that. The only way a user can be blocked is if they've been warned THREE times and then they continue to vandalize after that. If after that time nobody has blocked the IP then report it here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

--ImmortalGoddezz 21:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your insertion: "Perspective correction lenses are available in the 35mm and medium formats to correct this distortion with film cameras, and it can also be corrected after the fact with photo software when using digital cameras." I would prefer the phrase "perspective control" (yes, I know you're using a Wiki link) and I think this paragraph will need further clarification as, only three manufacturers made Tilt and Shift lenses for their 35mm cameras: Nikon with it's 28mm PC Nikkor, the 85mm Tilt and Shift Nikon lens, and Canon with its desirable 24mm Tilt and Shift lens. Olympus did a tilt and shift lens for their OM series cameras, a 24mm I believe, but that system is now discontinued. As for using correction using photo software well, I know of PhotoShop's capabilities, but a professional would rather make corrections in the field, then further edit his image either in a darkroom or using image editing software after the 35mm image has been scanned. There was a tilt and shift lens that was adapted for 35mm SLR's but I forget who made this lens. The only lens being 'pushed' for perspective control these days is the "lens baby" optics, and unfortunately, these lenses are not that sharp for architectural photography as a dedicated tilt & shift lens would be.--MurderWatcher1 16:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only three manufacturers?

Nikon made 35mm PCs in three varieties and 28mm in two; Minolta made a 35mm PC, Schneider made 35mm PCs under its name and branded as Leica's; Olympus made both 24mm and 35mm PCs (shift only); Pentax made a 28mm PC; Canon also made a 35mm TS lens and a 24mm TS. I may have forgotten one or two others. And there were several medium-format shift lenses.

Call it "control" rather than "correction" if you wish. Matters not to me. Motorrad-67 16:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Why include a discussion of view cameras in the SLR page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorrad-67 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because when I looked at the 'Talk' pages, it appeared that a number of people didn't understand the construction of the SLR and how it relates to other camera designs. Also, I think this Wiki reference should be added to that section: Scheimpflug principle - seeing as we're mentioning view cameras. Also, a view camera is giving you a real-world image, albeit upside down, but a real-world image somewhat like an SLR camera.

I have photos of the Minolta and Pentax lenses somewhere, but haven't dug them up and posted them because I think they are NGI. Motorrad-67 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you did show is good and perhaps should be included on discussion of perspective control with 35mm SLR cameras. Also, speaking of perspective, when Rollei came out with their first 2 1/4" SLR in 1966, the SL-66, it did have limited perspective control; the bellows could tilt up and down - Scheimpflug principle again! The bellows could also extend out for more than 1:1 magnification ratio and the lenses were able to actually reverse without adapters! Maybe check out Rollei's website because I don't know if I'll have time to input that today. Nevertheless, I love SLR's!--MurderWatcher1 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you keep messaging me about this situation, honestly, since it is between you and him and has nothing to do with me. I have also told you once before I cannot ban him since I'm NOT an administrator. Unless he's been warned three times or the situation is serious enough to be brought up before the Administrators notice board there's little you can do besides insult each other. I might also point out that it seems like the objective of the other person seems to be to get a rise out of you, which is working. My suggestion would be to ignore him and just go about editing. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorrad-67, I really think you should delete that image of the Nikon D200 from the Single Lens Reflex page as, it is a digital SLR, not a film SLR, so it's use is not appropriate for that page. I'd rather you do it as, you've made some good contributions here.--MurderWatcher1 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. However, this article is not just about film SLRs, it's about SLRs in general. Therefore, my DSLR photo was appropriate. If you wish to restore it, please go ahead and do so. Motorrad-67 00:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently removed the addresses from the St. Guillen article. You might want to read over what Wikipedia is not. I've removed those particular addresses because wikipedia is not a directory (or the yellow pages) and it is not particularly important for those addresses to be in the article. I might also add in regards to headers, keep it simple. For example previously in the article you had Darryl Littlejohn -- one of the bouncers at The Falls it's easier to read a header as Darryl Littlejohn.. if they want to know who he is they'll read about it in the article. Anyway hope this helps. --ImmortalGoddezz 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bars addresses aren't even in the article in the first place so it's irrelevant to add them in. Saying that 'st. guillen walked a few blocks west to another bar' is sufficient for the article. In my opinion it's not necessary at all to have the specific addresses in. Wikipedia is not the yellowpages, a map, or a directory. --ImmortalGoddezz 00:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let me clarify. I didn't notice the difference between the address because they're not mentioned in the article. The address for either bar is not mentioned in the article since wikipedia is not the yellow pages, a travel guide, or a guidebook, or a collection of indiscriminate information etc. There is no reason to add it in because it adds nothing useful to the article that isn't already in there. Adding that information in is not necessary and creates confusion. It's not your job to add stuff in there that you think other people might find interesting. You write a neutral point of view article that educates. If you are so involved in this and want to make a memorial site or a travel guide that revolves around her then wikipedia is not the place to do it. If that's what you want to create then I would suggest that you look into creating a wikia for your own purposes. As for the post above my answer is this: the tamiflu references was probably a spam bot that targeted your guestbook, be that as it may it's not my concern. Whatever problem you have with other people is your problem, not mine. As for the image, right now the person who uploaded it has claimed the copyright of the image. Since you do not own the image on the website then no it should not be added in. Only images that can be considered fair use or have been released under a copyright license should be added. Also since we already have an image that has been released any 'fair use' photo that is added will most likely be deleted. --ImmortalGoddezz 22:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read over the article in depth because my head is in another project right now but looking it over here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Headers shouldn't have links in them.
2. You don't have to type (see: strangling) when you can type [[strangling|strangulation]] and it points to strangling while saying strangulation.
3. Simple, shorter headers = better
4. Try to stay away from weasel words (an example would be 'the jealous boyfriend') He might have been jealous but let somebody else say that directly for you, use a quote from an article saying that etc, or else it sounds like you're writing a POV article.
5. I'd try to stay away from block quotes unless you're quoting something that's more than 3-ish sentences in length. If you're going to quote something shorter than that use quotation marks "and make sure to have a citation immediately after" the quote or at the end of the sentence.^[1]

These are the first things that pop into my mind, other than that it looks good and you're definitely improving as a wikipedia editor. If you want me to help you edit the article and really dig into the nitty gritty of it let me know and I can probably do some more editing tomorrow or so. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead and edit it! If you can find a free image of her that would be great! It would be good if some of her family 'weighed-in' on this page (I hope they like it). BTW, are there any "software page counters" in Wikipedia? By that I mean how many people have looked at the page. FYI, I won't be online again until Monday so enjoy yourself tomorrow. See the Jodie Foster flick "The Brave One" if you can. Jodie Rocks!--MurderWatcher1 20:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boitumelo McCallum, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Boitumelo McCallum satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Boitumelo McCallum during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm voting to keep this page.--MurderWatcher1 21:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. Wikipedia needs to be sourced, not infered or implied. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Leica IIIf 1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello MurderWatcher1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at AN/I regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MurderWatcher1. This is Paul1513. I'm just letting you know that I am working on the SLR Chronology bibliography for you. It's turning out to be much longer than the expected forty to fifty items, and I'm a very slow typist. Here's a preview for you. I hope it'll tide you over until the whole thing is properly done.

I'm glad to hear you like old photography magazines too. The principle primary (contemporary) sources I used were various issues of Modern Photography (ceased publication in 1989) and Popular Photography magazines (after 1989). I have some issues going back to the 1970s and am trying to obtain more articles from copying services at my library. Especially helpful were their December issue annual "Top Cameras" round-ups. They are excellent snapshots of the state-of-the-art in camera technology each year. I was very upset when Pop Photo discontinued the feature in 2003. I wrote a letter-to-the-editor asking them to restore it, but got no response.

Also very helpful were many articles by long time columnists Herbert Keppler and Jason Schneider. (I saw your comment on Keppler's November Pop Photo column, but I haven't seen it yet; my subscription issue won't arrive until the middle of the month. It sounds like an interesting new twist on the legendary tale of Duncan's "discovery" of Nikons and Nikkors during the Korean War.) I'm impressed that Keppler has maintained his enthusiasm for 57 years and sad that Schneider recently retired after 35 years. Even the advertisements were useful: it's fascinating to understand how a company desires the consumer to view it (There's a Leica ad bragging that they would sell only 12,000 M5s in the US in 1972; implying that they would all be bought by demanding professionals and that YOU buy one or be considered both cheap AND not a serious photographer.), although I am not citing any of them.

Of very specific use was the Polaroid TIME cover article on June 26, 1972. Most people have totally forgotten that Polaroid was a leader in what I call "the first tech revolution," of the late 1960s and early 1970s, along with AT&T (satellite communications), Boeing (the 747), Du Pont (plastics), IBM (the 360 mainframe computer) and Xerox (you-know-what), etc.

Important secondary (historical) sources were some books: The Register of 35mm Single Lens Reflex Cameras: From 1936 to the Present. Second Edition, by Rudolph Lea (1993); Hansen’s Complete Illustrated Guide to Cameras; Volumes 1 and 2, by William P. Hansen (2003); and Collecting and Using Classic SLRs, by Ivor Matanle (1997). The Register is an attempt to catalogue every 35 mm SLR ever made (to 1993). It is not 100% complete, but still a valiant effort. Hansen's Complete is not complete either; apparently it isn't finished. However, since Hansen is a co-founder of KEH, the largest used camera dealer in the world, I think it's safe to assume that he knows his inventory. Classic SLRs is good, because it tells a narrative from Sutton onto around 1980. Considering how we came into contact, of note is the chapter "How the West was lost." It chronicles the fumbling German death-spiral into irrelevance.

Of tertiary (double checking or background info) importance were several other books: the Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax Classic Cameras Magic Lantern Guides among them. Some Internet sites, such as the history pages of of surviving SLR makers, as well as ones created by dedicated fans of non-survivers were helpful too.

Useful for background and context were The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, 3rd ed. (1993) and ICP Encyclopedia of Photography (1984). They have not been updated for decades, but they are still standard reference works.

A proper bibliography with complete publication data is on the way. Paul1513 20:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do you know what was the first SLR with a flash hot shoe? I know the first hot shoe camera of any kind came out in 1938 (the Univex Mercury, half frame 35 mm). I also know that the ISO hot shoe became a 35 mm SLR standard feature around 1973; that most 1960s 35 mm SLRs used screw-on accessory shoes to mount flashes but a PC socket to sync them; that the Nikon F had a non-ISO hot shoe in 1959; and that many post WW2 non-SLRs had a Leica shoe with electrical contact (the present day ISO hot shoe). This is where I lose the trail. I've made zero progress for six months. The humble hot shoe is so ubiquitous today that no one gives it a second thought anymore. This precisely why I think it deserves to be in the Chronology. You can reach me on my Talk page. (I haven't written a Wikpedia user page, but there is a Talk page for Paul1513.) Paul1513 20:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul1513. I wish that I could remember the first SLR with a hot shoe was. I know that the hot shoe became a 'standard' (more or less because they're all dedicated hot shoe's now) maybe during the late 60's or 70's. I can't, however, remember which SLR it was. Offhand, I'd say maybe it was one of the early Canon Reflexes but I'm just not certain right now.

My copies of Popular Photography and Modern Photography go back in some cases to the 1950's. The problem is getting to those magazines and hoping that where I had stored them didn't get them damaged in any way. Now, you had mentioned the "Top Camera Roundups". What was even better than these yearly articles was the Modern Photography Guide to Used Cameras, which was usually contained in their December issues up to, I think, 1964. Then they stopped printing that information, except for the 1968 issues (again, this is a guess). The guide would be an insert, printed on rough-bond paper, same size as the magazine, and it would contain a picture of the camera, the specifications, and, most important -- the serial number range! I've been considering just getting these issues, making a PDF of those pages and putting this on the Wikipedia website. I don't know, however, if this material is copyrighted.

As for the authors that you had mentioned above, yes, I heartily agree. Herbert Keppler and Jason Schneider were among the most knowledgeable writers in the photograpy field. You could also add Norman Rothschild, Cora Wright Kennedy, John Wolbarst (correct spelling of his name? also, he wrote a column in Modern Photography titled "Pictures in a Moment"). As I live in New York City, I was tempted to let Mr. Keppler know about these Wikipedia pages and perhaps he could add his considerable acumen to the facts, and especially the disputable facts presented on these photography pages. I have some issues with these Wikipedia references as far as grammar, getting and inputting references (I'm starting to learn cite refs but they're hard), and other matters. You may have read some of my responses on the photography pages that I have added discussions to, etc., so you probably have an idea of where I'm coming from.

You had mentioned "Polaroid" above. The Polaroid Automatic 100 was my first camera (not counting the family's Argus Twin Lens Reflex which I still have). I "pushed" that camera to its limits and won 2nd prize in a Macy's/Polaroid's Photo contest many years ago. While I have sold that camera, I DO have a Polaroid 180, which needs some repairs re: the shutter speeds and the diaphragm blades. I'm not getting rid of it however! It's a fine instrument! Try to find a manual Polaroid -- ANY Manual Polaroid! I once saw a Polaroid 120 (it's like a Polaroid 110B roll-film Polaroid) in a pawn shop. This camera was produced in Japan, not the U.S. At the time, I just didn't care for the price, which was $95. I wish now, however, that I had purchased it! It had a faster lens (a 127mm f/4.5 I believe), either a copal or seikosha shutter with speeds to 1/500 (the 110B only went to 1/400) and, unlike the 110B the diaphragm blades stopped down to f/90, unlike the 110B which used the lens cap to create that aperture. I have all of the accessories for the 180 camera, and I've also constructed a Matte Box out of an old 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" film holder, and this screws into the front lens filter threads.

Right now, unfortunately, if you check the previous message posted on my User page, then you will learn that some of the Wikipedia staff (Administrators I assume) are considering deleting some other non-photography pages that I have created and maintained. When you look at those pages, then you will learn that I became involved in some very serious matters. I left a message with the Administrators that I would consider leaving Wikipedia as an editor if these pages were deleted. The pages dealing with these murdered women are just too important to me, especially the Imette St. Guillen page. I was one of the people who protested that bar. By all rights, this guy should be out of business, period!

So, I sadly inform you that you may end up being one of the the only people who edit these photography pages, along with User:DickLyon and maybe a few others. Dick has shown that he has considerable knowledge of photography, etc. and I respect his and your input on these pages. I love photography! However, the issue with these murdered women puts all of these material 'loves' of cameras, and the appreciation of the Art of Photography into a more-important perspective, as you will learn if you study my user page in detail.

I want to thank you for your message as, you did pick my spirits up a bit. Tonight however, I may be talking to Imette St. Guillen's mother and I hope that, if she returns my phone call and we discuss Imette's Wikipedia reference, that she'll be understanding. She may not know about this reference or may not even want to talk to me about this. In the past, I've tried not to contact her family because I understand grief all too well. So, if this is my last post, then farewell. It was good discussing photography with you, and please give my regards to DickLyon.--MurderWatcher1 21:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SLR Chronology bibliography is complete

Hi, MurderWatcher1. This is Paul1513 again. This is to let you know that I have completed the SLR Chronology bibliography for you and that I am going to try to upload a PDF copy to your Talk page as soon as I finish this note. This may take a while, because I've never uploaded a PDF before.

You're absolutely right; it would be great if some of the old Modern Photography stuff could be added to Wikipedia. However, you can be sure that they're still under copyright. (Pre-1978 American "work-for-hire" copyrights are generally 75 years; 1978 and on, 95 years.) The real question is: Who OWNS the copyright today? Since Modern went under, there have been many media company sales and resales - the present copyright holder would be hell to uncover and ask permission. In fact, the current owner might not even know that it owns Modern's copyrights. "Orphaned" copyrights are a major unresolved "fair use" issue in the information age.

Speaking of first cameras: mine was a simple Vivitar 110 point-and-shoot. My parents gave it to me for getting straight A's in the 5th grade. It was, of course, a bad camera, but it opened up a world of possibilities. From the Vivitar, I eventually learned about the existence of the Pentax Auto 110 SLR. It was then one step to 35 mm SLRs and I got a Nikon FE2 in 1983. The FE2 is also the reason why the bulk of my Modern Photography magazine citations begin around 1983.

I'm sorry to hear about your disputes with the Admins over your non-photography Wkipedia entries. It would be unfortunate if you felt compelled to end your Wikipedia activities over them. Perhaps you could start a blog or create a MySpace or Facebook page to air these issues without worrying about what the Admins want. However, I will respect whatever your decision is, as I fully understand that the most sophisticated machine is nothing next to a human life.

You can reach me on my Talk page. Thanks Muchly Paul1513 18:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MurderWatcher1. This is Paul1513 again. I've been unable to figure out how to upload a PDF. The help pages seem only to discuss JPEG images. I might have to add it to your Talk page as text. Is this OK? It will make your page extremely long - the bibliography has over a hundred entries filling 13 pages on the PDF.

Reach me on my Talk page. Thanks Muchly Paul1513 20:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MurderWatcher1. This is Paul1513. I'm just letting you know that I've posted the SLR bibliography on my Talk page. I hadn't received permission to put it on yours after a couple of days and instead of cluttering up your Talk page, it's cluttering up mine. Leave questions or comments there too. Thanks Muchly Paul1513 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Digital Single Lens Reflex Page, your comment: "Some newer DSLR models feature live preview, allowing the image to be seen on the LCD display, although with certain limitations and with the optical viewfinder disabled." is merely a rewording of the text in the next section where live preview is introduced and discussed. User:MurderWatcher1 at 12:56 p.m. NYC Time (for some reason my Wiki formatting bar doesn't work).

Go ahead and remove it. I'm open to criticism and modifications - or even revert the whole thing if you feel strongly about it. We are supposed to try to reach consensus (ah, the idealism :-) --RenniePet 17:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You put in some good stuff! I need to read and think about it, that's all :) User:MurderWatcher1 and again this is a manual signature and time input of 1:05 p.m.

Jennifer Moore, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Jennifer Moore satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Moore and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Jennifer Moore during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Moore, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Ramona Moore satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Moore and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Ramona Moore during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel Petro-Nixon, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Chanel Petro-Nixon satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chanel Petro-Nixon and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Chanel Petro-Nixon during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jennifer Levin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Levin. Thank you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:68.249.7.59. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user had vandalized my userpage. I wouldn't do that to you.--MurderWatcher1 19:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user hadn't vandalised your userpage; while I think they took it to extremes (I won't delete content from userpages unless it's actually offensive/libellous), your userpage undoubtedly does violate "What may I not have on my user page?", and they were making a good-faith attempt to remove inappropriate content as per WP:SOAP, and didn't warrant an attack on their talk page. The Jimbo-commandment in question, if you're looking for a source for the policy, is "Using userpages campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this discussion before I reinstated my edit, and so I will now revert myself. Nevertheless, I think you should consider removing some of the userpage material that serves no encyclopedic purpose and tends to alienate other editors. 69.210.197.62 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that it doesn't really help in the disputes over articles--a more concise statement might better indicate a dedication to objectivity in editing. DGG (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Another berean Biblical Articles My Talk with 'Another Berean: "Excellent Addition I wish that I had that book from Sir Robert Anderson. I had heard about it."--MurderWatcher1 00:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Coming Prince is found here :- http://www.fbinstitute.com/Anderson/toc.html

See Seventy weeks for its criticism.

"Thanks for this information as well!"--MurderWatcher1 20:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I did some research on Daniels 70 weeks a few years ago. These web pages were useful :-

http://www.theism.net/article/17 http://www.harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/elephantine.htm

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3409.htm  : this web page shows the 7 and 62 weeks are treat differently in the Masoretic Text. I dont think the Dead Sea Scrolls has any fragments of this part of Daniel to give an idea of what earlier Hebrew texts suggest.

I was leaning towards http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/eschatology/daniel.htm , after giving up due to a sore head. Fascinating stuff though. --Another berean 21:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.theism.net/anderson.htm proves that Andersons calculations were 3 days out when using his chosen start and end days. --Another berean 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - Hi buddy. Thanks for adding in the reference, but I'd just like to point out that Yahoo! news does not archive their news materials on the 'net. Eventually the reference will expire and the link on that article will "dead-end". I, personally, have no problem with it currently... but was just pointing it out for your future reference. Have a good day, friend! Scarian^Talk 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean! Glad to meet another X-Files fan in the midst of Wikipedia! Have a great day editing, friend. Scarian^Talk 19:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo on that website is owned by somebody; what this means is that the person who took the photo owns the rights to it. To make this simple I'll use an exmaple: if you took a picture of say an apple and posted it on your own personal website that photo of the apple belongs to you. Without your permission it couldn't be uploaded to wikipedia because everything on wikipedia is released under some form of copyleft license. If it is copyrighted then it generally can't be on wikipedia because that means the original owner wants control over who uses/distributes it. When you find an image like you have you really don't know who owns it. That means somebody could have taken the photo themselves and just posted it someplace and then somebody else took it and posted it someplace else and on and on. So you don't know who originally owns that, which can cause problems if you upload it and the original owner finds it and decides that they don't want it on there. Sometimes newspapers are given photographs by the family to be used in obituaries and the like however that doesn't mean that they are available to be used freely. In cases where the photo is unique and is under a copyright Fair Use might be called in. A good example of this would be a well known image like the Viet Cong execution: Image:Nguyen.jpg.

However all of this is just a very small example of copyright issues. Wikipedia:Copyrights will have a lot more detailed and specific information. So as for the image I would have to say no. Why? Because I've seen it used on places besides that page, and chances are they don't hold the copyright to that image anyway. It would be best to use a free image if you can find one, and by free I mean an image that has been released under the GNU Free Documentation License or entered into the public domain. Hope this helps. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it won't help in this particular case, it's always a good idea to search Wikimedia Commons for images as well. Images there are (theoretically, anyway) checked for copyright validity and can be used on any site; to add them to Wikipedia articles just use [[image:title|right|thumb|caption]] as you would with a Wikipedia-hosted picture. They host well over 2 million photos, so chances are that if a free-use photo of something exists anywhere, there will already be a picture of it on Commons. Their explanation of the different copyright tags is far less confusing than Wikipedia's list, as well. — iridescent 15:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not creating a new section.. anyway thumb will resize the picture into a thumbnail. If you want an image to be a specific size [[Image:image.png|thumb|200px|caption]] will make the picture into a thumbnail with a specific size. Wikipedia:Extended image syntax has more about what you can use to produce different outcomes with an image. --ImmortalGoddezz 22:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review our policy on Biographies of living people. You've recently made several edits in which you strongly criticize or make accusations against living people without providing sources. This is unacceptable per wikipedia policy. I think you may have the wrong idea about what Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia, this is not a soapbox to speak for murder victims. You cannot state that people are accused of committing a crime, or refer to them as suspects, without providing sources. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to let you know what articles. Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing edits on the Apocalypse Wikipedia reference. Just today, I started putting in cite web references to this page. If you don't yet know how to do that (and I'm still learning more about this) please let me know. I suspect that you may have information to share as well. If you check on the 'History' tab, you'll notice when you study the various edits that a number of people have either vandalized or shown some type of disrespect for the page. The page does need a lot of work but what I have started today, I hope will be a useful start.--MurderWatcher1 17:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its an excellent entry, well thought out, I dont think I have sufficient knowledge really to contribute. My main research in the past was in Anderson's calculations in regards to Daniel's 70 weeks. When bold claims are made such as Anderson was correct to the day, that gets me researching. Another bold claim going around my church at the moment is that the 8th day is medically the best day for circumcision, apparently blood clotting agents are at their highest in a baby on day 8. I'm looking into the claim, unfortunately from preliminary research, I do not believe it is true. In regards to Apocalypse the only reservation I have is the mention of Swedenborg at the end (I thought his views were a bit dodgy). It would also be good if Moslems and other faiths also contribute to the article.--Another berean 09:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This website looks interesting

http://www.conncoll.edu/academics/departments/relstudies/290/iranian/zoroastrianism/theories.html

also

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/4/4zoroa94.html

Zoroastrianism appears to be ancient and it has been suggested that it infuenced the Jews who were in exile in Persia. It also influenced the Greek/Roman world. It looks like Zarathustra could be the 1st known apocalyptic writer. --Another berean 10:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, and they are direct quotes. This was discussed on the incident page for BLP, where you first went with your original question. The page has been viewed by several editors, and there are no BLP concerns. There was a copyright vio that was dealt with, but for the rest, the article provoked no worries. By the way, on the talk page you cans ee there was a recent Afd about this article, with consensus to keep. Cheers, Jeffpw (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're improving the article, and am glad for that. One chnage you made, though, did remove material that was supported by the source: the section about the bar owner using his town house for the bail. The Times article did say that. I changed it back; if you feel there's something I misunderstood, please feel free to revert me. Jeffpw (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(to Kww) I disagree with your edit as I think it's very relevant. I was just about to create a link to Emily Sander, who is on Wikipedia, when you performed this edit. Kindly read the article and consider the article and not the source please.--MurderWatcher1 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I always have to consider the source. Regardless of the author, publishing it in townhall.com automatically makes it suspect. Second, the material is not representing new facts about Natalee Holloway, but is simply commentary on a pattern, and a plea for societal change. It isn't relevant to the article on Natalee.Kww —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MurderWatcher1"

True. I make this suggestion to you, re: the above. We can help the families of all of these murdered young women by including this in the article, and maybe some parents out there will use this Wikipedia reference, as well as others, as an example (or examples) of the dangers of vacationing and nightlife in general. All of these articles, re: Holloway, St. Guillen, etc. may be used to save some lives out there and that has always been my focus. Also, Wikipedia may also benefit as a possible source of what to avoid in the real world.--MurderWatcher1 17:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but this is an encyclopedia, not a medium for social change, or an avenue for any cause, regardless of its merits.Kww 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. A few more questions: Have you been following her case closely and do you think this girl and her family will get any justice in this case?--MurderWatcher1 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we will ever know what happened to Natalee. We all have our guesses, but not enough evidence to meet the standards of either Dutch or American law.Kww 17:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a strong interest in improving the dispensationalism pages, and would like to coordinate efforts together. The "Dispensationalist Theology" page especially needs revamping. Lamorak (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lamorak. Right now, there is a mention of "discontinuity" on either the plain Dispensationalism page or the Dispensational Theology page. I forget which. I'm researching that issue in a Book titled "Hermeneutics" by Henry M. Virkler, who mentions same. Virkler, however, is a psychologist who apparently has studied these things so I'm not inclined to accept everything that he has to say. When somebody says there is "discontinuity" in the covenants, then I get suspicious. My "heroes" and role models in this vein are J. Dwight Pentecost, John F. Walvoord, and Dave Hunt, to name a few. I was tempted to e-mail Hunt on this matter. I've certainly mentioned some of this to Terry James of Rapture Ready. We communicate rather regularly via e-mail. He's busy now and I don't know if either he or Todd Strandberg even have time for something like this.

First off, I strongly recommend that, if you can, that you have a copy of J. Dwight Pentecost's "Things to Come" tome. It was (and maybe still is) used as a text book at Dallas Theological Seminar. I also have a book listing on my userpage which may prove helpful. The concepts presented are pretty complex. I can deal with most of them but this discontinuity issue being mentioned does have me thinking because it implies that God is no longer dealing with covenants that he made with the Israelites, which simply isn't true. I don't think we should delete that reference yet until we have a strong argument against it. I'll leave you with these thoughts for now. Some other matter just came up that I have to attend to. Thanks for approaching me on this subject.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had put comment tags on these pages, hoping no one would vandalize these but I returned to the Apocalypse page to find very questionable edits, etc. I just simply restored my edit(s). I don't know at this point what to do so I'm leaving this problem with you in hopes that maybe some users, whom I suspect are adolescent, may be kept off.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, pages like this are magnets to vandals, as so many pages link to them. As long as Wikipedia's available for anyone to edit (which, as one of Wikipedia's core policies, isn't likely to change any time soon). All that can be done is to revert & warn the vandals (put {{subst:uw-vand1}} , vand2, vand3, vand4 on their talkpage as appropriate). Once they reach a fourth warning, any further vandalism will result in their being banned; post a message to WP:AIV and they'll be banned within minutes. If the problem really gets out of control, I (or any admin) can semi-protect the pages, which prevents anonymous editors & new accounts from editing, but I don't think the level of vandalism warrants it at this stage.

Wikipedia has a balance to strike between being open to everyone (the kids who can cause a general nuisance on "serious" articles also mean Wikipedia is one of the best references around on TV characters & bands, for example), and keeping the vandals off; also, having the "ladder of escalation" prior to a block means at least three opinions (as they need to be warned four times, but any one editor can only revert someone three times in a day). As per the semi-permanent situation between you and ImmortalGoddezz, for example, what may seem vandalism, unsourced trivia etc to one person may seem a valid expansion to someone else. (I'd be inclined to wipe out most of the "see also" links from Apocalypse, for example, but I'm sure whoever added them was acting in good faith.) I'm probably not the best person to watch the articles, as while I can spot pure vandalism, I don't have the technical knowledge to tell what's a legitimate expansion and what's a deliberate insertion of false information, particularly on pages like these that encompass multiple religions. I'd suggest posting to WikiProject Religion, which is fairly active; someone there is likely to be in a far better position to clean up anything that needs cleaning up. — iridescent 22:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ME TO IRIDESCENT: Thanks for the advice, but I'm somewhat concerned by your term "As per the semi-permanent situation between you and ImmortalGoddezz". I don't see either of us as, for example, being in competition. I have learned a lot from her. I am assuming that you're referring to the Imette St. Guillen page. Just to inform you, I was one of the people who joined with protestors to rally against The Falls bar. I was in the Bar, travelled to almost all of the locations mentioned in her story, and have been in The Falls basement itself. I know that some months ago, there was blockage on the page concerning the Wrestler, Benoit (I think that's his name). He had used steroids and had murdered his wife and son. So, of course, because of all of the coverage, Wikipedia had to block/protect his web page reference so that only a few could insert edits into it.

Now I'm somewhat involved in her murder case, and now, that case is starting to show evidence of things that we (the protestors) in our rallys, had suspected for some time; namely ties to Rudolph Giuliani, and other political figures. Her murder case might have an effect on the American political election process. Seeing as we're discussing this, and as I am somewhat connected with her murder case (I had met her family last year at the Fundraiser, etc.) I'd like to request some protection for her page. Sooner or later, the trial for Littlejohn will begin and, if you saw one of the comments on the Imette St. Guillen discussion page directed against me and ImmortalGoddezz, my suspicion at the time was that this comment was from one of the Dorrian Clan or else one of the bartenders, putting out a subtle threat. Dorrian did threaten me when I picked up one protest sign at the second rally so these are people that are not to be underestimated. The Rally Organizer who had started the protests against The Falls had also received threats via e-mail for any of his postings on Craigslist.org, and the reply postings to him used foul language and threats. I had received one also when I had posted for him. Sorry for this being rather long, but this is an important murder case.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMMORTAL GODDEZZ Comments (on Iridescent's page)

Alright here's the deal. What Iridescent is talking about, I believe, is that you input sometimes useless information and I seem to go behind you cleaning it up so it's like a tag team effort, which I don't really enjoy. I believe Iridescent is also referring to the fact that you seem to believe that I will agree with every edit you make, all the information you add, and will back up your decisions on wikipedia. Please correct me if I'm wrong Iridescent. Now getting down to the nitty gritty. I'm only concerned with the Imette St. Guillen at this point is because of the amount of work I've put into the article. I looked into the MacCallum article because you asked me; however that does not mean that I agree with all the edits you make and the information you add. So basically this is the deal: I'm not going to follow you around and clean up your edits, that's not my job and I have my own things I like to concentrate on on wikipedia. I'm sorry if I seem like I'm being harsh here but I really dislike the fact that my username is brought up frequently in conversations by you, and then in turn by other people discussing your edits like I'm involved with everything you do and like I'm your champion on wikipedia. I don't mind answering questions you have but that does not mean that I am your best friend on wikipedia and it does not under any circumstances mean that I agree with the information that you add or that I will back you up on everything you do. Keep in mind that your personal involvement in any of the murder victims may give you a different opinion in the importance of the subject matter than the rest of us. As a final note and a personal preference please do not leave absurdly long copied messages on my talk page, like you just did with this message, when I can read about it on some other page, it makes me feel like I have to copy this message in three different places when one will generally suffice. Once again I'm sorry if this seems harsh but I feel like I'm being associated with your edits more so than what I'd like. --ImmortalGoddezz 01:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ImmortalGoddezz TO User:Iridescent on his page only!

I'm not sure if you watch the above users page or not but I've addressed the whole issue of me being involved/brought up frequently along with your comment on his talk page. I know you prefer all responses on the page of origination however this was addressed more to him, so I felt it was more suitable there. --ImmortalGoddezz 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You completely removed "Hartblei" from this article the first time around. I've got no problem with removing the wikilink from that term, but you removed the whole term. Thanks for not removing it a second time. If you want to have a discussion about the ordering of the Nikkor designations, start one on the relevant talk page, please. --Stybn (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello M. I've had to make revisions to all of your edits to this article. One of the first things to do when you come upon a new article is to read it carefully to determine how the article is "crafted." Most of the main articles in the WP:Aviation Project group use a set style guide and it is easiest to adopt that style rather than try to work in a new set of writing/organization/spelling/reference conventions. If you would like, I can provide more details as to the MoS of the group. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, please provide me with more details. I notice on your discussion page that there is a lot of talk about how to format references. My understanding was to use this format:

^[1]

so if a different editing convention is being used for military references, please provide me with links on my discussion page, thank you.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

M., thanks for your reply. I appreciate your additions to the article but my main concern as a former librarian is to establish a consistent style in writing and editing. My main and really only abiding concern in Wikipedia writing is to have a piece of writing look like it follows a pattern and that is the most problematic aspect of editing Wikiepdia with so many writers and so few "true" editors or reference librarians on the job. The fact that I was a librarian is where I draw my experiences and try to rationalize editing decisions based on accepted cataloging practices. A loooong explanation ensues:

Please consider that templates are merely guideposts. The manner in which Wikipedia cites reference sources can be found in {WP:REF} which is an extensive guide to how to cite sources but yet there is an interpretation of two factors that is involved. References as a bibliographical term is a nebulous one and is not specifically used in cataloging, rather it is a description of sources. The references area remains a kind of a "catch-all" in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research, then a "Further Reading" section can be established.

The actual cataloging terms in use in Wikipedia are "Notes" which refers to either footnotes or endnotes and "Bibliography" which is the full record of the information source. Quite a while back, and I do not know who actually began the practice of "nesting" the notes and bibliography sections, but an editor in the {Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography} project group had created a separate set of templates that incorporated the three terms, with "References" as a main heading (again primarily a Wikipedia convention not found in most published works) and the "Notes" appearing as endnotes using previously developed <reflist> templates, followed by "Bibliography" that uses the actual library cataloging terminology with the use of <refbegin> and <refend>.

One of the advantages to this new set of templates is that it places the endnotes in close proximity to the reference source, especially useful if there is a series or multiple citations from the same source. Another feature is that the new templates have condensed the text considerably and that is appreciated whenever a very lengthy list of bibliographic records is involved. See: Amelia Earhart as an example of how the templates have worked to conserve space. When the first instances of the use of this template became noticed in the Aviation Project Group, it was quickly adopted as a "clean" alternative to the earlier format of separate "Notes" and "References" section which was always clumsy as many editors prefered the use of the term, "Bibliography."

It still remains a matter of preference for editors as to which format to use and I have seen a number of other aliterations and variations on the theme but generally prefer a widely-accepted model that is able to incorporate both the "Notes" and "Bibliography" sections together yet keeping the main heading of "References" intact. In reading carefully the essays and other articles from proponents of various reference sourcing styles that you provided in your opening query on my talk page, you will note that the new templates do not change any of the previous section guides; in retrospect, the templates enhance the use of the previous notes and references sections without loss of information or major change to the bibliographic record.

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. I am also an editor (by trade) and an author who has worked with a myriad of editors from line to graphic and overall concept editors in five publishing houses. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the extant templates. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References" under the sub-heading of "Bibliography." In the Enola Gay article for example, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. It is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing in citation/reference notes. The "true style guide" is not determined by Wikipedia but recommendations are made as to following recognized standards. It is always preferable to use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. As to the exact citations in question, they are written in the traditional "Author. "Title". Place of publication: Publisher, year." convention but being adapted to an electronic/digital source of information.

As to providing dates, on standard rule is to use one consistent style and that is already established by the Wikipedia Aviation Group as 19 December 2007 rather than 2007-12-19. The reason for this standard is that dates are not the same in the 2007-05-10 format globally, as a reader in a foreign country does not automatically understand the system in use. Is it October 5, 2007 or May 10, 2007? When you specify day, month, year, there is no ambiguity, it matches all the dating conventions within the text, and is already the agreed upon format of the WP:Aviation Group. The other reason for using the 19 December 2007 date format is that it allows Wikipedia users with browser preferences set for a particular date convention to read the dates in their preferred style. FWIW, I have standardized the format throughout the article at present.

How the URL reference source appears whether it is "nested: within the brackets or not, or use of the word "retrieved" is a later variation on URL referencing. The reason for the use of "Retrieved" is that it is the HArvard Citation standard phraseology. In creating a bibliographical record or citation, the gudeline is to follow conventional sentence rules of capitalization, spelling and grammar. That is why a bibliographical record looks like a sentence starting with a capital word and ending with a full stop (period). Meanwhile, the fact that Wikipedia editors have used "retrieved" is inconsequential; it is not a term used in "real-time" cataloging, it is a WickyWacky word invented for convenience in Wikipedia. I continually take the original format and make it the consistent format throughout articles. Using standard Modern Language Association (MLA) style guides make sense, but a simplified URL-format is acceptable

The URL reference/citation example is:

</ref/> North Korea replies to Bush letter, Yahoo News. Retrieved: 19 December 2007. </ref/> Remember you may have to read my entire submission in edit mode to see all the formatting used. (I have also written the ref tags incorrectly so that you could read the citation.)

Now for the format of an aviation article, it's a HUGE question, since there a gigantic, enormous, humongous amount of format guidelines that are followed. In order to give you an appreciation for what is involved, I will refer you to an article that I created following the guidelines precisely: North American A-36. Read this article in edit mode to determine all the format requirements from two lead paragraphs, infobox, illustrations and graphics, headings and sub-headings, use of format templates, references/citations and other organizational bits. Spelling, date conventions and naming protocols are also all in place and correct. I know it's a huge bother, but it does demand a careful attention to details to write/edit a well-written, properly researched article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hooo, Boy! What a lot of reading! I think I'll keep off of the Enola Gay page for a while! Now I have a librarian friend at Columbia University and I think that he'll get a kick out of what you just gave me! On another note, I just "weighed-in" on keeping the Natalee Holloway page. It concerns me that Wikipedia editors are adamant about deleting a page, especially when there can be good material(s) gleaned from the information contained therein! Getting back to the Enola Gay story, it was interesting to read about Tibbets recently and his passing away. I "smelled" 'revisionist history' in the air being hatched when I had heard about the controvesy of the plane itself. I'll try to read and consider the materials that you gave me in my spare time, and thanks!--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shhh. quiet. The 747 article is being considered for FA. There was criticism that the references were not all of the same style. One very thorough editors who objected checked and finally gave approval. The Colson ref has been changed to a different format. Consider changing it back (preferred) or shhhhh....quiet..and no more changes to the refs. Archtransit (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Dekisugi (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MurderWatcher1. This is Paul1513. About your request for Deardorff info: I'm sorry to say that I know almost nothing about the specifics of large-format view cameras, including Deardorff. Once I understood that they were not for me – that large format was as billed (too large for my needs), and that the Scheimpflug principle was an applied geometry/trigonmetry problem (which I thought was simple) – I put them out of mind.

However, I have uncovered a fascinating Deardorff nugget: Joe Blackburn, a New York based pro, took a 5×7 Deardorff, four Schneider lenses, a Gitzo tripod and a couple thousand sheets of Ektachrome and T-Max (plus a lot of 35 mm equipment) on the Everest '88 Assault expedition as the expedition photographer. Although Blackburn and the Deardorff did not summit, Blackburn did lug his gear 50 miles to base camp at 17,000 feet, frequently went up to the 18,000 foot advance camp, and made it as far as 19,500 feet. (Sint, Steve. "Sint's View: Large Format Scales New Heights" pp 68-69, 78. Modern Photography, Volume 53, Number 6; June 1989.)

I don't believe this is useful for a general-purpose encyclopedia article, but I hope you'll find interesting. Paul1513 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet deleted your section, Antichrist#Dispensational (Christian) beliefs, but it is badly in need of editing. Please read WP:NPS. It is not appropriate to have lengthy quotes from source material in Wikipedia. The suggested approach, as stated in WP:NPS, is to place the sources, if possible, into WikiSource, and then refer to those sources from Wikipedia. If you're unable to place the sources into WikiSource, then you should just be using {{cite book}} to refer to them, with the quote parameter possibly containing only a small quotation from the book. Wdfarmer (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, I've marked the section, Antichrist#Titles in Scripture, with the same {{copypaste}} notice that I gave the section above. The same comments apply if you are the author of that section. Wdfarmer (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Chanel Petro-Nixon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been looking over this article and wanted to leave a few comments on it. It's got the start of a decent article. When writing about a person, you should refer to them only by the last name or the complete name, unless it is within a direct quote. I went ahead and changed that when I saw it. As far as quotes as concerned, it seems a bit quote heavy to me. Perhaps you could render the majority of them to general prose with a citation. Example:

The city's Administration for Children's Services had received two complaints about the family, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston. The first, in May, 2004, was found to be unsubstantiated. The second came just last month, on Dec. 1, when the little girl showed up at school with a black eye.

It should read more in the vein of: Two complaints had been received by the New York Administration for Children's Services. The first, in May 2004, was found to be unsubstantiated. The second came shortly before her death, on December 1, after Brown came to school with a black eye. (with citations as needed)

I moved the Aftermath section, with the law details, to the end of the article and made the heading about the law. Finally, the middle section, regarding the trial, needs to be less choppy. Use a main subtitle and write about the trial in a straightforward manner. When you do include a quote, it's not necessary to also refer to the writer of the publication where it appeared, or to the article itself. In other words, it isn't necessary to say "Joe Blow wrote" or "as per the article." The citation tells the read this already.

When you are writing about an event, you should strive to keep the tense of the article consistent and avoid language that will date the article and require updating in order. However, one of the main problems I see with it is that it is discussing details of the trial day by day as it has been occurring. You really need to strive to avoid that, as it will make the articlei overly long. Try to condense it what it being presented into two or three paragraphs, which contain details about each topic in the article, instead of presenting it in a timeline format. Hope this helps. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I give up! What on the page informs you that it's a blog?

Nothing. I'm going by a long-ago discussion on Talk:Terri Schiavo, where this website by one June Maxam was a part of the "Terri Schiavo is being murdered" faction and campaign.* Since then, I've been removing tlinks to there wherever I find them. Given that you already have other sources, what's the point of fighting for this one?

*Since I'm NOT trawling through the megabytes of material in the archives, I'll be lazy and point to some external results pulled up through Google -- most of which I wasn't actually familiar with until now, but certainly strengthens my case.

• Digg.com
• "Dakota Voice", a pro-life blog
• Some blog calling itself "Bad Cop News" Scroll past all the photos at the top of the page to get the posts.
• Christian website
• Boing Boing post

None of these are reliable sources for, say, writing an article about June Maxam, but do show the unreliability of "North Country Gazette" as a bonafide source. --Calton | Talk 13:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Thanks for this information! Who would have thought!

No problem. Yeah, on the surface it seems legitimate, but it's only because some of that background got hashed out at Talk:Terri Schiavo that I knew about it. Every few months I or so I check the "External links" page to see if it's cropped up again, is all. --Calton | Talk 15:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add multiple links to the same website to a host of articles. It is considered spamming. If you are working on an article and think link is useful, fair enough. Otherwise use the talk page to suggest it to those working on the article. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm and generally discourages external links.--Doc^g 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly check the links and you should find that what I've put in is reliable information.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is not the issue. See our policies on external links. External links should be added by those working on the article - it is inappropriate to link to the same website from multiple articles. You will simply be reverted.--Doc^g 22:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Imette St. Guillen yearbook photo.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Imette St Guillen Memorial Grad Picture.jpg. The copy called Image:Imette St Guillen Memorial Grad Picture.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSC_1487.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. Nv8200p talk 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renee-db and 70.187.213.79 are single purpose accounts that were spamming books from a small press into various articles. As spam, they were reverted. IrishGuy ^talk 23:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contribution. However, I have had to remove it since it duplicates good coverage at Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Libel actions. TerriersFan (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move and rename the New York City and Other States Nightlife legislations? I had just uploaded this! Quite rude! Also if you'll look other states are mentioned.

if it includes other states, it should be a more general title. otherwise the title gives precedence to NYC. i didn't see the other states, sorry! ninety:one 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's got Louisiana and Ohio and I expect other Wikipedia editors to add information about other states and their laws as well. If it saves one person then the page is worth it.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if it includes other states, it should be a more general title. otherwise the title gives precedence to NYC. i didn't see the other states, sorry! ninety:one 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you see, you can't just have an entire article on NYC then some other states under the current name, it is either 'Nightlife legislation in New York City' or 'Nightlife legislation in the United States'. ninety:one 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No but it STARTED in New York, Okay? Read the article.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yah, but the article now refers to more than NYC. ninety:one 21:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the page originated from the Imette St. Guillen and Jennifer Moore Wiki pages as another editor had suggested some time ago to split the section so after much editing, re-research, etc. I did same. Those two pages now link to this new one so the title of the page is proper.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reffered to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal ninety:one 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:A Night For Imette Fundraiser.pdf, 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 16:58, May 5, 2008 (UTC) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MurderWatcher1, I was just wondering why you believe that your religion is the right one. What drew you to that specific religion? I’m doing research for my thesis and I’d like to get a discussion going. Get back to me. All the best. MagicBullet5 (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Imette St. Guillen yearbook photo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion/vote you may be interested in taking place at Nikon DSLR template talk Regarding the format of the table and the information it displays. This vote has been prompted by discussion regarding the placement of the Nikon D3, Nikon D1/Nikon D2X and the Nikon D700. If you chose to vote, please familiarize yourself with the discussion and the Nikon system. If you can help out, great. If not, no worries. Thanks in advance. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 17:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have an opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-listened-to radio programs? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you did some good edits on the Murder of Imette St. Guillen page. However, today I have been given permission by the St. Guillen's lawyer, Chris Lang in Boston, to put up a picture. However, the picture has been deleted and I re-uploaded it. He is the copyright holder of the image and he is running the "Spirit of Imette Foundation" in Boston (See the weblink) so this picture should not be deleted from her webpage. Your help in this matter would be appreciated, thank you.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your photo was deleted because of the license you released it under. Wikipedia cannot take photos that are licensed "non-commercial use only", "educational use only", or "used with permission". When you uploaded the photo and licensed it, a speedy delete tag was added automatically by the software. An admin then deleted it.

If you and/or Chris Lang feel strongly about this specific photo being included in the article, you may do one of the following:

• The copyright holder can release it into the public domain. Please be aware that by doing so, the copyright holder waives all rights to the image.
• The copyright holder can release the image under the Gnu Free Documentation License or a compatible free content license. A list of some compatible licenses can be found at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses.
• If you believe the use of the image falls under fair use, you can reupload it with an appropriate fair use rationale. You can find more information about fair use at Wikipedia:Non-free content.

Please be aware that it's considered polite to contact the deleting administrator directly before contacting someone else. This isn't a major breach of ettiquette, but the deleting admin probably could have answered your questions much faster since they were already acquainted with the problem. Leaving a message to the admin in an edit summary is not an effective way of communicating with them - the admin probably never saw the article at all, and thus did not see your message. Natalie (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded an image onto the Murder of Imette St. Guillen page and twice it has been deleted. I see that your name was on the page. Please understand that the image was sent by the St. Guillen's Attorney, Christopher Lang in Boston, to me, and is being used on the new "Spirit of Imette Foundation" webpage which the family has created. I've been given permission by Chris Lang to use the image on Wikipedia so please see that it's not deleted, thank you.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your "are you responsible?" – I'm responsible in the sense that I was the admin doing duty at cleaning out Candidates for speedy deletion at the time, but I have no prejudice towards it or any of the other deleted content, and wasn't the one who tagged it for deletion as non-free content.

Copyright permissions are complicated; because Wikipedia is public domain, it is not possible for a copyright holder to license content for use on Wikipedia without releasing it irrevocably for anyone to use, modify and publish for personal use and financial gain. While the holder may be happy for it to be used, are they happy for it to potentially be used to illustrate (for example) fetish pornography? (See this discussion for a previous occasion of exactly this occurrence.)

If you think the copyright holder will be happy with this, go to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and follow the instructions there. The copyright holder will need to email permissions-enwikimedia.org with a completed version of the Declaration of consent for all enquiries.

If you don't think the copyright holder will agree with this, but still feel the image is necessary to the understanding of the article, you can upload it as fair-use non-free content. The instructions for this are here, and the image must comply with every point.

Hope that helps! When we delete images, we're not doing it to be awkward; non-free images are a legal minefield, and are one of the few instances where we always err on the side of deletion on Wikipedia, due to the potential legal liabilities should we allow non-free images to be released into the public domain. – iridescent 18:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no value in restoring the image code when the image is deleted. It's probably also worth mentioning that most people don't take kindly to throwing around accusations of vandalism where they're clearly horse hockey. WilyD 23:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I came here to make a similar point. MurderWatcher1, WilyD explained his edit in the edit summary and his edit summary matched what he did. Calling that vandalism is not appropriate. Natalie (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 15:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We still require a license. — neuro^(talk) 15:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) — neuro^(talk) 15:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Merged Brigham Circle2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Radiant chains (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you seen this site http://www.textus-receptus.com - I am just looking around for people to help edit. Cheers! 124.184.242.189 (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This revert, where you undid the work of a number of editors who were trying to bring the above article into line with our content policies, was extremely unhelpful. Neither you, nor anyone, may decide who edits Wikipedia's articles - with every edit you submit, you agree to the conditions at the bottom of the edit page. One of these is "If you do not want your writing to be edited, read or redistributed by other people, then do not submit it here." This principle is also enshrined in our article ownership policy. From what you've posted on the talk page, it seems likely that you also have a conflict of interest around this subject. We recommended that users don't edit any subject they are personally connected with. This is not an absolute prohibition, but you must realise that if you do choose to edit in such areas your edits will naturally come under more than normal scrutiny. In large part this is due to our neutrality policy; Wikipedia has no opinion, and we shouldn't be able to tell where an article-writer's sympathies lie. Your revert has provoked a number of complaints from experienced article writers; please in future discuss major content changes on the article talk-pages, as the other editors had been. Further blind reversions may lead to editing restrictions being placed on this account. EyeSerene^talk 22:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have reverted your recent reversion. The changes made by other editors were being discussed on the article talk page, and had consensus. These changes were intended to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you disagree with some of these changes, please discuss those on the article talk page in reference to Wikipedia's policies. Your own actions and those of the victim's mother have absolutely no bearing on the discussion. Karanacs (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Leibby Kletzky is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Leibby Kletzky until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. AniMate 03:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Welcome Sign North West Entrance.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:New Jerusalem average space.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused text-only file. No other obvious use. Can be converted to LaTeX if needed.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]