User talk:Scottfisher: Difference between revisions

If you wish to contribute, please try and spend some time learning Wiki style. Please Scotty …

American RED CROSS Presently gettin' remnants here of the hurricane, there is a tornado and flood watch now, and all the United States Army , National guard is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Have not heard from Bush. New Orleans and Alabama and Mississippi really got it bad. "Where are all the countries the USA helps"? I guess they are still looking for free hand-outs. Caio~ Scott 12:32:53, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

What's the source information on the above picture? I haven't seen it before and find it difficult to believe the whole thing is PD-USGov (the photo looks like a wire photo). --Fastfission 04:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping we could converse some day, as I noticed we've been in some of the same places on Wikipedia and also looked at your profile/ Etc..

• "Glad to meet you, For sure."
• Anyway, the source of the Einstein pic and text is a freebie that lays on the ORNL Visitors center. It just lays there on the counter, multiple copies for people to pick up.
• I seriously could not believe anyone had not uploaded it to the Einstein page as I thought it would be a great addition. ....
• Comments or suggestions are always welcome. Do you think I tagged it right? I hope so.
• It really is about Einstein sending a letter to Roosevelt about making the bomb.
• Hope it is in the right location on the page. Scotty....

• Hi Scotty, sorry I haven't written back to you get. One page you might find fun that needs a lot of work is List of nuclear tests. Best, --Fastfission 21:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Roger that will do that sir, Have a few errands to do tonight and won't be back until late tommorrow. I will look at it.
• PS: Got my picture taken with teller before he passed on [4] Caio Scott

• Fast fission, I looked at the page and must say it is confusing, especially with the grid system, however it does have very useful information, in my opinion. Like the pics. Info good. Now I must admit here I am not that good with the code like that. However, I think possibility of someone here on Wikipedia exists to do whatever you feel needs to be done on List of nuclear tests. As always.... it's just a time thing. Would you recommend we put a tag on it saying needs clean up? With a message of what needs done? Your opinion is valued.

Barbara Shack 17:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Someone edited the material about autism out of the Albert Einstein article again. I've restored it and asked for an explanation. If this persists it looks to me like vandalism.[reply]

• ::I agree, with your comments Miss Shack on Aspergers syndrome. I understand your frustration completely. I see and remember spotting the same revert.

• ::I left a note for 206.53.17.160 at Einstein talk. I suspect this alias will continue, as I've seen in the past on other non sign in users.

• ::Most sorry to get back with you so late here. Been busy running around getting pictures of things for Wikipedia and self. I will keep a watch more closely to attempt to help. "Please Keep in touch".

• ::Regards Scott 23:01:13, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

- I'm sorry, I just thought that most people wouldn't find the description in terms of county lines very helpful, since most people don't know where the county lines run. I have never done the AT through PA-- I was just working from a map. You're free to change it any way you like. I'm just trying to help make it clear to folks. -- Mwanner 02:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Not a problem, I thank-you for the good job of reminding me the extension of the AT in Pennsylvania. I guess I'm thinking of what I know to add, and may be was too focused. I'll send this topic to your web discussion page also. Thanks again. Keep in touch.

Scott 13:00:28, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Hi Scotty. Image:Pottsville pa.jpg has become overdue for treatment in Wikipedia:Copyright problems so I will deal with it separately, if I may. This image is bit-for-bit identical to http://www.coalregion.com/images/pottsville.jpg - you cannot deny the fact. So. If you took it, how did it get on to the coalregion website - did you give it to them, if so why don't they credit you with it?

With regard to all the images you have uploaded and which are of doubtful origin, I am quite prepared to believe that you have had them on your machine for some time and have genuinely forgotten where they came from. I know I have lots of picture like that! The fact that your version of image:NECHO ALLEN PIC.jpg was on the web but is not there now confirms this theory. So, please, examine your conscience and for each of the disputed ones, ask yourself "did I really take that picture".

• ::Yes Roger, I took the liberty to delete it because of the double whammy you stated on your discussion page

• ::Roger, As always value your words of wisdom and judgement.

There was a telly program called In Bed with Medinner with the running gag that the presenter Bob Mills pretended that he had made every one of the amusing clips that he showed. (No hint. No innuendo. I just happened to remember it.) -- RHaworth 14:05:26, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

What were you doing up so late last night? LOL Scott 19:52:28, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

Hello Scott. I've tagged the postcards simply due to the fact they're listed on WP:PUI. Thirty days are allowed for anyone to come forward with copyright information about the image(s) and then they're tagged and sourced accordingly and removed from WP:PUI. Although it's not stressed enough, the simple fact is that it's down to the uploader themselves to provide copyright information about the images and when the 30 days are up, the admin working on WP:PUI may take the time to try and find some more info. about the image, but isn't required to and may delete the image if there has been no copyright information added.

That aside, it would be interesting to know when those postcards were produced - if before 1925, I believe it would be in the public domain in the US. However, if you bought them at a shop in the '60s, I'd suggest marking them as copyrighted under fairuse and putting a note on the image description page just saying that you uploaded them from your collection. However, if the building(s) still exists, an ever better idea would be to trot along to the building(s) itself and take a picture, then upload it and release under GFDL, otherwise a postcard of the building would not fall under fairuse.

I hope I've helped. Thanks Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 01:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are being fair enough. I understand what you are saying.

I have come forward to claim these are sentimental to any one from the area as it is my hometown and heritage, as I look at the history of Pottsville, Pennsylvania on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia.

All the pictures of the following are historical post cards that were purchased in the early sixties at the five and dime. Again to the best of my knowledge; :Take picture Image:Pottsville.jpg

This is evident it is a postcard, produced in the 50's or 60's ,and to the best of my knowledge not produced anymore. Notice the way all these picture postcards had a type of color brush to them. The first of color on postcards I suspect.

Also, Image:Old silk mill 12th and Laural Street.jpg building is still there empty It is evident also it is from a postcard. The old Pottsville train station no longer exists and was ripped down in the early sixties This also is a postcard not made anymore. Image:Tumbling run.jpg Also evident as a postcard and no longer in existence.

Image:NECHOallanhotel.jpg Also a postcard and not in existance, The building is still there and has been converted to an old folks home.

(The Necho Allen hotel) It is a very historical building. written about in John O'Hara novels.

Strangely enough, Image:NECHO ALLEN PIC.jpg

This was just tagged as being OK yesterday by Mr Nick Boalch See: User:Ngb So now it's retagged as a deletion today? Strange.

Bottom line; I plead with you not to delete these historical pictures, and please consider. Whatever it takes to keep them on, I'm game for doing so. The pics need to stay now.

As for taking pictures, The hometown is much to far away from where I'm located now, only my parents graves are there.

A second note is the mis-template on the page, by Boothy443, I know there is no city flag. flag, upper right template for the city of Pottsvilleand do not know how to remove it. Can you help on this?

Well, I must hit the sack, getting late here, and hope you get this message. Let me know what tag to use and I'll change it to meet any standards of Wikipedia.

Let's build a good encyclopedia. Thanks again, Scott 03:09:58, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

and Schuylkill county, Pennsylvania

I for one would like to see this material remain on the site. Links to our past are important. Someone has gone through a great deal of effort to save and collect this information and I feel that it should continue to be accessible to the people who care about Pottsville’s past.

Thank you, Jim Zendrosky

No worries. Looks like a reasonably cast-iron case of fair use to me. (It's conceivable, given that it was painted in 1927, that {{PD-art-life-50}} applies too -- can you clarify when the artist died? --Ngb ^?!? 07:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick,

I cannot confirm when the artist passed on. I only remember as a kid the huge painting hanging at the top of the steps in the lobby of the historical Necho Allen hotel John O'Hara wrote about in Pottsville, Pennsylvania Thanks Scott 11:02:26, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

Glad to help out, I do a lot of vandalism patrol...were those edits the ones with the cell phone numbers? Anyway, thanks again. I'm not sure where that Brugge edit came from, I thought maybe it was you when you were logged out. Talk to you later! Rx StrangeLove 04:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly it was smell or something and a big deletion of my friend Rogers page.....Here it is

• :What's a Brugge edit? You the man, I can sleep tonight knowing we are well guarded. Cheers Scott 06:01:38, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

Could you please tell me your reason for reverting my edit to the defn of capacitor. I thought my version flowed much better than the original and removed the bracketed statement which diverts the readers attention.--Light current 17:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I did, on Electricity see history was moved your excellent work to a more appropriate place atElectronics See CAD-CAM. I also added a few words.

Also, to keep you informed please see discussion at Electronic As you can see not really any change at Capacitor Athough it use to be called a condensor here in the USA. Scott 00:32:24, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

You're wondering why I mentioned "zapping" something? That day, or just before, there was a controversial suggestion made, as an alternative to deletion, called Wikipedia:Zap. It suggests that, instead of deleting things, we redirect them to the sandbox. It caused quite a stir; see Wikipedia talk:Zap and Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:Zap as well as the archives of User talk:Xiong. It was immediately decried as a bad idea, by almost every editor who said something about it.

Some people played around with zapping things like some User: pages to demonstrate the point that it isn't a particularly good idea (in their view); and caused a bit of a stir in the process. So I was jokingly pointing out that if AmbushCommander had 'zapped' the admin's notice board...well...you can imagine! -Splash 00:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got ya, understand. Oh boy. LOL (Hang in there!) Thanks Scott 01:02:13, 2005-09-13 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations on my RFA, I hope I'm worthy of everyone's support! And your day will come, no big deal....take care! Rx StrangeLove 02:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a time you helped me w/ VANDALISM REALLY FAST StrangeLove, Again way to go! Lucky dog! Scott 02:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me this pic. So now you can enjoy this one. -- RHaworth 03:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page waiting for the pictures like this on Wikipedia, as I think this one could very well be a copy vio before hand. LOL Scott 15:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to Talk:SI electromagnetism units) Remember how to write π ? When I forget, I check Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Character_formatting ( π is in the "Greek characters" section). --DavidCary 05:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect and bookmarked! That helps me, Thanks Dave. Scott 12:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from using deprecated HTML in articles - it breaks Wikipedia and causes problems for some people with disabilities. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 11:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems to work in the HTML Mr. Andy, Don't know what you are talking about.

Kindly I ask you to either add some useful information/ text or whatever, to make Wikipedia a more useful tool and/ or add your own pics rather than deleting mine by damage. Try it, you may like it. It's more fun! Thank-You Scott 18:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you are talking about. So it would seem :-( Andy Mabbett 14:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, I have now indefinitely blocked you to prevent you doing any further damage. I have no-idea as to what pushed you over the edge, if you leave details here I, or others, will try to help. It seems to me that you have invested a lot of time, and made some excellent contributions, here. If you calm down, and wish to return to sensible editing then please leave a note here, or e-mail me or another admin, and we will unblock you. --Doc (?) 17:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, not interested Scott 19:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc! That was interesting, LOL Have fun!Scott 16:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you edit now, I'm not sure if my unblock worked? --Doc (?) 16:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have mistakenly recreated your user page in the article space - I will delete it for you. --Doc (?) 16:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is too much, LOL Scott 19:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, Yes, Just so you know though when your blocked the only contact to Wkipedia you have in that world is the person who blocked you via EMAIL. No contact to anyone else..... I think I'm OK now...But I will let you know, so you can watch what triggered me. Scott 16:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Andy- Alias Pigsonthewings; It is evident you've had more problems in the past than I'll ever have and you know it. You really want to be sneaky and staulk on wikipedia rather than contribute. People have tried to talk to you in the past and you seem to want to show a power thing or something. Not sure what your real problem is with good editors. If you wish I will post the evidence here now as I made a good effort to comprimise with you as others have:

1)Your user page
2)Scroll to bottom

3)POTW user page-this one is a real shame

4)POTW

5)==Mig/POTW==

6)You also removed several other items. Frankly, given your recent behaviour, and the above ludicrous and fallacious allegation, I'm not really interested in hearing your personal opinions, nor your threats. Andy Mabbett 11:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7)[See Ok, Andy Mabbett and Brumburger are following my every move on wikipedia and they are tracing my IP addresses. No different Nick Boulevard 16:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick_Boulevard]
8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Boulevard&action=edit&section=4 See Pigsonthewing Hi Nick, I've been having the same problems as you I think. I've decided to move away from the wikipedia page but I still think something needs to be done about Andy Mabbett. I hope you'll agree that the problem is not what Pigsonthewing does for the wikipedia, which is of reasonable quality, but the following:

Stalking. He will target work by specific users instead of finding new articles to work on. this happened to me, and I think has also happened to you. Obsessive. Once he has made an edit he will watch the page, and revert any changes made. He gets involved in revision wars all the time. Once he has made his mind up nobody else gets a lookin. Rude. His comments in the revision section are very snide. After you have reseached something to have it described as irrelavant hurts. Destructive. He removes from the wikipedia much more than he puts in. I think it's very easy to beleive the internet is a kind of bubble, however he should realise he is interacting with real people and we all do it as a kind of therapy, as a kind of entertainment- we do it because we enjoy it! His work is not of low quality- rather his behavior is deliberatly anti-social- he obviously enjoys putting people's noses out of joint. If you want someone to join in a test case for this I would be willing to contribute. I don't think he should be banned, but certainly I think his brand of abusive, bullying behaviour should be frowned upon by wikipedia as strongly as 'peacock terms' or 'copy violations'. Leonig Mig 18:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Just shameful! Letting things go Nick: Please would you disregard any accusations or criticisms that Andy, Brumberger, or Ray may level against you, however unfair. If we could all focus on the articles instead of the editors we can all spend more time building the encyclopedia.—Theo (Talk) 19:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
9)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Boulevard&action=edit&section=7 A negative response attempting to create a more sense of aggrevation: Ok, no probs. Nick Boulevard 21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) That lasted about 22 hours - and one edit. [1]. Andy Mabbett 19:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Get over it Andy, concentrate on other things and your/our time here will be much more rewarding. Nick Boulevard 22:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

I also think he might have multiple alias's. Scott 21:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 10)*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G-Man/POTW_RFC Previous message on user sight/ Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) makes frequent and aggressive use of repeated reversion and engages in edit wars, sometimes reverting unvandalised user pages. These are often part of continuing personal conflicts with other (albeit not blameless) individual editors. These reversions are often not explained (simply "rv") or explained with apparent hostility: pointed, snide or dismissive remarks. Discussion of these reversions is often frustrating and fruitless as his answers are most frequently no longer than one line. The repeated reversion of articles combined with the hostile summaries leads to ill-feeling, which spreads to talk pages, where the same pattern of aggressive reversion is combined with aggressive commentary, which hinders discussion. This combination of reversion and aggression on user pages is particularly inflammatory; it largely arises when Pigsonthewing dissagrees with a comment about him or his behaviour. Several editors believe that some of these reversions arise from Pigsonthewing's systematic stalking of all their edits and that this stalking is a form of harassment. ][reply]

Cease and desist making personal atatcks. Andy Mabbett 21:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, Go on, people have attempted to talk with you before and you just continued to give them a hard time. (Innocent and good editors). Think about it, please for your own good. Thanks Scott 21:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cease and desist making personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 22:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Do you mean attack? Look at your past pal...Go on...Many innocent and well contributing people you have attacked, Try and get along or find something useful to do.Scott 23:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cease and desist making personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 22:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore Andy's intimidation, Scott. He'll find someone else's edits to stalk if you stop responding to him. Andy, I see no evidence of personal attacks in Scott's reproduction of already existing material on Wikipedia, nor in his comments in this section. Unless 'find something useful to do' can be construed as a personal attack. Proto t c 11:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no intimidation by me, and to suggest otherwise is PoV; cease making peraonal attacks yourself. You won't see what you don't look for. Andy Mabbett 14:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, despite nothing I said being aimed at you, I will respond. I have made no personal attacks. I am trying to defuse the situation. And you do know that PoV only applies to articles, not user talk pages, right? Proto t c 15:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no personal attacks. That'as a lie. PoV only applies to articles, not user talk pages If you say so. HTH: There is no intimidation by me, and to suggest otherwise is a bare-faced lie; cease making peraonal attacks yourself. Andy Mabbett 15:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proto, you are right, maybe he'll find an interest in Roger Waters new album coming out today around Rome or something Thanks Scott 14:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying not to be dragged into this, but I'll make a comment for the record. I don't care what Andy Mabbett has been accused of in the past. My view on the current situation I encountered is that the edits/deletions (which were supported by other users) of Scott's contributions were directed at breaches of Wikipedia guidelines: non-standard HTML and inline multimedia links; links to fannish unencyclopedic material ("Burt is a personal friend of mine, and he even signed the pic for me. He must like it, why do you not? I see you don't have his status") at a personal website; and use of images of unverified source that fall foul of the new image rules.

Scott's reaction to edits has been bizarre: on criticism, he took offense and tried to pull down every page to which he has contributed, and had to be temporarily blocked for vandalism (on my request).

I don't perceive this as a case of persecution: it's a case of over-reaction to utterly justified edits. Tearlach 23:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you got it, It's been explained to you, even about turning into Yahoo board ; Thanks again, and now it's time for all to try and move on, and do what we all do best, soldier.

Scott 00:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the instruction first before clicking the website:! The falling woman

Note: When she gets stuck, left click and drag her free... Someone did an amazing job with this. I know two things about him:

1. This is a person with too much time on his hands.

2. This geek knows how to model physics Scott 00:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems that POTW never bothered to explain what he was talking about, let me see if I can help. Wikipedia pages are not written in HTML, but rather XHTML (which is a newer XML-compliant version of HTML). A lot of the old HTML tags are not valid in XHTML. These include FONT, CENTER, and a slew of others. Your browser may still render things as you expect, but technically the page is no longer valid XHTML (and will break anything that expects valid XHTML). In general it is best to avoid using any HTML in Wikipedia pages at all. If you need to make something bold or italic, use the wikimarkup instead. Hope that helps. Kaldari 14:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems that POTW never bothered to explain what he was talking about I did. HTH. Andy Mabbett 15:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I recall Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Don't get fancy being quoted. I don't see what's unclear about that. Tearlach 00:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari Yep, I see, understood here. Thanks Scott 22:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On image Image:Pottsville pa.jpg you put a tag that said "I took the picture from the Claude A Lourde Blvd. State Route 61." Do you know how the image ended up on www.coalregion.com? --Thanks Nv8200p (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Nv8200p sometimes pictures or a picture you delete can go to multiple/ other articles, I saw you deleted them. I'll check it out. Be cautious If you need my help let me know Thanks Scott 18:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nv8200p; Not sure looks fine to me, have fun with deletions Thanks, Scott 18:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scott. There was already a beamline article, although your new beam line article looks better than it does. In any case, the two probably ought to be merged--since you know more than me on the subject, it makes sense for you to do it if you have the chance. -- SCZenz 06:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SCZenz

Yikes did not know that, Blush; I'll have to look at it sometime later today....busy day today, and help merge or do what ever, as you said. Might need your opinion/ help expertise later....Thanks Scott 11:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott. Helping out with merging articles is no biggie, and usually requires more cutting-and-pasting than technical expertise. ;) If you insist on feeling grateful, I could mention that I'm thinking of applying to be an admin in the not-too-distant future; your support there would certainly be welcome. -- SCZenz 14:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree you should be an admin, and absolutely! Funny last night I gave it the same thought for you to be an admin but wasn't sure on how to nominate you. I will look into it today sometime Scott 14:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd be honored if you want to nominate me. Can you wait a short while to see if anyone on Wikiproject:Physics has any comments? See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#In-House_Admin -- SCZenz 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, let me know when @ your convenience, Been a real pleasure. Scott 17:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked Image:Hazel O Leary fisher.jpg as having no source - you calim to be the creator of the image, yet seem to appear in it. Please explain. Andy Mabbett 19:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have removed the "nosource" tag from that image, yet have not commented here. Please do so. Andy Mabbett 21:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have done so again, yet have still to respond here, or to justify your reversion. Please do so. Andy Mabbett 21:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking your lack of response as an indication that you have no jusification for your claim. Andy Mabbett 10:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have, finally, admitted that you did not take the picture, and that it has been deleted. Andy Mabbett 20:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott, I can tell that User:Pigsonthewing has been (and is being) a real ass to you. In the case in beamline, he's clearly pushing your buttons--but his edit isn't wrong, and isn't enough to worry about. If I may give a word of advice, let it go this time; fight him only when it's obvious to everyone he's being truly obnoxious. -- SCZenz 21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, I have not been following this dispute and i dont want to take sides. The only thing I would say is that once images have ben uploaded they should not be deleted without good reason (like copyvio) even by the person who originally uploaded them (you for instance). That is considered vandalism. All uploaded images must be shown to have free copyright or be proven to have been taken by yourself. I think this is what Andy seems to be saying and why he is reverting / deleting you all the time.--Light current 01:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

SCZenz is right, Scott. Eventually, Andy will get tired of picking apart every edit you make on Wikipedia, and will go on to someone else. Don't worry, he's done it to a lot of people. Try not to react. Proto t c 09:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Proto, Thats what I don't want is him to do the same to someone else and it's not fun in jail! He attempts to take it to Wikipedia and users limits, Let's hope so for the Wikipedia community's sake. Glad he's not in the same cell! LOL Scott 11:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wil not "get tired of picking apart every edit" Scott makes, becasue I haven't ever done that. Nor have I done it to anyone else. Proto's claims are lies. Andy Mabbett 10:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have just blocked you for a pretty obvious 3RR violation on Hazel R. O'Leary (the article, not the imag). -Splash^talk 00:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a 3RR on Hazel R. O'Leary. Please don't do it again. Sasquatcht|c 00:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on you guys, please unblock me, please I will obey the 3RR's, Promise. Don't like being in this box! I explained to Splash E-M what happened, as I tagged the article properly, as he requested and well someone was waiting to put an unknown tag on it? This went back and forth in good faith, Iwas tagging it properly. Thanks Scott 01:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whom you refer to as Splash E-M, but this Splash doesn't recall a conversation. In any case, the block is for the article reversions, not the image licensing ones. -Splash^talk 05:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, Did you not check your EMAIL form Wikipedia? It says: You can email Splash or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. You may also edit your user talk page if you wish. If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-l mailing list. Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email address registered in your user preferences.

Yes, I got the test you sent just now, but not any earlier ones. My email is not filtered to that address, save against the very worst spam so perhaps something else went wrong. However, since two admins both opted to block you, I'm not going to unblock you, not least because you probably did violate 3RR in two places at once, tag issues or no. You've only got a few hours left. -Splash^talk 11:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, Sent you the other last night, I'm sure of it. Not sure of why two admins. It was only 3RR's in one place, unfortuately, but I'll wait it out here to get out of the brink. I have plenty of magazines. Thanks for the reply. Scott 11:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, well, you seem like a good guy but yea, just don't do it again =) Cheers and regards! Sasquatcht|c 23:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still blocked...

Thought I'd let you know that I just got your emails! According to the headers, the Wikimedia servers held onto them for 3 days. Goodness knows why. -Splash^talk 13:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redwolf, I'm not the originator, ClintFord is. Scott 10:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Direct that Cooter comment to RedWolf please. Yeah, its confusing having two Redwolves as admins, but notice my lowercase 'w' and the lovely 24 after my name. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did not know that. That is confusing! Will catch up on it tomorrow, getting late here. It really is a minor and no big deal. Thanks and most sorry to interupt. Caio Scott 02:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem to be a malicious thing, so i'm gonna Assume Good Faith here, but i'm wondering why you put your name on my admin vote list. I don't recall voting for you, and I couldn't find a vote for you on my contribs list. I also couldn't find any sign of you on the current admin list or the unsuccessful candidacies for admin.

No harm done, I don't mind being solicited for votes, but it's precedent from what i've seen not to touch another person's user page for any other reason than reverting vandalism. Karmafist 17:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist, Your right; my mistake, I did not know it was only suppose to be admins.

Acutally I know what happened, In good faith, I saw RHaworth , on it. Sorry, delete it if you may. "I'm in the penalty box". Thanks, Scott 17:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just a bit big, but I expanded it to clearly show the laminations. Reduce it a bit if you like!--Light current 01:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott,

The reasons for deleting the power transformer image from the electrical engineering page were:

1. The image has an unsightly time stamp.
2. The photo was taken on a tilt.
3. The setting of the photo was not aesthetically pleasing.
4. There was a request from Phroziac that the pictures in the article be minimized.
5. Having two pictures for the power engineering part was inconsistent with the other items in the list.

I appreciate you uploading the image but I just felt it wasn't the right image for the article.

Cedars 15:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, for your understanding. I didn't mean to be harsh but I thought it was better to give you specific stuff you could work with rather than something less concrete. Cedars 15:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a image repository. You are using too many images for the article on Pottsville, most of which are probably copyrighted. This goes beyond fairuse. If these images are important, you need to create articles for them individually to go in and move them off the Pottsville page. Thanks --Nv8200p (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the image gallery. Write significant paragraphs for the schools and train station, etc. (or separate articles and link from the Pottsville article) to justify using the image. Or in the external links section, put a link to the other website that is also hosting most these images [5] and let us delete the images off Wikipedia. --Thanks Nv8200p (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got you, understand. Scott 19:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out now and see if it's better? Thanks Scott 19:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I will tag the remaining images as fair use and delete the orphans --Thanks Nv8200p (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, I see that you've uploaded a lot of great images, many of them your own. Although I'm not qualified to act as a spokesperson for the Wikipedia, let me just say "thank you" for that. However, it saddens me to see you and Andy clash over Image:Hazel O Leary fisher.jpg—you both seem to be decent contributors, so why fight over this image? Frankly, as an outsider, I think Carnildo put it best when he said that the image really doesn't add anything to the article on Hazel O'Leary. And I think the quality isn't exactly good, either. How about just dropping the whole fight and putting the image on WP:IFD as "not needed"? Lupo 14:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember the MO of this user, Seriously, and consider it done,

Thanks

[[6]]

[[7]]

Scott 15:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've deleted it now; if that wasn't what you had in mind, I can re-upload it... :-) Now hopefully we all can get back to building an encyclopedia! Lupo 15:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, let it be, there will be more problems with user, I suspect in the future.Scott 15:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to make a choice for you, since image deletions cannot be reversed without a re-upload. If you choose and let me know, I'll nobble the ones you no longer want. -Splash^talk 19:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to leave the one up I guess, and I'll enter others under deletion shortly, I'll notify ; Thanks Splash for your time. Scott 19:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it ended up being far simpilar of a problem to fix then i though it. --Boothy443 | comhrá 22:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it was easy! As I said, Good job, I didn't know how to do it. I tried and returned it back. Meet you at the Schuylkill later Thank-You Scott 22:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott. Yes pics of magnet kickers would be good. Make sure you get permission to post them on WP though!--Light current 02:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the name of the device that is used to drive the (kicker) magnets. Is it called a pulser or what?--Light current 21:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, please stop putting stub notices on large band and musician articles - these notices are for short articles (say, a few short paragraphs or less). And could you revert the ones you've done? Thanks. -DDerby-(talk) 04:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thank you for using edit summaries - without them I might not have caught it. -DDerby-(talk) 04:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "I would throw those pics over to the newly created Cooter, but they would not fit, So until the article text emerges or evolves I say keep them there for now? You opinion. Is this fine? Scott 14:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)"

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

ClintFord 15:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Scott! You have a good weekend too. -- SCZenz 18:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's up? Tfine80 03:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you explain how a "Klystron gives off both ionizing and electromagnetic radiation." as explained in the caption of the electromagnetic radiation article? I thought they only emitted radio/microwave radiation which is non-ionizing.....--Deglr6328 17:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your crap off my talk page! I'm not interested in your stupid remarks, Thank-You Scott 13:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message with Pigsonthewing asking if he'd let your talk page be. I'd really prefer not to have to issue blocks over this but I will if I must. Your talk page is your own and you are reasonably free to respond or not and retain or not as you choose.

On the specific request, this isn't (quite) a 3RR violation for which I probably would have blocked (he only appears to have reverted 3 times), but, if it were, you need to report it at WP:AN/3 really since the enforcement needs to be done as openly as possible. It's not compulsory for it to be reported there, but if I act on a message from one user on my talk page, it could give the impression of taking sides which obviously wouldn't lend much credence to my decision. -Splash^talk 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks Scott 18:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Image:Carbidelamp.jpg, did you take that picture yourself? It also appears here, and the site claims to have a 'revised' date of May 2000, making it unlikely they pulled the image from Wikipedia. -SCEhardt 15:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me about this. I've listed the image for speedy deletion. The good news is that I have a working carbide lamp so I should be able to get a free use picture of it put up in a few weeks! -SCEhardt 17:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Scott 00:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a particle physics explanation for the dark energy. The only problem is, it ends up a factor of 10¹²⁰ too high! Then in basic Supersymmetry it becomes zero instead, then if you modify it more subtly it ends up 10⁶⁰ too high! (A big improvement, but still preposterously wrong.) (unsigned comment by User:SCZenz)

Damn you're good, Have a good weekend! (unsigned comment by User:Scottfisher)

Heya, I note you've been uploading a number of images to which you do not have the copyright as created-by-you-and-released-into-the-public-domain. Could you please explain why you did this, and tag all the images you uploaded that you do not have the copyright to for deletion immediately? Thank you. --fvw* 02:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Scott 12:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent the source or copyright status of images you upload – in specific, Image:Francis vacuuming md clr.gif. android79 12:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Scott 12:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make this absolutely crystal clear: Jimbo has stated that users who persistently misrepresent the source or copyright status of uploaded media should be banned. Please keep this in mind. android79 15:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Scott 12:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't bothered to remove your copyright violations as requested, you have been blocked from editing wikipedia. --fvw* 10:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also listing the images you've uploaded on WP:PUI. If you have anything to add to the discussion there, please post it here and I or someone else will move it to the appropriate page. --fvw* 10:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, I see you have re-tagged pictures I've taken with my camera and uploaded for contributing to Wikipedia? They seem to be properly. What is the copyright problem then? I do see one loaded in error though. The first one called Jimbo. I will be back later hoping to see an explanation. Thanks for your time.

[8]::Scott 10:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't correct the false copyright claims on the images you uploaded, nor did you explain why you did so in the first place. see #Copyvio.27s. --fvw* 11:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more explicit, on ones I thought to be correctly tagged.

I'm asking for your help not to be argumentive. I'm trying to understand why you don't seem want pictures I've uploaded, in an attempt to contribute, and thought I tagged right. The majority of them You re-tagged, I feel nothing is wrong, however since they are now catorigized, that does help to distinguish some older ones, (months old) for a weekend job, I think this is fair. However, being blocked does not help. I ask you, "What would you tag a legitimate picture/ one you took, and uploaded by yourself? Nothing is more accurate than a picture! Is this the problem? Have to run, I will check back in between other work. Hopefully you have some ideas here, and can provide an example. Scott 11:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to correctly tag all your images, not just the ones we've found out about. Alright, I'll give you one last chance: Please compile a complete list of all the images you've uploaded that you have claimed to be the copyright owner of but are not here. Make sure not to miss any; you can find the complete list of what you've uploaded here__fvw

Dear fvw

I've been pretty up front, and willing to work with you. I ask you a second time to provide an example of a legitamate pic of what is an incorrect tag of a picture I took? Do you want me to provide an example? Better yet, I will here now provide some examples of pics you've re-tagged as disputed? [9], [10], [11]. (If you need more examples please let me know). What was wrong with these you claim disputed? What is your definition of what you are disputing or, what was wrong here? I'm telling you also, any work that needs to be done will not happen until I have some time, and I'm sure you seem not understand the fairness in this. This will be ongoing. Off and on. I wish I could wave a magic wand for you and say Shazzam, all done, but neither you or me could do this. Futhermore there is nothing about a time limit, other than another admin going through the list. "If your goal is to delete all pictures I loaded up classified as myself on a legitimate basis, as the copyrighter, then go ahead, but your job as a good admin would not be justifiable in my opinion. As for a complete list you've directed me to and what I believe, it is a complete list to the best of my knowledge. There has been much work done as you can see, and it will continue to be ongoing. I will start by re-correcting the legitamate pics you have now tagged as being disputed, W/O any defining of what is in dispute. You have yet to provide your definition of a dispute in detail. That would be a good start to understand your concern. As for my last chance, I think it's very unrational of your re-tagging 'all pictures most of which I believe were accurately tagged in the first place, at the time. Again you still need to tell me why? Again, how more accurate can a picture be, to be provided with an article? I have chosen to take a picture to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith. As I said I admit there are a few older ones, not many, back a few months ago that are wrong uploaded , but for recent ones I believe this is not a problem. Remember I can't rectify anything at this time....being blocked. I will check back in between jobs and errands. Certainly you do have other things you do in life, do you not? Thank-You Scott 13:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For an example you need only look at the comment you deleted from your talk page yesterday here, which points out Image:Francis vacuuming md clr.gif which you uploaded two days ago is neither public domain nor copyrighted by you. --fvw* 04:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is one you correctly retagged out how many you tagged unproperly? Get off of that Francis animation, it was a joke to make you laugh, and move on already, will you? Would you like to go through the list of the ones you tagged wrong that are OK? Or, do you really not care, at this point. That seems like the way to go. There are over twenty , maybe thirty of them that were OK. I don't believe I can undo your tagging. Wiki-procedures. We can let them all go, not a problem, seems like that is what you want, maybe that is the way to go, but I suspect that would not help and only hinder formats, etc, of any related articles. Do you want to work together or not to make this better? I am still blocked anyway.Scott 12:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the group of which I can easily tell that they're copyright violations, and unless you tell us exactly which copyright claims of yours are truthful and which aren't there is no way for us to know whether any are safe to use. Anyway, the images will remain listed on WP:PUI for at least thirty days, so you should have more than enough time to go through your uploads and, as appropriate, request that they be deleted or give the correct source. --fvw* 12:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Now that sounds reasonably logical by you as for time, Now there are only 28 days left, as being blocked and you know this. Should I put a line across all the good ones on the list? Would that work? That would help. I don't know how to put lines across the good ones.....but that would be the easiest thing to do. And; are they not tagged right, the good ones? As for any bad ones, they could just fall off the list if not crossed off. Seems like you were attempting to say tags were a problem on the good ones. You never answered me on that. One person told me in the past to put one tag on, and another said to put another tag on. I assume the majority which are mostly good ones were tagged correctly. There is an inconsistancey of opinions on tags. I really have nothing to hide on all this and will check back later. Oh yes, I might add, since I'm still blocked over 24 hrs presently of which you have done intentially, seems like you may be lolly gagging. If you have an agenda in the future to attempt to catch me on something as in a game, by blocking indefinitly in the future, I would suggest you do it now, rather than later. I suspect this is more of your nature. There are plenty of users here like that on Wikipedia, with nothing better to do, if you know what I mean.Scott 13:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to unblock you. Fvw wants you to work on creating a list of images that you have uploaded that the copyright is not held by you. I suggest that you note which images that you have uploaded are ones that were taken by you, as I understand some are, and which are not. Please at least start this task, in order to demonstrate good faith. Do not upload any images until the issues with your current issues have been addressed, or you will be re-blocked. Do not add any links to images in articles, even if not uploaded, or you will be re-blocked. Let us know which images that you have uploaded were taken by you and which were not. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you know what you are doing, I'm still blocked well over 30 hrs later.

Message "You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page" tab or by following a red link.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Fvw."

(I will check back after a chili cookoff)

Maybe Fvw can speak for himself? Scott 22:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back an hour after last message above still blocked Scott 00:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The autoblocker had reblocked your IP when you tried to edit whilst blocked. These autoblocks last 24 hours (software fixed default). I have now lifted what I think was the autoblock. Please try editing again. -Splash^talk 00:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Splash I will try it now, stand by....

Good to go! Thanks splash, I have a list to work on before wrong images go away...Thanks again. Scott 00:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The list has been completed to the best of my knowledge, now could you kindly remove the re-tag of unfair copys you put on the good pictures or return it to their original tags? I am sure they were put on properly, or is this still a problem which I've asked several times and recieved no answer? What is your strategy for this? Do you need anything from me? Nite-Nite and thanks Scott 04:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Scott, I was curious if you asked the webmaster at www.coalregion.com for permission to use those pictures, that might be an easy way to end any copyright problems. Karmafist 17:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Sunday afternoon to you. No, but that is an excellent idea you have! I will pursue it in the future. Good idea, I'll keep you posted. Scott 17:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe whatever we do it will work out for the best. Please stop deleting legitamate pictures before I had a chance to go through them like this, You are truely being unfair and I should trust you? [12] Now give me some time to square away this problem as you want, Go away for a few days or something, Thanks in advance.

Scott 00:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The list has been completed to the best of my knowledge, now could you kindly remove the re-tag of unfair copys you put on the good pictures or return it to their original tags? I am sure they were put on properly, or is this still a problem which I've asked several times and recieved no answer? What is your strategy for this? Do you need anything from me? Nite-Nite and thanks Scott 04:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logo/ KFOG, That's fine FVW Scott 17:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging them, I have a few points about a few of them (see WP:PUI), but for the most part I'm fine with delisting them. --fvw* 17:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, it'll be much better now for the encyclopedia's future, I want to thank-you also for composing the list as it made it much easier, and I did not know where to start I'm sure it was a real pain in the ass, my apology, but it was needed. You deserve more than a barnstar! I can take a look at the points you said in a few hours, when I get back from Sam's Club and I'm not getting a picture either, as I have to run an errand. Hang in there , and Thanks again fvw, Cheers Scott 17:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, it seems you are starting to begin working on addressing the copyright issues with your images. However, you recently added Image:Mine fire warning centraila.JPG to Centralia, Pennsylvania [13]. I specifically warned you not to add images to articles until these issues were resolved. However, I looked at the list on PUI and did not see this image listed, however the information on the image itself claims that it is still disputed. I will remove it from the article as the copyright issue on the image is not resolved, please do not re-add it. If the copyright on the image can be satisfactorily resolved, I will be happy to re-add the image for you, but in the meantime, I suggest you not add any images that you have uploaded to articles, and do not upload any more images. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with the copyright issues at this time. Can you please tell me why the [picture of the warning sign] was deleted and tagged. There was no problem. I am the source of the picture, and it is not a copy vio. If you have any questions about the picture let me know, or I will reload it at another time. I think fv w accidently tagged it wrong and accidently deleted it. Why don't you bring it back, it's not on the list because there was no problem. Look at the picture itself, and see the source. Heck there is even a link I provided. Are we trying to build an encycloedia, or what? Maybe I'll just become a sock puppet someday. That might be easier, but I'd rather not Scott 19:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, you're confusing me now. First off, you are not done with copyright issues, both Image:Mine_fire_warning_centraila.JPG and Image:Centralia7.jpg are still disputed and have not been resolved. You say you took the photo, so ok, I'll accept that claim. Second, I'm not sure what you mean when you ask why the image was deleted, if by deleted you mean removed from the article, it was removed from the article because there were questions about the copyright status of the image. Neither of the images themselves have been deleted at this point, but their status needs to be resolved. Since you claim to be the author of the image, I think we can move forward with getting those images cleared. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the disputed tag from Image:Mine_fire_warning_centraila.JPG and replaced that in two articles. I have deleted Image:Centralia7.jpg, because it duplicated the other image. Please be careful from now on, and do not upload images that you did not take yourself and claim pd-self with them. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here, but I've been busy with some other things this morning. I'll look at that in a little while. Cheers. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott, I am a student at SLAC, that's how I know about Pief. :)

I've changed the 1842 extension back to Mount Carbon. However, the line to Pottsville already existed, as the Mount Carbon Railroad (originally built to connect the canal to mines), so I clarified that. --SPUI (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Molly_coffinnotice.gif says its been released in the public domain by its creator, you. However, you're obviously not the creator! I am going to assume this IS public domain though, because I know it was originally included in a trial record in 1876. Please site your exact source if you can, thanks. --Brian Z 15:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, thanks Scott 18:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I previously warned you that if you continued to add images to articles, particularly images with disputed copyright violations, that you would be re-blocked. As you have continued to do so[14], I have re-blocked you. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the copyright status of Image:Pa_bridge.jpg, adding images with your name so prominently displayed is seriously bad form. If you took this photo, you should be able to provide the original without the text added. Due credit is given, not on the image, but the image description page. android79 15:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your e-mail, yes, I am leaving you blocked. I have listed my reasons previously on your Talk page, and I will not remove the block. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't care, neither do I, Your loss and Wikipedia's not mine....Scott 21:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See User:160.91.231.73 and User:160.91.172.45 (both registered to 'Oak Ridge National Laboratory'). Andy Mabbett 15:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have an history of blatantly lying about image origins so I assume your current blocking is on valid grounds. I certainly am not willing to unblock you. -- RHaworth 09:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]