User talk:Ohconfucius/archive07

Please click here to leave me a message.
I prefer to keep all discussions coherent, so I will reply on the same page where messages are left for me. Thanks for stopping by.

On the other hand, if you're here to award me a barnstar ;-), they are gratefully received here.

Raffles Institution Anthem

Hi there, you recently deleted the Institution Anthem, citing WP:COPY. Another user restored it, requesting proof of this apparent copyright infringement. You have since deleted it once again, without any further explanation. Could you please offer some sort of substantiation? Thanks, - SpLoT // 04:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• it was clearly stated in the text that the lyrics were written by E. Jesudason, the Headmaster from 1963 - 1966, so the likelihood that the lyrics still enjoy copyright protection is strong. A deleting editor does not have to prove it's inside copyright, it is the other way around. The onus of proof of whether a piece of text is copyrighted is upon the editor who wishes to insert it. Ohconfucius 04:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Collection-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Collection-1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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. Wizardman 15:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

BGS

i strongly disagree with your edits to Brisbane Grammar School. The sections on extracurricular activities and the Academic Mission are both valid pieces of information about the school that many, many other school pages contain. if you feel wikipedia should not contain this type of information, i suggest you get cracking on removing said info from every other page instead of just this one. or better yet, you could discuss the removal on the grammar talk page. unless you can provide justification for its removal other than just pointing at a loosly associated wikipedia polciy, i feel i have grounds to undo your edit. Kiran 08:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, I am going around removing these long and dry lists of subjects and courses, as well as paragraphs about mission and vision from any school article I am coming across for the reasons cited in the edit summary. In addition to the policies and guidelines quoted, namely WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM, please also refer to the debates which have been taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. I believe there is ample justification for my edits, and therefore I am reversing your changes. Ohconfucius 09:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

im sorry. but there is a big difference to believing that there is ample justification and providing justification. personally i think refering to a few loosly associated guidelines is not justification enough to delete several paragraphs of information that until now has been perfectly acceptable. this might just be me, personally, but i thought the protocol was to express your concerns with the page on the article's talk page, and then after receiving comments and suggestions from other users, making the necessary corrections. im going to leave the 'corrections' that you've made, simply because i really cant be bothered putting them back in, but i will start a discussion about it on the talk page, albeit very lazily.Kiran 12:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 03:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Il Divo Greek.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Il Divo Greek.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 02:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Il Divo Encore.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Il Divo Encore.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 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Dfreeman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dfreeman.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 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki page on Huang Biren (singapore actress)

Hi, I would greatly appreciate it if you do not delete such a big chunk of information from the Huang Biren page of wikipedia, especially the whole section of her Personal Information. I have already added that part back, as well as the Trivia section. If you feel these information of her is not necessary, please discuss first? Thank you very much. fatty 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• You will see that the infobox has been expanded to include some of the personal information, but the rest just simply does not belong - things like star sign and who she admires most are completely unencyclopaedic and are a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. Information like this is routinely deleted from biographies here on wikipedia. The trivia section has beenremoved per WP:TRIVIA. Again, some of the info, such as her height and name of her spouse are now already in the infobox' However, Wiki is not a gossip column, and in addition to being unencyclopaedic, having information about her house and the district she lives in may also cause her privacy to be violated. I appreciate you may not like the changes I brought, but these are in order to create an encyclopaedic article. Ohconfucius 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• OK then. I respect your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrentzw (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Jingkang

Thank you for your work. You should join WikiProject China, we need more people like you to translate/edit articles between languages. TheAsianGURU 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

fdny 'propaganda'

thought I'd grab your attention. Originally I didn't have the quotation points but I couldn't bear not putting them there. Some preliminary comments: (let me look up the definition of propaganda.)

–noun 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. 2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. 3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement. 4. Roman Catholic Church. a. a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions. b. a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions. 5. Archaic. an organization or movement for the spreading of propaganda.

I'll go for definition three and to a certain degree one (information, ideas, spread, help) but also removing all negative connotations of deliberate deception and/or ill intentions. so if you strictly define it, this is the falun gong propaganda, and I'm happy enough with that. There are other kinds of propaganda which are based on lies and are deliberately harmful though, like that of the CCP and the nazi regime. And for this reason maybe it would just be better to use two different words to describe them, since they are opposite in their intentions. Intentions are extremely important to understand. But anyway, for our purposes, please allow me to share with you some propaganda. I uploaded this magazine for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Compassion_Edition6.pdf

And solemnly request you find time to read the article 'Righteous Resistance'. There are a few others which you might like, but this is the one I would most be interested in your thoughts on. I find most of the magazine to be both sincere and intelligent in its analysis, though there is a bit of the staple you already know. For this mag I don't know in all cases, or how much, but there are certainly a number of non falun gong contributions. The first, for example. Just to stimulate thought, maybe for when you are on the bus or something next time with nothing to read... good luck. --Asdfg12345 15:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• It appears to have been corrupted, so I could not get it to download correctly. It has now been deleted. If you could give me the direct link, I will download it myself. Thanks Ohconfucius 01:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh that is odd. Okay here is a link: http://files.asd.mm.st/misc/. I would be interested for you to read that article, (there's another which isn't bad "The Falun Gong Factor", actually a few are rather good) and spell out your views on it. I completely understand your frustration with Dilip. I don't want to edit war either, but I also think having that "research into health benefits" section on the front page is not completely encyclopaedic. Maybe some things can be done to make the sources clearer and more transparent. Or Dilip may engage in civil discussion. Anyway, you seem to have more thorough concerns and disquiet over Falun Gong than just his behaviour. I notice, for example, your deleting information about the persecution, and on the details of the persecution. This kind of thing puzzles me and I don't really understand it. Some people like Samuel were intransigent and he would attempt to fill the pages with stuff directly copied from his website, and basically refuse to discuss, or not discuss rationally. Then he would simply delete well-sourced things from Amnesty etc. about the persecution and not discuss that, either. I could never understand just what his problem was, and he never spelled it out or seemed to want to engage in a rational conversation. All one got from him was aggression and nonsense. You are obviously very different from that. But I am concerned over your concerns. Also, in terms of wikipedia, I think the persecution and everything about Falun Gong (and everything else involved in wiki) should be thoroughly and professionally documented according to the policies. Deleting sourced information is different from that. For example, if you were to raise concerns over some specific issues on the talk pages, like "Hey, I think there is too much information on this point because xyz, so I would suggest this solution...", there would be a kind of rationale and transparency. But you deleted some relevant things without looking to discuss. I am sure that you understand that you are improving the encyclopaedia; I see you as someone who is actually editing in good faith. So in light of this type of thing, I am kind of wondering whether the misunderstanding is on my part or your part. Anyway, perhaps you will read these few articles and find them engaging, interesting, disagreeable, whatever, but I would certainly like to hear your side of the story on this, if you would care to explain it.--Asdfg12345 05:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fairmont hotel infoboxes

Hi. Thanks for adding the infoboxes. But you need to fix the "owner" field. Fairmont does not own most of its hotels anymore -- it has sold the bulk of them to entities such as Legacy Hotels Real Estate Investment Trust. Thanks. Skeezix1000 13:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I filled in the infoboxes with info from the article. I did pick up that the owner was the REIT for one of the hotels. I didn't want to presume that the ownership was consistent. Ohconfucius 13:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Marcellin College

This edit has removed the list, but left the following:

(==Co-Curricular Activities== Students attending Marcellin college are offered an array of co-curricular activities which provide a balance between study. Some co-curricular activities offered include: )

Do you think it might be appropriate to finish the job, and remove the promise of a list? I'll leave the editing to your good judgement.

Cheers, Colonel Tom 14:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Southchina128.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Southchina128.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 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Hkf logo1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Hkf logo1.png. 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 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Il Divo Encore.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Il Divo Encore.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 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Il Divo Greek.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Il Divo Greek.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 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Xinhua in the Immolation article

Hello. I noticed a recent addition of yours "forgot government propaganda!" or something. I was struck by this. I started a comment in the article, but thought I'd just opt to send it to you directly. I'll just copy what I wrote so far:

are you comfortable with this paragraph? are you comfortable with your behaviour, morally, for repeating xinhua like this? I think it is terrifying. It may also be against the principles of wikipedia to so faithfully repeat detailed claims from state-propaganda. The CCP has published huge amounts of bullshit over this incident. I have also seen some Falun Gong reports, which are extensive, deconstructing every piece of the xinhua/cctv stories. How far do you want to go with this? Should we have all these juxtaposing claims: "CCP vs. Falun Gong"? On every point in the xinhua reports there are answers in Falun Gong reports. The page would be about 3 times as long as it is currently, and would essentially be a vehicle for this back and forth. I would suggest that it is better not to do that. I will take a look at the wikipedia policies. To me, confucius, you are slowly losing your credibility. I had believed you had some heart and were just affronted at Dilip's behaviour towards you. You seem to be taking this one step further now, seeking out and parroting vile propaganda which has harmed millions of people. I wonder if you have thought about that.

Okay, that's what I wrote. Whatever happens with the article, I am concerned about your role in this. I thinks it's really horrible that you would seek to try to, now deliberately--it can no longer be said that you are simply righting any wrong in terms of making the articles neutral in their reporting, you are clearly campaigning--vilify and defame an already persecuted group. People are getting executed, burned, tortured to death, having their organs snatched and sold etc. You must realise that by now, I assume that any kind of normal person who was honest with themselves would actually believe that is happening. Do you realise that the history of mankind is precisely against what you are doing? Everything that people consider good, worth striving for, virtuous etc., that humans hold close to their heart and the values they cherish, you are now on the opposite side of that. You are behaving as a villain does. Is that what you want? Have you ever thought about that? Is it just some intellectual game, one-up-manship, a personal contest?

Please note, this is quite beside anything that will happen with the article. That's a separate issue. I may make a post about that on the talk page. I'm not talking to you now in terms of wikipedia, but in terms of yourself, out of real personal concern. I suggested earlier you could read those things from the Compassion magazine which talk about all these issues, and then if you liked we could have a frank discussion and share ideas. That is still quite open.--Asdfg12345 03:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't want to moralise, it's not our jobs as wikieditors to do that, but there was only a very perfuctory mention in the article about the Xinhua allegations that I felt should be remedied. I would agree that it is bullshit, but I felt that the limited amount of bullshit I put there was genuinely necessary in the context of the document because even that most basic allegation by the Chinese govt was only represented by "The state-owned broadcaster claimed the self-immolators as Falun Gong practitioners" in the lead paragraph. I have already mentioned elsewhere that I feel my own increasing involvement with these articles is beginning to take its toll on my objectivity. I don't mind you taking a swipe at me, but I would regret that you have lost your faith in me, because I felt that our cooperation was working quite well, and oh, I think you are wrong about me. By all means, if you feel very strongly about the paragraph, as it appears you do, then please take it out again. I won't revert: we can wait for comments from Peer review. Ohconfucius 03:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer it split. I hear that that rule is "old, prescriptive, pedantic, derived from latin" and "not strictly wrong now". my friend who is studying latin just gave me a spiel. Okay, im' happy your way--Asdfg12345 09:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

hah--Asdfg12345 12:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

oversee the "terror campaign"

I quite like this formulation, which source was taht from? I can't find it in the Reid. If this is in a source we should use it.--Asdfg12345 03:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

okay got it. nm--Asdfg12345 03:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

btw I can't help grinning at the giant chunk of ccp stuff you pasted, when you've only so far shown a definite degree of strictness when it comes to any kind of quoting quoting. maybe it's not too inappropriate in this case..--Asdfg12345 03:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

about fixing the refs, please don't feel you need to do this. it seems a tedious job. I am happy to do it and you seem to have done a lot of this kind of crap work, whereas I have noticed a tendency I have just to skirt over this kind of housekeeping. on the persecution page though at least, I can scan the whole article and standardise all the refs.--Asdfg12345 07:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

do you think this means extremely scarce and careful use of CCP sources, from RS:

3.2.4 Extremist sources

Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.

I'm inclined toward this interpretation. I think some of the stuff on the self-immolation page may need to be scrutinised in this regard. --Asdfg12345 07:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. That is why I try to use sources other than Xinhua or Epoch/Clearwisdom when these are available and are relevant to the fact to be referenced. These two can be as bad as each other (or seen to be), and I have not removed the {{primarysources}} tags as quickly as the {{sources}} tag. Ohconfucius 07:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you may notice I have steered rather clear of Epoch/minghui where at all possible. I think it would be a shame to say that falun gong propaganda is as bad as xinhua propaganda. Actually, they are opposite in both their intentions and impact on the lives that are exposed to them. Please don't forget that.--Asdfg12345 14:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Too true. One is based on out and out lies to cover up paranoia, mass murder and despotism, and the other may rely quite heavily on spin to expose the lies. Ohconfucius 14:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

spin is not needed when you have sincerity.--Asdfg12345 23:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• You know that wikipedia makes no allowances for sincere non-neutral POV and insincere non-neutral POV ;-) Ohconfucius 02:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I had to chuckle at that--Asdfg12345 05:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I see too that you forged ahead with the ref work. commendable.--Asdfg12345 14:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You will need to explain why the CCP view gets such prominence, then. Basically NPOV requires the neutral reporting of all significant viewpoints. The view of the CCP is being reported here all along, and this is the first instance of a straight Dafa view--please consider the text in light of this. It is quite within the bounds of neutrality in terms of wikipedia, in my opinion. If you wanted to exclude all CCP views as well, that'd be fine, but right now it's not at that point. We should not go overboard and turn this into a CCP vs Falun Gong fiesta, but I think it's quite relevant in terms of context and understanding to have this information. I won't restore until you share your thoughts. I really think it's reasonable.--Asdfg12345 11:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(self-published sources are allowed in articles about themselves, too, keep that in mind. and clearwisdom.net does not qualify as an "extremist source.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfg12345 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been takng some strategic distance. Let me look at it again in the morning.

I took out the quote ""revealing the facts of Falun Dafa and the evil nature of the persecution"" because the material broadcast by the FG hackers would obviously be pro-falun gong, and is taken as read. It isn't appropriate to say or infer "propaganda". The quote more or less admits this was propaganda and uses words emanating from FG - Orwell/the Soviet Union saw to it that "truth" had this meaning. I thought the quote was non-factual because it was the party line from FG without bringing any new facts. I did not feel this was desirable from the 1a point of view either. I had read in a source article from CNN that they in fact broadcast a denunciation of the CCP propaganda about the self-immolations - this fact would be an acceptable piece of information I much prefer to the bit in question. Ohconfucius 12:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The key issue in my opinion is that in the course of the article, what Falun Gong practitioners say about the persecution be represented. This is 'information', too. The information content is how Falun Gong sees things, as evidenced in the quote. The CCP view is being represented, no question, there's a giant chunk of text there. That has almost zero information content except 'die now Falun Gong practitioners'. Yeah I think they broadcast False Fire. But there is a wider issue I want to say at this juncture, just quickly. NPOV requires representation of all significant viewpoints. I absolutely do not want some kind of clearwisdom takeover. I think the article now is pretty much done, except some extra details I can think of that I have noted down here which needed to be included in some places, and the organ harvesting section. But anyway, one important piece of information for example, is that Falun Gong practitioners felt personally hurt at the articles that He Zuoxiu wrote, and the Guangming daily thing, and the TV interview, and they went to talk to those people from their hearts and tell them their personal experiences with Falun Gong. Maybe it's a shame there were so many practitioners in China at that time. Having thousands go to do that seems odd. Anyway, this is the motivation. This needs to be mentioned, like "Practitioners were said to be 'hurt' by the reporting and wanted to tell x about their personal experience." -- I don't actually know how it should be. I think I've seen something like this on clearwisdom. In terms of understanding the cause of those appeals, right now it is completely unclear. So this is necessary for context and understanding. I don't actually think it should be that sentence above. It should be shorter than that. That is a bit FLG. But that needs to be represented. This is just another example. Well, actually, let me know how important you think this point is. I am just tossing the idea around for now, let me know what you think. --Asdfg12345 12:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That practitioners were upset by the article and the TV interview are, again, taken as read. 10,000 people do not gather spontaneously unless something significant has motivated them, and I think it already comes across when we said "inaccurate, even slanderous attack, unfairly maligning the practice." Noah Porter suggests that He's critiques may have been directed to intentionally provoke Falun Gong practitioners. Because the publication refused a right of reply.... There may be a better or stronger way of conveying this message, and we should of course examine how we could improve that, but I believe we already have the elements which convey the injustice done by He's article. As for the ""revealing the facts of Falun Dafa and the evil nature of the persecution"" quote, I believe it is double-edged - the quote marks lend it a potentially ironic character. To demonstrate that ambiguity: imagine if Samuel Luo had inserted it, I imagine you would probably want it taken out. Ohconfucius 01:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

unrelated

have you seen this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a, quite good, you might like it.

SEcond thing is, are you familiar with Ubuntu linux? I am using it now, and have not used xp for about 3 or 4 months already. The version 7.04 is excellent, I had never used linux before this, but at this point there's no way I would go back to microsoft. It's an ideological as well as practical concern. If you've got the time and inclination I'd recommend trying it out.

Okay that's it.--Asdfg12345 23:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HKArtsFest.png

Thanks for uploading Image:HKArtsFest.png. 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 04:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kcslogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Kcslogo.gif. 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 08:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mandarin oriental group.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mandarin oriental group.gif. 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 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)