User talk:Jlrich

Image copyright problem with Image:Annette.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Annette.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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Annette Richardson Dinwoodey[edit]

I've nominated the article Annette Richardson Dinwoodey for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Annette Richardson Dinwoodey satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annette Richardson Dinwoodey. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Annette Richardson Dinwoodey during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jlrich/Annette Richardson Dinwoodey

Image:H141n1.jpg[edit]

Hello, Jlrich. 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:H141n1.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Jlrich/Annette Richardson Dinwoodey. 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 06:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Census.jpg[edit]

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

June 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Obong University. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Obong University, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to this edit, you violate two separate Wikipedia policies: no personal attacks, specifically by ("Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views") and votestacking--appealing for editors to support your side of a disagreement, rather than seeking unbiased, uninvolved editors.

I get that you feel strongly about this. It's OK to feel strongly, but I encourage you not to take it personally. You've expressed that you want to keep this civil and be Christlike, a perspective I highly encourage. Wikipedia is neither yours nor mine--the fact that the rules and consensus agrees with me rather than you doesn't make me better or my viewpoint superior. It just makes mine the more consensus, average, and pedestrian viewpoint. Neutral third parties have rendered opinions. Go look at my edit history, and you'll see that none of them have collaborated with me before: they're not my friends or cronies, just other Wikipedia editors. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry about the way I've acted over this. I haven't acted the way I should have over something so small, but it really struck the wrong chord with me. I still completely disagree that the "C" should be capitalized, but I do apologize. I really kind of do take it personally, because essentially it's a slap in the face (not from you, from Wikipedia as a whole) that leaves the imprint "Your ideas really don't matter. This argument will be won by whoever is most PC." Once again, I'm not saying you're the only one that is going for what's politically correct. Wikipedia as a whole does that. I don't think that the "consensus, average, pedestrian", though, understands the church of Christ or why some capitalize/don't capitalize the "c". Even were there a large percentage of people who felt it should be uncaps, that group would lose out, simply because there are very likely more non-church of Christ Wikipedians than there are church of Christ Wiks. Many Wiks don't understand the church of Christ or why many of us feel it an unwritten rule that the "c" should not be capitalized. I don't understand, say, the Jehovah's Witnesses, so I wouldn't tell them to capitalize Jehovah but not witnesses. It's not my place. I try to avoid subjects which don't pertain to me directly. As far as my 'violation' of two policies - it wasn't a personal attack - I wasn't using your affiliations to discredit your view. Rather, I was pointing out that you may or may not be a member of the church of Christ and may or may not understand why the "c" is left uncapitalized by some. And as for 'votestacking', there is nothing that is not going to be done without appeal. That's just life. Just like there is no true "fair and balanced" news media, appeal and emotion will always play a role - that never changes in life no matter how hard someone tries. So, again I'm sorry about the way I acted but I still strongly disagree. And as for the manual of style I could gladly do without it. Jlrich (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another analogy I came up with--bad me, if I'd thought of this illustration sooner, it might have helped. Think of Wikipedia like the phone book. Every phone book I've ever seen has "Church of Christ" and pretty much for the same reason as Wikipedia. They don't know or care about particular preferences, and if they had to deal with all of them, they'd soon be overwhelmed, so they just stick to the most pedestrian English capitalization possible. Did you see that one editor who was thinking "churches of Christ" would be referring to all of Christendom? That's the sort of misinterpretation that some people get--I would have never thought of that, and I suspect you would not have, either, but that's a more obvious interpretation to those who know nothing of the Churches of Christ as a particular religious tradition.

I hope this whole episode doesn't sour you on Wikipedia too much. I have never once doubted your sincerity and desire to do the right thing; I've just disagreed about what "the right thing" in a particular situation is. I'm actually toying with the idea of getting List of universities and colleges affiliated with the Church of Christ up to Featured List status; That's how I came upon the Obong article to begin with. I think the post-WWII expansions of CofC colleges is a fascinating sociological phenomenon, that has completely changed the socioeconomic makeup of Churches of Christ in two generations. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

Hello Jlrich, I have removed your request for a third opinion. It was already listed by User:Jlrich and provided by User:HelloAnnyong. In this case I believe we can simply try to follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters). If you want more wikipedia editors to look at an issue, you can list it at WP:RFC. The WP:3O option is generally intended for disputes between two editors and a neutral opinion given by a third.Species8473 (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]