User talk:Kevin W.

Your "by permission only" image uploads

Hi-

I saw where you uploaded several images for Colonial Forces (Battlestar Galactica) and indicated that they are used with permission. As the green messages above point out, these images cannot be used on Wikipedia. When I look at old versions of the article - [1] - it looks like they were already images of the rank insignia there that were freely licensed. I know nothing whatsoever about Battlestar Galactica so please forgive my ignorance - is there something inadequate about the images that we there? If not, it is Wikipedia's policy to always prefer free images over non-free ones and to never use images where we only have permission unless they would qualify for fair use even without the permission. --BigDT 03:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The images that were used previously were inaccurate as screen caps from the show prove. How would I get them approved for use on Wikipedia? I communicate with the creator of the ranks on a regular basis and the creator has said in writing that the ranks can be used on this site. --Kevin W. 04:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for details on the kind of permission Wikipedia needs. Essentially, we would need for them to be released under a "free" license, like the GFDL, or to be released into the public domain. The bottom of Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission has a sample form letter that you can use to ask for permission. Also, you may want to discuss the issue on Talk:Colonial Forces (Battlestar Galactica). It actually looks like a very inactive page ... so there probably isn't anyone to discuss it with ... but it would be a good idea to mention on there why you removed the old images and what the problem was. That way, six months from now, someone doesn't wonder why they were removed and simply add them back. --BigDT 05:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I redirected Template:Kuro-RPG image to Template:Db-noncom; the images were uploaded after 2005-05-19 and have improper licenses and, thus, meet the third criterion for speedy deletion of images. --Iamunknown 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I nominated Template:Kuro-RPG image for deletion. You may participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 29. --Iamunknown 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Riley L. Pitts

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Riley L. Pitts! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. —72.75.74.236 (talk · contribs) 22:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account, because after a review of some of your contributions it appears that we can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: and believe you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Rollback feature and Rollback school. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

List of assassinated American politicians

Hello, Kevin W! Nice to make your acquaintance. I'm sorry to have to tell you that I need to undo your recent edit to List of assassinated American politicians. You see, that list is a sortable list. A reader who wishes to may sort the dead ones by last name (the default), by year of assassination, place of assassination, whatever. On a normal static table, your edit would have been very good, because it would make clear that the men died in the same incident. But in this case, by tying them together, when they get sorted, you can get some weird results. (Right now I'm looking at it after sorting by "Office held", and it says that Muscone's "office" was "Gunshots to abdomen and head"!). Anyway, good attempt there, and keep it up. And welcome! Unschool (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Fascia comment

Hello, it's apparent that you have some knowledge of Silver skin, you say there's a culinary application. Well, that already is more than anybody who contributed to the Fascia article or reads its Talk: page are likely to know, since Fascia isn't a culinary term at all and Silver skin isn't a medical one. I have 2 suggestions for you: (A) delete the re-direct at Silver skin and put in what you know about it, and if it's related to Fascia then include that in your new silver skin article. (B) Look in the revision history of Silver skin to see who created the re-direct, look in the revision histories of the pages that link to Silver skin to see who contributed the term and created the links, and contact any of those people and invite their collaboration. Yours --99.163.50.12 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

US Invasion of Panama

Thank you for cleaning up the excess new paragraph errors. My desktop notepads create those, forgot them. Anarchangel (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Which article?

Regarding this edit, which article are referring to? Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I looked at the wrong column. Thanks for your reply and for your help. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I really appreciate all of your help with the NCAA uniforms. With the large amount of Div I universities, your help means a lot! Check out your main wiki-page, I've added something to it for all of your hard work.

JohnnySeoul
Wikipedia NFL/AFL/NCAA Uniforms Maintainer/Creator
JohnnySeoul^Talk/_Contribs 01:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Arkansas Razorbacks football

Do not revert me without comment. The use of non-free content in a gallery like that is not acceptable, and if you were familiar with our non-free content criteria in any way you would appreciate that. Reverting good faith edits without comment amounts to vandalism, and our non-free content policies are policies just like any other. Continue with your vandalism and continue ignoring our policies, you will find youself blocked. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

J Milburn, please do not constantly threaten blocking people when they clearly have an argument. It wasn't as if he was vandalizing an article or something. (..and if he was, he still would get the requisite 4 vandalism warnings before being blocked, plus the 1st and 2nd warnings do not usually even mention blocking someone) Your approach seems to be a bit on the harsh side; Most reasonable people will discuss things with you and you can find a common understanding with them if you try to talk things out. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

CP4L, people who "clearly have an argument" generally do not reinstate non-free galleries without comment. Kevin, as I explained in the edit summaries, my objection to the well established images you mention was the fact that they were given a section of their own, and there wasn't even any discussion of them. If your qualm was just with the one or two images, reinstating them would have been more constructive than rolling back my edits. Cardsplayer4life, there's no such thing as "requisite vandalism warnings"- we don't template the regulars and those warnings are in no way necessary, even for new users. They're sometimes useful, but nothing more. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

JM, he had voiced his concern on the discussion page of the article, and that was likely what he meant to be taken as his "comment" on his edit. (It is sometimes helpful to check that first to see if an edit is further explained.) I realize that the 4 warnings is not a hard and fast rule, but it is a good general practice to give at least one warning before immediately jumping to the "you will find yourself blocked" type of language. Also, we must assume good faith from our fellow editors, especially in contentious situations such as this one where there is a healthy debate as to what the right course of action is. (As the DDTR page you linked to says, "Sometimes Wikipedia has multiple rules which are contradictory. If a rules violation is not clear-cut, an amicable resolution to the problem is going to require a human explanation..."; it is usually better to talk things out to try and come to a resolution rather than immediately jump to the threats as if a serious vandalism had taken place.) In any event, it is past now and I think the talk on the discussion page about the issue has provided a solution that is amiable to both sides, which is always a victory. :) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Uniforms

Sorry, "uniformity" over accuracy makes no sense to me. Bring in a mod if you feel that stongly and we'll make our cases. Showing uniforms that have NEVER BEEN WORN with NO PLANS TO EVER BE WORN is silly. AriGold (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Others are agreeing with me, see the discussion. If you want to keep changing it, I suggest you bring in a moderator.AriGold (talk)
  • Possible solution? See discussion page. AriGold (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)