User talk:Quadell/Archive 15

Of course. I wouldn't have it any other way, sir! Besides, Sarah seems to enjoy socializing with strange fellows :)--Sean Black (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

He's not as strange as he needs to be, though he's maturing into the role. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Quadell/Archive 15, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/American politicians/Senators as a weekly focus some time. It's pruned, it's complete, it's got helpful tools, it's easy to work on (since PD bios are available), and it would help another project as well. What do you think? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly change it next Monday (usual change-over), but one thing I would like is a definitive starting count from the subproject so that the template can be updated with progress so far and what had been done by the end of the week. I'm also interested in it for the progress page. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

COTW is work of a big number of people, with spectacular progress displayed. As I mentioned, I doubt many peole are familiar enough with the topic. Not to say the topic itself is rather narrow. mikka (t) 22:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Last monnth you turned NCRP into a redirect to network computer. Two problems with that:

• The "network computer" does not use this term
• In cases of red-linked TLAs & ETLAs it is a good idea to click "what links here", to see whether a disambig would be more proper.

Please update the NCRP (and "network computer") accordingly. mikka (t) 19:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you redirected NC1 also there. Please don't make redirects to articles that don't explain the term. This is a twofold harm: first, you are confusing the readers; second, you are killing a red link, which otherwise could have attracted an attention of an expert who could write at least a decent stub. mikka (t) 19:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "I'm not sure what you want me to fix."

To add information which actually tells what NCRP and NC1 are. Please re-read what I've said above. the fact that a topic is missing means that the topic must be covered, not a red link killed. Either you misunderstood the MEA people or they are wrong. I am writing the NCRP stub now. It does merit an article. mikka (t) 20:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all hostile. I am simply a nonnative English speaker, and my prose is terse. Please think about the things I pointed out, rather than a perceived tone. One more word of advice: unless a person directly insults you, assume good faith. My goal was not any personal affront but to make wikipedia better. mikka (t) 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your willingness to try to help resolve this situation. I began protesting the wholesale copying of my webpages into Wikipedia back in early October 2005 by writing to the "Designated Agent" (Mr. Wales and the Wikimedia Board), who referred my letter to Michael Snow. With one exception, everyone at Wikipedia has shown a willingness to be reasonable. My frustration derives from the apparent lack of there being anyone in charge. One person intervenes and removes a page and another restores it. People get involved and then disappear. Is there anything resembling and orderly process for definitively settling such issues? My feeling is that I could conclude a fair use agreement with Wikipedia and a week later people would start copying my webpages all over again and I'd have to repeat the same frustrating process. Again, thanks for any help you can provide. Jinfo 13:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Quadell, I'm wondering if you might want to offer a vote, or at least a comment, regarding the issue of whether "The Nation" name space should be the article about the U.S. periodical or a disambiguation page. You can contribute your thoughts here: Talk:The Nation#Article title. Thank you and take care. --Howrealisreal 16:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Katar.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see: Image talk:Katar.jpg. (I have seen this on Who's talk page at random and decided to act. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Quadell, can you please delete this page (the image is on the commons)? I'm on a shitty public terminal where I can't even fill in edit summaries :-( BTW, I think it's time that this image was also removed from the commons. Lupo 17:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you did with that image page; it looks as if you recreated it as "{{featuredpicture}}"... since this is the same as Image:Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh.jpg, which was deleted as a copyvio, I don't quite see how this image could still be featured. I thought being a copyvio was incompatible with "featured" status? Lupo 20:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Quadell

Can you please assist with a dispute I'm having with user:Shervink at the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi article (see the recent history). He insist that there is a disagreement among scholars as to weather the 1953 coup against Mossadeqh was in fact a coup, even though every major newspaper and book about the subject refers to the 1953 events as a coup. His only references are three unpublished statements and opinions from people with close ties to the coup which is a very small minority at best. I have told him that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small...minority, it doesn't belong in WP... regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not" which is a policy quote from NPOV and also that unpublished work can not be used as a ref. (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources)) but he still keeps reverting. He is very stubborn and impossible to get through. I have before had long discussions with him regarding these issues (see The constitution and POV edits by Shervink). He is also in violation of the 3 revert rule. I hope you can help. I thank you in advance! ---- Melca 15:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, can you help me with a copyright question?

Say I want to make a map of an island; I take a copyrighted map, tweak it in Gimp and use a raster to svg translator to get the raw outline of boundaries. Then I create a new map with the data.

I'm assuming that geographical data like a boundaries or coastlines aren't copyrightable. Is this right? Can we use methods like this to make maps for Wikipedia? --Duk 23:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi I have a question about Image:Jun1.jpg. this pic was uploaded by IP user user:213.107.224.13 in 2004, but he/she affix no copyright tag & its source. In this edit you tagged GFDL. Do you have some grounds for this edit? Ideru 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm worried about it bacause this image obviously infringes on portrait rights. I will propose this image for deletion. - Ideru 23:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! It looks like you added information to these articles about Koch acquiring Purina in 1998 but having tha acquition voided by bankruptcy court in 2000. Can you cite a source to verify that information? I remember Purina's acquisition by Nestle being a big news story, but I don't recall any coverage of this would-be merger. Thanks! TMS63112 20:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The sources aren't entirely clear, but the St. Louis Business Journal article seems to suggest that Koch only owned a 5% stake of Purina Mills. I think there may also be a distinction between "Purina Mills" and Ralston Purina. I think Purina mills was the farm animal feedd manufacturer. Ralston Purina (the parent company) may have sold a stake in that operation to Koch Industries while retaining all of their pet food operations (which were sold to Nestle in 2001). I seem to remember Ralston divesting a lot of their other operations (ceral, batteries, hockey team) in the 1990's to focus on the pet foods. TMS63112 20:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all the corporate relationships are confusing. I am going to post our discussion on the talk page of the article so there is a record of it and the relevant sources. I may also edit the article to reflect the relationship as best I understand it from the available sources. Cheers! TMS63112 05:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not ever hear back from them personally, however, they appear to have verified as per the note on the talk page .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: What is the difference between putting "CopyrightedFreeUse" on an image I took and "GFDL-Self" on image? Must I do either, or may I choose? Which is better? Bobburito 20:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I heard back from them. I see however that you took them out of the list and added {confirmation} so I guess everything has been resolved. howcheng {chat} 21:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I greatly appreciate your willingness to help with this. Your proposed solution is acceptable to me. I would prefer to have JINFO.ORG listed as the "Reference," rather than as the "Source," since I do not want to be held responsible for names that others may later add to the list. In addition, I would like the "Reference" block to indicate tha JINFO.ORG contains more extensive lists. I will consider Wikipedia's use of my "short lists" to be a "fair use" of the material on the webpages in question. I understand that the material (with proper attribution) may be licensed to other websites. As for the List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science, its compilation was not as simple as you are assuming. Down-selecting from the overall list to just the Jewish recipients involved a number of very difficult-to-identify individuals; few people would even suspect that they were Jewish, much less be able to verify the fact. My original complaint to the "Designated Agent" (back in October) concerning that list was made when there was not even attribution given as to its source, and when it appeared as though nearly every webpage on my site was going to eventually turn up in Wikipedia. Rather than argue about it now, I will permit Wikipedia to use my list of "Jewish Winners of the US National Medal of Science," provided that it continues to carry proper attribution. This is in addition to Wikipedia's use of my list of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners, which not only reproduces the exact same set of names (which differ slightly from the names found on other such lists), but also uses JINFO.ORG's statistics and certain of its unique features, such as the list of Jewish founders of organizations that have won Nobel Peace Prizes. I am not, however, waiving my copyright claims vis-a-vis any other such prize lists appearing on my site. Thanks again. Please let me know if you require any further information. Jinfo 04:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The list of American governors is 100% complete, and the list of executive branch related topics is as complete as it will get. It contains a list of Under Secretaries, who are the highest ranking positions below Secretary and Deputy Secretary, and report directly to the head of the Department, a list of Assistant Secretaries, who head individual bureaus and report to Under Secretaries, a list of bureaus we don't have yet, and a list of positions we don't have yet. One has already been created Under Secretary for Political Affairs, as a start. Adniel 23:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It was successful and I hope to be a good administrator. Essexmutant 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what he said before you seconded it? :D "(in my experience) Bobblewik is always willing to discuss what he does, and change what he does when someone objects." It appears that his experience isn't exactly typical. [1]. I only blocked him for one hour so I could make sure he stopped performing his automated edits (faster than most bots perform) and focus on the discussion. However once the hour was up he returned to editing, though the discussion was not complete. I do agree that my choice of words in dealing with him left a bit to be desired.

Also, I was rather civil in my first two edits to his talk page, but my composure rapidly disintegrated when it appeared that he lacked the time and/or inclination to provide any response that wasn't copied and pasted from somewhere else. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:49, Feb. 14, 2006

 

Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your thanks. Comments like yours keep me going. As far as running a regex is concerned, have you looked at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser? That will let you do it. It even has a date delinking option that several editors were using. Unfortunately, this was been turned off because of the complaints by Ambi and Talrias. So the owner probably will not let you use your own regex that does the same thing. You can see that there is quite a bit of self censorship that is happening on this issue.

If you want to do it for yourself, copy the contents of:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobblewik/monobook.js

and paste it into a page called:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadell/monobook.js

Then copy the contents of:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js

and paste it into

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadell/monobook.js/dates.js

Then clear your cache by typing <ctrl><shift><r>. Then go to a test page and click 'edit'. You will see a tab at the top marked '1jan2001'. Press that and you can enter the regex. It probably will do odd things first so it will take us a couple of goes to get it right. Let me know when you have done that. Answer here please. bobblewik 21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Quadell,

I borrowed your Idea for the Valentines Day template. Hope you don't mind --- :) Thanks, Chooserr 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was nice to receive. Jkelly 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell. Have a happy valentines day too. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Awww, thanks! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Quadell, thank you for you support in my RfA. I was promoted with a final count of 48/1/0! If you see me making any mistakes, let me know ASAP. -- WB 02:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I looked at your wishlist and decided that I'd look into one of your topics and research about it. Paul Andrew Hutton is now an article, but it's a stub. Regards. Webdinger 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you voted for this article, and it won. Maybe you can help to improve it... See you there! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I could not get the regex to work if I embedded '\[' within the dates.js page. So I always had to paste the regex into the popup question. That was a pain. If you succeed in getting it to work, let me know.

Also, you may wish to try replacing [0-9] with \d. It appears to be equivalent but only 2 characters instead of 5. Let me know how you get on. bobblewik 20:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've figured out something a little better, but not much. My prompt says "type backslash", and replaces all instances of a semicolon (a placeholder) with a backslash. Not much of an improvement in practice, but it's somewhat better. See User:Quadell/monobook.js/dates.js for details. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I wouldn't, but you can check the history and see that he reformatted my own comment accusing me of abusing blocking powers. Whilst I concede I may have been verbally abusive, I do not believe I abused blocking powers, thus a more neutral title might allow "curious onlookers" to decide this for themselves. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:48, Feb. 15, 2006

I had Badagnani's talk page watchlisted from a previous discussion about saxaphones and I noticed your comment there "if I had put a comma in, the Wikipedia software wouldn't see it as a date". In fact, the comma is completely optional — [[January 9]], [[2006]] and [[January 9]] [[2006]] render identically in any date preference setting: January 9, 2006; January 9 2006 (I just tested it in all four settings to be sure. Obviously I don't know what type of edits Badagnani was making or whether this affects the validity of your comment, and I don't care to check, just letting you know. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:36, Feb. 16, 2006

Well, I never! Amazing, it does show up in the text with the comma even though you removed it in the edit screen. I guess all is well! Thanks for the info. Badagnani 02:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 12:24Z

Salutations. Thank you for your consideration on my rfa. Per your comment, I am intriqued by it. Could I inquire what you mean by "wouldn't be a bad admin, but wouldn't be a good one...? In the questions section, I answered I only wish to engage in tedious tasks and take on responsibility. I don't plan on wheel warring or engaging in this userbox fiasco, etc. I would be gald to hear more critism. -Zero^Talk 16:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You deleted this image from Wikipedia, listing it as "This image was copied to Commons, and all required information is provided.". Unfortunately, that statement is false. The source for the image at Commons is listed as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TurbidityStandards.jpg. That is a self-referening image and will be deleted from Commons unless accurate source information is provided. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 19:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I copied your two pages to mine. I tested it on my page: User:Bobblewik. When the 'Type backslash' question appeared, I typed '\'. It did not do any changes. Why do you think that might be? bobblewik 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This regexp is specifically to change things like "[[June 4]], [[1787]]" (with a comma) to "[[June 4]] [[1787]]" (without a comma). I've since found out that this isn't even particularly useful, but that's what it does. If you edit a page that has a date with a comma, it should work. (Like this page, for instance.) Does it work now?

Another possible problem is that I was modifying my dates.jp earlier today, so if you copied an older version, it may not work for that reason. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I was mistaken, it was working fine. I failed to test it correctly. The test page that I used did not have a comma. The requirement to insert the backslash is a real pain. If you have to paste one character, you might as well paste the whole regex. I looked around the web for a solution to that but could not find anything. Thanks for tidying up the main monobook page.

There are plenty of tasks it could do. I was surprised that you picked the comma thing but I did not mention it. bobblewik 20:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm having some problems over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Your insight would be appreciated. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The link you provided as rationale on the article's talkpage is not clear to me. Could you please care to explain on the talkpage? We have refered it to WP:CP and we haven't heard from them. Unless we hear from them, I think the section on vows should be retained. I'm apprehensive that anons would add back the stuff just as they have been doing unless we provide an external link and probably a summary of the section though summarising it may be fraught with the possibility of edit-warring on POV issues. --Gurubrahma 12:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

tank you for the barnstar, I'm so happy. --Melaen 17:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. You removed the copy vio norice from Image:Willandgrace.jpg, and also its listing from the releavnt page, saying it has been dealt with. Could you please clarify how the decision came about? And do you think that film-screenshot is really the most accurate tag for it? The JPS 19:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted this image (on which you commented at WP:CP), but it is also at commons, and you may want to bring up the matter there. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your efforts. It's not clear to me, however, that there is anything to prevent someone from simply reverting the page back to one of its previous versions containing the complete JINFO lists. My understanding was that when a page was deleted due to a copyright violation, all of the previous versions of that page that were also copyvios would be deleted. Also, I think that it would have been better to leave the short descriptors next to the names (e.g., "German-born, British biochemist"), particularly since they also contained any qualifications like "Jewish mother," etc. I will go through and put in the latter qualifications, but someone else will have to put the descriptors back in if they want them. Thanks again. Jinfo 15:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I do like what I read of your proposal on the userbox policy page. I don't feel that I can ask questions or discuss there without my head being ripped off, so I have a couple questions:

• Is {{User:Avriette/ec}} considered a template, though it may live outside of the Template: namespace? I would disagree with the policy of userboxes not being allowed to reside in a template if that is the case. The reason for having it separately (in the /ec page) is for purposes of editing. I find it very difficult to maintain lots of individual pieces of wikinotation.

• Why is it that templates and categories are considered harmful? Brion has recently said that subtemplates are not problematic for the servers, are categories? It would seem that with Category:living people that this is not the case.

• Vote stacking always happens. Tony recently said:
  • Quite a lot--the more you centralize discussion the less chance you have of getting a feel for Wikipedia consensus. --Tony Sidaway 05:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This says to me that the more you allow everyone to participate, the less likely you are to get your own point of view across in a discussion/vote. This is particularly egregious in the RFC process (see bottom of this comment), and happens everywhere. One doesn't need templates and categories to find out where people stand on an issue. Call it inside-out wikistalking. Rather than following a specific person around, I can follow a specific topic, and very easily find people who fit my own point of view on a subject. Be it on Tony's behavior, Valerie Plame's covert status, or on userbox policy. I don't see how this particular complaint is justified other than very superficially.

• Lastly, while I agree that the current kerfuffle about userboxes is harmful to the encyclopedia, one could quite easily contend that the problem was in all the dissent -- not in the userboxes. To rephrase, the problem is not that userboxes are problematic, but that so many people are upset about them. The userboxes wouldn't be a problem if Kelly Martin hadn't gone and scorched the earth. The userboxes wouldn't be a problem if the {{db-divisive}} template didn't exist. The userboxes wouldn't be a problem if there weren't discussions happening at length on wikien-l (which not everyone is privy to). Finally, the userboxes wouldn't be a problem if users who saw {{thinks jwales is stalin}} just said "oh, that user is an idiot," rather than "omg, i must destroy that userbox."

I think that the "divisive" template is more divisive than the userboxes it aims to destroy. I really wish I was spending less time discussing userboxes and more time editing. (big frown)

However, I feel that I must add my opinion to the discussion, as if I do not, I won't be able to do certain things I enjoy doing now. Does that make sense? Also, I apologize for bringing the discussion out of the indicated discussion-place, but I just don't have the time to follow this through hundreds of snide counter-comments. I'd just like your take on it. I do feel that you're pretty close to the mark.

Thanks, Alex ( aa v ^ 17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Thanks to your support, this article is now the collaboration of the week. Feel free to help in any way possible during this week. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-19 20:21

Thank you for the compliment on PUI. Feel free to take over anytime. I must be getting tired of it because my postings on talk pages about the crappy way uploaders have documented their images are not polite enough anymore. -Nv8200p talk 21:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

On WP:IFD I posted several images which are PD and orphan. You requested they be kept as they are PD, but by policy Wikipedia is not an image repository. I am really do not find these images interesting enough to move them to the Commons. If you think they are worth keeping, would you care to move them? -Thanks Nv8200p talk 21:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could use your Quaker-Zen Ninja calm wisdomness to try and diffuse the brewing tensions on the Kent State shootings article. My own POV is that I'm trying to clean up the article, which includes removing references to the second "Hey Sandy" which has zero to do with the shootings, as well as the biographical information about various singers (Somebody reading about Kent State likely does not care about when the band "Polaris" broke up, or where their lead singer moved on to afterwards, for example), and Badagnani just keeps mass-reverting any changes made back to his own version, without addressing what (I feel are) very fair and accurate comments/queries on the discussion page. Anyways, I'd appreciate any help or insight you could offer, since it is an article I'd love to see become featured myself. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 06:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I come bearing bribes! Behold, I send you out a U.S. Senate Committee to Establish a University of the United States among the wolves! (80 minutes, while talking to my ex on MSN, cheers...pity there's so little information. A few archive sites mention it, and I actually tapped off an eMail to one of them that looked like they might provide facsimiles) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 09:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad news, the 1902 Report by the committee is 192 pages. Wikisource shall have to suffer! :Þ Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, the procedure to follow is to revert back to the last version that did not contain a copyright violation. Things listed for deletion at WP:CP are those articles that have no clean versions to revert back to. That is my understanding, at least. Jkelly 22:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see my post @ Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)#Copyrights_violation. Thank you. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference -- do you disagree with the instructions to revert back to an earlier version given at Wikipedia:Copyright problems? Jkelly 20:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying. Jkelly 20:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)