User talk:HighInBC/Archive 19

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Happy New Year!

Dear Chillum,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks buddy! Chillum 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI vandal

That 2-squares guy could also stand to have his editing-his-own-page privilege taken away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. Chillum 13:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your mail to Rick Norwood

The image in question, File:Cr138c1.jpg, is not being used under the fair use provision. It is used by permission of the publisher and copyright holder and also by permission of the artist. I am the publisher, I hold the copyright, and I give permission for its use in wikipedia. I contacted the artist; he also gave his permission for its use. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CSD#F3, "Media licensed as "for non-commercial use only" (including non-commercial Creative Commons licenses), "no derivative use" or "used with permission" may be deleted, unless they comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content."

We really do appreciate people providing content to us. However it is our goal to be certain that the content on Wikipedia can be used by everyone. As such specific permission given to just us is not enough. We need one of two things:

1: A Wikipedia compatible license(Such as the Creative Commons license which can be given by adding {{cc-by-2.5}} to the image page):

The text or image may be freely redistributed and used.
It may be freely modified, and modified versions may also be freely redistributed and used.
Any redistribution must include the full text of the GFDL itself.
In all cases, the GFDL requires proper attribution of the author(s).
The GFDL allows commercial re-uses provided such re-use is also under the GFDL.

2: A proper fair use rational for the image.

I hope you understand this is due to our goal of making Wikipedia as Free(as in liberty) as possible. Of the two options only the second will not limit future control of your copyright. The first option involves irrevocably allowing other to use and modify it for any purpose.

For information on how to draft a fair use rational see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Chillum 01:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Great work

Hey, thanks for the award. Greatly appreciated. Salavat (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are quick. Chillum 03:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Marshall

Cameron marshall is an adult film star. He is referenced in many articles on here already and deserves his own wikipedia. There was no advertising of any sort on there. If that is advertising then go look up "Blake Riley" "Roman Heart" and "Chi Chi LaRue and delete them too, otherwise, dont mess with my article. SevenSeventySeven (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please check out WP:AUTO and WP:COI, if you can work within these guidelines then all the power to you. The original author of the article appeared to be the same person as the subject of the article, or at least from the fan site of the subject of the article(The user's name was CMFanSite). The idea is that if someone warrants an article then someone unrelated to them will create one. We generally perceive people writing articles about themselves and their careers as promotional.

I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not the same person as the subject, or his fan club. Also, it is not 'your' article, it is the community's. I will check in on the article in a week or so to see how it is coming. Chillum 15:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 3RR warning

Excuse me? Im reverting the edits i made because somebody is vandalizing it, and is reported for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabine1981 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what vandalism is not(part of our vandalism policy) you will see it says:

"Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also Tendentious editing."

As such there is no exception to the 3 revert rule. I see a consensus is forming in your favor on the talk page, I suggest you sit back and let someone else revert the IP.

I will leave a note to the IP to respect the consensus on the talk page. Chillum 03:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP in question has been blocked for messing with peoples posts. Chillum 04:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Phallicmonkey

You blocked this user for an inappropriate username, and he now wants to change usernames. I would normally grant such requests pro forma, but I'm concerned in this case because I get the impression that the username might not have been the only reason for the block. If I'm wrong, please grant the unblock request... if not, could you comment on the user's other behavior? Thanks. Mango juice^talk 15:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block was due to the username only. I did see that the user has at least convinced others that he was disruptive, but I did not have time to determine for myself if it was disruptive. Short on time I opted for a soft block based on the inappropriate username which I could at a glance make a decision on.

That being said I will leave it up to your discretion if the user's behavior warrants unblocking, or a shift to a hard block. I get the feeling there is some trouble making going on with this user, but as I said I have not had time to give it the investigation it deserves.

Thanks for popping by my talk page. Chillum 15:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, I've told him that I will unblock him if he picks a new username (he's now picked two but both were taken) but given him a stern warning about POV pushing, which he seems to be accepting. Mango juice^talk 18:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time will tell. Chillum 05:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shut your mane

Well, I mean, having PROD'D the article, obvious I think it should be deleted. Being a regular C:CSD patroller, I try to stick closely to the criteria because CSD is by far the biggest reason new user registration is down and so forth. At the end of the day, I don't think it's a strict A3 - the reason I can't find sources to expand it is because they probably don't exist, as it's nonnotable, not because I can't figure out it's about (an article about John Smith consisting of just "John Smith owns a butterknife." would never let me figure out which John Smith they're talking about right?) At the end of the day, I PROD'D it, I can't say I'll be sorry to see it deleted or kick up any kind of fuss, but I'm not sure I can say in full honesty I believe it's a valid A3. I don't really care, though .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 16:54, 22 February 2009

Well since you don't really care I will go ahead and delete it. While I can see your point about A3 I also think that this article will never be encyclopedic and little is to gain by leaving it up for a few days before deleting it. It may not be a perfect fit for A3, but it fits well enough for me. Thanks for your input. Chillum 16:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After way too much discussion, I more or less convinced myself it could be A7'd (as web content, no assertion of notability). That's a little dicey, but a much closer fit than either of the others. Ah well, ninety-nine times out of the hundred, nothing comes of swapping out the db- for the subst:prod. My bad luck, I guess. Wily D 14:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chillum

Just wanted to stop by and say hey. I'll always listen - even if I don't always agree. I appreciate you takin the time to explain stuff, I know it's not in the job description ... lol. I promise to never be one of those WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editors. (or at least I'll do my best). Cheers ;) — Ched (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey I love a good disagreement. It is people being able to disagree in a respectful manner that allows for the development of a true consensus. Chillum 20:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linear regression

Hello. Thanks for your help with File:Linear regression.png. It looks good. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it just needed a cropping. Chillum 22:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chillum

Wondered if you could advise me how to get this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conseiller_Charg%C3%A9_des_Investissements up to scratch? I am not really sure if I have enough info there now to stop speedy deletion. What do you think? I am new to editing and wikipedia is a bit daunting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:12, 22 February 2009 (talk • contribs) Foreignaffairsinfo

It is pretty good and really should not be speedy deleted as is. A more thorough(not speedy) deletion attempt could be made by a user called WP:AfD. The addition of the reliable source aids greatly in reducing this possibility. Wikipedia is not adverse to stub articles, that is to say very short articles. We only ask that the establish enough context to be useful. One way to article is lacking in context is that there is no way(short of reading the reference) to know that this is a United Nation position. There are plenty of diplomatic offices out there so this needs to be specified.

I would not be so worried about the tag user:Macromonkey applied, I don't think it really applies once more context has been supplied by you. Chillum 23:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try and improve it :-) Foreignaffairsinfo (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Username issue

UAA is a very sensitive area, and requires as much good-faith as possible; as such, I only block blatant violations of the username policy, so as not to deter potentially constructive contributors with overzealous blocking. In User:American Gay's case, he could just be referring to himself, although I'm skeptical. Best, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we I don't block usernames that appear promotional until they edit as such. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A username is promotional when you can tell they are promotional. With many usernames it is clear they are promotional by the content of the name. I agree in some cases waiting for the user to edit is essential in determining if it is promotional. The question I ask when blocking is "Is the violation blatent(as in obvious)". Regarding "American Gay", even if it is self-referential there is no garuntee that gay users of Wikipedia will realize that. We also have people trying to use self referential names like "Cool nigger" or "Super Retard", they are still offensive.

I suppose we can both interpret things differently, but I see little benefit in allowing inappropriate username put entries in the edit history. You are certainly not obligated to block anyone you don't want to, that is your prerogative and I accept that without reservation. Peace. Chillum 23:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. While that is indeed true, I just prefer to err on the side of caution. Either way, thanks for the help at UAA; it's been getting severely backlogged as of late, and any assistance is appreciated. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were not for admins interpreting policies their from their own point of view Wikipedia would not grow so well. It is essential that reasonable people reasonably disagree with each other to explore the different view points. You are right that this is a very old and controversial disagreement that goes well beyond you and I. Peace. Chillum 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcoming Hitler

Ha ha, nope. I probably didn't even look at the username. ~Richmond96 t • c 00:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, okay just checking. Chillum 00:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi

Just wanted to say thanks for your help and patience, and sorry for the aggravation. 210.4.103.246 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You did absolutely nothing wrong in asking for that citation. Timeshift has had issues with acting civil in the past and we do our best to prevent other users from being rude to other users, I am sorry you were treated so rudely here.

The burden of finding a citation lies on the person who wishes to include information on Wikipedia, not the person who is asking for the citation. Timeshift telling you to "do your own research" was way off base with our policies, it is not your duty by any means.

Please continue to edit Wikipedia, and if you encounter someone who lacks a respectful tone please try to not take it personally. Chillum 17:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Cotterill

I have to say, I'm a little surprised by this result. I would have predicted no consensus. First let me state that I tend to be a deletionist (my contribs would verify this) and as a visual arts editor I am particularly invested in making sure that self-promotional and non-notable artist pages are kept to a minimum, or else Wikipedia would become a web host for every artist on the planet. Having said that, I voted "weak keep" after carefully scrutinizing the sources available (not necessarily the sources in the article, mind you). I do take issue with the comments that you've made about only the delete !votes being based on policy. I am quite familiar with policy and although the sources were not necessarily the best kind of sources, they did point to some notability. There were enough independent press articles. True, many were generated by press releases from the artist or his reps. However, as I said, this says something about the problems in the newspaper industry. In the end, these were independent of the artist. Likewise, there was some other independent coverage, including on television. I realize this AfD was a mess and I'm trying not to assume you based your decision on the last comment made, which I feel is a bit insulting to those of us that !voted "keep, as tepid as that keep was. I feel the deletion votes were actually based on misunderstanding Wikipedia policy and were more in line with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As such, I'd like to request you review this once again. My gut feeling was no consensus, and I say this as someone who is not interested in chotskies but rather in serious art. But in the end, I feel that this was an incorrect decision on your part. Thanks in advance. freshacconci talktalk 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about the reason for deletion, namely that the references "are not reliable". Do you really mean this about NBC?[1] I wonder if you noticed the link in the AfD to google news?[2] Results include Salt Lake Tribune, Monterey County Herald, Oakland Tribune, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and The Galveston County Daily News (over a number of years). Clearly these are reliable sources, which calls the closing rationale into question. Most of them are pay to view, but there is an example from the Oakland Tribune,[3] which is a dedicated article credited to "staff reports", and per the keep comments is not a self-published source, invalidating the deletes whose rationale was that all the material about the artist was published or paid for by him. In the light of this, I would have thought no consensus to be a feasible outcome. Ty 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, didn't even read the discussion, did you? DreamGuy (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The continued aggressive tone of your comments to editors who don't agree with you is becoming quite objectionable and is without basis. Ty 01:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, so when you and the other people ignoring clear policies post aggressive and deceptive messages it's perfectly fine? See WP:KETTLE. But, for the record, my assumption that you hadn't read the discussion was assuming good faith, because if you had read the discussion and still made the incorrect claims you did, I would be forced to conclude that you were intentionally misrepresenting facts. Now I know the people claiming NBC covered this guy and so forth obviously are intentionally exaggerating/twisting the evidence, but you still have room to have ignorance as a potential excuse. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you userfy the article to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Tim Cotterill as the arguments used to delete the article could have been used to delete The Whopper and other "consumer products", and here we were talking about art and not something that was mass produced food stuffs. There were enough Reliable Sources to source the asserted notability and more than enough minor sources to verify world-wide exhibition of his works. Yes, there were lots of delete votes that repeated the same argumennts ad-naseum, but AfD is not about numbers... it about interpretation of guideline to improve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied. Ty 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tyrenius, you beat me to it. Chillum 02:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now to discover how it is that NBC became an unreliable source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good God. Even on talk pages these people are still giving misleading information. A local TV station's afternoon live at five segment is not "NBC", and a source can be reliable in and of itself but not appropriate for determining whether something is notable or not. All sorts of nobodies appear on local talk shows. By your argument every single last one of them should have Wikipedia articles. That's not how things work here, and if you paid any attention to our standards at all, or the discussion on the AFD, you'd know this. Instead you and some others are stubbornly refusing to admit that you were wrong and grasp at any straws you can to justify your vote. DreamGuy (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was perhaps too terse in my closing statement. Some sources were not reliable, others were trivial mentions. By the sources alone it was on the edge, when so close to the edge one relies on consensus to judge the quality of the sources. I can give a more detailed explanation later when I am not in a rush if you want. Just let me know. Chillum 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would I think be helpful, at the very least to provide pointers for the current re-write taking place. Ty 01:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE

Hello, HighInBC. You have new messages at OrangeDog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.