Hello, this is IP75. Please leave a message at the sound of the tone. IP75 23:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I asked the tech dudes, and apparently it is impossible to give autoconfirmed status early. Again, I'm really sorry that I stopped you from editing that page, but in light of the recent controversy surrounding him, I don't think I can unprotect it. Gah, I don't know what to do. J.delanoy gabs adds 23:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I responded to your query on my talk page Erudy ( talk) 01:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Erudy- I want to commend you for your effort on obtaining the photos of Bill Ayers. I think that you informed him of the photo's release to the pubic domain in your email and he responded in the affirmative in his rely: "Hey--- I couldn't find the photo submission page, but these are both mine, one at the U, one with my grand daughter. Use them if you want to. Best, Bill". Please obtain an explicit statement if necessary. Thanks,
IP75 (
talk) 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- IP75, no that's not an explicit enough statement. I reject those kinds of statements at OTRS all the time.
howcheng {
chat} 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Erudy- I just wanted to know if you have requested and received the required release statement from Bill Ayers. I asked Howcheng how it should be worded and he said somthing like "Yes, I agree to release these to the public domain." I would be happy to follow up on this if you would like me to. Please advise,
IP75 (
talk) 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is the email I sent to Mr Ayers the night of 14 October:
- Dear Professor Ayers,
- Hi Erudy- I just wanted to know if you have requested and received the required release statement from Bill Ayers. I asked Howcheng how it should be worded and he said somthing like "Yes, I agree to release these to the public domain." I would be happy to follow up on this if you would like me to. Please advise,
IP75 (
talk) 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- IP75, no that's not an explicit enough statement. I reject those kinds of statements at OTRS all the time.
howcheng {
chat} 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help! As you can see here, your photo has been posted to your article. Unfortunately, this is only temporary unless you explicitly affirm that you own the image and release it into the public domain. Wikipedia strives to use only free content, and in the case of images this means that they are only accepted when they have been clearly donated to the public domain. Basically, I've been told by administrators that our exchange (below) wasn't clear enough for legal purposes. To be absolutely in the clear, and to keep the current photo from being removed from the article, we need a affirmation that you
- 1) Are the owner of the work
- 2) Release it in to the public domain, where it can be used for any purpose, including commercial and derivative uses
- Again I'd like to thank you for your contributions and assistance to our project, and apologize for having to bother you over this legal fine print. This sort of thing can be a bit frustrating to work through, but it does help maintain the integrity of the project.
Your feedback is appreciated - Sarah Palin - NPOV?
Thanks much for the heads-up about the public image article. Please stop over at the main article and cast your vote as to whether that article is biased or neutral. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 03:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's biased. After the election her page was whitewashed!
here. Thanks. Justmeherenow ( ) 19:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
From the 40+ talk page archives:
I believe it was removed from the 'Personal life' section along with her penchant for moose burgers. I also support the inclusion of Palin's 'running' in marathons and away from the media :) The detail in the former version made it a little hagiographic. IP75 (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- No doubt, of course, testimony to my continuing desire to canonize Saint Sarah! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, look at her. She needed some new clothes! What's the big deal? :) IP75 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was wondering where my ferrets disappeared to! She is brave, though... my wife wouldn't be caught dead in the furs I purchased many years ago when such things were considered in vogue (for fear of being drenched in pig's blood! :) Fcreid (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Fully agree with your comments on the Admin board about full protection. Despite fairly regular differences in opinion and the occasional flat-out fight, we have settled into an effective methodology on Sarah Palin that seems to work and satisfy the majority of contributors. By the same token, I can see the rationale in applying a policy universally to all four articles to preclude any perception of preference, e.g. we wouldn't want to have McCain fully-protected and Obama semi-protected just prior to an election. Let's hope they decide to restore the semi-protection status of all candidate articles. Fcreid ( talk) 10:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Removal of content from Innocence of Muslims
Thank you for that. I have been doing a general edit for clarity and accuracy as well as formatting inline citations and checking RS. I objected to the mention of this video, as it is not from anyone associated with the actual production and we were giving a spotlight on something that I felt did not meet notability. I am trying to move slowly enough as to not crowd editing. I fully support the exclusion of that content!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Congrats Barkeep49 on your successful ARBCOM nomination and receiving the most !votes. Well deserved! Best, IP75 ( talk) 07:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, this is IP75. Please leave a message at the sound of the tone. IP75 23:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I asked the tech dudes, and apparently it is impossible to give autoconfirmed status early. Again, I'm really sorry that I stopped you from editing that page, but in light of the recent controversy surrounding him, I don't think I can unprotect it. Gah, I don't know what to do. J.delanoy gabs adds 23:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I responded to your query on my talk page Erudy ( talk) 01:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Erudy- I want to commend you for your effort on obtaining the photos of Bill Ayers. I think that you informed him of the photo's release to the pubic domain in your email and he responded in the affirmative in his rely: "Hey--- I couldn't find the photo submission page, but these are both mine, one at the U, one with my grand daughter. Use them if you want to. Best, Bill". Please obtain an explicit statement if necessary. Thanks,
IP75 (
talk) 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- IP75, no that's not an explicit enough statement. I reject those kinds of statements at OTRS all the time.
howcheng {
chat} 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Erudy- I just wanted to know if you have requested and received the required release statement from Bill Ayers. I asked Howcheng how it should be worded and he said somthing like "Yes, I agree to release these to the public domain." I would be happy to follow up on this if you would like me to. Please advise,
IP75 (
talk) 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is the email I sent to Mr Ayers the night of 14 October:
- Dear Professor Ayers,
- Hi Erudy- I just wanted to know if you have requested and received the required release statement from Bill Ayers. I asked Howcheng how it should be worded and he said somthing like "Yes, I agree to release these to the public domain." I would be happy to follow up on this if you would like me to. Please advise,
IP75 (
talk) 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- IP75, no that's not an explicit enough statement. I reject those kinds of statements at OTRS all the time.
howcheng {
chat} 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help! As you can see here, your photo has been posted to your article. Unfortunately, this is only temporary unless you explicitly affirm that you own the image and release it into the public domain. Wikipedia strives to use only free content, and in the case of images this means that they are only accepted when they have been clearly donated to the public domain. Basically, I've been told by administrators that our exchange (below) wasn't clear enough for legal purposes. To be absolutely in the clear, and to keep the current photo from being removed from the article, we need a affirmation that you
- 1) Are the owner of the work
- 2) Release it in to the public domain, where it can be used for any purpose, including commercial and derivative uses
- Again I'd like to thank you for your contributions and assistance to our project, and apologize for having to bother you over this legal fine print. This sort of thing can be a bit frustrating to work through, but it does help maintain the integrity of the project.
Your feedback is appreciated - Sarah Palin - NPOV?
Thanks much for the heads-up about the public image article. Please stop over at the main article and cast your vote as to whether that article is biased or neutral. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 03:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's biased. After the election her page was whitewashed!
here. Thanks. Justmeherenow ( ) 19:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
From the 40+ talk page archives:
I believe it was removed from the 'Personal life' section along with her penchant for moose burgers. I also support the inclusion of Palin's 'running' in marathons and away from the media :) The detail in the former version made it a little hagiographic. IP75 (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- No doubt, of course, testimony to my continuing desire to canonize Saint Sarah! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, look at her. She needed some new clothes! What's the big deal? :) IP75 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was wondering where my ferrets disappeared to! She is brave, though... my wife wouldn't be caught dead in the furs I purchased many years ago when such things were considered in vogue (for fear of being drenched in pig's blood! :) Fcreid (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Fully agree with your comments on the Admin board about full protection. Despite fairly regular differences in opinion and the occasional flat-out fight, we have settled into an effective methodology on Sarah Palin that seems to work and satisfy the majority of contributors. By the same token, I can see the rationale in applying a policy universally to all four articles to preclude any perception of preference, e.g. we wouldn't want to have McCain fully-protected and Obama semi-protected just prior to an election. Let's hope they decide to restore the semi-protection status of all candidate articles. Fcreid ( talk) 10:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Removal of content from Innocence of Muslims
Thank you for that. I have been doing a general edit for clarity and accuracy as well as formatting inline citations and checking RS. I objected to the mention of this video, as it is not from anyone associated with the actual production and we were giving a spotlight on something that I felt did not meet notability. I am trying to move slowly enough as to not crowd editing. I fully support the exclusion of that content!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Congrats Barkeep49 on your successful ARBCOM nomination and receiving the most !votes. Well deserved! Best, IP75 ( talk) 07:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)