User talk:CLW/Archive02

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 04:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And can I be one of the first to say well done? Go get 'em! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 06:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! And thanks for the cake! Ban e s 14:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Jaffa Cake. Even though I like these, I shall have to ask you to donate my cake to a reputable charity of your choice as I can't have it believed that I promoted you in exchange for a sweet. Similarly, I hope that you have not solicited votes on the basis of promising voters unhealthy treats. -- Cecropia 15:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ^^^^....Yes Congratulations. I'll keep my treat though. Lunch time! :-D KnowledgeOf Self | talk 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! And thanks for the Jaffa cake. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and yummy cake! HGB 05:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Manilow

Hi, you disambiguated Jewish to Judaism, it would be better to disambiguate it to Jew in most circumstances. Regards Arniep 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I'll have go at doing a redirect in the next couple of days. Thanks Arniep 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should probably be Jew rather than Judaism, as if someone types in Jewish, they are probably searching for Jewish people rather than the religion. Arniep 19:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffa cake

Thanks for the jaffa cake, and yes; it looks much better than the previous picture. If I were to be pernickety I might suggest it were a little brighter and the oclours made more warm, although perhaps I'm just used to an advertisers view of how they want us to think of their food rather than the less glamorous looking truths. In fact I once made a blog post on a similar theme. --bodnotbod 22:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Congratulations, and you're welcome. Thanks for the cake! I wish I could have a real one; I've had such a donut craving lately. --King of All the Franks 23:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

black company, Largo, florida

Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia. Do you know of anyone who is an expert on Glen Cook's Black Company?

Would you mind looking at the Largo, Florida page. I've added some things and need direction on improving it.

Is there a way to block a user page against vandalism? Every administrator page I've visited makes mention of vandalism. It's almost like a badge of honor you carry on your sites. I'm much to vain to take that sort of thing good-naturedly.

Thanks

Mikereichold 04:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Yes, it is addictive, and I have an addictive personality. :} Mikereichold 14:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arthington Priory

Do you want to this a go-over? Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 21:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done thanks. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard

Im not too sure why you deleted my addition of the Ben Folds song from this article? -Reid A. 19:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.... thanks-Reid A. 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Andros

(Moved here from my user page)

Dude, why did you delete my article? Some of my fans posted it (Dan Andros). You deleted it because it was 'non notable'. Are you serious? 90% of the articles you started are VERY non notable. I'm willing to wager any amount that I am more well known (my show has 8 million listeners) than the people in most of the articles you started. And who the hell are you to decide what is 'non notable' anyway? What is 'non notable' about one of the personalities on the third biggest radio talk show in the United States of America??? unsigned comment by 71.224.190.212 (talk · contribs)

I got your response. So if the next post explains what show and all that sort of information it's good then?

Delapre Abbey

Fancy a look over this one for me - needs the CLW bucket ? I'm the only contributor so far! Thanks Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 15:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - these nuns are becoming a bad habit! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 16:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snicket project launched!

Seeing as you seem to have shown an interest in A Series of Unfortunate Events related articles, I thought you might want to know about a new WikiProject that I have started up, on the aforementioned topic. Please see it here! If you wish to help out, please sign up in the Participants section. Thanks! --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 19:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Persson

Hi, the archive link you posted in your edit summary is a red link. Do you have a different one? Thanks. Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hm. imdb claims copyright on the material posted on their site. Do you know which came first, what the editor posted here or what they posted on imdb? Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. It's too bad the initial writer isn't still around. Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my User page. ERcheck 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Xmas

Have a good one - and sorry it's not a picture of a nun! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 11:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that not even Wikistory evades the CLW watch! Happy New Year. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 11:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Alexandra of Luxembourg article picture

Hello. I noticed that you cleaned up this article, and removed the deleted link to the picture. Do you know what happened to the picture itself, why it was deleted? Thanks for any information you may have.--Azathar 14:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could of sworn I put the copyright info, or at least the source url, which included the copyright.--Azathar 18:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures Question

Do you know why the images I submitted for the articles I edited were removed?

Deleted Pictures?

Virtually all the pictures I uploaded have been removed (in the Apple II Family article, and the new article on the Apple IIe computer which I submitted recently). Why were these deleted? None of these were copyrighted and I stated the source.--Apple2gs 11:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletions

hi there,

just wondering why you had deleted the page i made on "Klaxons"?

Davo

The RipOffs

Hi, I usually try to avoid relisting if at all possible. AFD is crowded enough as it is. But closing with no consensus to delete means anyone can renominate with impunity if it isn't improved (or if the band hasn't established more notability) in the next three months or so. --Angr (t·c) 21:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alkhemi and Aladin

Hi, back in October05 you participated in the deletion-discussion about a company called Alkhemi ([1]), which was subsequently deleted with your vote. Now the same deletion question is posed for another article about the man behind Alkhemi, a magician who calls himself Aladin. Despite being a truly bad article (extremely biased, outrages claims are made, and the sources used to back up those claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets that are blown up out of proportion to make the subject sound like the second coming of the christ), the vote is so far flooded with "keep" votes, which might be because of dozens of sockpuppets, so I'd like to invite you to add your vote about this matter to tip the balance. The vote is here. Thank you :-) Peter S. 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABBA categories

Hi there. We haven't 'spoken' before but I notice you have made a lot of edits to ABBA and its related articles, as have I... I think we see eye-to-eye on many aspects of this (i.e. the silliness of the constant Madonna refs, etc!). I don't know if you agree with me, but the current situation regarding the various ABBA categories seems to be in a complete mess. To my mind, the main ABBA category is almost all that is needed, with perhaps a sub category for the songs. I don't see the need to have subcats for members, albums, and silliest of all 'ABBA related' (which surely is what ABBA is for, by definition). The purpose of categories is to quickly and simply group a bunch of related articles together so that a reader may quickly find related topics. Tunnelling down from ABBA->Agnetha->Agnetha albums->the one you want seems pointless to me. I have reverted already a lot of the ABBA related stuff back to ABBA, but in doing so I noticed just what a mess the whole situation was. In contacting you I'm trying to see if I'm alone in thinking this, or if there is a consensus for improvement. If so, we need to get a few others involved to help make any changes and defend them. What do you think? Graham 00:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the dashes

I realize that the dashes where mistakes but I didnt know that because its my first few days on Wiki. I also didnt know I had a talk page so I didnt see all the messages. So thank you for your polite critizism.I'm a beginner so I have alot to learn. User:Kelvin_Martinez

Problems

You keep following me and deleting my work. I highly reccommend you get an attitude adjustment!

Unsigned attack by User:HighwayCello - If you're in any doubt and think I might be unfairly stalking someone, just take a look at his/her edits so far! CLW 19:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know how you did it! I am not an idiot!

I just think that you are ego tripping are squashing anyone sub-par to yourself!

Barnstar

- You've earned it! smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

project punctuation

Hi! Thanks for coming by my user page!

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Punctuation is the unending attempt to properly punctuate Wikipedia articles. The goal is self-explanatory - to fix common typographic and punctuation errors in articles. I'm surprised an administrator doesn't know about it, but hey - it's a big Wikipedia. I don't think anyone knows everything about the site, except maybe Jimmy Wales. :-)

At any rate, software crawls through a dump (currently from September 2005) and finds articles with missing periods at the end of sentences. Because these errors are difficult for programs to fix, the errors are grouped into files of 50 for we humans to go through; usually if there are missing periods, there are other punctuation errors to fix as well. If you feel I've corrected something in error, feel free to change it back - my feelings won't be hurt.

I'm one of those people who nitpicks just about everything, so I spend much of my time here rotating between fixing disambiguation links, Project Punctuation, and other maintenance projects. I'm also working (as of last night) on the respirator article. Someone wrote the original article defining 'respirator' as a machine to assist breathing, when in fact a respirator is what a layperson would call a 'gas mask' - ventilators are the machines that assist breathing. Just do a Google search for 'respirator' and you'll see what I mean. I'm an occupational health and critical-care RN who has fitted more than 1,500 respirators and worked with hundreds of ventilator patients, so I couldn't let it pass, especially since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. So, now I've got another project on which to work - I guess this will be my first article.

Thanks for stopping by - come help us out if you have some time! see ya - ddlamb 21:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image deletion

Hi CLW

I was just wondering why you deleted a large number of images from Badges of the Royal Australian Navy, was it due to their copyright status or something else. regards hossens27 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for clearing that up, i uploaded the images and i believe their use is allowed (with my limited knowledge of copyright law). Next time i guess i'll add their copyright status.

This is an extract from the copyright section of [2], the page where i got the pics from.

This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. All other rights are reserved.

This allows their use on wikipedia, i think, am i right in this assumption. Regards hossens27 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats cool, ill find out from someone else. But could you please not delete any more of the Royal Australian Navy badges untill i check. It would save me lots of time. Regards hossens27 12:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have anything better to do? The Ulyanovsk was a PD image. Enough with you jihadists. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to Image:Ulyanovsk line-art.png? With its source of "This image is likely from the Russian government. However, this hasn't been determined for certain.", which had been unlicenced since upload on 16 July 2004 and which had been tagged as unlicenced since 7 July 2005? Please explain how you believe my deletion of this image was improper. CLW 08:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion regarding this image. You just went and deleted it. N328KF 16:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signs of life

The CLW watch hasn't been seen for a while - hope you're alive! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 14:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

It doesn't seem worth my time to continue to create images. Why should I go through all the trouble of tagging the images I have created when I am not sure that they are correctly tagged? Hyacinth 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

Could you tell me why Image:TorusKnot-3-8.png was deleted? I would like to re-upload it. Thanks. -- Fropuff 16:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almodóvar image

Image Tagging Image:Pedro Almodóvar.gif

This image may be deleted.

Stop spamming my discussion page with this kind of stuff. I'm not a child, and someone already messaged me about it. If you don't want readers to know what Pedro Almodóvar looks like, then feel free to delete the image.

Thanks,

Primetime 22:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Tikaram

Thanks for your message. I'm trying to look around for more info to add - especially if I can get precise date of birth. David | Talk 12:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no licence

Thanks for the info. Wouldn't it be easier to make {{no licence}} do whatever {{no source}} does rather than changing the way to add a timestamp?--nixie 22:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image sourcing question

Hi. I noted your comment on Petaholmes' talk page regarding image sourcing. A couple of weeks ago, this user marked the main image at Sheena Easton for a non-sourced speedy, even though it clearly stated the copyright and it had a promophoto tag. I never received a response regarding my questioning of it being marked, so I added a few words to the image description and deleted the tag as I'm of the opinion that there's enough info. Could you check the image and see what might possibly be missing? I have dozens of similar images uploaded with the same amount of licence/source info and I don't seem to have had any problems with them. Thanks! 23skidoo 22:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to have the image on my computer. I know it's a press image because I saw it in magazines and newspapers back in the early 1980s, and the image was also used as the cover of her first album. Otherwise you're asking the impossible. It's copyright EMI and that should be enough as if someone really wants to spend the time looking it up they can find the address of EMI. 23skidoo 14:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, at this point I would support a motion to eliminate images from Wikipedia altogether. Between the continuous tug-of-war over appropriate images for articles such as Paul Martin, to what I consider to be wholly unnecessary paranoia over copyright, I think they're just more trouble than they're worth. And I'm being serious: Wikipedia is constantly suffering from mainframe problems and I bet the bandwidth use would be reduced by 75% if this became a text-only resource. 23skidoo 19:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot bug

I've deleted Image:Blue Submarine -6 Screenshot.PNG as this was tagged unsourced on 5 Jan 2006, but I notice that OrphanBot had changed the tag date incorrectly to 15 Jan 2005 as part of its formating process - the date of the image's creation, not the date it was originally tagged as unsourced. I don't know if any other images are affected? (Unless of course I've completely misread the edit history, in which case sorry for disturbing you...) Regards, CLW 14:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot's functioning as intended (which may or may not be the best way, but that's beside the point). What happened was that OrphanBot loaded the image description page and found a "nosource" tag without a date. Rather than trawling through the edit history to find when it was added (which can be slow, unreliable, and server-intensive), OrphanBot simply uses the most recent image upload date. If you've got a better idea for how to figure out when the tag was added, I'd like to hear it. --Carnildo 18:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Best

That was for the benefit of my lesbian friends who identify strongly with the movie. Wahkeenah 12:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think I'm being funny. No, it's true. Wahkeenah 13:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright information

Hi, You pointed out in my discussion page, the picture Image:Allenhg.jpg might have a copyright problem. The image is taken from McMaster University website, used under specified conditions. http://www.mcmaster.ca/ua/opr/picturemcmaster/copyright.cfm which should be the same criteria as this picture Image:Studentcentre.jpg

To be honest, I am not sure which copyright tag should be used. If you can help me out in choosing one. On that note, I do not wish to cause Wikipedia any problems, especially copyright laws. Thanks YCCHAN 17:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here

I'm CLW, king paranoid!

Oh! An unencylopedic sentence! I must alert everyone because I am a damaged soul!

And no one's here! :O

You are a meanie : X

The above comments were posted mid anger, apologies.

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. Glad to be of help when I have idle online time.

I think my next project will be retagging and evaluating images under Template:Don't know. -- bluemask 12:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yale shield

I got it from Yale's website, I don't remember the exact link. I don't have time to dig it up, so someone else could search for the eps file if they want, and if really adventurous, even put up an svg. It's certainly legit. as fair use however. --jacobolus (t) 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise the Columbia shield was from Columbia's site. But given that its the official university logo, rendered by the university, it shouldn't really matter where it came from (I don't remember the exact link). It's fair use either way. --jacobolus (t) 15:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilaryduffnintendogs

hi im new to wikipedia and lots of my stuffs been deleated already anyone got any hints for me?

Yes, my friends told me Wikipedia is a waste of time. CLW is helping prove it. --Nikitchenko 06:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CarolynWood.jpg

I was confused to see that someone had removed File:CarolynWood.jpg. There was an ugly controversy over this image. The contributor who added it added an image of an old movie "Ilsa she-wolf of the S.S.". That second image was soon deleted.

But the Carolyn-Wood image had been used in the CBC documentary a few bad apples. The image was tagged as a screenshot. Screenshots are considered fair use, aren't they? If, when you examined the image, you found it was not properly tagged, is it possible that some vandal removed the tag? This image was tagged a couple of months ago.

So, please clarify for me if you considered the screenshot tag an invalid one, or whether that tag had been removed. -- Geo Swan 08:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:40AngelEncapsu2.jpg

CLW said Thanks for uploading Image:40AngelEncapsu2.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image...

Ahah? Please look at the image page:

(del) (cur) 06:37, 6 November 2005 . . Nikitchenko (Talk) . . 362x516 (31734 bytes) (Guardian Angel by Leonardo Pereznieto. Permission to use granted personally by Leonardo Pereznieto.)

If it is deleted, I will have to complain about you acting like some kind of zombie government robot.

--Nikitchenko 06:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikitchenko,

Images that are uploaded have to come with an explicit declaration of their origin and permissions, using one of the available templates. When you upload a photo, you have to select the license that applies to the image, even if the photo is in the public domain. I would suspect that in your case, the {{art}} would probably be the most likely candidate. If the artist personally has given explicit permission, then {{GFDL}} may be your man, although this is of course on your own head if the artist hasn't given explicit permission. All the best, Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to give similar advice in response to your, ahem, little note on my talk page. And as well as a licence, please be explicit about the source. Please note the difference between "who created the image" and "who created the sculpture depicted in the image"! The image page doesn't say who created the image. It says who created the sculpture, but did you take the photo? If so, add a line to explain this and remove the "no source" tag. Did you find it on a website? If so, add the URL and remove the "no source" tag. Did you get the image some other way (e.g. "supplied by XXX who took the photo")? Again, if so, add a line to explain the source. Add yes, as per Jamyskis, don't forget to add a tag detailing copyright status! Either that, or just report me for being a "zombie government robot"... Regards, CLW 09:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I'm not six! CLW 09:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:40AngelEncapsu2.jpg

I did not find the photo on a website, the images were emailed to me by Mr. Pereznieto for use into Wikipedia. "Permission to use granted personally by Leonardo Pereznieto" is mention exactly for the image (digital photo) that is in the posession of Leonardo Pereznieto as the title holder / owner / creator / photographer of the image. --Nikitchenko 16:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Witt photos.

I've added the copyright tags for the photos on the Michael Witt page, please let me know if it's all okay. I apologise for my confusion, but I am relatively new to Wikipedia!

--Markrad 09:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 12:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peggy Sue vocal melody.PNG

Do you know when and why and how Image:Peggy Sue vocal melody.PNG was deleted? The history shows nothing. Hyacinth 08:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So can we get it back? Hyacinth 11:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't personally attack anybody. If you took it personally, then you have a guilty conscience. >:) Wahkeenah 13:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't name you, I didn't even know who did it until you told me. Did you tell anyone you were going to delete it, or did you just take it upon yourself to do it unilaterally, as if you own this website? And, in the words of Charlie Brown, "Don't you know sarcasm when you hear it?" Wahkeenah 13:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Now see what you can do about "speedy deleting" the lunatic that keeps attacking the George Reeves page, and is the source of much of my irritation recently. Of course, a-nones are allowed to do whatever they want, while the likes of you hassle registered users, and while the presumed owner of the page, Wales, or something like that, busies himself with silly issues like whether to create a category of "Living people". Just another reason why this pretentious weblog's value as an "encyclopedia" is worth roughly the same as its admission fee. >:( Wahkeenah 14:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:RyanDiver

--Sorry, the vandalism was in the past, was kinda childish -- ryandiver

User:David Lewis Jones

The image Image:yuri.jpg and Image:yuri.gif should be considered as in the public domain. The image came from a publicly released annual report from SoftQuad Software in 1995. SoftQuad Software is no longer in existence so the images should be considered in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:David Lewis Jones (talk • contribs)

Olaf

What else do I need besides the identification of it being a screenshot--CyberGhostface 18:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks/Little Britain

Thanks for your welcome message following my work on the Little Britain article. I notice you've now removed one of the paragraphs, since it represented a POV. I have no argument with this, since I'm slowly learning that this site is slightly different to the BBC's h2g2, on which I am a Sub-Editor, and on which certain idiosyncratic points of view are allowed. However, I should indicate that most of the offending paragraph came from the Matt Lucas article, because since everything here is © Wikpedia, I didn't see the harm in copying it over. My point is, in that case, shouldn't it be removed from the Lucas article as well? Chris 42

Thanks for the reply to my Talk page. I'll remember to use the signature in future! Chris 42 18:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]