Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:16, 25 February 2006

Pings

Orphan report again

I keep getting an "Internal Server Error when trying to look at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/cgi-bin/report_orphan_fair_use.py . Is there something you can do on your end or should I try contacting the server admin? It's just that the other tools on the server seem to be working. --Sherool (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh! sorry about that. I fixed the UTF-8 bug last night (I think, no items with unicode names up right now) and didn't check to see if it worked after... I made a finger-glitch. It's fixed now. --Gmaxwell 15:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hello.
I've been recently notified that, according to Misplaced Pages fair use policy, fair use images may not be used outside article namespade, and that I had 35 of them on my userpage (which now only links to them, along with a lot of other, probably kosher, images). Could you please help me finding which ones of the images linked from that page are fair use, so that I can restore the others?
Thanks in advance, --Fibonacci 04:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to fix your page. Below I've provided you a list output from the nagging bot I'm working on... it has a somewhat old (a week?) dataset... so some of these images may have since been retagged, removed, etc. I'd recapture the data but since you've deinlined them I'd have to jump through hoops to filter based on that, while this only took me 10 seconds and should be good enough. Keep in mind this list is machine generated, so perhaps there is something free in the list... but if so it still needs to be retagged. Let me know if there is anything more I can do to help. --Gmaxwell 06:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• User:Fibonacci
  • Image:Uniandes.png
• User:Fibonacci/Uploads
  • Image:AlbertaCoatofArms.png
  • Image:Athabascaulogo.png
  • Image:Betterdays1.png
  • Image:Concordmills.png
  • Image:Cpa.png
  • Image:Delamo_concept.png
  • Image:Delamologo.png
  • Image:Ferrero_Rocher_bitten.jpg
  • Image:Garoto_Surreal.JPG
  • Image:Garoto_logo.png
  • Image:Hdr_uspsLogo.png
  • Image:Hk22.png
  • Image:Insolia_logo.png
  • Image:Kinder_Surprise_half.jpg
  • Image:Motherwell_logo.png
  • Image:Nasl.png
  • Image:Norwich_City_FC.png
  • Image:Order_Canada_seal.png
  • Image:Order_of_Canada_(Companion).png
  • Image:Order_of_Canada_(Officer).png
  • Image:Oslo_coat.png
  • Image:PCP_Alb_logo.png
  • Image:PythonProgLogo.png
  • Image:Smlogo.png
  • Image:Sonic.png
  • Image:Themills.png
  • Image:UAlberta_Coat_of_Arms.png
  • Image:Uniandes.png
  • Image:Vatican_coa.png
  • Image:Wales_FA.png
  • Image:Yukon_coa.png

Why, thank you! I finally had time (and will ^^U) to complete this work, which I surely wouldn't have done without your help. Thanks again! --Fibonacci 08:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Lar fairuse request

Hi! can I impose on you and get the same list run for my userpages so I can find any fair use-ies and nuke them off my page? I'd appreciate it... you can post it here, or on mine or wherever you like. I watch talk pages where I start threads. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Like above, it's a bit old. I'll rerun again too.. Also as I said above, the image might be PD or free but mistagged. (sadly it's 'bookcover' and not 'fairusebookcover' leading people to use the fair use tag on content which is PD) --Gmaxwell 22:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• User:Lar
  • Image:Blue_E.png
  • Image:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_Logo.png
• User:Lar/Babel
  • Image:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_Logo.png

All userbox images, as I suspected... thanks! that's the problem with boxen, you're sort of at the mercy of whoever changes them around unless you subst... (The IE one got replaced already and the IPUnicorn one has one of the stranger licenses I've seen, not sure what to do there.) ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Orphan images query

Hello Gmaxwell, I noticed that you're trying to help contribute to efforts to clean up the use of fair use images on wikipedia, and that involved tagging perhaps a hundred images I uploaded which are presently not used in articles, and I understand and respect those efforts.

I was planning to use the images in articles I am in the process of writing in the future. Does that mean that once the images are actually used in the articles they are intended they are automatically exempt from the deletion in a few days. Please let me know, otherwise I will have to re-find and upload each of the hundred images when it comes to the point of actually using the images in their intended articles. Will it only be images that are still not used that are deleted? Or will all the images that were previously orphaned be deleted even if they are now complying with rules and actually used in their apporopiate articles. lata dude -- Paxomen 14:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The tagged images will remain in the category, but images used in articles do not show up on the report most people use when deleting these images. Also deletion is done by humans, and generaly we don't delete images based on them not beeing used if they are in fact used :) If you are acticely writing the article on a user subpage or something just remove the tag and note on the image page that it's beeing activley worked on and will be moved into the main namespace shortly. Asuming it doesn't drag out for too long this should be respected because the deletion criterea clearly says that "reasonable exceptions" can be made for upcoming articles. The bot will keep tagging them as orphanded naturaly, but they would probably not get deleted. Unless we are talking years before they will all be used, in wich case it's probably better to download them and then re-upload when they are in fact needed. --Sherool (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sherool is of course right on all points. Every few days I go through and manually untag any which have been reinserted into articles. I do this manually because it is fairly common for an image to be inserted in a place where it is obviously not fair use, and I'd feel bad to simply have a bot untag them. It would be best if you'd untag the images yourself when you put them into use. I was forced away from editing for a bit and now the backlog is some hundred and fifty images, and I'm not feeling to motivate to work on that huge list right now. :-/ So it's best to untag yourself... If readers out there wants the list of images to check and untag, please let me know. --Gmaxwell 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bundy Rum Logo

Why did you revert the logo I uploaded to the old one? The one I uploaded was the new logo, which is now in use everywhere. The logo you have put on is no longer used. I think we should re-revert back to my logo. Justinbrett 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'd not seen the new logo before and if any of the text said it was a new logo I missed it completely. Sorry for the confusion. What got my attention is that the logo you uploaded displays with obvious and ugly jpeg artifacting, ... the image really should be a PNG or SVG. Feel free to change it back, but it would be better if you got an image without artifacting. --Gmaxwell 02:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a PNG version and changed the link.

Image:Wormhole relay station.jpg

feel free to delete it, someone else apparently put a more relevant pic in when they changed that section of the Memory Alpha article. Narco 04:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's gone now. Thanks for letting me know! --Gmaxwell 13:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

I created articles for some orphaned images, e.g., Or (my treasure). Hopefully they won't be deleted. Do I have to tell you the names of all such images, or they automatically won't be deleted since they are no more orphaned? deeptrivia (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If the image is used in an article we don't delete it, and aparently Gmaxwell here will go over them once in a while and remove the tag from images that are actualy used, but I'm sure he would apreciate it if you saved him the trouble and removed the orphan tag from the images yourself once you have put them into an article though ;) --Sherool (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Aravind parvatikar.jpg is my own photograph and I dont why your bot has placed the tag

My own photo is under threat

Image:Aravind parvatikar.jpg is my own photograph and I dont why your bot has placed the tag This image is copyrighted and was used under a claim of fair use. It is not currently used in any articles. Unless some valid reason to retain it is given, the image will be deleted seven days after this template was added (03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)). Please see WP:CSD images section item 5 and WP:FUC for more information.

If this image is currently used in one or more articles (not talk- or user pages and such) please remove this tag.

I still dont know as to why am I not allowed to use my own image. I have update it.

--Aravind Parvatikar 12:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not tagged with a free license. On the upload page you agreed to release it under the GFDL, but it is prefered that you retag it as {{GFDL-self}}. --Gmaxwell 22:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

UNT eagle spirit logo

On Image:Unteaglelogo.gif, the university's policies appear to allow the use of the so-called spirit logos in the manner I use it for on Misplaced Pages. This doesn't fall under fair use, as they've specifically said "go ahead," and should therefore be acceptable. Does this disagree with your interpretation? Wesmills 04:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Content on Misplaced Pages is either freely licensed or fair use (or foundation property but thats a corner case) as far as we are concerned. We don't accept permission because our goal is to create free content. Sometimes it's hard to cover a subject well without fairuse, so we permit that. --Gmaxwell 05:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Roomba repeatedly tagging the same image

Is there any way I can get Roomba to stop tagging Image:Hutchison effect toy UFO.png? — Omegatron 04:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We can't make a claim that its fair use when we're not yet using it. To stop it from being tagged, put it to use in an article. :) If the article isn't ready for it, perhaps you should just reupload it when it is or perhaps leave a link on the talk page to a google image search that can fine it, if it was something pulled off a webpage. --Gmaxwell 04:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Then how, exactly, are people supposed to comment on whether it should be included? — Omegatron 06:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You've got seven days after it is tagged to either use it or axe the tag. It will eventually be retagged if its not used. If the process repeats enough times for it to be frustrating to you (or obvious to me) then the image probably isn't going to be used and should be deleted. Just include a statement that it's under evaluation so no one thinks you're trying to circumvent the rules. --Gmaxwell 21:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Roomba should notify users of tagging

Roomba should notify users of tagging. This helps tell them, "Hey! This image needs to be clarified!" Otherwise, there's no way of them knowing... (complaining specifically about two images which were used on a talk page in order to clarify a fact dispute) — Ambush Commander 02:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Many thousands of images have been tagged (and more than 99% end up deleted). They are all reviewed by a human before removal. If you watchlisted the image on upload you'll see the tagging. However, most people are confused by it when they do see it (even though the template is fairly explanitory). In the past I've offered to recover any deleted image, but no one ever took me up on it (well there was one, but it was a deletion unrelated to roomba). Many of the people who uploaded the image are not very active, once they log on and see the notices the chances are that the images are already gone... In short, the notice would be of very little gain (they wouldn't save images we couldn't save after the fact, compared to the huge number deleted) yet cause a reasonable amount of confusion. Further some users are outright angered by automated messages, demanding a personal touch which isn't possible when you're tagging a thousand images a week. I've carefully considered this, and I'm pretty confident that the level of notification I currently use is best. In short... if you feel like dealing with the results of uploader notices: I could help you run a bot that watches roomba and writes to uploaders, but I'm not going to run one myself. --Gmaxwell 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What's this?

I'm not here for any real discussion, just want to know what User:Gmaxwell/long list is here about. WriterFromAfar755 04:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's userpages that contained fair use images... It's a bit out of date at the moment. I've got a bot written to run around and tell people what images they need to either remove or retag, but I don't want to kick it off until I feel like the abuse. :) --Gmaxwell 08:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Live reports

Gmaxwell, I thank you so much for the live report you put at Category:Orphaned fairuse images. It really helps clean out old images on that page. Could you do everyone a favor and add one to Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status? Actually, it might be more useful at Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status, 2. I'm really not sure what going on there, but maybe you can help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there are two.. I guess I'll look into that. I've built you two live reports, one including media orphaned from articles and one only including media not orphaned from articles. Please check these out, if they look like they are working correctly then you can go ahead and announce them. They are pulling from both the categories. --Gmaxwell 09:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see why there are two, ... the idea is that once a week we alternate between them thus making it easy to find the images which are old enough to delete. Thats not needed with the reports available. --Gmaxwell 09:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly living people

Thank you for the new report suspected_living_people.py. Would it be possible to display (or even to sort it by) the birth category it uses? BTW if there is a way to filter articles with a sort key starting with "*" such as IGeneration that would be nice. Does it also include entries in Category:Year of birth missing? -- User:Docu

Yes, it does.. which is why I'm not displaying the birth category... Hmm. Right now its twistsorted (you get your own personal sort, which reduces edit conflicts when multiple people just work down the list). --Gmaxwell 14:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

try this. That dead search is kinda clogging up the server... I might replace it with an hourly updated report later... Also, you might be interested in a list of born agains and dead agains, here. --Gmaxwell 15:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Great. I had D6 work through the list categorizing articles with births after 1910. Except for those already reverted (1), they should be done for now.

Wee. The popularity of the suspected living people report was greater than I expected and it was creating a noticable impact on the server... so I've now got it only running twice an hour (at 00 and 30 after). --Gmaxwell 16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, when working on a list this refresh interval is quite conveniant. Not that is of much importance, but there was one entry in the list for a person in Category:People lost at sea and others who died before AD 1 (e.g. Spurius Maelius). -- User:Docu

I'm glad it's useful to you!. I wasn't handling the BC birth's and deaths correctly (BC wasn't at the top of my mind while working on the living people stuff. :) ). I've improved it a bit and now BC births show up, and BC deaths are removed, although they show as no exact date on the screen becuase fixing my date parser would require actual work. :) --Gmaxwell 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It works quite well, amazing how often new entries appear. BTW interiot/replag.html estimates the replication lag of the wikimedia server (a bit long these days). -- User:Docu

For a born/died again list, I had added Category:Multiple people to those where two categories are included for two different people. -- User:Docu

got the Roomba warning

I recently posted 4 images of Apple icons and linked them in the Wikiproject Macintosh/lists/software Roomba warned me of orphans even thought the images were being used in that list (might this be a bug?), so I searched for duplicates and found them again

How do I delete the images? (for disk space) Or, will you or Roomba do it?

Images that should be deleted will be handled by an admin at some point, but you can speed up the process by adding a {{db}} to the pages. As far as the images go, we generally do not permit copyrighted works used under fair use to be used outside of the articles themselves. There is more info at WP:FUC. --Gmaxwell 16:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much for the very kind words on my talk page, I appreciate it. --Wgfinley 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Water drop animation

Hi. Thanks for the offer for fixing the animation. I'll try this weekend once more myself to adjust the exposure and minor position problems. I think a .gif is best, since it can be shown inline. An ogg is smaller, but not as easily displayable. I can give you the pics for the ogg if you want, in which case you can get more than just the 18 pics for the gif. Let me know if you want em. Great Wasp eating ogg by the way. Happy editing and thanks again -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'll suspect you'll have a hard time correcting the exposure as the process is less simple than you'd expect. The reason for this is that images we display are in a non-linear colorspace, usualy with a gamma around 2.2. You can consider this a limited form of compression, where about 10 bits of dynamic range are expressed with 8 bits of data. Thus all data the computer displays is actually compressed and the screen uncompresses it. In order to correct the exposure in a way which is consistent across the frame you need to convert back to a linear color space first.

In any case... I wasn't sure on making an OGG vs an animated GIF... for high speed (and low framerate) material animated gifs work well since we can put them inline. If you'd be willing to let me take a crack at it, what I'd like is a copy of the data you got off the camera... You could email it to my gmail, or just give me a URL. :) --Gmaxwell 14:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• • As per the discussion on the FPC page, what software do you have/use to correct exposure between frames? As I said, I'm interested as I do time-lapse photography and the camera decides to use the 'wrong' exposure settings for individual frames occasionally, resulting in a similar flicker. Any info appreciated. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    • ALE. As long as you can either give it raw images or a good guess at the image gamma you can get good results. It's slow and a bit tricky to use. Most of the examples online are denoising and resolution enhancement, but correct exposure registration is a pre-req. The fly/wasp video was processed with ALE to correct exposure and camera shake. ALE will fail if the scene moves so much or so quickly that it's unable to align the pictures.--Gmaxwell 20:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

      • What fly/wasp video? I had a look at it.. It isn't at all user-friendly and doesn't appear to be able to work with jpegs either, and the other problem that I see with it is that it doesn't seem to adjust subtly frame by frame. The issue is that my time lapses DO vary in brightness (for example a time lapse of a sunset) quite a lot over the course of say 500 images so having one reference image for the entire animation is not going to cut it at all. I really want something that can match the brightness between images dynamically, evaluating say the last 3 images on either side of the image, and adjusting each image individually so that they smoothly match the subsequent image and previous image and so on. I'm probably asking for too much here, but surely its possible. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
        • • • • • • ALE will do what you want, but it needs some wrapper around it. ALE is not easy as you observe, but it's really at the cutting edge of image processing and you'll seldom find ease of use as a high priority there. :) Easiest would be to just kick me your pictures and I can throw you results.. I wouldn't mind coding a wrapper around it to make it easier, but I don't do windows software. so you'd have to find a linux box to run it on. :) As for the fly/wasp, I'd posted the link to a video someplace in the discussion about this, but I'm not sure where. Compare with . The most obvious change is the reduction of camera shake, but the exposure is adjusted as well. --Gmaxwell 21:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gmaxwell. I just sent you 12 MB of images, and am looking forward for the results. I added some more images than in my animation in case you need them. Many thanks! -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I'll take a look at it soon. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I just sent you the pics again, more details in the email. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Grimhelm Logo

Have I done something wrong by using an image for my user page? I'm just wondering, as your bot seems to have tagged it, and I see other untagged images used exclusively on user pages. Grimhelm 15:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The tag gives it only two days before deletion... Grimhelm 14:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Methlab.jpg

Notification, as requested. drumguy - speak? 00:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of fair use images at List of episodes of Power Rangers

Hi Gmaxwell. Although I personally have no interest in Power Rangers, I once stumbled across List of episodes of Power Rangers and have since spent lots of time trying to bring it up to scratch. One of my issues with the article is the sheer number of fair use images included, and by checking what links to the article, I saw that it was included in your User:Gmaxwell/query fairusecount list. I know that if I take out the majority of the images it'll get reverted by a particular user who seems to resist any changes made there, so I'm going to try to do this by discussion at ]. If you agree (or disagree!) that these images should be stripped out, please could you add your comments to the talk page? Of course, I'll understand if you'd rather not! Thanks, CLW 13:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Living people report

I use your report to look for people who need tagging. There are several entries that are not about specific people, but "generations" such as the Gilded generation and the Baby boomers. I suppose that these generations do indeed have fairly well-defined dates of birth, but cannot have well-defined dates of death. For the Baby boomers, most are probably still alive, but many will have died. Can you suggest how these articles should be treated? - Runcorn 09:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd probably solve this by removing 'born'. Can we really objectively state a date of birth for things which, well, don't actually get born? --Gmaxwell 09:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring entries with a sort key starting with an asterisk ("*") might do as well, similar to Deaths in 2006 included in Category:2006 deaths with ]. Deaths in 2006 didn't die, but is still related to a DOD. -- User:Docu

Roomba tagged my images as orphaned

By mistake Beclem.jpg, Baira.jpg and others They are all in use here and here, for instance Beclem is at the http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Final_Fantasy_X-2_characters#Youth_League section. I just used external links like img because I didn't know how to use internal links to just link to the image. Do I have to switch all links to img ? There are quite a lot of them! Renmiri 20:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you really do, if someone else hasn't already. --Gmaxwell 04:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The python bot tagged an orphan thoughtlessly

Hi. Your bot (Roomba) tagged Image:Pengo.gif as an orphan, and it was subsequently deleted. Technically it was an orphan, but any consideration would have shown that it was an error. See this talk page for details. This screenshot/image is now lost. —Pengo

You should be more polite and take more time to understand. I could have easily restored it, but I refuse to do so when people are rude to me. I see that someone else has provided an image, so I guess the matter is now closed. --Gmaxwell 04:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Mirandaim-logo and Roomba bot

Hi, you're bot tagged an image I uploaded a while ago as {{or-fu|13:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)}}, this image is not really orphaned, as I am using it currently, and since the day I uploaded it, in my user page. I'm not aware if an image that's only being used in a User space can be called orphan, in any case, the logo belongs to the Miranda Project, which falls under GNU, check image Miranda1.png, this other image is tagged as GNU, I really think it is at least Fair Use, I tagged it as a logo with copyright because I was wasn't sure how to tag it but there's no doubt it's a logo =) So, can I keep this image from being deleted? --A/B 'Shipper 女 14:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Our logo tag is somewhat misnamed: the text of the tag is pretty clear that it's talking about a copyrighted image which can only be used under fair use. ... and we don't permit fair use media on user pages. If the image itself is actually under a GPL, then you can change the tag to {{tl:gpl}}. But be careful, some projects like Firefox do not release their trademark logos under a free license. --Gmaxwell 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Water drop animation II

Hi. How is the animation comming? Are you still working on it? I am really looking forward to see the results. I case you stopped working on it, let me know and I will try to use the same tools in order to get the same good results. let me know -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages as top-level?

Concerning your revert on Category:Misplaced Pages, please provide a little more information; I think it should be a top-level category. Misplaced Pages is indeed a website like any other, but it happens to be this website. Help pages, community pages, and process pages (among others) should be accessible from the top Category:Categories. As it is, they're completely unfindable without a search engine. Please see Wikisource:Category:Categories for an example of the structure I'd like to mold the categories into. The English Wikisource's category structure is extremely intuitive, and a user can find exactly what he's looking for without any need for tools or memorisation. // Pathoschild (_admin / ) 05:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the category? Help pages, community pages, and other meta content are expressly forbidden from that category. You want Category:Misplaced Pages administration. --Gmaxwell 05:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out; would you be opposed to adding Category:Misplaced Pages administration to Category:Categories, in that case? It seems your arguments against this (Category talk:Misplaced Pages administration#Categorization) concern self-reference. Self-reference is not a problem in Category:Categories, as it's not part of the encyclopedic content (any more than, say, the index page in a paper encyclopedia including an initial help chapter). Further, it'd not be a self-reference in itself; it'd be 'for content concerning Misplaced Pages itself, see this subcategory.' // Pathoschild (_admin / ) 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No objection there. Thats fine... The problem that initally caused that category to be split off was because the interlink with the main hierarchy was causing all the policy stuff to be (ultimately) a root of almost every top level encyclopedic category which goofs up some next generation navagation tools I've been working on. I went through a severed a lot of bogus links, connecting it up to Categories would cause no harm... (Until someone puts categories in Category:Science and then I have to kill them :) ). --Gmaxwell 06:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. ;) // Pathoschild (_admin / ) 06:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My user page

Hi,

Regarding your kind suggestion... I'll consider making those choices, but not until the persecution of those supporting free speech on Misplaced Pages ceases and certain policies within Wiki itself are changed. Until then, I'll make my main Misplaced Pages concern to be WP:H!P — not what the WikiThought Police want from me. --CJ Marsicano 07:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, if thats the case then ... problem solved. Please see Misplaced Pages:Free speech. I suppose you user page will be cleaned up soon then? --Gmaxwell 07:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)