User talk:Taco325i

Nope. It's not the same guy. Bernardo Carpio is a Filipino Legend and is a completely different individual from the European Bernardo Del Carpio.

Since the Philippines was conquered by Spain and the name Bernardo del Carpio is Iberian, it's obvious that the colonized filipinos accosted the name of an Iberian myth and applied it to one of their prehistoric 'giant' legends. However, I cannot YET find a reference supporting that derivation.

Yup, I do have sources. I just haven't put them in yet because I'm new to this and I don't know how to cite webpages...YET. I'm working on it.

That said, thanks for pointing the del Carpio wiki out to me. I was about to search for it tomorrow.

Taco, stop censoring; its true: Yang has lost much support. Yet, you delete it whilst claiming to cradle democracy and free speach bluh bluh ad infinidum...go read an Ann Coulter book or something.

Taco, before you judge someone as "unnotable" and merely a "vanity post" in the Rochester Notables page, perhaps you could take the time to "Google" the person first.

You deleted Mark Furnish (but somehow felt no problem keeping unknown comics and the like on the list)

Read a newspaper or do a simple web search next time. Once you do that, and come up with nothing, it makes it easier to become high and mighty.

Seems we have a conflict on our hands. After creating a page for Logan Circle, Philadelphia, I unwittingly forgot to update all the references in the Philadelphia page from Logan Square (how the park was originally referred). The day after I did this, you created the current Logan Square (Philadelphia) page with the references intact. I have proposed that these pages be merged and we figure how to refer to the park. Obviously my vote's for Logan Circle, which is the present-day colloquium, but since Logan Square is technically valid, all Square links will redirect to the Circle page. So don't be worried if all that's left of the current page is a redirect; I'll have the info moved (unless you beat me to the punch). --Pastricide 17:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name change will depend on consensus; if I don't run into any objections on the Philadelphia talk page I'll complete the merge as planned. Thanks for your reply. --Pastricide 02:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you checked the circluation of each, you will see that they are not mere "flyers" as you put it. Stick to your area of expertise. Furthermore, if you don't want it up high, then YOU put it lower down. I personally think it belongs up there, but whatever. WillC 21:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Good research. We look completely legit now! --128.164.134.86 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GWLaw Class1891.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see you uploaded Image:GWLaw exterior.jpg with the statement, "Photo copyrighted by The George Washington University. Used with express permission of the Director of Communications at The George Washington University Law School granted on 6/7/06." The problem is, Wikipedia can't use copyrighted images by permission. Wikipedia is based on free content, which means images must be freely reusable by anyone for any purpose. If they granted you permission to use the image with restrictions (such as "educational purposes only" or "no commercial use"), then that isn't good enough by Wikipedia policy, and we'll have to delete the image. If, on the other hand, they granted permission to license the picture under the GFDL, or under an acceptable Creative Commons License (such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA), then please forward a copy of your e-mail requesting permission and their answer to it to [email protected], and update the tag on the image appropriately. Thanks! User:Angr 12:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was sorry to see that your image was deleted. It was a great picture, and added a lot to the page. Is there another one you could replace it with?

I'm still working on my wiki editing skills...soon I'll learn how to do it myself, but until then you seem to be the only one interested in adding (rather than subtracting) pictures to the GW page.

Just to let you know, I deleted the picture that you uploaded of Bob Ehrlich as it is a duplicate of Image:Robert L. Ehrlich.JPG. However, this image will also be deleted in 7 days because it fails Wikipedia's first fair use criterion, in that a free alternative is available (always use a free image over a fair use image).

Furthermore, in case you were not aware of this, Ehrlich's official portrait is not a PD image because it is not a work of the Federal Government of the United States; it is a work of the Maryland Government, which, like most state governments, has limitations on the use of its images. Please be careful when you tag images as PD-USGov and make sure they actually are works of the Federal Government. Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you thought about dropping a [[Category:Wikipedian lawyers]] on your userpage? Cheers! bd2412 T 18:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the survey. Sorry for the confusion; it is referring to Wikipedia in general. Thanks again.Corey 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been recently editing the Southwestern University School of Law, you may be interested to know that the page is currently under full protection from editing.

Also, I've left some comments at Talk:Southwestern University School of Law and I would appreciate it if you looked over my comments and replied with any of your concerns. ^BlankVerse 11:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, I've reverted with reasons stated at the proper location: the talk page for the article. --Bobak 18:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, yeah. Looks bad. I'd never heard of the place until now, but it seems like a pretty clear case of WP:COI. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unschool enjoyed Taco325i's user page more than he has ever enjoyed anyone else's user page. Unschool wishes he had been, was now, or ever could be as entertaining to read as Taco325i. But Unschool knows that George W. Bush will sooner be transfigured at the top of Denali with Dick Nixon and Jerry Ford suspended in the air on his right and his left than Unschool will think of something amusing to write on his User Page. Unschool 07:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The updates just made to the Trump University are accurate and unbiased. Why change them?

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Taco325i! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. froth^T 22:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the instructions on the template, anyone other than the author can remove the tags and give the reason. In this case the reason fit into the edit summary, so I accept your criticism that I should have explained further. Most associate professors at major universities have survived AfD lately, so they are none of them noncontroversal. DGG 22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I noticed he got one of the handful on my watchlist, I then looked at his contribs to see if there were any I missed. I'll keep an eye out. --Bobak 19:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that bit of...surrealism, it made me laugh. If only they would all "run away"! GhostPirate 16:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah! That's what it was! I love the Venture Bros., by the way, but the name was something I just made up. That's a great episode ("Ground control to Major Tom! Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong!). GhostPirate 16:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; Just to clarify, the revision which you made (ass-as) was, of course, wholly correct. But the version you changed from was not a revision, it was straight-forward vandalism and could have been labelled asxsuch in your edit summary. No harm done, though.--Anthony.bradbury 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have full permission from D. Bratschi so i can add the thesis as it is directly related to the Amazon Rainforest, which is what our work is about. I am new to this and am making amature mistakes, i would appreciate any help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kellyanne.tomlinson (talk • contribs) 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I noticed you tagged Image:Theodore mckeldin.jpg as PD-USGov, but it is not (I guess you aren't a copyright lawyer :) ). At any rate, I've changed the tag to fair use, and it's also an orphan image now so I marked it as orfud. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy mistake to make; unfortunately the states aren't as liberal with their copyrights as the feds are. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taco3251, I do not understand your comment on the Akhmim Wooden Tablet. There were three types of ancient Egyptian cubits, but to my knowledge there was only one type of hekat. The AWT hekat used the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus definition for pi, once listed on the MMP web page as the squaring of a cirlce. Therefore all scribal uses of the hekat were the same size, the same one used in the RMP and the medical texts. Am I missing something important? Thanks for the comments. Milogardner 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a Roman goddess has not been created by squaring any circle. Why and how do I start a new hekat discussiion/definition when the word is already used for another purpose and included in an AWT definition of a hekat unity found in ancient Egyptian weights and measures. Maybe this topic area that can be updated. Milogardner 20:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our hekat (volume unit) wiki page is orphaned. Can you assist in the categorization effort? I tried, but obvious do not know how to do it. I have began the effort to add the phrase in other texts. Thanks Milogardner 21:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for parenting our orphaned hekat. Muchas gracias senor. Milogardner 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not an Aussie, but my dad is, hence my interest in things Australian. I'm actually from Maryland (which, I'm guessing from your user page, you are as well?). Aervanath 02:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery County, actually. Went to UMBC for college. You? Aervanath 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I thought Drexel was a good school. But then, I'm not particularly enthralled with my UMBC education, either. That's life, I guess. Aervanath 03:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! True, true. :) Aervanath 03:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable facts - there are alot of schools in the 3rd tier, why single those out for comparison?/ there are three tiers technically

• Context for one. Saying something is first, second or third tier doesn't mean much to someone who is unfamiliar with US News rankings. By asking why those are singled out, I guess the implication is that they are a cherry picked few to make the school's 3rd tier ranking look better. Sure that may or may not be the case depending on one's view of those other schools but it does place the ranking the context. It would be similar to this. Say you hated trout but loved salmon. Then you found out a trout can be in the genus Salmo, among others. If you knew nothing about fish you might not also realize that Atlantic Salmon are also of the genus Salmo and therefore related, however loosely, to trout.
• As to the fourth tier, I thought I saw a fourth tier on the US News website. So I don't really know what you mean by "techinically" there are three tiers, although you may be right for all I know. The only reason I put that was because I saw it on the website.
• Otherwise you may have a valid point about not including the other schools although I think the benefit of including them outweighs the detriment, whatever that might be. I have trouble seeing what harm there is in putting them there. If it does negate a certain stigma attached to the third tier, why is that necassarily a bad thing?

Thanks! --Edcolins 23:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On page Kent Hovind, or any other page for that matter, you are allowed to revert someone else's edit up to three times to put things back the way you want them, but not more than three times. If you revert more than three times, you are engaged in edit warring instead of constructive building of an encyclopedia. I have notified the Administrator's Noticeboard that you have reverted six times today.

As a new editor, it is likely that you will be given nothing more than a warning when the administrators respond, but future violations of the three revert rule will not be looked as kindly upon. I notified you at Talk:Kent_Hovind but you reverted too quickly for me to notify you here as well before notifying the administrators. Harvestdancer 00:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[1] made on January 27 2007 to Kent_Hovind

[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 12:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For fixing a the detail at Higher Education: University Governance. Tough one to catch, good eye. --Kenneth M Burke 04:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Phillips Goldsborough.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just noticed your offer to adopt me on my user page. Thank you and YES!!! Sorry for not responding sooner -- I traded dial-up for broadband and it took a bit to work out the bugs. You and I share many of the same interests -- in a slightly creepy coincidence, I am an LSAT instructor for Kaplan, a graduate of Washington University School of Law and a member of the Missouri Bar. Let me know what I need to do next vis-a-vis being adopted -- is there a formal program or what? OhSusanne 07:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.

The article on Shahbag is looking good to become an FAC. Would you care to take a look at it? I don't know any other editor around who can fix all those myriads of typos that creep into an article. Aditya Kabir 15:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put the article to peer review. Would you care to take a look? Aditya Kabir 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your comments on Murder and your to-do list, you appear to be on a crusade to replace Murder with Homicide. I think you are wrong to hold such a position. Please explain why you believe all references to murder should be replaced with homicide, before making any changes. In my opinion there are very important differences between murder and homicide that means the two terms should be kept separate. So I think the first two bullets on your to-do list are misguided. One effect of this is that moving List of countries by murder rate to List of countries by homicide rate has invalidated the statistics, because the definitions of murder and homicide are different. -- Cameron Dewe 13:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses copied from Cameron Dewe's talk page

I think we're in agreement, but just not realizing it. Murder and Homicide have distinct definitions. Murder is a kind of homicide, but homicide is not murder. My crusade is to ensure the correct use of the word "murder", because in everyday language we often use murder to describe all kinds of killings. For example, no jurisdiction in the US publishes "murder statistics" or "murder rates", though we often call it that. The proper term would be homicide rates. -Taco325i 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the FBI Uniform Crime Reports actually publish statistics for Murder and non-negligent manslaughter (see http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-5.html ), so using homicide is also inaccurate, as accidental homicides, such as motor vehicle accidents are excluded from the statistics. Perhaps the term criminal homicide (rate) is closer. I agree with you wanting to use the precise term, but your mission seems to have picked up a few followers who do not understand your intent, as they have tried to change ALL references to murder, when sometimes it is the applicable term. Perhaps you need to modify your mission slightly to only change inappropriate uses of the word murder. -- Cameron Dewe 11:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Als logo.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. PxMa 19:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Iu law.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Uva2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Johnson actually brought a trained chimp on the show to blow the raspberries (Bronx cheer) at the absent Stern, who'd insulted him in a previous episode. It was sad, really (hey, you did ask). Czolgolz (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & Meetup - Who should come? You should. Really.

FINE ART EDIT-A-THON & DC MEETUP 26 is December 17! The Edit-a-Thon will cover fine art subjects from the Federal Art Project and the meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. You don't have to attend both to attend one (but we hope you do!) Click the link above and sign up & spread the word! See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]