Some of them were JPEG's, like this one. The PNG's retain the original coloring around the text and state borders. So, Republican (red) states have blue fragments around the electoral votes and the state names, as well as the state borders. I suggest using a graphics editor that can fill shades. A free one is GIMP, but Photoshop should to too. SteveSims (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I re-reverted all of the JPEG's, and left the PNG's. Still, clean up the PNG's around the text and state borders. Perhaps I'll help you when I have time. SteveSims (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Life. I was in Tahoe this weekend for work/fun, and work full-time and take a hefty commute on BART each day.
I just fixed the 1980 map, so I'm going to put it into the article. Haven't figured out what to do with maps with faithless electors that voted for other candidates, though (1976, 1988, 2004). SteveSims (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just dropping you a line to let you know that the description of the election map for United_States_presidential_election,_1860 does not match the image. I didn't want to change it just in case you were planning on uploading new images with the colour coding to match the description. BergZ (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just made maps for the 1972, 1968, and 1964 elections. I finally had the time to install Linux and thus now have a properly-working version of Inkscape. I doubt I'll make more maps very quickly, so I encourage you to download Inkscape and make them. I may make a few more later today, though. SteveSims (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I think you may be mistaken, I'm not an administrator. But you can go on the DLC article, and at the top there is a template box with instructions on how to request changes. You may also request that the page be unprotected if you want to make the changes yourself, just read the template, everything you need to know is there. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
could you please do me a favor?
Hello,
I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?
I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.
The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.
There is a discussion about further sanctions against 8bitJake (talk·contribs) going on here on ANI. Based on the comments you left on his/her talk page, I suspect you might have something to contribute to the conversation, so I am bringing it to your attention. Toddst1 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Atrix20. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
License tagging for Image:Second avenue subway.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Second avenue subway.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Replaceable fair use Image:Second_avenue_subway.gif
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:Second_avenue_subway.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? –Dream out loud (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. NuclearWarfare (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
July 2008
When adding links to material on an external site, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the .svg election maps
I am sorry I didn't get back to you after you contacted me a few months ago about the EC maps. I had taken a break from editing Wikipedia, and had felt a little burned by that particular interaction, what with my initial svg map being rejected and then no one wanting to help make it better. I'm glad SteveSims stepped up and helped ready new maps for some of the older elections, though, and I'm definitely glad you guys were able to make use of my initial map. — ʞɔıu02:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
British Empire
Hi. The British Empire article is currently undergoing a featured article review. This means references must be cited properly (using the cite tag), they must be of good quality, and the article must not be subject to any edit wars. The actions that you are taking are not helpful to the process, so may I ask that you raise the matter on the British Empire talk page and the community decides the best approach, rather than repeatedly make the same edit? (Like I have done with the "thirteen colonies" question, even though I feel that the "other side" is completely wrong) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt11:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pedophilia
Trolling is discouraged on Wiki projects. Regardless of whether your question about Muhammad's alleged pedophilea was posted on Talk:Muhammad in good faith, it has been reverted. I'll answer your question because you look like a serious editor based on your history.
The talk page archives (such as most of Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22) deal with Muhammad's wife Aisha's age. The consensus is that applying modern standards of pedophilia to a marriage that occurred in a different culture hundreds of years ago is inappropriate and a violation of WP:NPOV. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Apartheid Wall. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. --Allen3talk03:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've said that I'm not opposed to including a quote by Strawson (in fact, I've provisionally restored the long quote in an attempt to avoid an edit war). I have serious doubts about using Engage as a source, and I think we would benefit from using something he's written in a more credible venue.
I've explained my concerns about using z-word.com on the talk page. I've also said I'm willing to include a reference to "Franchising apartheid" under certain conditions, if others agree. Perhaps we should wait to see what other contributors have to say.
I'm prepared to restore the affirmative action section for now, given that it was part of the article before our recent exchange. I still have serious concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
I should let you know that you're currently in violation of the three-revert rule. I've never believed in ambushing people over this policy, but I would request that you please self-revert for the time being. CJCurrie (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The three-revert rule is a very specific policy, one that can result in temporary blocks when violations occur. I've never supported hardline enforcement of this rule (ie. automatic blocks), and I've always believed in giving people a chance to self-revert if they've accidentally violated it. This is what I'm asking you to do now. At the moment, I am not at liberty to edit the page. Neither are you. The system only works if both of us respect the rules.
I should clarify that the 3RR isn't a permanent injunction -- it just prevents users from making more than three reverts to any given page over a 24-hour period (except in cases of vandalism, etc). CJCurrie (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 3RR applies to all edits, not just edit conflicts with specific users. For what it's worth, I haven't asked anyone to intervene on my behalf (as some have done in the past), but I can't stop other people from changing or reverting the text if they so choose. CJCurrie (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of z-word.com's connection to the AJCommittee, and I acknowledge that this counts for something. I still haven't seen much evidence that the site is independently notable, though. CJCurrie (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that z-word.com has received almost no attention in the traditional media. I'm always a bit leary about giving new media projects too much exposure on Wikipedia, given that we've had situations where people have tried to promote their own dubious projects here.
Still, unless others raise objections to the "Franchising apartheid" article, I don't plan on deleting the reference again. (This is not to say that I won't edit the text.) CJCurrie (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You're right concerning the ranking of Israel, I'll change it. I'll leave in the ranking of the territories, since the analogy is primarily aimed at Israel's actions in the territories and the ranking enforces the analogy. --Dailycare (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Wars of national liberation. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, a case is being prepared to have you banned. Due to your complete disregard of Wikipedia rules and endless POV pushing, it will probably be successful. Today you have added dishonesty to your list of crimes. Where does Morris in his letter say "necessary as the towns held enemy fighters"? You just made it up! And Morris didn't say Lydda and Ramle were on any route to anywhere, you made that up too. The next charge is that you did not actually consult the article of Dodd and Barakat which you claim to be citing. That's right, isn't it? Zerotalk05:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason|We resolved the dispute, I didn't simply revert to disrupt. I simply did what I did in good faith, and if you look at the talk page of the article, you can see I had principled reasons and in the end, I compromised. Also, what about Nableezy and Tiamut? They reverted and deleted things too. Why am I singled out? For now, I'll accept that page as it is}}
It isn't obvious to me that the dispute is resolved. And what you have written above is not clear. Are you promising to stop edit warring and to leave the page alone for the duration of your block? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will avoid edit warring and will leave the page alone for the remainder of the block. But I was also pointing out that I didn't mean to edit war in the sense of simply reverting edits to do so. I thought my edits were legitimate.Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we didn't think that -- if we thought you were simply reverting edits for the sake of reverting edits -- you'd have been unceremoniously booted. We assume that most people engaged in edit wars are doing so because they think they are doing the right thing. --jpgordon::==( o )18:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image page doesn't say anything about him releasing it, and doesn't show where it came from. It will need to do both to stop it from being deleted, unless he e-mailed it to you. Can you add some information to the page? SlimVirgintalk|contribs22:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image page will need a link to the place you got it from (or if it was by e-mail attachment, a note saying that); plus a clear statement somewhere that he has released it under a free licence e.g. Creative Commons Attribution), and if this is done by e-mail, you'll need to write to OTRS and get them to confirm it on the page. I'll tell you how to do that if you're doing it by e-mail. Otherwise the image will be deleted by someone. SlimVirgintalk|contribs23:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that was uncalled for. You basically refered to everyone who put in for deletion of the article, as jihadists. I certainly hope that you really didn't mean what you said.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to Nidal Malik Hasan
Please do not vandalize entries. It can be argued whether the intro needs references to ethnicity, however the manner in which you added it creates ambiguity to the fact whether he is a psychiatrist in a "Palestinian-American military" or not. Judging by your other warnings it seems like you have an agenda and do not really wish to make Wikipedia better. Please read Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Illxchild (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mass killings under Communist regimes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. This article is under a 1RR restriction.[3] Therefore you are not permitted to make more than one revert in any 24 hour period. Please self-revert your recent, or you will be reported to the edit-warring noticeboard. Also, I have set up a discussion thread for your concern, and request that you explain your reversions here. Also, please assume good faith when making edits. TFD (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have failed to self-revert, I have reported your violation of the IRR at the edit-warring noticeboard. You may reply to the complaint here. TFD (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
No I have not. I have looked at the edits the person with the blocked IP address made, and they clearly weren't meant to last and were done with probably full knowledge they'd be reverted as vandalism. The edits I make ARE meant to last and are done in good faith.Tallicfan20 (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I live in an apartment building where many people, including neighbors, have the ability to access my IP as the whole building uses the came cable company. But as you can see, I make legitimate and good faith effort in my edits, the other editors who may be editing on my IP don't.Tallicfan20 (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Once again, my apologies for all the hassle you've been through getting this sorted out, and thank you for remaining patient and polite in your emails to me. You should be able to edit as normal now. EyeSerenetalk23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have a clear agenda, insinuating against Israel to suit your political motives. I simply want the article to reflect:
a. that the "nuclear collaboration," as in testing a nuke, or selling them nukes is only alleged, as is it has never been proven
b. that Israel having a decent political relationship with South Africa prior to 1994 is NOT UNIQUE. The US had a good relationship with apartheid-era South Africa, France also helped South Africa with nuclear assistance, Britain maintained relations, in contrast to other countries which didn't. The US, UK, and France pages are not divided between apartheid and post apartheid. Why should Israel's be?
You have no right to push an overtly political agenda. I'm no supporter of apartheid. This also means that Jewish states shouldn't be subject to Wikipedia apartheid with respect to how its relationship with SA is portrayed.Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators' Noticeboard
You might want to read this thread of the Administrators' Noticeboard. Please not that you are not "in trouble" for anything. However, I have proposed a change to XFD policies on Wikipedia, and one of the reasons why I proposed the change in rules is one of your recent actions at RFD. If the policy change is implemented, it will not apply retroactively, so you don't have to worry about being disciplined, no matter what happens. However, since it's considered good form to notify users whenever their actions are being discussed on the Noticeboards, I thought I ought to do so. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Israel and the apartheid analogy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ludwigs201:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the linked entry, serious doubts have arisen about the veracity of your claims regarding the photo's provenance. Perhaps you should address them. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but i think there is a mistake in it: the sanjak of Balqa appears in the west bank of Jordan river and it must be in the east bank; in its place i believe there must be the sanjak of Nablus.--158.227.73.176 (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When adding links to material on an external site, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nidal Malik Hasan. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.} Шизомби (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
This is your only warning. 
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows: