User talk:Calbear22

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks very much for your contribution to Steven Weber (professor), and I hope you like it here and stick around. Looks like the article could still use some editing and cleaning up to make it a proper Wikipedia entry (I have placed a a "clean-up" tag at the top). Before you start doing a lot of editing, you might want to take the Tutorial. It gives a lot of basic info you'll want to get you oriented on Wikipedia. My personal user page also has a list of Wikipedia guidelines I have found useful in creating new articles, and you are welcome to browse them.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using three tildes (" ~~~ ") for your username and four (" ~~~~ ") for your username and a timestamp.

If you have any other questions about Wikipedia, check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Help desk. You can also drop me a question on my talk page any time!

Happy editing! — TheKMan^talk 05:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:CIMG1640.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:CIMG1640.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. 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Population sign on Dolan Road.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you uploaded the same image twice: as Image:Population sign on Dolan Road.JPG and also as Image:CIMG1640.JPG. The latter copy of the file has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 22:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:CIMG1633.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:CIMG1633.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Elkhorn_Elementary.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Elkhorn_Elementary.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Berkeley Bowl

A tag has been placed on Berkeley Bowl, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Philippe 04:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldunc vandal

User:Geraldunc does not understand the rules governing Wikipedia concerning sourced information and vandalism. He has repeatedly vandalized the Don Perata article. The user deleted information that was provided by other contributors and sources and replaced that information with an unsourced argument (revisions on 07:27, 24 July 2007 and 07:34, 24 July 2007). On July 29, 2007, I removed the unsourced information and posted an explanation on the Don Perata talk page and on the user's talk page. Garaldunc proceeded to again remove sourced information and sources from the article and replaced the information with unsourced material (05:25, 7 August 2007, 05:36, 7 August 2007, 05:37, 7 August 2007). I tagged Garaldunc's changes as vandalism and reverted the page back to its previous version (05:46, 8 August 2007, 05:48, 8 August 2007, 05:48, 8 August 2007). I explained my actions on the Don Perata talk page (17:53, 8 August 2007) and warned Geraldunc on his talk page (06:01, 8 August 2007). Then, Geraldunc again vandalized the Don Perata article (21:48, 8 August 2007). He used information I provided on my User page to find my personal email address (which is not listed on my user profile). He sent me the following threatening email:

"YOU are the one who is printing unsubstantiated "storis. EBE has repeatedly printed unverified, undocumented, non-sourced crap about Perata and I have to assume by continuing this crap YOU are part of Bobbie's world - his boyfriend perhaps. The most recent story - about Perata's "lavish lifestyle" is so misleading it is basically a lie - for you college boys, that's called "Libel" in legal circles. Are you two so stupid you don't realize the expenditures listed were for FUNDRAISERS??? I notice in listing those thousand dollar dinners, nowhere in there did Bobbie Gagmee point out there were, for example, dozens of people dining - most of whom paid for the evening. Obviously you have never run a successful non-profit and held a fundraiser. Obviously you have never run a successful political campaign. It takes money, it takes events, it takes relationships.

So if YOU continue to fuck with the Perata Wikipedia listing, I'll not only have you banned, I'll have you sued. Thanks for giving me your real name. Nothing that I put in that post was UNTRUE - Bobbie has a history of writing slanted stories about Perata. That is TRUE and verifiable. Bobbie has never listed a single named source for his allegations against Perata - that is TRUE and verifiable. Bobbie has thrown Perata's name into any story about any Eastbay political figure even if it meant reaching back to Perata having met the person 10 years ago - that is TRUE and it's verifiable. You have NOTHING verified, yours is simply a repeat of insinuations. But enough about Perata. I think it's time to post Wikis on you and your boyfriend.

You poor pathetic little nobody. God, it gets old having to hear from losers like you who have nothing beside their name except blog credits and the fact they're still in school and living with their mommies."

I admit that the East Bay Express isn't the SF Chronicle. Some of his arguments might be valid but without verification of those arguments and combined with the vandalism of his actions in general (deleting sources, sources information, etc.) this user needs to be blocked. Although the user needs to be blocked and was very disrespectful to me, I will try to address his criticism.

3RR

I hate to do this, especially because you're posting about it in ANI, but you violated the three-revert rule on Don Perata, which of course states that users are allowed no more than three reverts in a 24-hour period, except for vandalism. Just be more careful, okay? Sorry to be annoying. GlassCobra 05:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:HancockfromCaliforniaprogressreport.com .jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HancockfromCaliforniaprogressreport.com .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. 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Perata-New-session.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Perata-New-session.gif. 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. 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Captain Davis image

The image may not be replaceable, but it also has no fair use tag or rationale, so it has been deleted anyway. If you reupload it, be sure to supply the appropriate fair use tag and rationale. --Core desat 05:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Image:Davis signs carbon emmissions bill.JPG, Image:Deportes-20021016-01.jpg, and Image:Fran Pavley.JPG. They need fair use rationales, though I deleted the first one since that one is unnecessary. --Core desat 05:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Skip-Bo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Skip-Bo.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Walters talk

Hi Joseph, I wasn't sure where to insert this, so please forgive me, as I need to be further educated on communication technique on Wikipedia.

Hi Joseph (calbear22). I don't suppose your boss/member was/is Asm. Hector De La Torre, is he? You're rewriting of the Mimi Walters article is MUCH improved, but, while you take issue with the previous language as biased (I concede that it was), you cannot claim that the phrase "to restrict use of eminent domain by California local governments" is not equally biased.

Please look at it from this point of view: While the Constitution allowed for eminent domain in cases where "public use" such as building a school, road, bridge or some other form of public infrastructure, the purpose of increasing government revenues is not a public use, it is the use of the cudgel of eminent domain to take people's private land in order to give it to another private entity. This is corruption, political favors being repaid. Government's purpose is not to grant individuals their rights, its purpose is to protect our inherent, or as the Declaration terms it, unalienable rights. One of the most fundamental of these rights is the right to own property. If government decides it wants a particular property owner over another, how is this protecting the rights of individuals (particularly against what is invariably a corporate entity)?

It seems that the public perception of Democrats protecting the little guy and Republicans defending the corporation has been turned on its head. Now, I believe that because many Democrats (as a rule) view the Constitution as a "living" document, one could rationalize that what was meant by its text in the 18th century, could be something completely different today. I argue that thinking like this is intellectually weak. The "living" portion of the Constitution does exist; it is called the Constitutional Amendment. However, the amount of change that can be effected by an Amendment is limited specifically by the scope of what is written in that Amendment (and that is assuming that the Amendment actually becomes part of the Constitution, which, as you know, does not happen very often).

There is no provision in the Constitution for changing attitudes or mores in future societies other than the Amendment process. It stretches credulity that in the United States one would actually NOT support the "restrict[ed] use of eminent domain by California local governments" in this context--unless a powerful interest group spends large sums of money to protect its own business interests, which are not consistent with the Constitution, and convinces voters that to support restricting local governments' ability to exercise eminent domain actually does the OPPOSITE (that is to curtail one's individual property rights), which is, of course, not true, but a deception to strike fear in the hearts of those who would otherwise support what effectively upholds the original intent of the Constitution, to protect the private property rights of Americans except in the narrowest of circumstances.

Thanks for your dedication to Wikipedia. I hope you take this mini-dissertation as an intellectual argument and not a personal attack.

Rocksavs 08:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply dated 12 October 2007

Thank you for your reply my friend. I think you might have misunderstood a small portion of my message to you regarding the definition of eminent domain (not the term itself), but I believe you understood my overall intent. I like the terms you substituted and I agree that to make them as balanced and unbiased as possible should be the ultimate goal, in order to make Wikipedia as credible a source as possible (I have heard Wikipedia disparaged from time-to-time on the radio and I think the remarks tend to refer to citations that have yet to be verified or completely discredited, unfortunately). Your effort at a neutral term (or terms) in this case is commendable and I thank you for seriously considering my comments and efforts at revising the Prop 90 info.

I also appreciate your patience with my self-training on Wikipedia. My goal is not so much to be a regular Wikipedia contributor, but just to focus on specific topics when I have the time (which is not often!!).

By the way, I think Asm. Feuer is a nice and decent man. I can't say that we agree all that often, but he definitely has the respect of this contrarian.

Best, Garth

Rocksavs 18:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Newsom

Are you familiar with this citing style? Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once Pairadox (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know. I made the needed changes. Thanks. User:calbear22 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces Bowl

I've changed the licensing to accommodate Wikipedia. Feel free to use them. http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamrstone/sets/72157603592423158/ General125 (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]