User talk:Who

Wiki-Break. I'm off to see some Wizard about a droid or something. Nah. Wiki consumed me, and i may or may not return, for now, I am gone. I enjoyed the friends and the work. Till then.. «»Who?¿?meta 03:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-Break. I'm off to see some Wizard about a droid or something. Nah. Wiki consumed me, and i may or may not return, for now, I am gone. I enjoyed the friends and the work. Till then.. «»Who?¿?meta 03:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image on your user space

Fair use images, like Image:Chippewa michigan logo.gif, are not allowed on user space. Please remove it. Thank you. --Iamunknown 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Exemption request has been made. Please allow time for discussion on this topic. Thank you. «»Who?¿?^meta 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] advocacy request / complaint / problems with cycles articles and categories

I have made an entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/February_2007/RayTomes#Questions: which lists your user name. You are by no means the only person about who I am complaining, but I felt that the deletion of category:cycles was one of the worst cases because the vote count you give is so obviously wrong and because you (effectively) accuse me of using sock puppets. Please feel free to add your comments. Ray Tomes 02:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have closed the discussion the same way. There were sockpuppets voting, that is a definite. Who didn't say it was you, if you want to make that assumption, I believe that would be your problem. (Sorry, Who, but this is clearly a waste of your time.) --Kbdank71 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. The vote was actually 3 delete and 5 keep. It is recorded as 4 and 1. Where did the extra delete come from? It is claimed that only 1 vote for keep is real and the rest sock puppets. I know that my vote is real. Therefore if the rest are sock puppets I am most certainly being accused of making all the votes. Can you explain any other interpretation? In point of fact I know who several of the other voters are and they are certainly real people. The accusation of sock puppets is unfounded. The vote count adopted is unjustified. User:Kbdank71's remarks make no sense. Ray Tomes 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Therefore if the rest are sock puppets I am most certainly being accused of making all the votes Your logic is faulty. The correct statement would be "Therefore the rest are sock puppets PERIOD". Nobody, not Who, not me, are accusing you of sockpuppetry. Please stop making assumptions. Four deletes: Pjacobi, siafu, G Rutter, rodii. One keep: you. As noted, users that had very few edits were ignored (which, by the way, a year and a half after the CFD, three of the "keep" people still have two edits, and one of them have just one). Again, I myself, had I closed the discussion, would have done the same thing Who did. I hope my comments here make more sense now. --Kbdank71 12:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LD Bell

All in progress. ;) Thanks for the heads up! Locriani 04:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHICOTW GAonhold

TonyTheTiger 23:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Anthony_piccione.jpg

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Azorin.jpg

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ellen-bry.jpg

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images on your space Part 2

Who, I know you have not edited since February, and that the fair use image on your user page is a symbol of your tribal ties. It does, however, violate fair use policy, in particular criterion #9, that "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace." Would you please reconsider removing the image from your user page? —Iamunknown 16:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Chicago Collaboration of the Week
The Second City is the current Chicago COTW In the past you have edited Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago. It was the CHICOTW in the recent past. It has been placed on Good article on hold status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the good article and eventually featured article classification level. The article was given good article on hold status on February 2, 2007. It will be reevaluated in between 2 and 7 days from this date. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we achieved the following Improvement. See our CHICOTW Improvement History.
Contributing editors: AKeen, L Glidewell, NatusRoma, TheQuandry*, TonyTheTiger.
	Good article nominee/Good article on hold