User talk:Ted Wilkes

Please note: If you leave a message, I will be glad to reply to it on THIS page. Thank you. --- TC Wilkes

Category:Greatest American Nominee

The Greatest American

L/R

In biographies, I kind of like the small portraits aligned to the left, next to the name of the individual. You don't? -- Viajero 20:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Buck Parvin

Creating disambig pages

When moving articles to create disambiguation pages, be sure to fix all links [1] to point to the proper place. Also use {{disambig}} on the page. As an example, see hardcore. CryptoDerk 20:31, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Good work

You've been busy! I've edited on some of the same articles previously and your name keeps popping up on my watchlist, always with good edits. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia and especially to the actors of the 20th century and related topics. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oscar categories

Please do not remove them from articles. Cburnett 17:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Buddy Rogers

Thanks for starting that article! I was meaning to tackle it myself. I had the pleasure of not only meeting him, but jamming with him as well. He had trouble walking, but he sure played a mean tailgate trombone...and he had a handshake like a vise! Best, Lucky 6.9 06:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mary Ure / Countries

Ted, in response to your message, I thought I'd set out my thinking: I obviously agree that not everybody in the world will know of Glasgow, or even London. However, in this context the nationality of the subject is stated in the previous sentence, which would give most people a clue. Failing that, surely clicking on the link provides the answer to the curious? My main reasons for making those edits:

• London, England is just a redirect to London, and I believe it's better to have links point to the actual article. Same argument for loads of other cities.
• Giving the names of cities as "London, England", "Paris, France", etc is an Americanism - the natvies of those cities don't use that convention

I appreciate that you and others think that having the link read just London is not clear enough; If the country is not clear from the context of the article, then something like London, UK would (I believe) be a better way of stating it. Regards, Steve Sc147 23:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bugatti images

Thanks so much for the images! Even though they're fair use its still nice to have an image. If you have those AQ issues, would you care to contribute some more text content to the pages as well? Thanks, --SFoskett 13:58, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Date preferences

To set your date preferences, go to Special:Preferences, and select "Date format". Gdr 21:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Showmen's Rest

Your image is a great improvement for the Showmen's Rest and related Hammond circus train wreck articles, which are up for inclusion to the Did You Know? feature on the main page within the next few days. Template talk:Did you know. Thanks, Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 16:14, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ted Wilkes!

Thank you for your contributions to the Edgar Ray Killen article. I saw all those contributions you had made from your user page...I think its about time you gain a barnstar so I posted one here.

Take care, Dbraceyrules 06:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Caribbean politicians

Hi. Noticed this category. I think you set it up the wrong way round - you have it as a subcat of a number of "X-ian people" cat's - I think that rather you should have "X-ian politicians" as a subcat of this category. Guettarda 15:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

CfD

• Hi, I noticed you marked Category:British racehorse owners for deletion but never added it to WP:CFD. I've removed the tag for now. If you definitely wanted to delete this category, please make sure you complete both parts of the procedure. Thanks! --Kbdank71 19:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Years in television

Hi there!

This is a message to all users who were at one point of time or another actively involved in editing the "Years in television" articles.

I have developed a new format, that I am currently proposing to apply to all "xxxx in television" articles. If you could take a look at 1976 in television/Temp and leave your comments/objections/propositions at Talk:1976 in television/Temp, that would be much appreciated.

Please note that the Temp version is by no means final. It is there to give an idea of the new proposed structure. Please do not be critical of the actual layout; it will most definitely not stay unchanged.

Any ideas you might have will be quite welcome. Thank you for your time.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn image

Hi, I'd just like to ask you why you have replaced the image on the Audrey Hepburn page with a different one. I realize some people have been doing so recently with lots of actor/actress pages, and I don't see the point. Surely one picture is as good as the other (in this particular case, a colour photograph has been replaced with a B/W one), and looking for an image that does fit in with Wikipedia's copyright policy is a time-consuming affair. Shouldn't we concentrate our efforts on things which are really needed?

I'll put the old pic further down in the article.

All the best, <KF> 13:51, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out your reason for removing the image. I would never have guessed it. I was solely thinking in terms of 1960s fashion, hairstyles, makeup, etc. I wonder what other people have to say about this: Should we protect our children from reality (and smoking was a reality even among nice people not so long ago)? Should we also delete images such as Image:TrangBang.jpg and Image:Vietcong.jpg? Personally, I don't think so.

Best wishes, <KF> 15:31, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

David Bret

I have protected this page at your request. I urge you to resolve your dispute on the talk page. However, I request that you watch your behavior in this manner:

1. Your revert comments focus on the fact that the other party is an anonymous user, who you also accuse of vandalism on his page. Just because a user is anonymous, you can't assume bad faith.
2. You actually did violate the Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule on the page; as you are new, I will assume you were ignorant of the rule and I will not block you for it. However, when the page comes out of protection, you should not revert any page more than 3 times in a 24 hour period.

Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

---

Wilkes is violating the three-revert rule over on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, deleting another user's (anonymous) comments, misguidedly calling them "vandalism". *Dan* 15:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes reply: - You stated on my talk page: "Wilkes is violating the three-revert rule over on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, deleting another user's (anonymous) comments, misguidedly calling them "vandalism". *Dan* 15:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)"

Sorry Dan, you are wrong. I first moved the ANONYMOUS users comments to the talk page. But, they repeatedy reinstated it. That is in fact vandalism according to Wikipedia. I reverted vandalism in accordance with the statement of OFFICIAL POLICY on the page of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that says:

• "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies."

Thank you. Ted Wilkes 15:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

What is with the attitude? All I said is that 1) You violated the 3RR, which is true but I didn't block you, 2) Your version removes the guardian link, which is also true (whether or not you were the one who removed it), and 3) you make a point of emphasizing the fact that the other editor is ANONYMOUS, which I think is immaterial. Instead of focusing on the fact that the other editor is ANONYMOUS, say that he appears to only be focused on this one topic. As I stated on the protection page, I am recusing myself from this matter as I am going on vacation. I am leaving it up to the other admins to deal with this issue. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:57, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Definition of vandalism

Vandalism has a specific definition on Wikipedia, referring only to intentionally bad-faith edits such as the insertion of completely and knowingly irrelevant material into an article, the blanking out of an article, and so on. It does not refer to any and all edits of which you disapprove, and should not be invoked in conjunction with a good-faith disagreement about the content of an article. You (and you're hardly unique in this) seem to be quick to bandy about this term in response to users you dislike; however, the mere fact that you disagree with the content of an edit, or the fact that it is made by an anonymous user, does not make it vandalism. *Dan* 16:17, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes reply: - You seem extremely quick to make statements without bothering to make certain of the facts. Doing it twice in a row is hard to excuse and I'm not sure what your mission is. To leave a message on my (or any other) talk page that casts me or any Wikipedia user in an unfavorable light is disrespectful to the goal of Wikipedia cooperation. I think it is good thing to actually read and gather facts before openly criticizing any Wikipedia contributor on their page. Unfounded criticism has the effect of impugning that users reputation and certainly gives others who might read the incorrect comments a false impression. First, never state as fact that I or anybody "don't like" another user. That is an insult and uncalled for. Second, vandalism in fact occurs where any user knowingly and deliberately and consistently inserts fabricated information – let me repeat that: fabricated information -- pretending it to be fact. That is the most destructive type of vandalism possible. Vandalism also occurs when that person's only edits are on one topic in which they have inserted their fabrication(s) and repeatedly bully others to get their way. Note that in the case of the Elvis Presley article, the user who tried to intimidate me had previously done it to other users. (A fact that I posted on the Presley talk page yesterday.) Vandalism also occurs when a person who has fabricated information repeatedly reverts other's attempts to correct their misrepresentations. I'm certain you do not condone the insertion of deliberate fabrications into Wikipedia and as such will want to actually check my assertion as to deliberate fabrications, said assertion already posted by me prior to your message on my talk page. Perhaps once you do, then you will do the gentlemanly thing in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia as I'm certain your intent is only to make Wikipedia a better place. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 22:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your deletion of others' comments meets the definition of vandalism better than anything your opponent has done. *Dan* 17:11, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

---

Regarding John Hay Whitney

I sort-of liked my intro (which merged yours) more, its gets to the important bits about this guy- Ambassador, New York Herald Tribune, etc..

John Hay "Jock" Whitney (b. August 27, 1904 in Ellsworth, Maine, d. February 8, 1982) was an American multi-millionaire, U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom (1957-1961), pioneering color-movie producer, soldier in World War II, sportsman, financier, philanthropist, art-collector, diplomat, publisher of the New York Herald Tribune, among others, and a member of the prominent Whitney family.

What do you think?

Eric

Eric - I was only doing a cleanup of all the bolding plus putting in links and categories. If my complete re-pasting wiped out some of your work, it wasn't intentional and I apologize. Please make any changes you feel necessary. Thanks. Ted Wilkes 15:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh- cool. I'll merge the intro again, then. I was thinking the same thing about trying to use some of the original 37k(!!!) article on Whitney to make a page for Payne Whitney, and perhaps there's good material for Technicolor and some of the studios Whitney worked at as well!

I do grow a little tired of writing about rich people, though, unless there's something redeemable to say about them other than how they philanthropized charities with money they inherited.

-Cheers

Eric

Deleting comments

Deleting other people's comments is not acceptable. Stop it. Proteus (Talk) 18:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleting other users' comments

Please don't remove other Users' comments from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection([2]); your edit summary was false — the definition of vandalism doesn't come close to including what you deleted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That users often include comments on this page is a simple fact, and even if strictly-speaking it goes against the text at the top of the page, that doesn't make it vandalism, and certainly doesn't justify you in deleting it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you continue to delete other Users' comments from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection you will be blocked from editing for a period for vandalism. The instruction at the top of the page does not constitute Wikipedia policy, and even if it did, that would not justify your actions. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR Violation

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the Three Revert Rule (3RR) at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Additionally you have been warned at least three times before about removing other people's comments, if you persist in doing this when you return from your time-out, you will be blocked again. Thryduulf 19:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ted, I'm not sure what's going on here, because I have not yet looked up all the page histories. I will do that research if necessary

But it looks like you've been caught by one of the gotcha games around here. (1) You saw vandalism. (2) You tried to correct it. (3) You "ran out" of "tries". (4) You got zinged for "violating the 3RR". (Note: this analysis assumes both good faith and correct judgment on your part.)

In an attempt to be "democratic" or "just folks" or something, the vigilantes around here have decided to "treat all violators the same" - like a school teacher who punishos a boy for "fighting" when all he was doing was defending himself from a bully. I have never accepted this rule.

On the other hand, I might be wrong about this all. So I will help you (a little bit), but cautiously. I'm going to unblock you account, but I'd also like to ask you to follow "Uncle Ed's Wikipedia:one revert rule" until all the dust settles. If you see vandalism, you can revert it ONE TIME only. If it re-appears, DO NOT take further action but REPORT it and get HELP.

Do as I suggest, and I will take your side. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:16, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

No, actually I am not going to unblock your account. After a cursory glance at some of the pages in question, I feel the others acted correctly. But my offer to assist you in similar future matters stands. Only: ask for help BEFORE deleting someone's comments or reverting their changes. Don't abuse the system even when attempting to correct the "abuses" of others.

They made me an admin (and bureaucrat and Mediator) because I understand the system. Lone crusades are not part of that system; you've got to work with others and stay within the rules. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Ted, I have to block you again for violating the 3RR several times in the past day on the Elvis Presley article. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:22, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing to my attention the 3RR violations by 129.241.134.241. I will impose a 24 hour block on him as well. Obviously it is impossible for us to catch all violations of the rule, but if you bring them to my attention in the future (as the anon did for you on the Talk:Elvis Presley page), I will investigate them. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Reality Check

Having watched a previous situation that turned me off from contributing much to Wikipedia, I'm going to comment here with respect to the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule as it was applied to the User:Ted Wilkes referred to here.

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule stipulates:

• "After making a reversion, do not do so again more than twice within 24 hours of the initial one. This policy does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism."
• If you find yourself reverting a considerable amount of edits by a banned user or a vandal, it may be appropriate to block the user or IP address. If you are not an administrator, you should list the person on vandalism in progress.

Further, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR it reaffirms this:

• "if you find yourself reverting edits due to simple vandalism, you should list that person at vandalism in progress."

Wilkes followed Wikipedia policy and went to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress [3] and provided the specifics of what he saw as vandalism with User: 80.141.x.x. As well, when the vandalism continued he followed proper procedure and posted a notice at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. At this point, the matter is in the hands of the Wikipedia authorities to act. They did not and one must wonder what is the purpose of all these pages of procedures and a few hundred Administrators if no one acts on the vandalism or even to overrule Wilkes.

Wilkes followed procedures and went to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and inserted the names of the articles which he wanted protected with the required reason. The User: 80.141.x.x. then inserted a personal attack and argumentative comments, similar to those he had used on the talk page with Wilkes and the previous users that they (User: 80.141.x.x) had driven away. Wilkes then rigidly followed Wikipedia policy as specified on the "Wikipedia:Requests for page protection" where it says: "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies" and noted his action as such:

• 00:58, 2 Jun 2005 Ted Wilkes (Moved comments by anonymous user to proper location on the talk page)

Despite being reported as a vandal, User: 80.141.x.x reverted Wilkes until finally Wikipedia:Administrator User:Thryduulf stepped in and confirmed Wilkes statement as correct with the following edit:

• 21:01, 3 Jun 2005 Thryduulf (→David Bret AND Nick Adams - removing section. request actioned, both parties aware. This page is NOT a place for comments.)

Wilkes request for page protection on the Elvis Presley article was assessed and agreed to by Wikipedia:Administrator Smoddy who inserted a Vandal notice (Vprotected) as follows: 21:45, 3 Jun 2005 Smoddy (protection template)

After having vandalised the Elvis Presley page and it now protected, User: 80.141.x.x then ignored both Wikipedia Official Policy and Wikipedia:Administrator, Thryduulf's assertion that This page is NOT a place for comments, and reinstated his comments into Wikipedia:Requests for page protection .

Having filed a detailed complaint as to vandalism in progress and having his request for page protection granted by Wikipedia:Administrator, User:Smoddy for vandalism carried out by User: 80.141.x.x, then Wilkes' reversions did not violate the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule because it states that the policy does not apply to correction of simple vandalism.

Assessing this situation, and the conduct of User: 80.141.x.x whose only contributions are to the three disputed articles, it is obvious something is wrong. Worse still, User: 80.141.x.x had previously done the exact same thing to others on the Elvis Presley page and after getting away with it then, was free to attack Wilkes. Once he got rid of Wilkes yesterday, he then was free to start reverting the Presley article again which he did and when User:Equintan stepped in to try to correct things, User: 80.141.x.x then reverted him. Adding insult to injury, User: 80.141.x.x posted his personal insults against Wilkes on Your Talk page. (18:16, 5 Jun 2005 80.141.217.19)

It seems to me that people with a record of consistent quality work should not have to spend their time, nor be forced to deal with the aggravation, just to defend the integrity of a Wikipedia article.

Talk about a good way to turn off contributors, this is it. Karl Schalike

Reality check

Wilkes wasn't deleting vandalism, as was explained to him three times by me; he was deleting comments made by other editors, critical of him. Making such comments was not against policy, it merely went against the text on that page (and even if it had been against policy, that wouldn't have made it vandalism). In other words, his three reversions were vandalism, not what he was reverting, nor were his reversions anything to do with the defence of the integrity of a Wikpedia article. The definition of vandalism is perfectly clear. Note, incidentally, that it doesn't matter how many articles someone edits, nor is anyone obliged to open an account. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Couturiere?

You added Judith Leiber to the list of US practicioners of haute couture. Has she branched out into custom clothing? I thought she just did luxe handbags, which is not haute couture. If not clothing, let's revert. Zora 14:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zora: My dictionary (and Wiki) defines haute couture as "Trend-setting fashions." It is not restricted to clothing, but covers things such as Gucci products etc. like handbags that are also sewn. (Note the Wikipedia article refers to Gucci as haute couture. Thanks. Ted Wilkes 22:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ted, the core meaning of haute couture is SEWING -- a particular method of sewing. Gucci does make clothes; see [4]. Couture houses have been very eager to extend the usage of "haute couture" to any trendy accessory, because that's where they make their money, but to anyone using the term in relation to clothing (the subject of the Wikipedia article in question), it means custom-made clothing using a variety of specialized hand-sewing techniques. I should know -- I've been reading Vogue and Threads magazines for decades, and I do couture-quality sewing myself. Please don't be upset if I remove the name. Zora 23:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zora: By all means, change it. Maybe it would be a good idea to insert something to this effect and maybe even have a list on the page titled Haute Couture Accessorie makers (whatever). That way, researchers can easily find and/or link to all persons involved in high fashion instead. ?? Ted Wilkes 23:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. It might be a good idea to have a list of the companies who do "high fashion" or "high style" accessories and ready-to-wear .... but then again, who's HOT changes so often, and the whole thing is so vulnerable to commercial abuse ... you'd get every New York shmatte manufacturer trying to put his/her brand into the list. I'm grotesquely over-committed at the moment, and I really couldn't commit to writing this. Think it over, think of the problems with commercial links ... there's a new user PKM who is doing work on fashion articles, seems to be a good writer and sensible, maybe PKM would be interested. Zora 02:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You rang? Let me think about this - not quite my area of expertise but I might take a crack at it. (PS correct pronoun is "she" - guess I need to make a user page if I am going to stick around for a while.) PKM 02:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

You are still accusing 80.141.239.139 (talk · contribs) of vandalism, on the grounds that he's adding information to articles. This has been explained to you before: such activities are not vandalism, and to continue making these accusations on Talk pages and in edit summaries is not acceptable. The information may be dubious, you may not approve of it, it may be (it sometimes is) expresssed in sensationalist, slangy, and journalistic English, but it's not vandalism. If you hope to receive sympathy for your position from other editors, you need to cut out your own transgression of clear Wikipedia rules against personal attacks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reply to: User:Mel Etitis - Yet again I have to request that you read facts and know what you are talking about before commenting. I suggest, since this matter is in the hands of Wikipedia:Mediator Ed Poor, that it might be best for you to refrain from further comments and not interfere in the process. You might also want to read the official Wikipedia description of Vandalism as I in fact referred to (with a link) on the Talk:Nick Adams page.

Excuse me, but I would prefer not to have my "hands" used as a weapon. As the Iron Giant famously said, "I am not a gun." Thank you. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:47, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Quote from comments by User:Ted Wilkes at Talk:Nick Adams:

• USER: 80.141.etc.etc. made edits to this single line by adding deliberate misinformation, an act that constitutes vandalism in accordance with Wikipedia:Vandalism.
• USER: 80.141.etc.etc. fabricated information and inserted "fraudulently doctored text" into the David Bret article

Ted Wilkes 13:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that you might be better-liked here if you didn't insult other people by accusing them of being ignorant when they disagree with you over such things as the definition of vandalism, a word which is frequently abused around here (and not just by you) to refer to just about any sort of edits that are disagreed with by the commenter. The term has a much more narrow and specific meaning. *Dan* 14:04, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, can you prove that the information in question (about which I don't really know or care much... it seems to be stuff about Elvis and other celebrities being alleged to be gay) is knowingly false? Maybe the person making the edits really believes it to be true. *Dan* 14:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Reply to: User:Dtobias - Who comes here to be "liked?" This is a place where you earn the respect of others for the quality of your work. I'm here to make positive contributions and to do so only in accordance with Wikipedia policy. And, my contributions both in terms of new articles created and endless repairs to minor errors of all sorts (links etc.) speak for themselves. And, I actually care about the quality of Wikipedia and strongly resent those who come here with a harmful agenda. I always mind my own business and for certain never comment without first reading the facts. And if I see abuse or vandalism, I will do something about it. What I just said to User:Mel Etitis applies to you. If you had taken the time to actually read my clearly enunciated facts posted to Talk:Nick Adams (it appears you don't understand "copy partial sequential text" from above then easily search the page) you would see I provided the absolute proof of Wikipedia:Vandalism including the full details and an external link to prove my statement that USER: 80.141.etc.etc. inserted "fraudulently doctored text." Follow my advice to User:Mel Etitis and 1) Read the facts and 2) refrain from further comments until you do. -- Ted Wilkes 14:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cranky, or just a crank?

Could you please dial your "tone of voice" back a couple of notches? I sympathize with people who are polite, and if you would avoid personal remarks a bit more, you would gain my sympathy a lot faster.

I love Elvis as much as the next man, but vilifying his detractors is not much of a defense. Please join me in a united front.

P.S. Sorry for confusing you with Nick. I'm following too many threads right now. Can you possibly find it in your heart to forgive me? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:45, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Posted by User:Ted Wilkes to User:Dtobias talk page:

• You (D.tobias) reinstated insulting comments that I had removed from my Talk page. Personal insults violate official' Wikipedia policy as specified in Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please refrain from inserting a personal attack. Thank you. Cheers. Ted Wilkes 13:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would you please remove all your personal attacks against me from the discussion pages, too, as repeat offenders like you can be reported to the administration and permanently banned? Thank you. 80.141.197.45 13:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reply to : Anonymous Dynamic IP User:80.141.197.45 :

• I stand by my words that you are a vandal as defined by Wikipedia:Vandalism. I made no personal attack on you of any kind, I only stated the facts on Talk:Nick Adams with proof of your actions and your disinformation tactiics. However, because I believe in a fair hearing for all and that no one should use personal attacks at Wikipedia, I invite you to immediately take this matter to the administration. Ted Wilkes 14:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would you please look at this page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ted Wilkes 80.141.225.96 19:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wilkes not only has a non-standard view of what constitutes vandalism, but also of what constitutes a personal attack. In both cases, unsurprisingly, his definitions mean that he's never guilty of either, while others are guilty of both. A careful, dispassionate, and disinterested look at Wikipedia policy would help in both cases. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reply to : User:Mel Etitis - Please define "non-standard view." Thank you. Cheers. Ted Wilkes 16:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• By the way, I consider your assertion that: "In both cases, unsurprisingly, his definitions mean that he's never guilty of either, while others are guilty of both." as derogatory and a Personal Attack. Please refrain from such statements. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 16:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not a personal attack... it's discussing your views, as shown by your statements on this site, not you as a person. And it kind of proves Mel's point, as you are using a creative definition of "personal attack" in order to characterize your opponents' writings that way, while denying that any of your own qualify. *Dan* 17:04, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Reply to : User:Dtobias - "I'm sorry, did you have a definition of "non-standard view" to add? At the same time, would you be good enough to explain how a "kind of" works when you say: "It kind of proves" - Thank you. Ted Wilkes 17:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There has been enough of these types of comments being said. I will not comment on this subject until Wikipedia:Mediator Ed Poor finishes his reading of the Talk:Nick Adams page and gives his input. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 17:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you promise? ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

For the record

(The following is also documented by me for the benefit of the examination of User:Ed Poor on Talk:Nick Adams.) Amongst other deliberate insertions of misinformation:

USER: 80.141.etc.etc. fabricated information and inserted "fraudulently doctored text" into the David Bret article as follows:

• Revision to David Bret article [5] as of 21:14, 26 Apr 2005 80.141.206.211
  • Judy Spreckels, who was like a sister to Elvis, a companion, confidante and keeper of secrets in the early days of his career, also remembers going out with Elvis and his boyfriend Nick Adams.

• Please note what the article actually states as to what Ms. Speckels said on the website:
  • [6] - "In Los Angeles, where Elvis made movies, Judy remembers going out on a Sunday with him and his friend, actor Nick Adams."

-- Ted Wilkes 19:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

personal remarks

Ted, I recently updated Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. I suggest you read it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:39, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

RFC

• Some IP address has filed an RFC against you (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ted Wilkes) but it has not gained the necessary endorsement within two days. I have unlisted it. Since it's invalid, if you want it deleted, please let me know. Radiant_>|< 11:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Hugo Koblet, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Maria Schneider (actress)

Thanks Ted, I'll find either a reference for a primary source or another secondary source to corroborate those facts. Thanks for pointing me toward the "standards or behaviors which many editors agree with in principle and generally follow." Cleduc 20:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Additional sources documented, and facts restored to the article. Additional comments on Talk:Maria Schneider (actress). Cleduc 21:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Nathaniel "Sweetwater" Clifton, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

- Mgm|^(talk) 08:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Kent Desormeaux, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

- Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, could you put something in your edit summaries? Something as simple as "dab Fame" would be great. :) Cburnett 18:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hermes not a god?

In your edit to the disambiguation page for Hermes, you removed the Greek god, and moved up the name of a company. Was this deliberate? Am I missing some context here? -Harmil 28 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)

Yes. If you type "Hermes" you get the Greek God - then you can go to the disambiguation page. Hence, you don't need the "God" on the disambig page. I moved the scarf company up, bercause after, if not before, that is the No. 1 use of the name. Ted Wilkes 28 June 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I was pretty sure there had to be a reason, but in the diff it looked pretty odd... -Harmil 28 June 2005 15:51 (UTC)

Michael Straight & Whitney Willard Straight

Thanks for your comments. As the detals of Michael Straight are more appropriate for his own page rather than that of his mother, I have started a page and put on it a newpaper reference for his relationship with Blunt. Other obituaries, Times, Guardian, Independent , and some in US papers omit this detail, which however I have also seen repeated elsewhere. I do not know what the ultimate source for it is. I have not read Straight's book, which would be worthwhile.

Since he is of minor interest to me compared with his mother and step father, I will leave you to upgrade his article with more information. But if you need more help with sources please ask. Op. Deo 2 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

The information is in the opening sentence of the obituary which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 17 Jan 2004. That work is copyright so i dont think I am allowed to reporduce it here, but perhaps it would be permissible for me to quote a short phrase from the end of that sentence, "....Anthony Blunt - whose lover he had briefly been at Cambridge in the 1930s - was a mole." The Telegraph is a factually reliable newspaper. Its political slant is to the right. I do find it slightly odd that none of the other heavy weight newspapers I have consulted mention this in their obituaries.

The obituary also says that his elder brother, Whitney Straight, was a racing driver and war time RAF pilot who became vice-chairman of BOAC. His RAF squadron was 601 (County of London).

I was interested to see that when visiting Peking in 1958 Whitney was horrified to find out the the Russian Mig 15 planes had counterfeit versions of the Rolls-Royce Derwent and Nene engines. He tried to help Rolls Royce claim back £200m from Russia in royalties. (Sunday Times May 10 1987). Whitney Straight's obituary appears on page 8 of The Times for Nov 23 1979, and is a mine of information. Op. Deo 3 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments about the Daily Telegraph Article - it is of course avaliable in libaries to read. You can find it if you do an advanced search on the www.telegraph.co.uk website at [7] but beware their website carries the formidable warning: "Users are permitted to copy some material for their personal use as private individuals only. Users must not republish any part of the data either on another website, or in any other medium, print, electronic or otherwise, or as part of any commercial service without the prior written permission of Telegraph Group Limited." I think however, that by normal practice one can report the data as published in the printed newspaper despite this draconian copyright claim for the website material, and that is what I have done.

I too noticed that the other bios did not mention this and had pondered about whether it was mis-reporting. However, although I can imagine that some obituary writers might have chosen to omit "allegations" of this type particulary if they were uncertain of the basis, I find it notable that the Daily Telegraph chose to include it in what appears to me to be in all respects a rather positive account of Michael Straight's life. I have also seen this statement in other places on the web, but they may of course merely be repeats of the Daily Telegraph article. Even if Straight did indeed briefly fall under the spell of Blunt who was a Fellow and obviously sought to impress young undergrauates, it does not seem completely incompatible with Straight's later life. I think considerable research would be needed to resolve the situation, in the meantime I suggest that mentioning the Daily telegraph allegation does in fact avoid just the opposite - the possible supression of something relevant to his life.

As far as Whitney Straight is concerned - I have offered on the Mig-15 talk page a correction to that article, and I will make it if I get no opposition. Now, I have got into Whitney Straight, he does look a very interesting character of historical importance, who must have in part been molded by his early years at Dartington School. I have written up a draft of what I have found, and I will put it up as it may provide you with some material which you have not come across yet. It is all from reliable newspapers. Op. Deo 3 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

Link to Daily Telegraph article: [8] Op. Deo 3 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Philip Loeb

I didn't say that Philip Loeb was a Communist infiltrator, only that the extensive Communist infiltration at the highest levels of government produced the atmosphere in which those of iffy-character could be called into question.

MSTCrow July 6, 2005 05:42 (UTC)

MCA/Universal article merge

Hi. I'm playing devil's advocate to your proposed mergeof the Music Corporation of America and Universal Music Group articles. You might convince me, but I'd like to see the case made and a bit of discussion of just how they'd be merged on one or the other of the talk pages. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 8 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)

People in glass houses

Your edit summary was absurd; I pointed out what was wrong with it on the Talk page, and you repeated it. Your choice, but don't be surprised if it gets called absurd. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Come on, Mel, calling someone absurd for insisting on quality secondary sources is extreme and does at least border on a personal attack. It is noted that you feel strongly about this issue for whatever reason, but that sort of edit summary is either polite nor accurate. Wyss 11:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I think what you said on Mel's talk page was also a personal attack! maybe the best thing to do is leave it!! just some advice - Agent003

Elvis

Sorry about the edits on Elvis Presley's '68 Comeback Special; I misunderstood your use of parentheses, and assumed that Elvis--One Night With You would have used a colon, not a dash. tregoweth 17:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Johnny Rodgers, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

The Beach Boys article

I notice that you've made edits to the article on The Beach Boys, and since you're the only person currently active who has made edits to the article, I was hoping you would give your opinion on this infobox. Where we should put it, I'm not entirely decided. Maybe at the bottom of the main article, each of the members, and each of the album pages. Your thoughts, please.

The template is as follows.

Maybe with pictures, as per The Beatles. What do you think? Bobo192|Edits

REPLY TO User:Bobo192 : It's certainly a nice effort to aid Wikipedia researchers but I think it, and some versions of it for other nusicians, might require too much page space. However, maybe see what some of the other contributors think by putting it up for discussion at the appropriate page at Wikipedia:Village pump. Ted Wilkes 14:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Elvis Presley, et alibi.

If you continue to indulge in personal attacks on other editors, and (more importantly) to delete other editors' comments from Talk pages, I shall block you from editing. I am not interested in bluster on my Talk page, or bad-tempered insistence that words don't really mean what everyone else uses them to mean, or what Wikipedia policy states them to mean. I mean what I say here — no more and no less. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted, you were doing a really good job of shaping up the Elvis article yesterday, but since then you've been spending a lot of energy making 3RR accusations, editing comments, and responding to a lot of stuff that most editors will just ignore. If you really want to improve this article, it would be best if you just focused to the article material on the talk page. At this point, the elvis talk page is too charged for minor allegations: any further policy violations should be discussed elsewhere, like WP:AN/I. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Quotes from David Bret's book on Elvis

p. 19: "That Elvis was obsessed with James Dean during his formative years as an actor cannot be denied. ... He subsequently became involved with two of the late star's friends, Nick Adams and Natalie Wood. Adams, who since Jimmy's death had admitted that they had been lovers during the shooting of Giant, later claimed that he had had a brief affair with Elvis after Elvis had 'agreed to be his date' for a preview performance of his 1956 film, The Last Wagon."

p. 20: "Elvis and Adams were photographed on numerous occasions, usually with Natalie Wood positioned strategically or otherwise between them - again, in the grossly homophobic Hollywood of the 1950s, closeted gay stars such as Rock Hudson, Tab Hunter and Guy Madison were provided with studio 'dates' to fool their adoring female fans into believing they were eligible bachelors."

In addition, the blurb clearly says that the author "unearths the truth about the powerful hold exercised over Elvis by 'Colonel' Tom Parker, which revolved around Parker preventing a leak about Presley's relationship with another man from going public and then using this knowledge as a persistent threat to ensure his protégé's loyalty."

Quotes from Gavin Lambert's Wood biography

p. 199: "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams, whom the publicity department considered a more likely "beau" than Sal Mineo for the New York premiere of Rebel."

p. 199: "Her next arranged date, after A Cry in the Night, was with Raymond Burr, who played the sophisticated Older Man of the World and escorted her to Romanoff's and La Rue."

p. 205: "On the third day, Natalie invented an urgent reason for returning to Los Angeles, where she assured Maria that "nothing happened," then braced herself for Louella Parsons, who demanded and got an interview on the Elvis situation. Parsons began by reminding Natalie that she'd "taken her to task" more than once for "cheapening herself with all this romance activity with Nick Adams, Tab Hunter, Raymond Burr and heaven knows who else."

p. 574: "But I'm a Fool (1954), the TV show that introduced her to James Dean, suggests a "new" Natalie, anxious and romantic, ready to emerge when someone gives her the chance.

p. 575: "During her second major scene, with James Dean and Sal Mineo in the deserted mansion at night, Natalie goes through another series of emotional changes. Her comic impersonation of a selfish, uncaring mother is followed by a reversion to childhood in a game of hide-and-seek with Dean, then by sisterly concern for lonely Mineo, and finally by her declaration of love to Dean, surprisingly and effectively chaste. She begins by explaining, half to herself, that she admires Jim as "a man who can be gentle but free." Then she realizes: "All this time I've been looking for somebody to love me, and now I love somebody."

p. 576: "As Natalie later recalled, he [Nick Ray] felt that 'it was important to know a lot personally about the actor ,' and he also felt that the director had to discover as much as he could about himself. When he pointed the finger at absent or inadequate fatherhood in all three families, it pointed at himself as well. He drew on his own life to understand and probe the bisexuality of Dean and Mineo, and as Natalie's lover, he knew the intensity of her need for love." Onefortyone 13:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Elvis fan cabal

My reference to the Elvis fan cabal was a joke; sorry if that wasn't made clearer. On the wiki a lot of accusations of "cabal" behavior are thrown at admins, so it tends to be used in a semi-ironic way, poking fun at the various trolls who accuse us of conspiring in dark corners of the wiki. Sorry if it didn't come off that way. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ted, sorry, I don't have time to look into this right now; I haven't really been following the Nick Adams page and I'm not sure what you're talking about. It's also probably not efficient for you to raise these issues to just one admin, as I can't look at Wikipedia 24x7. I would suggest you try the WP:AN/I. It is also helpful if you provide links demonstrating diffs of the disputed behavior. Just a link to the page isn't very helpful, and I don't have time to go through the page history, as I have not been following that debate so far. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nick Adams fan cabal

I couldn't help but notice the pics of NA and NW on your user page. In the interest of outing that story-telling, stumbling big-mouth for the flaming het that he was, when can we get those into his article? :) Wyss 19:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Your message

My impression, upon which I haven't yet acted, is that you have something of an obsession about homosexuality, and edit in a PoV way to keep mentions of it from a set of articles in which you have an interest. Even if that's not the case, you manage to give the impression that it is by your aggressive and confrontational attitude, and your rejection of any evidence that tells against your position. It's true that you are dealing with an editor who is as determined and as single-minded as you, and who may well suffer from a PoV-pushing attitude that's the mirror of the one you display, but that's no excuse. It's certainly no excuse for removing a merely decriptive heading from a Talk page on the grounds that you disagree with it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you from editing for three hours, as you have yet again deleted unobjectionable material from Talk:Elvis Presley despite my warnings. The page to which you appealed (Wikipedia:Civility) clearly does not justify your deletions, as there was no incivility involved — just a purely descriptive claim with which you apparently disagree (though on what grounds it's impossible for me to discern). I've made it a short block because I believe that your behaviour results from arrogance and poor self-control rather than from malice. If you continue this sort of behaviour after the block expires, future blocks may have to be longer. Please think about collaborating with other editors (and considering that you may sometimes be wrong and the other person right). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes response posted on User talk: Mel Etitis:

• To User:Mel Etitis: Your 3 hour block - You first engaged yourself in the interconnected Elvis Presley issue at Talk:Natalie Wood. You then engaged yourself directly in the issue at Elvis Presley through your edit to the article in support of User:Onefortyone as per his 15:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC) request at User talk:Mel Etitis#New paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry:

• 11:37, August 20, 2005 Mel Etitis (rv unexplained edits)

you then entered the issue again by reverting another user:

• 17:46, August 20, 2005 Mel Etitis m (Reverted edits by 129.241.134.241 to last version by BRG) as seen

The Wikipedia:Blocking policy#When blocking may not be used states:

• "users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict"

As such, having engaged in the issue, it appears you have misused your powers as Wikipedia:Administrator when you placed a temporary 3 hour block on my account. Please refrain from any further such improper action. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 16:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Reply by User:Mel Etitis:

My involvement at Natalie Wood was over some time ago, I was involved in my role as admin, having been called in by a participant, and the issue there was settled; that is therefore irrelevant, and you're merely game-playing by bringing it in. My two edits at Elvis Presley were also at the request of one of the participants; when I looked at the article I agreed that he was being badly treated, and I intervened on his behalf. I've now done so again (amd also blocked him for his 3RR violation). It would take a considerable stretch of the imagination to judge that I am involved in the article; you seem, in your barrack-room lawyering, to want to read policy as though, as soon as I judge you to have misbehaved and intervene, I'm in conflict with you and involved in the article, and so can't intervene. That is, of course, ridiculous, and needs no counter-argument. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes response posted on User talk: Mel Etitis:

• Section header: Your Admin blocking powers & Wikipedia:No personal attacks
• Your response at User talk:Ted Wilkes#Block to my statement posted at User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 23#To User:Mel Etitis: Your 3 hour block is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Policy for the role of Wikipedia:Administrators which states:
  • Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility.
  • users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information.

"Advice and information" does not include editing. Your edits at Natalie Wood were massive and extensive and were interconnected to the edits you made at Elvis Presley. You have misused your powers as Wikipedia:Administrator when you placed a temporary 3 hour block on my account. I repeat my request that you please refrain from any further such improper action. I would also ask that you refrain from making unfounded comments against me as you did in your aforementioned reply. You also left similar such comments at User talk:Ted Wilkes#Your message that are unwarranted and egregious conduct on your part. I would request that you remove this from my talk page and the matter will be dropped. If not, I will seek the appropriate redress on all these issues.

Thank you. Ted Wilkes 23:51, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Please seek redress. Your bhevaiour was poor, and remains so. My actions were ligitimate, public, above-board, and lenient, and have been challenged by no-one but you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 06:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Early Orbison album cover

Hi, I've nominated Image:Earlyorbison.jpg, uploaded by you, for deletion as it's replaced by a better version (Image:EarlyOrbisonAlbum.jpg). Hope this is OK! –Mysid (talk) 07:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Jetta Goudal, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Harrison Ford (silent film actor), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Tireless

I, V. Molotov, hereby give you this Working Man's Barnstar for the several thousands of contributions you have made to Wikipedia.

Take care, Molotov (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Kalem Company, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

User:TEDWILKES.

You have a fan! Unfortunately, I had to block him indefinitely for violation of the Wikipedia:User name policy for impersonation. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article The Hazards of Helen, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

T. Snyder

Heh. Actually I made that page as part of the "Articles requested for more than 2 years" project. Now that you have replaced it with something useful I'm just glad to see it go. Punkmorten 14:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Mona Darkfeather, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

What an arrogant bastard you may be! Stay in the US and never cross my lines. Your contributions to Wiki are neglectable and your style? GOSH! - User: 80.136.181.125 09:41, September 25, 2005

Natalie Wood External Links

Hi Ted --

Please see the comments I left on the Natalie Wood discussion page about the external links you deleted. I re-added them because I think they are necessary to provide a balanced view to visitors of the page. I would be interested to hear if you find my reasons satisfactory or not.

ChuckS

Removal of talk page comments

Please stop selectivly archiving talk page comments. Removal of talk page comments is considered vandalism, and selectivly archving comments under the guise of removing "duplicate insertions", especially when there is no duplication, could be considered vandalism also. Please stop doing this; in most situations you really shouldn't touch somebody else's comments. Thank you. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 12:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Onefortyone arbitration

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone has been opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence. Fred Bauder 19:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Maurice Barrymore

Thanks for your message. I was unsure of what tag to place on the image as the National Library of Australia claims you need permission to use the image see this page: [9] I am not sure what would happen if you don't ask permission (I was going to). I think many archives and galleries throughout the world have these sort of rules on publishing out of copyright images so I suppose the law has been tested. This is definitely something that needs to be discussed on Wikipedia as a matter of urgency. Arnie587 23:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Anita King, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Maurice Barrymore again

Hello actually it says on the Australia Library website this: If the image is still in copyright, you must also request clearance from the copyright holder before you can reproduce the image.

and

Images in this database may be saved or printed for research and study. If you wish to use them for any other purpose, you must complete the Request for Permission form. If you wish to reproduce a picture in a book, assignment, website, merchandise (e.g. calendar), film or in any other format you will need written permission from the Library to do so.

so according to these statements one needs to ask permission to reproduce their images on any website, I assume if permission is not granted they have the power to use legal sanctions if the image continues to be used. Arnie587 18:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)