User talk:AustinKnight

Deletion of Aramiac pronounciation

I fully know what Aramaic is my friend. :) But I don't think we need to reiterate aramaic "Allaha" in all other articles with Allah in them. That is already written in the main Allah article. Writing Allah in every way possible won't make sense. If people desire to learn who Allah is and other prononciations, they will go to the main article. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded overly defensive :), that was not my intent. I really do understand your point, but I still stick by my initial point that it only needs to be mentioned on the main article and I am sure that the main article displays this point of agreement. Thank you --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Allāha

Hi AustinK.I noticed that this article is missing! -- Svest 22:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Laws of Form

Thanks for the consultation. Please check the addition now. Cheers -- Svest 23:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I think the sections are evenly partitioned except for the duplicated info (Bible and Christianity). I think the Bible para is a bit heavy for such an article. However, It is up to you guys that are familiar with the flow of the article. You judge. Cheers -- Svest 03:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Me again™}

Did some small copy editing for Saadia Gaon and that's fine. -- Svest 04:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild

Hi AustinK. This is a newly created project by some wikipedinas (Muslims and non-Muslims) to discuss Islam related articles. Everybody is invited to participate. You can register your username and join the talk page. Cheers -- Svest 21:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for the heads up. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't use too many capital letters

Hello. "Additional Sources" with a capital "S" is not a correct section heading according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style; one should instead write "Additional sources" with a lower-case initial "s"; one doesn't capitalize an initial letter just because it's in a section heading. Simiarly, in the link to golden ratio, the initial "g" should not be capitalized in the middle of a sentence; "Golden" is not a person after whom the ratio is named. Michael Hardy 19:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal comments

• You're an undergraduate at USC who seeks employment in the fashion/clothing industry.... your choice of major brings to mind the matter of "conflict of interest" with respect to structuring this article.

This type of comment is inappropriate. It calls an editor's good faith into question and is close to a personal attack. Please focus on the edits, not the editors. WP:NPA Thanks, -Willmcw 23:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

sources for Jimmy Wales

As far as I can tell, the reference that you provided for Jimmy Wales does not support what you added to the Jimmy Wales article. Please add another source or explain what I am missing on the talk page. Thanks. --JWSchmidt 02:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"My recollection is that the libelee clearly stated that Wikipedia was libeling him for 5 months" <-- this does not mean "Seigenthaler related in the video that it took five months to get a response from Wale." I suggest that you get a copy of the transcript for the interview and check what was said. There was a long period of time that a Wikipedia user's comments were on the webpage before anyone contacted Wales to complain. Seigenthaler said that Wales had been very good about getting the material off of Wikipedia once Wales had been informed of the problem. --JWSchmidt 02:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wales interview transcript --JWSchmidt 02:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That's right. Mr. Seigenthaler has, to my knowledge, no complaint about my immediate response once notified of the problem.--Jimbo Wales 21:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union

Thanks for your edits to Soviet Union, specifically the ones about the security services. Please give some input on the talk page if you think something needs adding/revising. You might be interested in checking out the Joseph Stalin article for information on the numbers that died during his rule. - FrancisTyers 18:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Minimum wage

Your claim that a high mininum wage increases unemployment is demonstrably wrong. The European country with the highest minimum wage has the lowest unemployment rate. Please don't push POV opinions in articles through deletions of statements that don't fit your economic theories. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of "Unreadable Crap"...

Jimbo,

Your honest comments re. Wikipedia articles being "unreadable crap" in some cases really needs to go beyond such shallow, fluff articles as Bill Gates and Jane Fonda. Just take a look at Soviet Union for heaven's sake: what a miserable excuse for an encyclopedia entry. No overt mention of Stalin murdering millions, but instead a blasphemous referral to those precious lost lives as a "purge??" Asinine assertions that the Soviets exceeded nuclear parity with the U.S. via the SS-18, blithely ignoring such incidentals as the Trident submarine and the nuclear Tomahawk cruise missile...?? Complete avoidance of mentioning (til edited yesterday) the GRU, the principal military espionage arm of both the Soviet Union and today's Russia...??

What gives...???? Why aren't such BLATANT problems being readily addressed and fixed...???--AustinKnight 18:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, fine...just ignore the problem. After all, you do have that Wikia for-profit version of Wiki going on. Who knows, maybe folks will pay for a version that actually works, and in the meantime your disinformation-porn (Wikipedia) will create such a hunger for the truth that people will pay quite a bit...? (Oh, and conflict-of-interest...what conflict-of-interest?) --AustinKnight 19:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh bloody sofixit, then... — David Remahl 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant response, albeit trite, and more than a little bit reminiscent of the "restaurant" metaphor described below in a quote from the article containing Jimbo's comments:

"Surprisingly, Wales agreed that the entries weren't up to snuff.

""The two examples he puts forward are, quite frankly, a horrific embarassment. [sic] Bill Gates and Jane Fonda are nearly unreadable crap. Why? What can we do about it?" he asked.

"Traditionally, Wikipedia supporters have responded to criticism in one of several ways. The commonest is: If you don't like an entry, you can fix it yourself. Which is rather like going to a restaurant for a date, being served terrible food, and then being told by the waiter where to find the kitchen. But you didn't come out to cook a meal - you could have done that at home! No matter, roll up your sleeves.

"As a second line of defense, Wikipedians point to flaws in the existing dead tree encyclopedias, as if the handful of errors in Britannica cancels out the many errors, hopeless apologies for entries, and tortured prose, of Wikipedia itself.

"Thirdly, and here you can see that the defense is beginning to run out of steam, one's attention is drawn to process issues: such as the speed with which errors are fixed, or the fact that looking up a Wikipedia is faster than using an alternative. This line of argument is even weaker than the first: it's like going to a restaurant for a date - and being pelted with rotten food, thrown at you at high velocity by the waiters."

As I've clearly stated, I'd vastly prefer to see Wikipedia succeed, but am convinced that there is a deer-in-the-headlights effect going on with respect to responsibly fixing its problems...an effect which will not end well unless action is taken. --AustinKnight 20:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

---

What do you mean 'ignore the problem'? You leave a comment on my talk page and it only takes you 1 hours and 21 minutes to start insulting me because I haven't answered yet?

If you have something very specific to ask regarding my commitment to quality at Wikipedia, I hope that you will treat me with a little bit of consideration. I've been doing this job fulltime for years without pay. I have written extensively about my views on Wikipedia and so on, and I think it's really a little bit shocking that you, without even asking me or talking to me, resort to accusing me of nefarious conflict of interest. Please don't do that, I'm actually a very nice person and it is wrong to make grave accusations like that when they are not true, ok?--Jimbo Wales 21:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As you're well aware, I have e-mailed you and otherwise communicated constructive criticism on your Talk Page TWO DAYS AGO re. the severe and on-going Truth and content problems at Wikipedia. Results? Nada. Perhaps you should step down from your full-time, unpaid position if you lack the leadership for it. You'd do well to recognize when people have a real and driven passion for the truth, even if they have a low tolerance for lack of feedback, and, in a more intellectually honest fashion, respond to their earnest suggestions for improvement rather than blowing them off. Are Wikipedia's problems so lightweight (beyond, of course, the "unreadable crap" you stumbled across in the heavyweight Jane Fonda and Bill Gates articles) that it simply doesn't need to dramatically improve to reach true encyclopedic status? --AustinKnight 22:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, to be perfectly honest, I am not "well aware" of any such thing. Cut me some slack, I've been on the phone for 4 days straight basically. I am not blowing you off at all, you are over-reacting. Please do understand that the absolute volume of email that I get is more than you can possibly imagine. If you emailed me something thoughtful, rather than bile and insults, then there is a very good chance you'll get a thoughtful response. But in the meantime, relax a notch or two and stop yelling at me, ok?--Jimbo Wales 00:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Readers will note that Mr Wales responds to the presentation and tone of the editor's remarks, not the content. This evasiveness is systemic to Wikipedia and directly relates to why the overwhelming majority of its entries don't even come close to any notion of academic reliability and documented authority. Wyss 04:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, I've now stopped by your talk page and all I can think to say is "brilliant." Your exquisitely lucid comments re. what Wikipedia really is comprised of -- e.g., a mob-driven cultural meta blog pretending to be an encyclopedia, a user base that won't support an encyclopedia built on scholarly standards, a traffic-driven (vs. truth-driven) content model, loopy talk page discussions/scoldings, a cyber-waste dump of coddled trolls, fools and mob-think police, a fame game that is soon to be a code-word-for-trolls "meta-knowledge" site, an E-Bay of opinionated blogs, and, last but not least, too broken to fix and too fixed to break -- are all smack dead-on. I could go on, but why bother? You've already skinned this cat, and I congratulate you on your having successfully won the nonsense game called Wikipedia; the losers have to stay and continue to play ad infinitum.

The only thing that comes to mind to add to your own keen observations is a recent reaction/epiphany that I had on this same topic (if I may briefly quote myself): "I am seeing nothing done of any substance to prevent the on-going "impulse vandalism" (as Wales calls it) or the Niagra waterfall of ignorance from the unknowing. There's a fundamental point here: I don't think that Wikipedia intends to be factual and honest, any more than...say...Abercrombie & Fitch intends to be upright and respectable. Wikipedia takes delight in being a cauldron of ignorance, as that's where the mass of humanity is at. If Wikipedia didn't intend to be a mess, they'd simply fix the clear and now very public problems it has." (Or, as you said much more succinctly: "Mr Wales is a marketer and he more or less means for Wikipedia to be this way.")

But I absolutely must close with a quote from you which clearly speaks to my own heart & mind re. "whither Wikipedia": "If Wikipedia wants to enable trolls and fools (and take their money) that's up to them and way cool by me. Moreover, if they've found that a social model based on a charismatic religious or political activist organisation works for now, how merry for them. I don't care. I thought I was volunteering my time to an encyclopedia project but it wasn't true. That's ok. I got something out of it and Wikipedia got some GNU content from me. Meanwhile, I am out." And thank you, Wyss, for sticking around long enough to manifest well-formed thoughts that were only a growing sense that I had of Wikipedia, and well in advance of the total time that I would have wasted on it. --AustinKnight 06:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. And, yes, I did happen to notice that Jimbo Wales answered not one of my questions. --AustinKnight 06:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

(Unremarkable but highly predictable blather from User:Jtdirl relocated to his talk page. If seeking economic genius along the lines of "increasing minimum wage would fix everything," be sure to stop in.) --AustinKnight 18:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

As the comment is in response to your attacks on Jimbo, the comment belongs here. Don't censor criticism.FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, given the tone and snide nature of them, who can blame him. Most people would have been a lot less polite in response to your obnoxiousness. Firstly, to demand that Jimbo answer your replies when he is engaged in a media campaign to undo damage that has happened is laughable niavety. Anyone who has ever been at the eye of a media storm knows that one barely has time to eat let alone construct responses to incoming missiles from non-media questioners. Secondly, most people, in response to your tone, would either have ignored your comments completely or responded with two words, the first of which rhymes with duck. Jimbo, in response to your obnoxiousness, has been polite and simply asked that you recognise that he is rather busy dealing with the media right now. But instead of showing any understanding of his situation, you abused him. And then you wonder why he didn't abandon all the media coverage, tell the radio stations that he can't speak to them, all so that he could devote his time to your demand that you get a considered reponse within two days!!! Be real. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that...I thought the same thing when Jimbo moved my comments from his talk page to mine. Let's go forward on the presumption that Jimbo was engaging in the censorship of criticism, as I believe that you are correct on this one point. However, I would be remiss not to point out the obvious fact that you are horning in on my conversation with the apparently very-stressed-for-time Jimbo, which both you and he claim is the 'real problem' in his communcations style. No one invited you to this conversation, and, moreover, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to convince someone other than yourself that you're making a point, as if Jimbo's comments were somehow or other not saying exactly the same thing -- which they were. Parroting is redundant.

I also wish to apologize to all people & things Irish for my initial, insult-trading response to Jtdirl after his above, pejorative remarks (yet another example of what the wise Wyss appropriately refers to as "loopy talk page discussions/scoldings") were posted on my talk page. I am actually rather fond of the Irish, as is most everyone else in the U.S., and can only explain my striking out as an act of frustration to both the above blather from Jtdirl and the unacceptable ignorance that Wikipedia articles continue to perpetuate (e.g., the Soviet Union article's blasphemous referral to the millions of people killed by Joseph Stalin as simply a "purge", without any reference to either their numbers or having been murdered). I will now respond to Jtdirl more appropriately and singularly:

Jtdirl, I first offered substantial constructive criticism to Jimbo, particularly intended to help him fix the substantial Truth and content issues that have gotten Wikipedia and himself into the national & international spotlight in a very sorry fashion -- and he chose not to respond. The 'why' he did not respond has nothing to to with your weak propositions (or Jimbo's lame excuses), as he clearly was responding and joking in a very unpressured fashion to other comments on his talk page. The real 'why' has everything to do with the explanations & utterly impressive eloquence of Wyss on her talk page. I would refer you and others to her for the realities of Wikipedia in order not to deprive anyone of her very apparent brilliance, but I will say that her succinct comment that "Mr Wales is a marketer and he more or less means for Wikipedia to be this way" hits the nail right on the head. Jimbo Wales' continuing refusal to fix the enormous problems with Wikipedia can only be the result of a considered decision to keep it the way it is, and I, and others...for reasons stated above, and much more eloquently by Wyss...believe that this does not speak well for its future. As it exists, Wikipedia is simply enormously (fatally?) flawed and a waste of time at best, and a perpetuator of completely wrong-headed ideas and opinions. It is a blog for those of a particular cultural persuasion...nothing more...and certainly not the result of anything remotely resembling scholarly analysis. --AustinKnight 19:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments

I apologize to you most sincerely for having not had the time yet to respond to your inquiries. It is true, of course, I have responded in a lax and joking and friendly way to other inquiries, but that's just my style you see. I do what I can, and when I've got 100+ things on my talk page, that is unfortunately not always enough.

I think it's very unfortunate that you've chosen to be hostile with me, but that's really o.k. in the end. I'm sure you'll feel a lot better when I do get a chance to chat with you properly. Again, I apologize for the delay.

In the meantime *hug*, please go forth and do good work and know that I am on your side if you are on the side of quality.--Jimbo Wales 01:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Maków Mazowiecki

I always wanted to create an article about Rickover's birthplace so it could be linked from his bio article, but I was never sure precisely which Maków he was born in. There are a bunch of towns and villages with that name in Poland. Incidentally, the name means poppy-town. Unfortunately, Rickover is almost completely unknown in Poland, so Polish sources were of little help. Balcer 19:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My visit to Austin

I will be speaking on a panel at sxsw, which will be held in March of next year. It would please me greatly if you would be so kind as to have dinner with me while I am there.--Jimbo Wales 12:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation...that is kind & generous of you. I am inclined to accept, but will first need to coordinate specific dates; SXSW is during spring break this year (March 10-19), and I may be out of town for family time. Let's coordinate via e-mail, if possible. A wiki-public e-mail address that I've been using for the Hyman G. Rickover article is: rickoverinterview at hotmail dot com. Alternatively, if you still have it, you may use my private address that I've previously used to send e-mail to you. Respectfully, --AustinKnight 15:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally I have time for a response...

Jimbo -- In my humble opinion, Wikipedia has all the potential in the world to become Nobel Prize material...and I sincerely mean that. It also has all the potential in the world to become completely irrelevant drivel and end up in the Internet dumpster...and I sincerely mean that, too. What will clearly make or break it is the improvement of its credibility & quality (or lack thereof) while maintaining its openness. Having said that, and perhaps surprisingly, I personally do not agree with the 'experiment' to block anons from creating new articles, as there is obviously a great deal of value in keeping a reasonably fully open door to Wikipedia. Rather, my suggestion would be to 'gate' anons in general -- and not just for the creation of an article -- by first (and in every instance of editing) politely offering that they register (preferred) or, if they insist on anonymity for some rationale perhaps not even explicable by themselves, then their contributions would be required to first pass a "Stop Sign" by way of an admin or some similar Wiki-entity that can briefly determine if it is not simply drivel. Call it a "Drivel Test", or "Content Stop Sign" or whatever....something akin to this is clearly needed to stop the Niagra Falls of drivel on Wikipedia. This would dramatically reduce the "impulse vandalism" that you refer to, while at the same time maintain the completely open door that is the hallmark of Wikipedia. It would also make Wikipedia a more user-friendly place, as I suspect that many, many users grow repulsed to Wikipedia because of the on-going "crap" (well spoken on your part) that many articles turn into over time, not to mention the massive abuse of their time that happens with on-going vandalism and/or gross lack of knowledge on the part of "contributors." An inevitable, but everything-in-its-due-time improvement would be to form small, fleet-of-foot 'expert' committees that oversee individual contributions to articles -- regardless of anon or registered sources -- to perform a similar gating function. Unlike the "Content Stop Sign," which could be enacted at this very moment, this "Expertise Gate" is obviously something for a later date, but could be created in any number of creative fashions (voting?), so as to stop persistent POV nonsense from people who clearly do not have current or valuable domain knowledge on what it is they are editing. This would need to be done only after giving it a great deal more thought, but the intent would be to allow for differing POVs while at the same time insisting on some basis of clear expertise. Cheers...and Godspeed. --AustinKnight 17:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [edit]

I think your concept of 'gating' is a generally good one although I can tell from the nuance of your comments that you would tend to agree that the exact implementation matters and is important to get right. Some of the software pieces are going to fall into place soon that will give the community much more flexibility in how we deal with newbie content.

First, the way Wikipedia works right now is that 'newbieness' is signalled in a highly imperfect way. If you are editing from an anon ip, you are probably a newbie. If you are editing from an account with a red link userpage ("anonymous redshirts"), you are probably a newbie. If you are editing from an account with a filled in user page, you are probably not a newbie. Well... none of the preceding is very true, really. So the first step in implementing something like what you are talking about is to have, in the software, a consistent global metric of newbieness (n edits? t days?)

The issue of registration and anonymity is something that we often conflate with newbieness and monitoring. Decoupling those two issues will let us see more clearly what the effects of ip-based editing versus registered editing might be.

Second, at the moment our tools for dealing with frequently vandalized pages are too blunt. You either protect the page, or you unprotect the page. This means that during moments when a page is extremely prominent (new pope is announced, for example) we end up having to protect articles at the very moment when good editors are most likely to be interesting in jumping in to improve them. The tool to be introduced soon (Tim Starling is finishing up on it, as I understand, but only he can give a time estimate) is to have the ability to 'gate' on a per-page basis.

Now, one possible combination of these two things would be to automatically 'gate' newbie contributions. This idea is very much worth considering and discussing.

As to your other remarks, regarding how to get to the next level of quality by using some kind of "expertise gate", we are very much in agreement that this is an "in due time" sort of thing to consider. There are a great many community considerations, neutrality considerations, implementation issues, etc. --Jimbo Wales 12:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

One more quick thought. I believe that one of the problems that we have is that by being too slow to block trolls and pov pushers has as a side-effect that we allow them to become emotionally connected to the site in a way that causes even more trouble when we do get around to getting rid of them for behavioral problems. One reason that we are slow, though, is that there are "community civil rights" so to speak, once you have a user account, as opposed to when you are an ip number. Well, hmm. Again, I think this is a case where we are incorrectly using 'has an account' as a proxy for 'not a newbie', because it's the only tool we have available to do that. If we can flag people as newbies in a more helpful way, then we can bonk the trolls on the head before they get too socially involved with the site.--Jimbo Wales 12:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with the excess-troll-tolerance issue, but I think this may be largely a time issue and would be willing to grant people a month or so to settle down; when newly discovered, Wikipedia seems to be like chalk board in a restroom -- i.e., almost an invitation for POV, etc. But as one good example of a clearly over-indulged troll, see Grazon, apparently a student at California State University, Chico. This guy has been making work for people since he landed here, and is clearly too immature to constructively participate. Tolerating delinquents like this only discourages those who are here to positively contribute, as it steals their precious time without any merit or upside whatsoever. --AustinKnight 06:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Threats of exposing fraud, waste & abuse

Your threats were totally out of line, and you know it. That was pure thuggery. How do you know what my job responsibilities are, or if my wikipedia work isn't consistent with my employer's internet policies? It doesn't, BTW. (anonymous entry by 208.27.111.121)

LOL. Only a lawyer would refer to my comments regarding the exposure of fraud, waste & abuse as a "threat." Grow up. --AustinKnight 17:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What waste of resources? Is the government running short of bandwidth? Is there something on my desk for me to do right now - or perhaps not? Only a wannabee lawyer would call that "fraud". Get a copy of Black's legal dictionary and learn the elements first, player. (anon entry by 208.27.111.121)

The U.S. government has a categorization called "fraud, waste and abuse." It's a collective term...perhaps one you'll grow familiar with. Cheers, --AustinKnight 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Collective term, LOL. Which one applies to me? (anon entry by 208.27.111.121)

"Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn." --AustinKnight 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Referred to Arbitration. (anon entry by 208.27.111.121)

Fine. All this should make stuff for relevant discussion in March with Mr. Wales. --AustinKnight 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Care to explain?

You wrote: "I take great umbrage over that fact that you are editing Wikipedia on the taxpayer's nickel. Whom should such abuse be reported to...? Never mind...I'll sort that out handily." That's tantamount to a legal threat, and I believe that most people would take a dim view of that. I wait on your reply, otherwise I am endorsing the anon's RfAr. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. I think it's silly, but let's find out what others think. Moreover, I believe that "most people would take a dim view" of using government resources/taxpayer dollars to edit the Wikipedia...just as "most people take a dim view" of lawyers (including lawyers). --AustinKnight 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. IMHO, and with no small amount of humor, this all falls under the category created by Wyss-the-Wise on her talk page, which she appropriately refers to as "loopy talk page discussions/scoldings." --AustinKnight 22:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA mentions, as well as no legal threats:

Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why.'

I suppose that you wouldn't regard getting sacked as persecution by an employer, though. Your flippant attitude towards criticism of your actions is hardly a positive, either. Andjam 06:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I have not been flippant enough. You apparently don't get it, so let me make it more clear albeit with less humor: I don't care what you, random person from Australia, thinks on this topic. At all. Nor should I. Moreover, I think that it is repugnant that a taxpayer-insulting employee of the U.S. federal government is able to turn what amounts to a "whistle-blowing" event (against her abuses) into some kind of Wiki-martyrdom, at least amongst the anti-U.S. wiki-forces that she is a subset of. That's idiotic, and ludicrous...but expected from the anti-government ilk. No one has threatened her employment except herself, and every honest person knows that. --AustinKnight 13:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. One can only be "flippant" toward a superior, and you have no such relationship to me. I simply don't buy into your self-aggrandizing fabrications re. the Wiki-social structure...nor should I. --AustinKnight 13:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking this as a "I don't want to edit Wikipedia because I'm better than everyone else" sort of comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What a remarkable non-sequitur. Congratulations on this achievement. --AustinKnight 15:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to constantly trade insults with you: however, I will point out that you appear to have not listened to what AndJam and myself have said because we are "random Australians". I find your comments threatening to the anon. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Your "finding" is something you should mull over a bit further, as the logic is rather obtuse. How can any comment that *I* have made be a threat to her, either with regard to her employment or otherwise...? Think about it. Are you saying that she has done something wrong that could threaten her employment? Because I don't really think that her employer has the slightest care what my opinion is on anything. --AustinKnight 16:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Does the fact that the Wikipedia is being edited/developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars mean that the U.S. government -- and thereby its people -- now has a literal ownership stake in Wikipedia? How interesting that you would support this "development." --AustinKnight 16:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

P.P.S. Perhaps this would all be cleared up if the U.S. taxpayer-abusing anon would apologize for her misuse of government resources and dollars. Otherwise, ethically, the course of action seems rather up to the observer...either myself or others. --AustinKnight 16:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. Other questions: I wonder if Wikipedia is harboring any other fugitives from justice? Also, were I or others to be blocked, would this somehow solve the problem of illegal, sometimes "anonymous" abuse of taxpayer dollars? Or the "problem" of their being reported to the people they have stolen time/money/resources from? What is the total percentage ownership of Wikipedia, given that its content is partly being provided by taxpayers in the U.S.? Points to ponder. --AustinKnight 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware that criticising the govt was abuse in any country other than ones led by dictators... As for Wikipedia being a taxpayer funded organisation: I was not aware that the govt supplied grants to Wikipedia. Perhaps you are referring to the fact that it is an organisation that you can claim tax deductions on? If so, then no, I doubt they have ownership of the site, in much the same way that certain churches and charities can have tax deductions claimed on them and they aren't owned by the govt.

As you find my logic obtuse, please allow me to clarify:

1. You stated that you were going to "track down" a contributor. If you can't see how this might be seen as threatening behaviour, or at least an attempt to stifle debate, then I suggest you think about it more carefully.
2. As I stated, you appear to have said that you ignored AndJam because he was a random Australian, and therefore you don't have to listen to him. Apart from finding this somewhat racist (if that is indeed what you meant), perhaps you should consider what AndJam is saying, not who he is or where he lives.

As for your P.P.P.S about harbouring fugitives from justice: dude, we are a website. We can't harbour anyone. This comment just makes you look nutty. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as a resident of the democratic republic that has saved any number of nations (including Australia during WWII) in the name of freedom, the anon is free to criticize the U.S government...but only on her own time, and in whatever venue she would like, not while at work getting paid a government paycheck and using government resources that are appropriated for government purposes. See the difference? It's not hard; squint if you must.

I did a search, and the phrase "track down" is only used by you. Perhaps you can explain yourself? Perhaps not?

Despite your ill-formed POV, I am actually rather fond of Australia...though somehow unaware that it had managed to form another race. Congratulations on this latest achievment. My comment regarding AndJam is rather addressed to the fact that any number of random people who clear the low threshold for becoming a Wikipedia 'admin' seem to think that they are now above others. That seems...obtuse...and I tend to point things like that out now and then.

My comment regarding "fugitives" should perhaps be taken as "hyperbole", and as a "rhetorical" question. You might want to look those words up along with the seeker of the meaning for "alacrity." --AustinKnight 16:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the U.S. saved poor little old Australia! Was that before or after Douglas McArthur nearly put us in a situation where the Japanese could have invaded us? Anyway, I hardly see how this is relevant to the topic at hand: your threatening comments to an anonymous user.

I suppose that you have never posted a comment from a work computer? Regardless, I hardly think it worthwhile having a go at a government employee because they accessed the Internet. Perhaps they did it during their break? Or is the U.S. government so broke that they are unable to allow their employees access to the Internet during such times? Most reasonable companies will allow this sort of thing. Since when did you become the Internet policeman, who makes sure that all employees are doing their job anyway?

As for the whole race terminology: you know exactly what I meant (or at least you should). Racism is the discrimination of one people group due to their ethnicity. I only mentioned racism because you appeared to say that you weren't going to listen to Andjam because he was a random Australian. I got the wrong end of the stick here. However, your assertion that he is an admin is wrong: he is not. I have no idea where you got that information from.

Not sure what you mean by my ill-informed POV... that seems rather a random comment for you to make.

With regards to the "track down" comment, apologies, you only said that you would find who the abuse should be reported to and "I'll sort that out handily". This does make things much better.

Lastly, the whole "fugitives" comment wasn't hyperbole. It was actually stupidity. There is no other way of interpreting it. Hyperbole would imply that you were exaggerating a possible concept. Clearly Wikipedia harbouring fugitives is an impossibility. Sorry, but you just can't wriggle out of that one. You said something dumb, and you were caught out. Perhaps you should be more careful what you say in future?

Anyway, I'm going to bed. It's been... interesting talking to you. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, Ta bu shi da yu...sad level of commentary from an "Admin", of all people. Very insulting...to yourself. --AustinKnight 17:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What in particular did you find insulting about my comment? - Ta bu shi da yu 17:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

To me, nothing at all...to you, quite a bit. --AustinKnight 17:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If the best you can do is the above, then I think that you a) aren't listening, and b) pretty much can't come up with a lucid reply to my responses. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

the anon is free to criticize the U.S government...
but only on her own time, and in whatever venue she would like,
not while at work getting paid a government paycheck and using government 
resources that are appropriated for government purposes. 

Not true. You are confusing your opinion of what you think should be true with what actually is. As far as wikipedia is concerned she is free to edit whenever she likes using whatever computer she likes.If you threaten to report her to her employer for doing that you are breaking wikipedia policyTheresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL. If your statement were true...and it is not...then whither the "threat", lady Theresa? The employee would seem to be hardly threatened under the pollyanna-ish sky you have painted. --AustinKnight 17:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

AustinKnight, if that wasn't a threat, then what did you hope to achieve by making the statement you made to the anonymous editor? My take on it was to track them down, report them and make sure that they are sanctioned. that is most definitely threatening. If you had other intentions, please feel free to share them with us. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually i don't have the title "Lady". It is a threat to say you will report someone to their employer for editing wikipedia. Please don't ever do it again. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous threat

That is at least the most self-explanatory RfAr that I have seen posted in the past month. If you look at the other open RfArs, most of them rant at length. I think that the ArbCom should be able to dispose of that one by saying that dispute resolution has not been used. Of course, if he had signed in, you wouldn't know that he was using Government bandwidth.

Re. the last part: yes, but only under today's wiki-conventions. --AustinKnight 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My interpretation of "no legal threats" was that it meant no legal threats against Wikipedia. I do recall a discussion that said that No Legal Threats did not prevent Wikipedia from filing suit against the ISP of Willy on Wheels.

It's all very insomnia-curative to me. --AustinKnight 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I was interested in some of your discussion with Jimbo Wales and User:Wyss, and will be following up.

And I'd be happy to hear from you in that regard. --AustinKnight 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you by any chance affiliated with the University of Texas? Robert McClenon 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert: If intended for me: "No." --AustinKnight 22:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No legal threats means you can't threaten wikipedia or anyone on wikipedia and still be free to edit. People have been banned for making threats in the past. Even threatening anons in this way is a big no no. Since it's pretty clear you didn't mean it, the best way forwards would be to simply apoligise and strike the remark. You have no idea whether someone is editing wikipedia on taxpayers dollars so getting on your high horse about it is silly. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The anon's IP address was traced by a standard finger/whois function to a U.S. entity -- and she, herself, has gone on to comment that her employer is in fact the government. By her own choices, actions and (to some degree) admissions, she is the one who has threatened herself. And I'm hardly the only one who has noted her actions...I've merely pointed them out. She may thank me in due course for steering her back toward the path of honest labor. My opinion is quite harmless, in any case. --AustinKnight 17:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not the fact that you have found out that she is a government employee that is the problem. It's this phrase:

Whom should such abuse be reported to...? Never mind...I'll sort that out handily.

This comes across as - I intend to report you to your employer for editing wikipedia. This is a threat and it is this statement that you should withdraw. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Would that somehow do her a favor...? As, from my perspective, a warning shot is just that...and many times they act to save lives. --AustinKnight 17:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You did this to save lives? If so, you really are a prize twit. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A name-calling, vaunted Wikipedia "Admin"...? Now I've seen almost everything. Perhaps you'd understand better if I'd said "livelihoods"...? Perhaps not...? --AustinKnight 17:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO, if you believe that you are acting in the manner we are protesting about here because you believe that you are "saving lives", then you are acting quite stupidly. This makes you a bit of a twit, however I agree that this is an inflammatory thing to say so I apologise for the remark. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea, all i know is threats are not allowed here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The only threat that I've heard is from "Matt the Crypto" (or something to that effect) that he was ever-so-hungry to block me should I issue a threat as some point in the future. In your quotation of me, above, I asked a question and then made a statement of self-sufficiency. Any "threat" is in the mind of the beholder...and I can hardly control that...nor want to. --AustinKnight 17:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A few people have told you that your comment was threatening. Perhaps you should reconsider what you said? - Ta bu shi da yu 17:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll type more slowly for Ta bu, and correct a typo or two in the process:

The only threat that I've heard is from "Matt the Crypto" (or something to that effect...I do recall that he was some sort of professional student) who was ever-so-hungry to bleat out publicly that he would "block" me should I be so callous as to issue a threat at some point in the future....though it is something that I have yet to do. In your quotation of me, above, I asked a question and then made a statement of self-sufficiency. Any "threat" is in the mind of the beholder...and I can hardly control that...nor want to.

Will Matt be apologizing anytime soon?--AustinKnight 17:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Typing more slowly will certainly help me read your comments better. Myself and others have already pointed out what was threatening about your comment. We shouldn't have to keep repeating ourselves - you know perfectly well what we have said, and why we have said it! - Ta bu shi da yu 17:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to apologise for any mistakes I make, but I stand by my comment pointing out that if you "carry on making such threats and you'll rapidly find yourself blocked." I didn't say that I'd block you, though. — Matt Crypto 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No. If you threaten to report someone to their employer you are not welcome to edit wikipedia. Pointing that out to you is entirely within policy. You did make such a threat , no matter how it was worded. If you ever do it again you will very likely find yourself blocked from editing. You may even find an admin willing to block you over this current threat, althouhj I personally am not willing to do it as i believe in warning first. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yikes...yet another threat -- one regarding free speech, no less, but I'm sure one of many on Wikipedia. How the pot does name the kettle. --AustinKnight 17:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You are not entitles to free speech on Wikipedia. One of the freedoms you do not have is the freedom to threaten to report people to their employers. Hope this clears the matter up. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that grand admission. Finally...an honest admin and spokesperson for Wikipedia. P.S. Have you ever looked into the various psychology experiments that have been done regarding taking everyday people and making them the "guards" of a "prison", also populated with everyday people...? Do you somehow believe that your psychology/behavior -- or that of any other "Admin" on Wikipedia -- is any different...? Pompous is as pompous does. --AustinKnight 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ta Bu...I don't have many rules, but I don't allow words on my talk page that a child couldn't read...so I've "banned" your last comment. You're getting overwrought. Please...go to bed. I do apologize for getting you so uptight. --AustinKnight 18:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, then I'll put it back again, sans swear word:

Theresa is correct. If you continue to threaten editors, we will block you for a short period of time. We really don't want people who make the place a nastier place with which to work in: we are all volunteers, with many varied viewpoints. If someone tries to stifle other editors with what appears to be threatening behaviour, we will stop that editor from using our website. It's really as simple as that. We aren't stopping your freedom of speech, we are just saying that your behaviour isn't welcome on Wikipedia!

Incidently, have you ever seen (expletive-filled image deleted)? Kinda similar to your pyschology experiments. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In the book 1984, such a comment as "We aren't stopping your freedom of speech, we are just saying that your behaviour isn't welcome on Wikipedia!" would be called doublespeak. Good night, Ta Bu...and, in all seriousness, be well. --AustinKnight 18:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I also don't allow links to four-letter words. Please refrain from doing so. --AustinKnight 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You have rules about what comments you'll allow on your user talk page — that's fine. Similarly, there are rules about what sort of comments are tolerated on Wikipedia. — Matt Crypto 18:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And I do respect that, Matt, all word-jousting aside. "Anon" Wikipedia entries (or those via sign-ons...or those via "Admins") clearly have many issues, besides just content. Cheers, --AustinKnight 18:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like the fact that we "censor", then perhaps you shouldn't do that yourself? Anyway, the pertinent bit is:

Theresa is correct. If you continue to threaten editors, we will block you for a short period of time. We really don't want people who make the place a nastier place with which to work in: we are all volunteers, with many varied viewpoints. If someone tries to stifle other editors with what appears to be threatening behaviour, we will stop that editor from using our website. It's really as simple as that. We aren't stopping your freedom of speech, we are just saying that your behaviour isn't welcome on Wikipedia! - Ta bu shi da yu 18:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Censoring (in snippets) differs vastly from far-flung denial of free speech. That seems hardly worth pointing out, but apparently necessary.

Please do get your rest, Ta Bu, and treat yourself a little more kindly. --AustinKnight 18:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair point. Yep, time for bed. This insomnia is a killer! - Ta bu shi da yu 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Satire

I can understand that it's a free nation, but is there a policy on Wikipedia? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 22:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I was just being humorous...and actually my satirical point was that the British satire that you referred to was the 'cause' that made the U.S. break away back in 1776. You might want to check out the various Wikipedia groups...there seems to be something for everybody, including the Association of Apathetic Wikipedians. --AustinKnight 23:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Just read your talk page...

... if you really think that poorly of Wikipedia, why don't you just leave the project? Or do you believe that we have some worth? I've also noticed that you have made numerous personal attacks on different editors, or comments that only inflamed certain situations. Why is that? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Go back to bed, Ta bu. I'm not arguing today. Sleep well. --AustinKnight 14:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Still not arguing today...but, factually, it was Jimbo Wales who originally called some example Wikipedia articles "unreadable crap." I embrace the term for many such examples, and particularly in cases that exhibit underlying, systemic causes. Wikipedia has plenty of potential, and, clearly, it has plenty of problems in need of both solutions and decisions. --AustinKnight 14:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop telling me to go to bed. I only asked because you seem to be quite negative about the whole site, so thought I'd ask you directly. Incidently, I've been looking at some of your edits, especially on the Dawkins talk page, and I can't say I'm terribly impressed. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, we can't all be a paragon of virtue such as yourself (*cough*). --AustinKnight 15:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And this is why you are blocked: please read ad hominem. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Closing comments on the "Non-anon Non-threat"

Just to let you know, I'm on the opposite side of politics to Ta bu shi da yu, but I'm at one with him with respect to having a dim view of your behaviour. Andjam 09:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Noted as such. May I suggest, you and others need to consider the larger picture. I, personally, made neither a threat, nor (no surprise, I'm sure) did I contact the abuser's government employer. I did make a rather close-to-the-head warning shot.

Here's the larger picture to consider --> which is better:

(1) to give an abuser a strong warning (which is distinctly and precisely what I did), or

(2) to literally threaten someone's employment (which is distinctly not what I did), or

(3) to simply contact the employer without breathing a word on Wikipedia...?

Notably, (1) is (disputeably, depending perhaps on choice of words) perfectly OK on Wikipedia, and (2), though just puffery, is not, and yet (3)...which has serious potential for real, manifested damage...is also perfectly OK on Wikipedia from a practical standpoint (the only one that matters), whether one is a participating editor or not. Also notably, even if someone had gone off their wiki-rails and either blocked or 'banned' me, this would have zero effect on (3) being implemented as a first choice by whomever so chose to do so (and no, I am not implying me, personally).

With some compassion (not a lot), I do understand the 'threatened-female' reaction of the abusing anon to my choice of words in my close-to-the-head warning shot. However, in terms of reality (not hyperbolic conjecture and wiki-admin-hand-wringing) my having definitively pointed out the rather public information (her IP and physical address) that she was exposing, and apparently otherwise unaware of, has had the net effect of her obtaining a sign-on and hiding her IP address...and still editing on Wikipedia. As am I. All wiki-admin-male-to-the-rescue nonsense aside.

Lastly, referring to the choices (1)-(3) above that today remain available to any Wikipedian at any point in time in whatever context...this whole exercise has served to point out a deficiency in the generalized wiki-thinking that it is editor content only that matters with regard to overall Wiki structure. Context of an editor's involvement matters substantially. By permitting and exposing 'anon' (y'right) IP addresses, Wikipedia is putting any number of editors at risk. Think what you wish, but I for one am an advocate of anon participation --- but, as I have stated in my direct communications with Jimbo Wales, believe that "gating" anon entries, rather than permitting wide-open vandalism and drivel, is clearly a solution whose time has come. Moreover, as evidenced by all these comms, "anon" contributions need to be just that...with some sort of labeling for comms-clarity, but with the actual IP address scrubbed from generalized view.

Cheers, --AustinKnight 20:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is unacceptable to "contact the employer," per WP:NPA. It is out of bounds, violates WP:CIVIL along with all sense of common decency. Your threat to do so is not a warning, it is a personal attack. Do it again and you will be blocked by community consensus. This constitutes *your* one and only warning.FCYTravis 20:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You just missed the whole above line of discussion somehow...? How...odd. --AustinKnight 21:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm vehemently disagreeing with your consideration of a threat to contact an employer as "a strong warning." Whatever you consider it, it's not OK. FCYTravis 21:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't get so worked up about it if I were you. If I had kindly pointed out that the abusing anon's IP address and physical address were being exposed, you'd likely have a completely different POV, but the net results would be the same. The structural problems that I address above are of much greater and on-going value with respect to where to expend one's pre-frontal cortex time. Just a cognitive thought regarding going forward rather than looking backward. Clearly, if IP addresses weren't being exposed, I wouldn't have reacted such as I did...nor would this discussion even be taking place. Focus on the real problem. Cheers, --AustinKnight 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I find your comments to be sexist in the extreme. I had no idea that the anon was female, I was reacting to your comments that you would report them to their employer. As has been pointed out plenty of times to you, this is not acceptable, and has never been acceptable on Wikipedia. You are now blocked, but figured I should make my comments be known here. This had nothing to do with the gender of the anon, it had everything to do with your threatening behaviour. You are a bully, AustinKnight, and we don't take kindly to bullies on this website. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jacob renamed Israel after wrestling with an "unnamed assailant"

Hi, thanks for the input! I'm afraid I don't agree with you... I have to hurry now but I'll answer tomorrow. Take care, Hillel

It's not a matter, really, of agreement or disagreement. The source document, i.e., the Tanakh or the original Hebrew Old Testament -- with a direct translation -- can solve this pretty quickly. I'm fine with either one, but would gladly defer to the Tanakh for obvious reasons. Using some 3rd-party's read into this, on the other hand, is not ideal...especially when the true source documents are readily available. This is truly a very simple sourcing issue. If Genesis is not being used for the source, then the Tanakh should be referenced. --AustinKnight 22:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Lo and behold...Wikipedia has the following in the Jacob article: "...a mysterious being ("a man", according to Genesis 32:24, or "the angel", according to Hosea 12:4) appeared and wrestled with Jacob until daybreak."

In other words, this will boil down to a choice in the Tanakh between the Torah and Genesis, or the Nevi'im and Hosea.

Do you have a reason for picking Hosea over Genesis...? --AustinKnight 23:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Rickover_arlington.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rickover_arlington.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AfitchT.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AfitchT.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If 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. MER-C 10:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

File:Rickover.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rickover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. 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. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)