User talk:Felipe Menegaz/Archive 2

Brazilian indians

Why did you delete the image of Xavante Indians? It was a beautiful image, very proffesional looking and brightly colorful. Wikipedia is a place where all the points of view must prevail, not only the main view. Your deletion could rise questions about your intentions or even if that was a "racist" behaviour. I have added the picture back. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

Joao, I'm sorry if I offend you with my following words, but quit being so childish. No other country article in Wikipedia has such a section, and it was removed from the article due to a previous talk, please see archive. Moreover, if you insist in including that section, we'll have to add a similar one to the Brazil article, since crime and especially gun-related deaths and violence is the second highest in the world.

I believe your readdition of that section was only an angry move for my readdition of the Xavante indians image in the Brazil article. If you were upset by that, I have to say I find that very racist, and that's sad. I'm aware of the high prevalence of racism in Brazil but please, just be neutral, there's no need to exclude a group of humans, a group of Brazilians from the article. Above of all, their are also part of Brazilian society and the picture was so professional, so great!. I wish I could have such a colorful picture of Mexican natives, so I could add it to the article Mexico.

I have always been interested in Mexico, Brazil and Latin America since they both are the major regional powers and Latin America their field of influence. It is not new for me. Thanksm and I hope you understand. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Joao, I understand you didn't know the section was removed because the users agreed to remove it. It's ok. About the racist behaviour in the Brazil article, it's good to hear from you it was not racism. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Talk? )} 23:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian states by....

Olá João Ví as páginas que você criou e as achei MUITO boas, parabéns. Mas elas estão muito separadas. O que você acha de aplicarmos o modelo adotado em European Union member state? Assim poderíamos agrupa-las em uma só página. Ex. Se o leitor quiser listar os estados por população, ele clica em "Population", se quiser por GPD, clica em "GPD", etc. Acho que fica muito mais consistênte. O quê você acha? — Guilherme ^(t/c) 18:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sim, pode ficar bom, mais estou um pouco ocupado, se você puder fazer eu ficaria muito grato. Felipe

^{( talk )} 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estou iniciando a página aqui. Caso queria comentar, modificar ou criticar, fique a vontade. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 01:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Está ótimo, no momento estou trabalhando em Portal:Current events/Brazil, uma página que acabei de criar, ainda há muito trabalho pela frente. Felipe

^{( talk )} 01:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminei. Dê uma olhada nela. O que você acha de fundir todas as páginas nela? — Guilherme ^(t/c) 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting Brazil from GA

Joao, you can believe what you want. The article was clearly not a good one. The proof is that I was not the one that nominated it for delisting. Several other editors have already pointed out that the article had major flaws that prevent it from being categorized as a "good article". I supported the delisting because it was so obvious that user Limongi "passed" the GA review just because he is brazilian, and that my friend is called a real POV fork aswell as a conflict of interest. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe, concordo plenamente com você! Fica muito difícil participar do Wikipedia assim... enquanto idiotas desse tipo insistirem em destruir as nossas colaborações. Nesse caso específico deu pra notar claramente que o usuário User:AlexCovarrubias está sempre tentando denegrir a imagem do nosso País (um exemplo é o artigo Regional power e o próprio artigo Brazil). O problema é que não há muito que possamos fazer, a não ser reverter as modificações desse indivíduo. Quanto ao artigo Brazil, eu o re-submeti como "good article candidate"... agora é só esperar-mos pelo review. De qualquer maneira, estamos aí cara. Falou.. Limongi

Limongi, is because of uncivil and biased users like you that Wikipedia has policies against them. It is as simple as this: you want to add something to an article? then you back it up with sources. That's it. As far as the personal attacks go, I have no comments. All the biased edits will be reverted accordingly. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Talk? )} 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joao, I have reverted your edits in the developed countries article. As I told you, Brazil was excluded by talks. If you want to include it again, please do it by consensus and in a separate paragraph. Keep in mind GDP doesn't affect development by itself, but GDP per capita, HDI and the GINI index (gap between richs and poors). I'm sure you want Brazil listed there, but you can't add it just because you want, you need valid reasons. One of the major reasons Brazil was deleted is because its HDI and GDP per capita are expected to remain low even if the GDP doubles by 2050 (accordingly with Goldman Sachs). Also the GINI index for Brazil is high, affecting the real GDP per capita. I hope you understand all this. If you don't you can use Google translator. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Joao, Mexico will be a developed country before Chile and Argentina. And also, I believe Brazil will be a developed country before Chile and Argentina. Why? Because of the GDP. GDP alone doesn't affect development and it is surely something to take into account. Even if Argentina has a higher GDP per capita than Brazil, Brazilian GDP is huge comprared to this one and also Argentina doesn't represent a real political power in the region or in the world. Remember Mexico and Brazil are the only NIC countries and the only Latin American members invited to the meeting of the G8. The only difference is that Mexico is expected to become a developed country before Brazil, that's all. That doesn't mean Brazil is not going to be a developed country. Of course it will be! AlexCovarrubias

^{( Talk? )} 21:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joao, you need to stop now. If you want to include Brazil in the list, list sources and do it in a separate paragraph. Mexico and Brazil are not the same. However, you might find opposition from editors, since it was agreed to delete Brazil and several other countries from the article. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Talk? )} 22:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Portal news

That's not really a problem. More important news get a somewhat longer entry. The key aspect of that template is that everything there is temporary (that is why I don't leave any red links in the entries, incidentally), which means that it might be a little stretched during the Pope's visit, which is a major event, but this will forcibly change relatively quickly. By next week, it should be back to its usual length. Redux 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Your recent edits in the Economy of Brazil article where really productive. Thanks.Chico 23:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and biased edits

Joao your attitude is childish. You must stop now or I'd need to call and administrator to stop you from adding and deleting sourced information, such as in the template where you deleted BRIMC. This is ridiculous, it is so easy for you to add information and prevent it from being deleted: just add sources. If you think "I'm against Brazil" just because I undo your biased-unsourced-non encylopedic edits, fine, believe what you want, but that doesn't give you the "right" to vandalized the pages related to Mexico just because "you're angry". Stop it. This is not a personal anything. It is just a matter of accuracy: add sources. That's all. That's easy.

Joao, debes detener tus actitudes de niño. No me importa si crees que yo trato de dar una mala imagen de Brasil, lo que no es cierto. El que trata de dar una imagen mejor de Brasil eres tú (biased edits) y te enojas porque se borran tus textos. Si deseas agregar cualquier tipo de información, sólo agrega las fuentes, es así de sencillo. Esto NO es personal, y deja de borrar información relacionada con México solo porque estás "enojado". Cualquier cosa que edites y que sea para "mejorar la imagen" de Brasil sin fuentes, será borrada. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way, as I already said, if you want to add Brasil to the article developed country, proceed. Just do it separately from Mexico. However, I might warn you that somebody is gonna delete it as it was already deleted hundreds of times. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Talk? )} 00:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Template:International power, you will be blocked from editing. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joao puedo asegurarte que no tengo nada en contra de Brasil. A mi me gusta Brasil. De lo que estoy en contra es que hay brasileños que a fuerza quieren poner a su país como si fuera lo mejor de Latino América cosa que no es cierto. No estoy diciendo que México sea lo mejor, pero según los indicadores internacionales, tiene mejor situación social y económica que Brasil. Tu haz tomado actitudes contra México porque piensas que yo tengo algo contra Brasil. Eso no es cierto. Colaboro con Wikipedia desde 2005 y he aprendido mucho de como se deben hacer las cosas. Algunos de mis artículos han sido borrados y algunas de mis ediciones también, porque no ponía fuentes (sources). Yo no fui la persona que nominó a Brasil para quitarlo de Good Article. Fue otra persona, yo solo apoyé porque es verdad, aún le falta al artículo, tiene muchos problemas y no solo lo digo yo sino todos los que firmaron. Como sea, cualquier cosa que desees agregar hazlo de manera NEUTRAL sin desear dar una mejor imagen de Brasil de lo que ya es. Pero más importante, agrega fuentes. Como ya te dije, si quieres agregar a Brasil en el artículo de Developed Country hazlo, pero ponlo separado de México, porque no es lo mismo. Si puedes agregar fuentes también hazlo, porque ya han quitado a Brasil de la lista muchas veces y seguro alguien más lo hará. Es todo. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Talk? )} 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Translation) Joao I can assure you I have nothing against Brazil. I like Brazil. What I'm against of is that some brazilians want to portrait the country as it was the best in Latin America, which is not true. I'm not saying "Mexico is better", but according to some development indicators, it has a better social and economic situation than Brazil. You have taken some attitudes against Mexico because you believe I'm against Brazil. That's not true. I have contributed to Wikipedia since 2005 and I've learnt a lot avout how to do things properly. Some of my articles and edits have been deleted, because I didn't add sources. Also I wasn't the person that nominated the article Brazil for delist from the Good Article list. I did supported the delisting because it has a lot of problems and I'm not the only one that says that but everyone that signed. Well, anything you want to add proceed, just do it in a NEUTRAL way, not trying to improve Brazil's image at any cost, but most importantly add sources. As I already said if you want to add Brazil to the article Developed country, well, do it. However I might warn you that it was deleted several times in the past and I think somebody will object and delete it again. That's all. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Talk? )} 00:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't collaborate with you if you insist in deleting BRIMC, a perfectly valid term, used in the financial world and also adopted by Goldman Sachs. Nobody has deleted the term or object its introduction but you. I won't talk with you if you insist in vandalizing the template. I just can't. You need to stop. I tried to be reasonable with you but you are not helping. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Joao, the only thing I can suggest if you really want to be neutral, is that you revert your own edit and include BRIMC again. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Talk? )} 00:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term might be derivated from BRIC, but that doesn't make it "less important" nor "redudant". It is a whole different thing. Just answer me, if you are gonna accept the term in the template or not. Other way we can't really collaborate, since you're being stubborn. Or perhaps we need to delete all the economical terms and add only real POLITICAL terms? Just answer, yes or no. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Talk? )} 01:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Developed country

For the last time Joao, don't fall into boosterism practices. Sources must be in English preferably, but that source from the BBC doesn't say "the north of Brazil is developing while the South is developed". So the source doesn't back the claims. Alphabetical order is not useful here and won't be implemented since there are meassures for development, hard facts as GDP per capita and HDI. Those are statistics political scientists use to rank countries as developed or not. You just want to alphabetize this time because that would place Brazil first in the list, another boosterism practice. Look at the edition of that anonimous user that included Russia, he did not include it first, he include it accordingly to the HDI and GDP. That's all. I hope you change your mind, or however, every single biased edit will be deleted. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 02:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on the developed country article. You may resume editing after the block expires but continued edit warring will result in longer blocks without further warning. Discuss your changes; ignoring other users will not solve the problem. Kafziel ^Talk 17:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm sorry... but the mexican user AlexCovarrubias it insisted on reverting my editions. Congratulations for its attitude to stop with this edition conflict. (My English is bad) Felipe

^{( talk )} 18:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

On Brazil, great references! It could be good if you made the links in a format that they would have a name down at the footnotes instead of just such like 1, 2, 3, etc. [Mac Δαvιs] ❖ 00:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template International Power

As you said, if you want to remove BRIMC from the template, open a discussion and propose it. Don't start another editwar. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eu submeti o artigo BRIMC para a lista de artigos a serem deletados.Limongi 15:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My talkpage

I removed the message because I'm not interested in replaying whatever comes from you, since you refused to talk with me in a CIVIL WAY about our issue about BRIMC even if I asked you a lot of times to discuss it with me. Now you and your friend just nominated the term for deletion. That's not only uncivil but a kind of agression. Also your "message" was not helpful and I cannot fully understand what you say, since I don't speak Portuguese fluently and I'm not going to use a translator just because you don't know English. Why don't you use a translator?

Finally, it is my right to edit my own user talk and to delete everything I want from it (as you deleted my multiple tries to discuss and hid it as "Archiving AlexCovarrubias talk" [1]). I'm not interested in reading your messages, especially not when they are not in English. You come to me only when you want to accuse me of exactly what you do, and that's called hypocritical behaviour. Thanks and obrigado pela sua atenciao. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too upset to talk to you right now, because of you and your friend unjustified AfD nomination of the article BRIMC. I mean, did you even take the time to see that there were sources? The term is perfectly valid and it is not OR, since it can be sourced. I can't talk to you right now. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BRIMC

Eu submeti o artigo BRIMC para a lista de artigos a serem deletados.Limongi 15:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

João I personally agree with you in most your edits and positions, but try to refrain from attacking AlexCovarrubias, this is not the place for attacks. The exchange in personal attacks by the both of you does not help Wikipedia. Chico 16:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've tried to ask Alex to be CIVIL, specially because he attacked me when he said that I voted for deletion of BRIMC because I am Brazilian. Only when I looked back I saw both of you attacking each other, so I decided to talk to you as well. I am not trying to get in a fight here, but the discussion you and Alex have entered seems to have affected WP. Thanks for being civil, my hopes that Alex will do the same. Chico 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Embraer ERJ 135.jpg

Hello, João Felipe C.S. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Embraer ERJ 135.jpg) was found at the following location: User:João Felipe C.S/Tests. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AlexCovarrubias

Felipe, eu enviei um pedido de mediação contra o usuário AlexCovarrubias, se puder assine o pedido. Obrigado. Limongi 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop repeatedly renominating the Brazil article for GA

Look, just stop. The article does NOT meet the standards set out in WP:WIAGA. The article has been failed by 3 different people in the past week. It was put up for discussion (see the archive here: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 18 ) where it was agreed by a sizable group of editors to remove it from the GA list. It's featured article nomination at the same time listed a SIZABLE list of fixes needed (see here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brazil/archive2 ). I personally left 4 pages worth of places where the article does not meet good article standards, and yet no one has acted on these. If you really care that much about the article, IMPROVE IT so it meets standards. I don't know what kind of point you are trying to prove, but I advise that you don't try to nominate the article for a good article again. It is wasting many editors time having to clean up after these repeated bogus nominations, and many people's patience is growing thin. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on your page

I noticed those comments on your page and I have blocked that user for 2 days. I will be watching, but if it starts again please tell me. Kafziel ^Talk 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes in Brazil Page

João, percebi uma série de mudanças na parte estrutural da página.

Serei franco com você cara: não concordo muito com as mudanças que foram promovidas na parte governamental e jurídica.

1. Política e Direito são realidades distintas - logo, não concordo com a inserção do tema "Law" como subtema de "Politics".

2. Eu havia separado os três ramos de poder político para facilitar a leitura de quem acessa a página, agora, com o devido respeito, acho que ficou um pouco bagunçado. A criação de subdivisões é feita para organizar melhor o texto.

Quanto às mudanças na parte de história, acho que seria interessante a subdivisão do tema conforme o método clássico: Brasil-Colônia, Brasil-Império, Brasil-República. Acho que fica mais didático. Em todo caso, eu ainda não havia começado a trabalhar na seção de "História", então essa mensagem tem o fim de questionar especificamente as alterações nas seções de "Government" e "Direito".

Acho que deve ficar assim:

1. History

1.1. Colonial phase

1.2. Empire of Brazil

1.3. Republic

2. Government

2.1. Executive

2.2. Legislative

2.3. Judiciary

2.4. Politics

facultativo >>> 2.5. Problems

3. Law

Fiquei um pouco chateado com a forma como você fez as mudanças, pois eu havia gasto uma tarde inteira trabalhando na seção "Government", perdendo um tempão para fazer todas as referências necessárias, e você simplesmente alterou toda a ordem do texto sem sequer deixar uma mensagem na minha página. Achei que foi um pouco indelicado da sua parte. Poderia ter tido mais consideração com o meu trabalho.

Veja que não alterei nada do que você fez - antes vim aqui para debater tudo amigavelmente.

Aguardo contato.

Sparks1979 08:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obrigado pela resposta. Sei que você é um usuário bem intencionado e isso é importante para projetos como a Wikipedia.

Algum outro usuário revertou todas as suas alterações e acho que isso não era necessário, pois, na minha opinião, algumas das mudanças que você promoveu foram boas, embora outras nem tanto. Resgatarei as boas mudanças na próxima vez em que eu trabalhar na página do Brasil.

Como sugestão, para evitar essas pequenas confusões, acho que você pode continuar fazendo alterações grandes em qualquer página, mas apresente a fundamentação no "edit summary", e evite alterar seções que acabaram de ser trabalhadas por outros usuários. Eu, por exemplo, faço alterações sem consultar os outros apenas em seções que estão ociosas por algum tempo. Caso contrário, se quiser manipular áreas em que outros estão trabalhando, é legal tentar discutir o tema com a própria pessoa ou, preferencialmente, na página de discussão para que todos possam contribuir. Sempre que não for possível um consenso, há a via da mediação.

A página do Brasil está indo bem, mas temos que melhorar vários aspectos. Pretendo dar minha contribuição em todos eles com o passar do tempo, mas infelizmente só dá para trabalhar nisso para valer aos domingos. Estou tentando aumentar o número de referências (pretendo chegar a umas 120-150) e melhorar o texto que em alguns pontos está meio pobre. Também quero criar novas seções: "Military", "Education", "Health". A seção de história pode ser melhor compactada. A seção de geografia tem de ter melhorada também. A seção "States" está paupérrima, pois há outras importantes divisões. Esportes, "social issues", economia e cultura também merecem nossa atenção. Você parece ser bom com as imagens - que tal restaurar as imagens que você recentemente alterou, e deixar para manipular o texto depois? Achei que as imagens haviam ficado boas, só não gostei muito da ordem que você deu para o texto do "Government". Enfim, continuemos nosso trabalho. Acho que mais alguns meses e dá para pensar em "good" e até "featured article".

Abraços

Sparks1979 03:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rio de Janeiro

Please, keep in mind an article is not a pic depository. Therefore there's absolutely no need to flood articles with several images. A lot of pretty images do not make a good article, info does. Info is the keyword regarding an encyclopedia. Thank you. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've made the changes you thought necessary. I did the same. There's still too many images, please, recognize it and let them be removed. Thank you. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I do not remember seeing you opening an argument in the talk page in order to make the changes you thought to be necessary. So I can't see why should I. You've made some good changes indeed but there's still too many images flooding the article. So this is why I'm removing some of them. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 17:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I insist, there's too many images in there and please, this has nothing to do with screen resolution. And I'm sorry, but this is the English Wikipedia so we are supposed to write in English. Leave Portuguese for the Wiki.pt —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 17:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it does, the problem it's in the way you arrange them. Please fix it in a way it doesn't look like a depository. Thank you. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 14:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Pan American Games/Countdown

A tag has been placed on 2007 Pan American Games/Countdown, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mysdaao 11:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your italian templates

TfD nomination of Template:Pagina principale/Progetti

Template:Pagina principale/Progetti has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Andersmusician $ 02:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTD scheduling

Hi and thanks for your efforts in scheduling the Picture of the day. However, the image you selected, Image:Brazilian National Congress.jpg is not a Featured Picture. The Pictures of the day are selected from the existing Featured pictures in a roughly FIFO order. If you are interested in nominating this image for Featured status, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. If you would like to help out with the POTD, please be sure to read Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines. Thank you and let me know if you have any questions. howcheng {chat} 19:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. About the National Space template

Hi... I was wondering about the latest edit you have made to the Template:National space programmes page. I wonder why you have added Brazil, Iran and South Korea to the list of countries with launch capabilities. If my hunch is correct, you have added them from List of launch vehicles. I think its best to include only the nations with PROVEN, ORBITAL launch capabilities as agreed on the template talk page. Till now, Iran only has sounding rockets, Korea's KSLV is still in development, and Brazil's launch vehicle has not had a successful launch. I'm undoing your edit, with your permission. Please feel free to edit it if needed. Thanks. Cheers. Sniperz11 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

You've uploaded a number of copyrighted images depicting subjects for which images under a free license have already been uploaded. (Image:Planalto Palace at night.jpg could easily be replaced with Image:Palaciodoplanalto.jpeg, for example.) Have you considered making use of the images already available here or at the Commons? Also, it seems that {{Non-free promotional}} is not really an accurate description of any image found on Flickr. –Unint 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right—just clean things up and find out what the options are. When uploading from Flickr, look for pictures with the less restrictive licenses (like these ones). –Unint 19:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]