User talk:DickClarkMises/archive6

File:Paul johnson writer.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:PaulJohnson1.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:PaulJohnson1.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Ether monument-Boston.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Ether monument-Boston.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Rothbard-agd.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Rothbard-agd.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dickclarkmisses,

I am a relatively new wikipedian appealing to you as a more senior editor. Having recently made edits to the New England School of Law Page, all of which are carefully sourced and resourced (see history), I was dismayed to see another Wikipedian, Ballpointzen, revert the page to his/her changes. The page was stamped as "reading like an advertisement" and I spent a good four hours working to make it more accurate.'

The page has now been locked by an administrator named "Hiberniantears." Would you please review my edits and consider changing the locked page to the page I worked so hard to create?

The citations I use are all to ABA approved LSAC data, which is the gold standard in law school admissions, cost, and employment data. The page as its stands remains the advertisement page.

Thanks for your diligence in the past, and in advance for your diligence as regards this issue.

Peperoni Pizza Latenightpizza (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading Image:Randy barnett.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

By the way, I got an updated photo from Mr Barnett (which is fully confirmed under OTRS as being licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0) to replace this one. --TachyonJack (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi ... I think you may know the answer to this. If I confirm a fact with a subject of a bio, how can I reflect that (if at all), and under what policy? tx.--68.173.101.114 (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was reverting a sock of banned editor KiK. I have no desire to see that sentence read one way or another. If you reinstate KiK edits, I would appreciate it if you would not leave an edit summary that implies that I was reverting a valid editor. Thanks, LK (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. Reading my first message now, it seems a bit testy. Sorry about that. Regards LK (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I prefer not to engage in edit wars. Lets discuss the issues we have at the talk page--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi DickClarkMises/archive6,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Agradman ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Libertarian. Gosh, what a surprise. Ron Paul is your hero I guess! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowym (talk • contribs) 01:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

My error, I thought she switched after leaving office.[1] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Gratzer. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Frank Fetter has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik_Zero 16:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yo Dick, stumbled across this article of yours while surfing and noted with interest the claim that Mark Thornton introduced Jimbo Wales to Hayek's "Information". Would you happen to know if this is backed up by "reliable sources" (no offence intended, I would just like to use it in an article or two)? Mahalo,  Skomorokh  16:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi!, check this ;)

This user is an anarcho-capitalist.

--Libertatis (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading File:Jerry_Rappaport.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. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Members.

Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.

Yours in Scouting
---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Billpryor.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010)   Previous issue | Next issue

Content

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.

Firstly, thank you for signing the census, and an apology if you are one of those editors who dislike posts such as this one for messaging you again in this way. I've now got myself organised and you can opt-out of any future communication at WP:WikiProject Economics/Newsletter. Just remove your name and you won't be bothered again.

Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to invite your comments on the census talk page about the project as a whole. I've given my own personal opinion on a range of topics, but my babbling is essentially worthless without your thoughts - I can't believe for one moment that everyone agrees with me in the slightest! :)

All your comments are welcomed. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am not sure if what you stated in your edit summary rv again the Hanna edit re Atlanta Blue Cross/Blue Shield, etc. is accurate, to wit: "because BLP requires multiple ind. sources for this". I looked but didn't locate any official directive that indicates this. I would greatly appreciate your pointing it out to me.

Also, I do now have three sources so far: [2], [3], [4]

I am not going to engage in an edit war. Can you just take a look at the sources I provided above. If they are acceptable, you can:

• Restore my edit
• Add the text yourself as you see fit
• Let me know either on my talk page or the Hanna article talk page how best to proceed in good faith

Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

See WP:PROF for the notability guideline for academics, also WP:UNDUE and the September 2008 Wikiproject Economics discussion, also the current AFD discussion for Jeffrey Herebener.Bkalafut (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

As you are no doubt aware, there is more than one road to notability. See, for example, WP:CREATIVE, which states that it is an indicium of notability that "The person's work... has won significant critical attention." I pointed out that Murphy's books, for example, have been substantively discussed in Barron's and other reliable sources. For Hulsmann, I pointed out that he is well-published and has been cited by others in his field (and not merely in journals affiliated with LvMI). DickClarkMises (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I just wanted to drop you a friendly note. I was looking at the Acton Institute article, and I noted that the logo image file should actually have been a {{PD-textlogo}} image, so I changed it. Also, I noticed that you uploaded a number of images where you assert that 1) you were the librarian for the Mises Institute (File:Mises institute.jpg) or 2) Obtained license releases from the owner without going through OTRS (File:Stephen gordon.jpg). It's my understanding that this kind of release needs to be recorded somewhere. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to get that taken care of. Cheers! --GrapedApe (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, GA. Permissions emails sent to OTRS! DickClarkMises (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good man! Anyways, just so I'm clear on this: the Acton Institute is a libertarian think tank with Catholic social values. Is that a correct (if imprecise) generalization? --GrapedApe (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure, actually. They have certainly published a number of libertarians, but they also publish non-libertarian authors and host non-libertarian speakers (probably more frequently than they host libertarians, I might add). There is also some controversy over whether AI takes positions that accurately reflect Catholic social teachings (see Storck, Thomas "Is the Acton Institute a Genuine Expression of Catholic Social Thought?" Social Justice Review, vol. 93, no. 5-6, May-June 2002.). I am not a Catholic, so I don't really have an opinion on that point. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply