Jump to content

User talk:Butseriouslyfolks/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Is this a decent approval?

I contacted Imre Solt, but I am not sure that his response will be decent. Go to http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=503681&page=9 and look at Posts 167 and 168. Does Mr. Solt need to specifically say "my images are under the GDFL copyright license and they can be modified, redistributed, and used for any purpose," or is everything okay?

I really appreciate all your help. Thank you very much.

Leitmanp 21:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

PowerShell Article Deleted

Could you explain why you deleted the article on PowerShell?

It was completely accurate and documents a somewhat well known software tool for the GNOME environment. Specifically, this page was created today to provide disambiguation between this software and the newly released Windows PowerShell. Currently, Powershell redirects to Windows powershell, the new commercial product, and there is no article describing the much older open-source project with the same name[1]. My goal by making the disambiguation link and page was to avoid confusion between the two applications.

Please explain why you had a problem with this, and felt the need to delete the article. Please also explain why you did this without contacting the author (me), discussing it on the talk page, or leaving any commentary about why this was done. Thanks, Troy Thoward37 06:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your reply to the above comment (see my talk page):
Did you bother to research the topic before decided it was "not of note"? Did you go to www.google.com and enter the phrase "Powershell X11" and see the large amount of hit results that came back? How about reading those results? This is a piece of software that has been widely in use for over 7 years in the Linux domain. There are plenty of references to it, and it is a well known productivity tool for users of GNOME based GUIs. It is available as a package for many of the popular linux distributions. To put it simply, just because *you* don't know about it, does not mean that is "not of note".
The above copyright flag was due to the fact that I initially just copied and pasted some information from the main webpage for the program, because I didn't have a lot of time to write an article. I saw that message, and I immediately wrote up a different article that stated the same basic information in my own words, which made the copyright bot happy.
Your deletion has had a cascading effect, because now, since you've deleted this article, it left a broken link in another article. That article has since been edited to remove that broken link, and the content that went with it. Meaning that, yet again, there is an ambiguity problem on the Wiki in relation to the term "Powershell". That was the purpose of my edits - to remove that ambiguity, and now that work has been completely undone, and the information here is less accurate.
Please do not delete other people's work without a) dicussing it first b) doing some basic research or c) having a significant knowledge of the domain that you are making decisions about.
Regarding the Wiki notability policy that you directed me to, I did read it prior to posting, and I'm well aware of the policies that direct the content editing of Wikipedia. Ironically, you seem to have missed the section in that article entitled, "Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines", and the detailed processes for how to handle such situations. There is only one option for deletion in that list, and it requires following the processed outlined in criteria for speedy deletion. You also did not follow that process. In fact, you simply, deleted a page without any process at all, and without having sufficient knowledge of the topic to make a responsible decision.
That said, I realize the article was short, and didn't contain a lot of information. I entered it as a "stub" so that I could come back to it and flesh it out more fully when time permitted. Perhaps if you had followed the correct process (outlined on the page that you directed me to re-read), you could have requested that the original author add more detail, references, add content to assert the notability, etc.. Which I would have gladly done. Now, I have to redo a lot of typing, which will consume my time, before I can even start at writing a more detailed article.
How has this helped anyone? It has just cost me time and effort, recreating the work I have already done, as well as forcing me to spend my time discussing it here. Administration should help the community, not impede it's progress.
Thanks,
Troy

Thoward37 04:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletetion of PPARG

Hello, PPARG was deleted, and I believe incorrectly. It was initially flagged as a possible copyright violation by a bot (can't see which one anymore). Soon after that, I put the indicated "hangon" template there and added a note to the talk page, as instructed. As far as notability, this page was created in the context of a bot trial run Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProteinBoxBot and with the support of the WP:MCB group Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology/Proposals#Proposal_from_Novartis.2FGNF. Please advise on the next step (i.e., re-creating the page and hopefully preventing it from getting flagged and deleted again.) AndrewGNF 16:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also involved in the project for this page, PPARG. The copyrighted page that the bot flag was based upon (http://smd-www.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/source/sourceResult?criteria=PPARG&choice=Gene&option=Symbol&organism=Hs) pulled their information from a public database. You can see the source of their information here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=gene&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=5468&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Gene.Gene_ResultsPanel.Gene_RVDocSum You cannot slap a copyright on information that is already public domain (The Stanford website has also clearly linked to this information, click the "LocusLink" and follow the info to its source). Therefore I ask that you either un-delete the page, or allow us to recreate it (which won't take us much time at all). Thanks. JonSDSUGrad 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've recreated the page and added references to establish notability. You might be interested in the Village pump discussion we had before we embarked on this project, the link is here. All the best, Tim Vickers 20:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, we do have a problem with adding references for these proteins, since there are hundreds of papers on the ones we chose for the first run of the bot. Far too many to add all of them to the articles! If we can filter these so that only the review articles are added, this might bring down the size of the reference list to a more practical size. Tim Vickers 22:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Policeman image

Can I ask what is the point of having an image Image:Climate Camp 03.jpg that doesnt point to an article. Based opn your response I'll ifd it but I thought I'd run it by you first, SqueakBox 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

G.W. Reynolds

Working on the above article, I notice that you removed a Commons image[Image:Namibie Quivertree Forest 02.JPG] from the article as "rm fair use images of photos taken by subject of article used to illustrate article on photographer contrary to WP:FU)". Could you explain why?Raasgat 07:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Critical Test Result Management

Re alleged copyright infringement in "Critical Test Result Management" -- if this is copyright infringement then so is the source cited by the editor because they took the information from the same place we did. It's not copyright infringement when the original source is clearly credited and referenced. Sorry you think there's spam in this article, but that's your lame opinion. If someone disagrees with any of the information in the article, they should say so and why.

Interestingly, this user, a PR rep, was subsequently indefinitely blocked for posting this promotional article on behalf of a paying client. -- But|seriously|folks  07:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kościuszko Mound

Please reconsider your deletion. I already put tons of work into this article and I'm in the process of editing it at this moment. The Kościuszko Mound Homepage was a best place to start. Nowhere else would I find such thorough description of the subject. I intend to add more data and supply additional sources later. I hope you don't expect me to replace every single word with a different word to make it sound original. The subject is of great national importance for the Cracovians and it deserves meticulous approach. Thanks in advance. --Poeticbent talk 03:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article that was posted was just a paraphrase of sections of the subject's official website and therefore a copyright violation. Its speedy deletion is without prejudice to recreation of the article in a way that does not violate WP:C.
This is a common problem when an article is written from a single source. I recommend that you study multiple sources that discuss the subject, then put them aside and write from scratch, adding details later in your own words after re-consulting your sources. That way, you'll have a much better article that isn't simply a summary of an already readily available website, and it most likely will not infringe anybody's copyright. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  03:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Paraphrasing of the source is not a copyright violation. Besides, I compacted over a dozen pages from the official website into five solid paragraphs... before I was hit with your decision in the middle of my last edit. The importance of my source is undeniable, since nowhere else would I find equally reliable information about the history of the mound. However, the fact, that the paragraphs I wrote conform to our encyclopedic format makes a whole lot of difference, and it does not warrant your action. And also, please don't lecture me about the perils of summaries around Wikipedia, because that's what encyclopedias do. --Poeticbent talk 04:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing a few words here and there and rearranging the sequence of sentences does not eliminate the underlying copyright violation. Copyright covers more than just the verbiage used. This article was identified as a possible copyright violation by User:HermesBot. Another admin who patrols WP:SCV determined that some phrases were copied while others were "slightly rewritten".
Also, I don't know why you had to use a dozen pages from the website; I found every fact you repeated on a single page. And I did check each one, because I would have merely removed the copyvio sections if the entire article was not a problem.
Finally, I take no issue with the importance or notability of the subject. My only concern with this article relates to WP:C. -- But|seriously|folks  04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand this. You said that all I did was to change "a few words here and there". I just copied the official webpage off my screen and pasted it into Microsoft Word for a page count. The webpage consists of 14 pages of text in letter size format, some of it relevant, but most of it not. The last version of my article however, which you did not see of course, because you deleted it in the process of being written and rewritten, consists of five paragraphs. I'm afraid you're trying to defend your position without engaging in a constructive dialog with me. I don't know your approach to writing and am unable to guess it, but I find your attitude to be unbecoming of an administrator. You give me no credit for all the work I do here, and you allow me no time for the gradual building of an article, not even an hour or two. How does assuming good faith sound to you, I ask? --Poeticbent talk 05:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct of course that I have no idea what future edits might have done to the article. However, WP:AGF does not require me to give people more time to eliminate a copyvio. When I deleted the article, it was about 9 hours old and had not been edited in almost 3 hours, much more than the "hour or two" you complain I didn't give you. It was the oldest outstanding item at WP:SCV. I had no idea whether you would be coming back or not. Also, it is beyond me how, after all the time I have spent considering your points and explaining my position, you could get the sense that I am not engaging in a constructive dialog with you, unless you are drawing that conclusion from the simple fact that I do not agree with your position. -- But|seriously|folks  06:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

When you deleted the article, I was on it already for an hour. Suddenly, the message popped out in my preview screen:
"Warning: an administrator deleted this page since you started editing it. You might want to check the deletion log to see why."
I started the article earlier and saved it in its raw form, so I could have a dinner. But what boggles my mind most is that you and I are talking about it for more than an hour now and you're not at all interested in what I did to it. Why don't you reinstate the article and let me save it, so you could have a fresh look? The unsaved article is sitting on my screen in a separate window. But instead, you keep on disagreeing with me on the talk pages, while hiding behind formalities. This is what I mean by an attitude problem. --Poeticbent talk 06:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, because I don't have to reinstate it in order for you to repost it. As I said in my very first paragraph above, you are free to recreate the article as long as it complies with WP:C. You don't need my permission to do so. I assumed you understood this, because you are an experienced editor and because I said as much above. If you did not understand it, I can see why you would think I was being unreasonable when I actually wasn't. In any event, I hope you weren't referring to WP:C as a formality (although I can't think of anything else you would think I was hiding behind). One more thing: I see you prefer to move all discussions to other people's talk pages, but could you leave this one here until we're done with it? It would be a little easier for me. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  07:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you answered on your own Talk page, but the choice is yours of course. I do prefer to see all the threads, instead of just the replies. Anyhow, I subscribe to 1RR policy especially with people I don't know that's why I did not want to go over your decision to delete. I assumed that if I'm unable to convince you on Talk, there would be no point in saving the article again in Main space. I will do it now though. And will work on it again tomorrow. --Poeticbent talk 07:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing for us to agree about on talk, since you were advocating a version of the article I hadn't seen. And I did invite you to recreate it up front. But I guess we can chalk this up to a misunderstanding. Good luck with the article! Interesting topic. -- But|seriously|folks  07:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, an sorry if I offended you in any way. --Poeticbent talk 07:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Critical Test Result Management

You deleted material that was not in violation of any copyright. The original source was clearly identified and referenced and an external link was provided as well. Your action is totally indefensible and unwarranted, and I intend to take this to mediation and arbitration, if necessary. I'm a professional writer and have had hundreds of articles published over a period of 40 years, and I have never encountered such mindless editing. I'm sorry that you have a serious mental disorder (Asperger's syndrome)but that does not give you license to ignore common rules of writing and editing.

Interestingly, this user, a PR rep, was later indefinitely blocked for posting this promotional article on behalf of a paying client. -- But|seriously|folks  07:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again bugging you

Hiya BSF. I've tagged Almaty Metro for sd as not english. It does have a stub article on russian wikipedia so my understanding is that therefore it should be speedied rather than tagged {{notenglish}} - but the article here is larger than on RU wikipedia. Am I Right or Wrong? Thanks, and sorry to bug you - that's the joy of adminship! Pedro |  Chat  08:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Worry not - article was userfied! Cheers. Pedro |  Chat  10:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Fildelfair issues

Hi. There's a discussion of some of this at WP:AN, also some discussion on the Fildelfair (talk · contribs) talk page. Are you an admin? Perhaps we can get someone to step in and quiet things, hopefully by warning or blocking the user, not edit protecting the page Wikidemo 02:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio block

First of all, I'm the editor who was reverted four times, resulting in Jmfangio's block for 3RR. Now, this doesn't mean anything now, but I think it's kinda interesting in pointing out that you declined Jmfangio's block request at 06:21 UTC. This is interesting because Jmfangio was actually unblocked at 02:00 UTC, more than four hours before you declined his request. I know that you were right in responding to the request, but I think it's interesting in noting that it wasn't necessary, as he was already blocked. I'm sorry; I just wanted to point this out to you :D Personally, I think it's funny. Ksy92003(talk) 06:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe technically, he was blocked at 02:00 UTC... just two days earlier :) My lesson: make sure all the words in my statement make sense with all the other words. Anyway, if Jmfangio noticed that, I'm sure that he would be glad that you didn't unblock him. If you did decide to accept his request, then he might be frustrated that you did it after his block expired. Ugh... but that's all in the past now. I'm sorry, but I really had to mention this to you :) Ksy92003(talk) 06:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
...that's just creepy. I believe he already knew he was unblocked well before your decline was sent through, so I can only wonder if he was expecting to get an answer for that, as well as if he was waiting to archive his whole page after he got a request from that. I imagine that he planned on archiving his whole page earlier, as he had blanked part of it a day earlier, preparing to archive it, so it's interesting. I can only imagine if he was waiting more for the response before his block expired or after it expired. Oh, the perils of life. Ksy92003(talk) 06:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

About Image:The Buttle of the China2.jpg

About your declining to speedy delete the picture - yes, The Battle of China is in the public domain, but that picture is not a capture of that film. The picture is a derivative work, and only the lower right hand corner of that image comes from the film. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You are to stop disturbing the work which tries to introduce truth. You are too revengeful (vindictive). It is too frequent to claims of the deletion about my articles. How many times did you require of deletion claims for my articles until now? You have misunderstanding about the derivative work. In this case, the derivative work was carried out by US government. The credit of this work is being assured by the US government. All of the copyright problems may have been settled by US government. Don't you trust US government? --Hare-Yukai 10:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The point is, somebody could have created that picture just last month and hold the copyright to it. We have no information on whether or not that picture is actually free. We know that screen captures from The Battle of China are free. But that picture is not just a screen capture from The Battle of China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This screen capture is the one scene of my video. I found the scene resembls the one scene of "the Battle of China" when I watched "the Shangahi Document" in the early of this year. So, I drew the comparison between these two scenes, as a result, these two scenes tuned to be the same one. I have already disclaimed this copyright in order to contribute to historical science. So, this screen capture is possible for anyone to use. --rabota 20:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But seriously you need a punch

Funniest thing I've read today! -- But|seriously|folks  21:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But seriously you need a punch

And I rewrote it into my own words after I recieved a copy note. Please show some respect. Did you not even check the film out? I believe that notability was asserted. I have put a great deal of work into wikipedia and I do not appreciate you doing that. Please restore it and I'l' have a go add "asserting notability" and sorting out any copy issues you might not approve of. You didn't even give me a chance ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 21:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be cool if you restored Nasaan Ng Kailangan Kita and gave me a chance to make it acceptable. I'm really trying hard to fill in gaps in knowledge here ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I spent time filling in the info box also and finding an image. I wish people wouldn't keep removing articles like this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 21:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when does a book have to be written about a film huh??? Have you not seen the thousands of similar (or worse even) film articles on wikipedia? At least restore it in my User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld/Sandbox so I can write it and try ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 21:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I figured thanks. You actually seem to be right about this one -I can't find to many sources covering the film and I can see what you mean about the plot. The only claim to notability really is that it stars Eddie Garcia who is a big film actor over there and is known internationally . But other than this I can't really find anything else on it. Also the imdb says 1997 not 2007!! Maybe I should just let this one go - but please please if you ever have an issue with a new film again please contact me and I'll try to address the problem. All the best (i'm glad you like my signature - things need livening up huh? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

♦ Hairless Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 21:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Debian wiki paste

http://wiki.debian.org/DebianWikiIsNotGFDL -- 20:46, 18 August 2007 Butseriouslyfolks

~*Chuckle*~

Schnitzengruben... ~*Snicker*~ Ariel♥Gold 05:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee, just thought I'd let you know that you made me smile Ariel♥Gold 05:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: User:TheFox4

In this case it was just too obvious. Also, the username policy does permit blocks of those whose usernames resemble vandals. Its just funny how I saw the name when I was just logging on the night before to briefly check my new messages, the incident boards, the block logs, and the new username logs. The name was immediately familiar and I blocked it without a second thought.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop Interfering

The dispute over the Jon Greenspon article was in the process of being resolved. There was an active discussion on the talk page and I had friendily agreed to reword the copyvio contents. You did not have to delete the entire article. You were not in on the discussion concerning it at the beginning. In my opinion, you have it out for me. You also went after my JAMRS article (...maybe because of your political leanings?) You cannot block me for trying to improve Wikipedia by writing factual articles (definitely not vandalism) and citing sources. Look at my contributions. I have made MANY good contributions and I am even a member of a few Wikiprojects. I am dedicated to helping the community for everyone. Randomfrenchie 22:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

COI User:Will Beback

I notice that you has a look at User talk:WillNotBeBack and declined the request for unblocking the user. If you look at this user's edits in you will notice that he/she has had dealings with User:Will Beback, the very user who blocked User talk:WillNotBeBack. This is clearly an abuse of Administrative priviledges, and should not be allowed. Wikipedia is based around a cautious and fragile balance between users and administrators, and allowing this kind of behaviour, which goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, should not be tolerated. Sadly it happens all to often. I would even be more comfortable if another admin besides Will Beback would carry out the block, this would insure that proper procedures are carried out, and insure that there is no COI in blocking the user. Sfacets 02:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, in reply to your question, I don't have any COI in this matter, as I mentionned above I even suggested that another Admin block him/her, just so long as it isn't Will Beback. Hmmm. Sfacets 11:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Be my guest - just keep my IP address to yourself. Sfacets 13:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and support, Butseriouslyfolks. However you may be barking up the wrong tree. Consider: [2][3][4][5][6] My guess is that user:Sahajhist was engaging in mischief and self-promotion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Iraqi insurgent group logos

"Nonfree image only used in gallery in violation of WP:NFC" is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion, and the images were not in violation because they meet the significance criterion, in that people are able to identify the groups from their logos, which they are unable to do without the images, and they can't from text. Please restore the images, and list them on IFD if you believe the significance criterion is not met.

Thank you. ←BenB4 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This images you have listed were only being used for an improper purpose, and disruptively too I might add. Nonfree images cannot be used in a gallery. Period. I will not be restoring these images. You may take it to deletion review if you disagree. -- But|seriously|folks  14:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"Period?" Do you believe that galleries of nonfree images which meet the significance criterion may be included? If not, why not? It seems to me that the policy is clear about that. And, why do you say that they were being used disruptively? ←BenB4 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that a nonfree image is relegated to a gallery means it is not significant. If it were significant, it would stand on its own in the section of the article that discusses it in enough detail to make it significant. These were being used disruptively because at least two editors had removed them per WP:NFC and there were being persistently reinserted in violation of WP:NFC. -- But|seriously|folks  15:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, the significance criterion doesn't say anything like that. It says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function."
  1. Would users be able to identify groups from their logos with the gallery? Yes.
  2. Would they be able to without the gallery, or if the logos were interspersed or in their own articles? No.
  3. Would they be able to with text alone? No.
As you can see, the actual text of the significance crierion is met. I am sorry that you were under the impression that it had to do with being in a gallery, but as you can see from WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use, the policy states that, "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements normally fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and is thus unacceptable." (emphasis added.) Won't you please reconsider your decision in light of these facts? ←BenB4 15:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't imagine anybody saying, "I didn't fully understand this article until they added the group logos, but now it makes more sense to me." Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, the images do not increase understanding of the article on the insurgency in any way. The Foundation's image licensing resolution requires us to keep nonfree images to a minimum, and this use of these images does not adhere to that requirement. -- But|seriously|folks  15:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are unable to imagine it, but I was looking at footage on ogrish.com last week which had an insurgency group logo and Arabic text which I can't read. With your deletions, how am I supposed to figure out which of the dozen or so groups created the video? It seems to me that you are rejecting this obvious example of fair use and damaging the quality of the encyclopedia because of m:Copyright paranoia, and I strongly disagree with your suggestion that the images don't increase understanding. I have asked for review of the images on WP:DRV. ←BenB4 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't relate to your understanding of the article. That relates to your understanding of a video on liveleak.com. -- But|seriously|folks  15:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to understand the article, I'm trying to understand the Iraqi insurgency, its subject, and being able to figure out which one of them published a video is certainly an increase in my understanding of them. ←BenB4 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Asayab al-Iraq al-Jihadiyah.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Asayab al-Iraq al-Jihadiyah.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I gotta fix that dang DRVNote template. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

If I agree to make stubs for each of the groups, will you undelete the images? ←BenB4 16:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How about if we put the question of whether the gallery satisfies the significance criterion up on an RFC, and agree to abide by the consensus of uninvolved parties? ←BenB4 16:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My only problem is that I have to be away for four hours. I will create stubs and set up an RFC as soon as I get back. If you don't trust me you can leave them undeleted and I'll just put them in as redlinks. ←BenB4 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome.

Backtable 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

battle of china

Hello, Rabota (or his socks) says he made the video, also he probably made the "fake (sic) of nanking" video too. The same conclusion can also be drawn from his first user page [7] edit, as tamagawaboat is the guy who made the nanking video from youtube. His blog is a jap right wing apologist site, with ludicrous claims like japan fought nazis in china [8]. We should bring this to light, as the pictures the socks have uploaded not only violates copyright, but also smell strongly of original research as evidenced from these shitty websites. Also, the request for checkuser came back as "possible". However, if you go to User:MUSASHIKOGANEI's youtube page, you'd see that he is "tamagawaboat", as his original tamagawaboat youtube account has been suspended. User:Rabota is very likely the same person as User:MUSASHIKOGANEI and Tamagawaboat, based on his user page edit and a serious of reverts [9], [10], [11] evading my questioning whether he's tamagawaboat or not. Tamagawaboat is pretty famous for his original fake of nanking video and he seems to have visited many websites and blogs posting his rhetoric, especially in response to Ted Leonis's new Nanking documentary that's airing at the end of this year. Blueshirts 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No.

But seriously, folks. No, no. I mean, seriously folks. I mean, really, people. AR Argon 05:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No really. I kid you not. Hmm........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I do love my cheese. Cheezy.

Oh, by the way, how do you get a signature to sign your edits with? I mean, those stylish signatures with colours and multiple links and stuff. AR Argon 05:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, man! Check this out--AR Argon 05:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC). Cool, huh? Do I still need a signature here if there's one already in the message?

Reversion of your edit to WP:Non-Free content

Hello;

I reverted your recent edit to the Wikipedia:Non-free content. I did so because the NFCC is seriously flawed, and some editors have taken an extremist interpretation of WP:NFCC to justify wholesale deletion of images from Wikipedia which is resulting in destructive edits to many pages, and a flawed editing process where editorial discussions and decisions that should be made on article talk page are instead being made on IfD. While your edit may be sound from a consistency standpoint and at any other time might be entirely appropriate, I must oppose it now as long as it may be construed as an enhancement of WP:NFCC and argued as such and used as a basis for further editing on this policy. I do so as long these issues remain unresolved. Please discuss on Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. -Nodekeeper 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

William Poole (Federal Reserve Bank president)

Hi, I changed your edit to the William Poole article. I wanted to let you know why I made the change. You had changed the References section to an Attribution section and spelled out the entire URL with an accompanying explanation. For both aesthetic and consistency purposes, I have changed the section title and syntax to that being used for most U.S. Congressmen. Like the William Poole article, the articles for most U.S. Congressmen were copied directly from a U.S. Government web site. I think all congressmen articles were done as part of a project, so I assume they probably had a standard regarding how to reference the original source. It seems to me to be appropriate to adopt the same standard for U.S. Federal Reserve Bank presidents. --JHP 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

USHMM Article Deleted

Please see the note attached to my user-page with regards to copyright violation. History of Blacks and the HOlocaust does not violate copyright as it is a USHMM article whose use on the public domain has been cleared with both Wikipedia and the Holocaust Museum. Please get back to me as soon as possible, and place the article back on the public domain as soon as you can. 15:02 , 2 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butseriouslyfolks (talk • contribs) 17:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome tempates

Where d'you find welcome templates? AR Argon 02:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, man! I just welcomed somebody for the first time ever, and I really liked it! AR Argon 02:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wat about warnning templates? AR Argon 03:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You'd be surprised how... introverted I am. I just don't have a lot of interest in socializing with people, or playing sports, etc. But here, it's different. WP:NOT says pretty clearly that it's not a social networking site. And yet, I fit in better here than anywhere else.
And for some reason, I actually like editing Wikipedia, despite trying to find excuses for myself to get out of any form of work in school. And I actually enjoy working here. Cool. I think I want to become an admin someday. I'm not expecting it to be very much more than a few extra priveledges, but if I'm working on anti-vandalism, deletion, or other stuff, I might well consider it. AR Argon 11:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey there!

Could you check out User talk:Howcheng#Image:Dr RA Dyer image02.jpg? Howcheng has been less active recently (vacation?), and I tried to answer the editor's question, but I don't have access to the deleted revision. --Iamunknown 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dr RA Dyer image02.jpg

Hi I see the image was captioned "Courtesy of South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria", which I believe is a botanical research institute. Was there reason to believe that the image was being used without that Institute's permission? Cheers Roxithro 22:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right, you were ignorant enough to delete a topic you know nothing about. You know nothing about the topic because it's not in the encyclopedia you very smart person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra420 (talk • contribs) 22:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Hi, what form should such permission have taken? Cheers, Roxithro 08:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Shortailed albatross image

Hi there, I'm uploaded a new image of a short tailed albatross yesterday and you removed it(according to the logs) why? This was my image(i.e. I ownwed it). I uploaded my image as my image was of better quality when compared to the older one. James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlfutari (talk • contribs) 23:58, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Berlin Debating Union

A stub article I created on the Berlin Debating Union seems to have been speedily deleted by you after automated messages from CorenSearchBot appeared on the page and on my talk page.

The article contained two very generic opening sentences that were largely (but not word-for-word) similar to two sentences from http://www.debating.de/node/9. These were could hardly be considered a copyright infringement as they were just an extremely straightforwardly-worded explaination of what the Union is, and the rest of the page was not copied at all. I think notability was also explained in the article, which noted that the Union had hosted the European Universities Debating Championship‎ and the German national championship, not to mention being a combined society of Berlin's major uniserities. I'm very surprised that the page has been deleted. Purple Watermelon 01:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

please stop

Please stop deleting pages out of process. `'Míkka 04:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

IEEE Communications Society speedie

Please restore IEEE Communications Society[12] and ComSoc. There is no CSD for "notability not asserted"; there was 20+ incoming links and this article can be merged if there are notability issues. John Vandenberg 04:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Woops, this has been fix while my internet connection was playing up. the redirect ComSoc is still deleted and I would appreciate it if someone would fix that as well. John Vandenberg 04:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bsf -- It was clear from a glance at your logs what you were doing -- clearing out the CSD queue. Unfortunately, you were bold at the wrong time, & Mikka being grumpy didn't help matters. Sometimes a kind word can help bridge things over & sometimes thay can't -- but you don't know until you try. That's all I was trying to say. You meant well, so don't let one mistake get you down; learn from it & move on. Best, llywrch 06:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the article sucks -- but the problem is that the subgroups of the IEEE are notable. Well, almost all of them. Unfortunately, there are a lot of articles like that in Wikipedia, which need someone who knows the subject to properly evaluate. The best solution would be to improve the article -- but I have no good idea of how to do that. (It would help if I knew how to write a decent article on a professional groups -- it's not a question if it could be done, but of my own limitation.) -- llywrch 06:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Edison Medal

Whats the rationale for deleting an article with over 50 incoming links? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Please re-read carefully the criteria and the process for speedy deletion. Whatever prompted you to delete this article? Was it ever even tagged for possible deletion? Did you note the references in the form of external links? The explicit statement that it was the oldest article in its field? I see that some of the other IEEE articles now have puffery-sounding statements that they are "respected" or "notable" which should head off similar speedy deletions. But some of those have been tagged as needing sources. The Nobel Prize article has a similar puffery-sounding statement that it is a distinguished award ( I will not tag that with {{fact}} because common sense and a familiarity with the area of knowledge the article represents tells me it is true, but refs exist to substantiate it). I think it demeans Wikipedia to have to put a hoky sounding "This X is very notable because---" statement near the beginning of each article just to head off admins from speedily deleting it for lack of a claim of notability. The claim can be implicit in the article, and references can overcome the lack of such a formulaic claim being put in each and every article to head off someone on a deleting spree. For Edison Medal or something similar, before a speedy deletion or even an AFD you might check Google Books, where you could find [13] a book on electrical engineering, "Electric Energy: An Introduction" By Dr Mohamed A El-Sharkawi, 2005, which states explicitly that the Edison medal is "the most coveted prize in electrical engineering in the United States." In Google Scholar for the Edison Medal you will find 345 citations [14] . Did you check for the references to it in the scientific and popular press over a span of a hundred years, like New York Times articles over the decades on how it was a prestigious award given to noted scientists like Tesla for a lifetime of achievement? In the end an article like this should have gone to AFD where it probably would have gotten a snowball keep. It would also have brought in other editors who can assist in checking to see if some award or journal is a notable one. Please take time to distinguish which articles are and which are not deserving of speedy deletion. When someone finds a series of articles in an area they are not particularly conversant with and which look like candidates for deletion, a good strategy might be to nominate on for deletion via AFD so there will be other editors chiming in with refs to show they are notable. Thanks. Edison 12:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Glad

I felt that way, too, which is why I barged in. ^^; Good luck with the wackiness. --Masamage ♫ 06:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I've been often criticized of overusing speedy deletion so this is not coming from an inclusionist quack. But I do think you need to realize you made a mistake. It's fine to hold the belief that this or that article needs to be deleted but unless you can honestly say that you never imagined that anyone would be willing to rescue these articles from deletion, speedy was not the way to go. That rule of thumb is a safe way to avoid potential mistakes and, just as importantly, unnecessary drama. This is sort of like conflict of interest situations: perception of admin abuse is almost as damaging as abuse itself. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 06:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I hate to play wise old man but I really think you're missing the point. Blindly applying the letter of CSD is a bad idea. CSD was born out of a compromise and it is purposely narrow in scope. For one thing, WP:CSD#A7 is limited to "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content" and in particular does not apply to awards or journals. This is not an accident: many, including myself, argued for a slightly wider scope but there was not sufficient consensus for it because many were worried that this may lead to too many mistakes. Do you remember things like the "cookie-gate" which followed the last expansion of the CSD criteria? An admin started speedy deleting articles about cookies because he felt they now fell under the scope of G11 and chaos ensued. We can sit here and argue for a few hours on whether or not these were in fact deletable by the new letter of the policy but that's entirely beyond the point. These articles had been there for ages, had been edited by multiple people, none of which had ever thought of sending them to AfD and they had numerous incoming links. No, that doesn't mean that the articles should exist but it does indicate a passive consensus that they belong and strongly suggests that the community would appreciate being consulted before deletion. Just be a bit more conservative about speedy deletion: this is what the community entrusted you to do. Pascal.Tesson 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, we all make mistakes and Mikka certainly did not handle this with the necessary tact but ultimately he's correct in pointing out that these were mistakes. Again, I'm not saying all things related to the IEEE should be kept or that these articles should not do a better job of signifying their importance but it comes down to the good ol' principle of "when in doubt, don't delete" and the unwritten but fairly widely accepted corollary "when in doubt, send to AfD". Despite routine claims to the contrary, AfD actually works pretty well and if you're using twinkle, submitting something to AfD is not much more effort than speedy-deleting. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
An even better solution is to switch to Firefox! Pascal.Tesson 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Mission Statement NOC

Would you please explain to me why you keep removing the Mission Statement, Vision Statement, so on. It does have a copyright, but I cannot change what they consider thier mission statement. If I were to change it, it would not be there mission statement anymore. It would be something that I say is there mission statement. That would be incorrect and misleading if someone in turn visited the website and saw that the statement is different than what I listed. I had reference to the page, I cited, what else needs to be done to list such a thing? Other articles have mission statements listed, and they do not have a reference. So how would i put it on their if the way I am currently doing it is "wrong" in your opinion. You seem to be the only one so far that thinks it is done incorrectly. I just dont see why other articles list almost the exact same thing, but they aren't getting in copyright troubles. Please Explain.
DarknessFalls13 3:43 16 August 2007

Tell me if I am Okay

Could I have you take a look at this other article, Digital Media Institute, I am working on and tell me if you see any copyright problems. I am not sure, but on the things like Adobe and Autodesk, do I need to put the federal registration symbol after certain products. I know Autdesk and Maya both have the federal registration symbol following after them on the Autodesk website. I am also sure that Adobe has one following the words After Effects. How would I go about listing these to keep the article in good standing.
Thanks,
DarknessFalls13 1:54, 17 August 2007

If you have time...

could look at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Log pages? There is a huge backlog.  :-( --Iamunknown 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Images for deletion

When you nominated Image:Trimedfilm_battleofchina.jpg and Image:The_Buttle_of_the_China2.jpg for deletion were thet being used in any articles? If so, which ones? Right now they are only on talk pages and I would like to see how the images were used in an encyclopedic context. Thanks Nv8200p talk 15:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That helped with my decision to delete the images. -Regards Nv8200p talk 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Omnicell deletion

Hi there, I work for Omnicell, and just found out that our page was deleted by you due to blatant advertising. I've been assigned the task of restarting this page - purely fact this time around. Is this possible, or is there a permanent block on the name? (I'm brand new to Wiki editing.) Please let me know via my talk page, I guess. Thanks!

Thanks for the update - I'll pass it on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathryns614 (talk • contribs) 23:56, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I have another question for you. Is it possible to find out who wrote the original two articles? If its another employee, I want to make sure that he/she doesn't edit my entry. Thank you for your help. Kathryns614 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ty

Thank you for wishing me good luck. It's ok if you dont want to sign --Alien joe 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Guess what?

I'm soon gonna start participating in collaborations with other editors in order to make certain articles FA-class! I've already decided to work on the following:

Notability re Agents

Just wanted to let you know that I've raised the question of Notability re Agents at the Village Pump as I thought you might want to have a say with respect to the question. AtomikWeasel 21:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kurt Hellmer. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dsmdgold 02:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that we disagree on the interpretation of A7. I'm glad that it seems we agree that VP is not the best place for deciding this. Dsmdgold 02:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been around long enough that I remember the quite contentious debate over making A7 part of the speedy criteria. (It was new enough that it generated a question on my RfA) There was a great deal of concern that what has happened would happen. That is, many users and admins try to stretch the meaning much farther than it was ever meant to stretch. I have tended to be fairly reactionary on A7 because I think it is widely abused. This is at the edges. But I am very much of the "when in doubt, don't delete camp". I too am very interested to see where the consensus will fall. Dsmdgold 03:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Please reread WP:CSD--I understand it very clearly to say that any claim of importance is sufficient to escape speedy, whether or not it is sufficient to pass afD. There have been repeated suggestions to eliminate A7 altogether. DGG (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that I've re-created a more substantial, though still short, entry for Kurt Hellmer. As I understood you and others, that's acceptable per WP processes as the article was speedied, not debated in AfD, so I'd appreciate your giving it a look. AtomikWeasel 23:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just read your comments re the re-created entry, and wanted to say thanks both for your compliments on the improvement and for all your efforts, which are appreciated. AtomikWeasel 04:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Response

Hey, thanks for the compliment. Yeah, I seem to be heading head-first into Wikipedia. I never thought I would be participating in those kinds of discussions that fast. AR Argon 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Junaid Sheikh

Hello I want to tell you that the article was about a notable personality and I don't think it should have been deleted.You may not be knowing the person but that doesn't mean you should delete some one's article.I kindly request you not to do it again in future. RegardsPrettyIndGal 05:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I never even touched this article! -- But|seriously|folks  14:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:BLP

While I fully endorse this removal of inappropriate comments, I have to wonder: how can you call it a "delet[ion] per WP:BLP"? BLP stands for Biographies of Living Persons, and I fail to see how a request for adminship is a biography. What does it have to do with BLP? Melsaran (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Grand Master Nam Anh article

To whom it may concern,

Since 23:51, 10 January 2006, 2 attempts have been made to create the 'Grand Master Nam Anh' article, all of which were removed due to copyright violations.

After taking time to release said article to the GFDL liscence by writing to 'info-en-c@wikipedia.org' and 'permissions@wikimedia.org' under Ticket #2007072910017779, I submitted it again, but it seems to have been deleted again.

There are other articles that I will be submitting to wikipedia in english as well as french and vietnamese. I also hold copyrights on these articles - what would be the proper procedure to prevent further copyrights-related deletions?

May I resubmit the Grand Master Nam Anh article or will it be again deleted?

Here is my release statement:

To whom it may concern,

Following your advice, in regards to deleted article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Master_Nam_Anh

deletion log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Grand_Master_Nam_Anh

I would like to state the following:

" I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the Text (not the image(s)) contained in WORK http://www.shaolinwingchun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=46

I agree to publish that work under the free GFDL license.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Swc info 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Shaolin Wing Chun Federation Administrator & COPYRIGHT HOLDER www.shaolinwingchun.com


Thank you, Swc info 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Alien joe

Thanks for dropping the cow on that one. / edg ☺ ★ 05:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Do I see articles like that one? NO! because like I said,people think they stink and delete them. Simple. Sorry if that sounded dumb or evil. --Alien joe 21:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I know! What you said is the same stuff other people are telling me. But, i usually dismiss it as nonsence. Please don't correct me anymore and leave me alone, unless it is really important. --Alien joe 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed a warning? Or are you just bugging me? :0 --Alien joe 21:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Alien joe 21:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfield_Elementary_School


Release has been added to: to http://leusd.info/bes/BESHistory/History.htm and connecting page: to http://leusd.info/bes/Copyright/GNUFreeDocumentationLicense.htm

also was emailed on/around Aug. 31

Anything else I ned to do? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidPickett (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC) DavidPickett 21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there really an orange banner that says, "I've got mail? I love mail!" I saw it on a talk page --Alien joe 21:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be funny if there was one that said, "Mail, not another one!" Cheers. --Alien joe 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for giving me the idea to help save trivia. My page has been deleted, and my Wikipedia career is in the can. Cheers and good luck. --Alien joe 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Vernon Sankey

Previously accused of using copyright material I rewrote the article, now you have decided to delete it. I was unaware that a list of jobs was in any way copyrightable! I'd be grateful if you could put the article back up. Paste 15:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Vermont Senate image

Hi Butseriouslyfolks. Is there a succinct explanation of how to license flcikr images where you have a permission? CApitol3 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR protection

I did follow your link (apology accepted!) and it took me to an essay that does not have the force of policy. What I did was in line with official policy and essential to making it clear that the protection was not done in a partisan way. PS I do not question your intentions but I acted in a considered and deliberate way. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I get it, and thanks. I am tired - really tired, and thus very slow when it comes to humor these days, especially at Wikipedia. I thnk you for your efforts and am sorry I was so thick. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

9 Parts of Desire

Are you sure that was a blatant coypvio? I was just looking at the history, and it looks like it went at least a partial rewrite, but I didn't get through all the diffs before you deleted it. The Evil Spartan 18:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Edmund Eysler

Hi there, I noticed you put a {{NotEnglish}} tag on the newly-created Edmund Eysler. As part of the Opera Wikiproject, I am translating this from the German Wikipedia. It should all be in English in about 20 minutes. Thanks for your concern! In good faith, Cricketgirl 23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got the wrong person, someone else put notenglish on it, but I am just reassuring you that it will be English soon. Cricketgirl 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User Name Concern

I have replied to your query on my talk page. Look forward to your reply.--PersonalityPhotos 15:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok

I will watch the 3rr. Did I break it by the way? --Alien joe 20:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: eMarket Trading Platform

Hey please don't delete this page. I have started "eMarket Trading Platform" in sourceforge.net in 2004. And I have listed the project in ohloh.net. If you have any questions please visit, http://sourceforge.net/projects/emarket or email me snambi at gmail dot com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.124.51 (talk) 01:20, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Ok, ty for the advice. Please sign the petition to save trivia once i create it. Yay Trivia! --Alien joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien joe (talk • contribs) 20:59, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to have deleted the page i created yesterday. Certainly there are no copyright violations, as i am the co-author of this text. I hope my page is not gone for good, would you please restore it for me or tell me how i can restore it? Philipp Steinkrueger 13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Restored, further steps

thanks for restoring the page. As i understand the page now being displayed when i try to access the page, it would be enough to "send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication". Would it be enough if the main author, David Wirmer, mentioned on this page (http://www.egsamp.uni-koeln.de/theegsamp/) as responsible person, would send this email? Or do i have to ask the local network administrators to install an account @egsamp.uni-koeln.de ? 81.173.234.114 20:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Placed GFDL notice on webpage

i now followed the advice on the copyright page and have put the copyleft icon and the letters "GFDL" on the bottom of the orignial page. GFDL is linked to the wikipedia license page. I hope this to be enough. I will restore the page by tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipp Steinkrueger (talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

POV?

You placed a {{pov}} tag on Sada Jan. I replied. Were you aware of my reply?

I am not going to assume that your lack of a reply on Talk:Sada Jan means I convinced you, and that I can remove that tag.

But, now that I have brought it to your attention I hope you will either agree that your concerns have been answered, and the tag can be removed -- or you will return there and offer a reply.

I know we have interacted before. Forgive me. I can't remember where or when.

Cheers! Geo Swan 14:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My memory of our previous interactions are coming back to me.
I left a note on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about a technical problem with your recent placement of the {{npov}} tag.
Note: I tried to be tactful, and not make you sound like a villain.
You placed this tag, without explaining what aspect of the file you think does not comply with policy. IMO this is (1) not responsible; (2) not civil.
I strongly encourage you to make more of an effort to be collegial, and explain yourself. Geo Swan 14:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your POV

You assert that you can recognize POV when you see it. You assert that when you think you perceive a POV in someone else's contribution, that proves that contribution is written from a biased POV.

I replied that while your perception of a biased POV could mean there actually is a biased POV in the material that raises your concern, it is equally worth considering that the material that triggered your concern complied with WP:NPOV, and your perception that it didn't was due to a bias in your perceptions.

We all have biases. We all have POVs. That shouldn't keep us from contributing to the wikipedia. When we contribute to the wikipedia we have to try to be aware of our POV and make a conscious effort to keep it out of our contributions.

You wrote, that you thought you didn't have to explain yourself because the reason(s) for your concerns were "obvious". That is nonsense.

What this comment signals to me is that you are not recognizing that you too have a POV -- just like the rest of us. If you aren't capable of recognizing that you too have a POV, you aren't going to be able to recognize when your edits are introduing your POV. And you won't be able to recognize when someone else bring instances of your lapses from WP:NPOV to your attention.

Because I recognize that, like everyone, I have a bias, and that I might lapse in my efforts to keep it out of article space, I take expressions of concern over a perceived POV seriously. So, I ask those who express that concern to explain their concern to me.

If you look back at all our exchanges you will see me repeatedly politely asking you to be specific. And, you will see that you blow off my requests for explanation, both of your concerns, and of your editing choices.

The efforts I make to take your concerns seriously should be proportional to the efforts you make to offer serious explanations. Geo Swan 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Slanning

Hi there, My contribution on Sir Nicholas Slanning has fallen foul of a copyright problem. This article is almost entirely derived from material supplied by Alan Wicks, taken from 'The Crucible and the Gun', a work in progress. Alan has given full permission for the material to be used in Wikipedia. Similar material exists on the web site of Sir Nicholas Slannings regiment http://www.slannings.org/CrucibleGun01.html and parts of it also appear on Sealed Knot sites. This is because the original writer, Alan Wicks has given permissions for his work to be used there as well as in my article. Alan is a personal friend, an ex C.O. of Slannings Regiment and a long standing member of the Sealed Knot, hence the material being duplicated / triplicated.Pan narrans 17:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Image:1188676595852.jpg

I'm not sure if Jun Matsubara (the author of the pictures) is eligible to keep that copyright. WhisperToMe 04:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

Thanks for your work fixing the URLs. It's always great to meet such kind people. --Victor12 01:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:SineBot

SineBot doesn't seem to like your sig for some reason - it's signing posts that you've already signed. I left a note on the bot talk page. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 02:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sign your posts, loser! Videmus Omnia Talk 02:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
That bot is goin down! -- But|seriously|folks  02:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why I find this so amusing, but I've been laughing my ass off. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Revised Standard Version

What exactly is wrong with the image of the RSV Title Page, that it has been deleted twice now? Isn't my fair use rationale good enough? Why can't the page have that image?

--JoBrLa 16:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't tell me anything. What is "watermarked"? And how does it violate copyright any more than an image of Darth Vader, for example, violates the copyright to Star Wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoBrLa (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the problem with the watermark. I won't be doing that again. But how does the image not contribute to the understanding of the article? If it doesn't, then there is no reason for the King James or American Standard versions to have their title pages posted on their respective articles.

--JoBrLa 16:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, thanks for your help and explanations. I don't agree with it, but I'll play by the rules. --JoBrLa 16:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


Re: Ultrastar Deluxe

the image used is entirely my own work as it is a screenshot of a program that was written by my team. we also posted this up on sourceforge as screenshots for the program. may you explain why the article was deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by GgKfc (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


This article was hardly promotional, our users primarily find ultrastar deluxe by word of mouth and online magazines and forums. basically i just illustrates what the features of ultrastar deluxe were and why we branched off from the original ultrastar. could you please let me put the stuff back into the original ultrastar article at least in the ultrastar deluxe paragraph like how there is a ultraNG paragraph. i do not havve a backup of what i wrote i would be very pleased if you could give me a copy. b4 you deleted it GgKfc 02:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)ggKfc

Pop goes the weasel words...again

As you were the admin who denied my request for an unblock arising from an edit war in Ronald Reagan, I would like to ask for your assistance. The same editor tha tI was accused of edit-warring with (Paul h.) has begin edit-warring in the article since the blocj was lifted.
Since one of the points of contention was one of semantics, I have offered discussion addressing the two points of contention, essentially a problem of peacocking semantics. The editor essentially refuses to consider any of the arguments, and inserts his edits as the consensus from Discussion. While I am not planning on revisting the edit-warring, I am afraid that the other editor is not of the same intention.
I am also struck by the similarities between the edits and editing behavior of this editor and another, User:OperationSpooner. In addition to the similarities in editing choices, one seems completely silent (via edit history) while the other ID is editing, and vice versa. I not sure that this is worth an IP check, but if they are issuing from the same IP, it would be somewhat odd that they would be arguing in concert in the same article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No sooner do you delete...

Than they re-create! Hee hee, 14:39, September 16, 2007 Butseriouslyfolks (Talk | contribs) deleted "Gajraj Rao" ‎ (copyvio of http://passionforcinema.com/unlocking-the-mystery-called-gajraj-rao) Well, it has been recreated, and it does not appear to have been significantly changed. Additionally, notability would be in question. I did a quick search prior to deletion of the original page, and found zero WP:RS. Ariel♥Gold 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee, salt adds flavor! Ariel♥Gold 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Gardiner Means

Hello, would you please undo your action to delete the pages I put in - yes, I wrote some stuff and copied a bit more from some website - then a notice was put up and I deleted the rest. There was no copyright violation by then, and it should not have been deleted. Please put it back. Wikidea 22:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please save me the trouble of rewriting what was there anywhere. If you'd checked the history before you'd deleted you'd see I had put it in my own words. Please don't be stubborn. You were wrong to delete it. Put it back. Wikidea 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
GROAN. Wikidea 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello! I saw you a lot in image copyright pages, so I'm guessing you may answer my question: can I remove a copyright tag that I myself included in an image created by me? And if yes, what happens? Thanks, muriel@pt 23:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Very simply: I have a few figures of mine around here, namely some family trees. And it happens that I'm not so happy with the idea of having this figures around here anymore. I would like to remove them. If I was still a sysop here, I would delete them myself (and suffer the consequences, I know). So, if I, as creator and uploader, remove the tag, will they be deleted? muriel@pt 07:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbara McMartin

You deleted the biographical entry for Barbara McMartin erroneously believing there was a copyright violation because similar text was previously published in ADKSportFitness. That periodical recieved the text that was used in this biography from me. They did not write it. Goodness gracious, I'm surprised that you deleted without checking with ADKSportFitness or with myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adirondacker (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbara McMartin

So how long is this the biography going to stay in limbo? I have submitted a statement releasing this to Wikipedia. Ten minutes of work will show you that the same text that appeared in ADKSportFitness also appeared in the other newspapers I listed. Adirondacker 22:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Question (part 2)

Hello again. This is an example of my family trees: here. My upload log probably doesnt list them because i uploaded them a long time ago. They are probably not speedy deletion because they are I guess useful. My problem is that they are full of tiny mistakes, things I didnt cross-check. I would like to have them deleted. That is why I asked you if I can remove the permission I gave earlier. What do you think? muriel@pt 01:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbara McMartin

I will gladly follow Wikipedia's procedures to get this biography back up, but, frankly, I'm not sure what is the next step. After following various links I am no more enlightened than before. Please clarify. Adirondacker 12:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Please also consider contacting http://www.adksportsfitness.com as the Publisher/Manager of that enterprise is anticipating your query. Adirondacker 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC) The Publisher/Manager exact contact info is here: http://www.adksportsfitness.com/contact_us/index.html Adirondacker 14:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Email re: Barbara McMartin

I have emailed as you specified. Will I receive notification that I may restore the submission or, if not, may I simply restore the entry now, or if not, what is the next communication I should expect receive? 74.33.195.245 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My page

Hey thanks for doing that. --Alien joe 20:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

my war aginst demons

Reminds me of this one guy once employed in my group at work, who used to include details about his spiritual life, including any recent exorcisms, in his Weekly Activity Reports. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


cleft association article deleted - why?

You have deleted the article on the "Cleft Lip and Palate Association of Ireland", and I don't understand why you have done this? The article is short and summarises the Association and what they do. It does not violate any copyright information and is not a cut and paste job either. I should know, I am largely responsible for their website and wrote much of their website content. I am a past president of the Irish support group. I am still a committee member. I can't understand why this short article was recently deleted while a similar article on the equivalent UK group (Cleft Lip and Palate Association) is left in situ, as is an article on a cleft charity "Operation Smile". I was most careful not to reproduce material verbatim from the Association's website (even though I wrote the original material), I did not copy and paste, I rewrote material espacially for the wikipedia article . Maybe you can enlighten me, and if something was amiss (though I can't imagine what) advise me on how to correct it. I look forward to hearing from you, Eddie Byrne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edbyrne (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for prompt reply

And thanks for reinstating article. I will of course heed your advice and address as soon as possible. Eddie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edbyrne (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Where's an egg article...re your message

Yeah, you're right of course, civility (or better: plain old courtesy) seems to be going down the drain, but perhaps mikkalai has the TRUTH (TM) on his side. Obviously the subject of the article is notable after all, so I don't mind one way or the other; it's a wiki after. Anyway, thanks for the head-up (at least I saw it this way). Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar 15:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Walk t'plank!

Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day!

Ahoy, me hearty! How 'bout a good ol' jug o' grog? RegARRds, Húsönd 16:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Like Young

I posted on the talk page of The Like Young image re: copyright issues. Let me know what you think. Thanks for your message. -Mswer 17:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Medford airport pic

Wow, that was a pretty quick deletion. Overall, I have to question when I see professional-looking images (especially drawings and things that aren't pictures) here on Wikipedia. Jason McHuff 17:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbara McMartin

On September 18, you directed me to send an email to the address you specified. I did so immediately after you gave your instructions. That was two days ago. I have received no response, nor has any template been placed on the page. At what date should I assume something has gone awry and no response will be forthcoming? Can you intervene in any way to ensure this process is actually moving forward? Can you contact http://www.ADKSportsFitness.com as I previously requested of you (the Publisher/Manager is expecting such a query from Wikipedia)? Adirondacker 18:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bye

Im retireing, now. Goodbye and best wishes. --Alien joe 22:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaranda

But, seriously folks...k, bad pun. Anyway, I just wanted to say that it does seem to qualify under G6 housekeeping at least; in cases where I've had to request {{|tl|db-move}}s to move xxxx (disambiguation) to xxxx, they've always deleted the talk page of the new xxxx page since there was never any actual discussion on that page. hbdragon88 08:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tomo Yasuda.jpg

<grits teeth> I was still working on that, quickdraw. -- AvatarMN 22:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see why so few articles have images, figuring this crap out is maddening. And then there are apparently people who get their jollies lying in wait to pick off images while the uploader is in the process of learning and thinks he just might have figured something out, after hours and multiple attempts, stamping down his interest in trying anymore... when if he'd just been able to leave the computer thinking he'd done something but returned the next day to find out he'd made a mistake, he might not have been so demoralized. I'm out. -- AvatarMN 23:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You're "sorry" I'm having a bad experience, but you'll take my heartfelt frustration and go hunt down other images I've uploaded, just because I caught your attention by back-talking you. Including one no one else has had a problem with for a week, which prompted me to finally proceed with more today. How could a copyright holder ever possibly object to a promo image being used to identify? What the hell does "unreplaceable" mean? Why would a person enjoy striking down images instead of helping the images' appropriateness be known? If you understand this barrage of jargon, can you figure out a fair use rationale, or whatever? Wouldn't that improve Wikipedia more? -- AvatarMN 00:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You thought I wouldn't have a problem?! I meant I was out of trying to upload any new pictures for the time being. You took in my frustration and what you figured was that I'd be okay with you striking down the one image I thought I'd done right? A picture which no editor in a week thought had anything wrong with it, until one that I just happen to have smarted off "has a problem" with it. What prompts a person to lie in wait and strike down new uploads, and then go after previous contributions by someone who's talked back to them? -- AvatarMN 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't make the rules, you just masturbate to them. I'm very curious why you do what you do, spending so much time doing something aggressive, and hurtful to other editors, and harmful to the quality of articles. I understand why the Wikimedia Foundation cares, whether I agree or not... but I don't know how this work, a massive undertaking, satisfies you. Because YouTube is doing so poorly. -- AvatarMN 00:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that I don't understand why someone enjoys spending their time following the rules and undoing what others are trying to do to improve articles, rather than doing something creative yourself. Doing work that dissapoints and frustrates Wikipedia users and editors, instead of doing stuff that's useful to them and enjoyed by them. Me hosting an in-store so I could get images I could post sounds almost as efficient as lying in wait to pick off new images instead of maybe using some of your influence as an admin to make it easier for people to understand what pictures are allowed. I learned more useful information about what I can't upload from you than I did from reading what came up on the screen while I was uploading, or trying to wade through 1000 different pages of information linked to each other in the labyrinth of pages on uploading, creative commons, fair use, non-free images, and kitchen sink (no, wait) articles and guides that I tried to wade through. If a person could just be told what the hell a "non-free image" is, and that "a non-free image of an existing band" is not allowed, a whole lot of goddamn wasted time and frustration would be avoided. Why isn't there any "in a nutshell" type of summaries on uploading pictures, and why aren't you forcibly directed there when you try to upload? -- AvatarMN 01:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how "in a nutshell" could possibly make people upload more images that aren't allowed than hoping they'll read vast rules that no one can understand does... Basic, basic stuff like what the definition of a "non-free" and "unreplaceable" are remains a mystery to me. As does which Creative Commons liscences are allowed. Why, god, WHY isn't it easy to get these questions answered? (Not to mention the question of why you spend your time striking down images, which you've pointedly ignored responding to five times. Maybe it's none of my business, but you haven't even said that.) -- AvatarMN 01:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree images

Why would fanart with GFDL count as unfree? It's not been copyrighted, I've given credit to the person responsible for the original character design and I made it. It's my work. Please don't delete it. I worked seriously hard on it and those pictures are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenal666 (talk • contribs)

Phoo Action

Please use the discussion tab to discuss any reason why Phoo Action needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.lyon (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 24

Hi, I saw you removed this page from WP:PUI. There are still a bunch of tagged images on there. Are you going to finish it (since I saw you already working on 25 July). Otherwise I will work on it, I just hate edit conflicts when working on PUI. Garion96 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ï thought so indeed after reading your most recent edit summary there. :) I will finish it. Garion96 (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbara McMartin

Thanks for your assistance on resolving the Barbara McMartin copyright issue. I am grateful the article is in place in time for the second anniversary of her demise. Adirondacker 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Butseriouslyfolks/Archive_3&oldid=1085428611"