User talk:Chunky Rice/Archive 3

Your request

has been granted.—Kww(talk) 17:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

You're an admin? And you so completely fail to understand the goals and the priorities of the project? How bizarre. Anyway, I won't war over it, so do whatever you think you have to do. But I think the right answer here is clear. Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider. Friday (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given how you handle your tools, I'll wear your disdain as a badge of honor. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do it

I don't want to change it, I don't feel I have the authority; earlier tonight I removed some obvious junk but I don't want to change the way the encyclopedia is written without knowing what I'm doing.--Pipelinefine (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your attention

May I ask you to look in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pari Passu Realty Corp. (not specifically !vote... just poke about). As you are the one whom deleted City Connections Realty and the 2 seem connected somehow. I have the uneasy feeling that User:Gioindo is possibly a RL competitor of Pari Passu, and his edit history makes me very suspicious. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Child cannibalism/Blood libel

You redirected Child cannibalism to Blood libel without explaining why. The edit has since been reverted by 194.127.8.19 (talk). I understand the similarity, but the two articles appear to be dealing with different subject matter: Child cannibalism = eating a child or fetus, blood libel = false allegations that a group has done so. just a little insignificant 13:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the problem is with the article, not with the subject itself. I suggest moving the historical info to Blood libel and leaving Child cannibalism as a pure explanation and link to Blood libel. just a little insignificant 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain. Here are the facts as I understand it:

Child cannibalism is the concept of eating babies or fetuses. It is an action, it is a practice, it is an idea. To date it has never been confirmed.
Blood libel is the concept of falsely accusing a person or group of child cannibalism. It is another, separate idea. To meet the requirements one must be accusing a party of child cannibalism, and it must be a false accusation.

If you open up an AfD we can discuss this with the opinions of other editors. I look forward to participating in it. just a little insignificant 21:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi Chunky Rice/Archive 3,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

Each casebook will have a subpage.

Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prod page

You're really missing what's going on here, as are some of those who agree with you. The ArbCom has just (seemingly) endorsed admins deleting unsourced BLPs willy nilly. I don't support that either, I want a process in place for systematically cleaning them and then deleting them only when that doesn't happen. That's what my proposal at WT:PROD was about, as was the change to the policy page that you just reverted. One of the admins deleting unsourced BLPs has said he would stop doing so if PROD tags on unsourced BLPs could not be removed. So if you want to avoid a situation where admins are deleting pages at random, you and others need to get on board with a process for dealing with the problem of unsourced BLPs systematically. Throwing up your arms and saying "it's irrelevant since Arbcom seems to have already authorized speedy deletion of unsourced blps" is the least helpful thing you can do right now given your views. We can put an end to the more radical course (which most all of us want) if we actually adjust the prod policy or come up with a similar solution. Those solutions would still allow the vast majority of unsourced BLPs to be saved, so it's nothing to be afraid of. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individual server rules in Four Square temporary review so we can copy it please

Deletion review for Individual server rules in Four Square

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Individual server rules in Four Square. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Hi, if you are interested, please see my request for temporary review so we can copy it to our community website, http://www.squarefour.org/ -kslays (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Ticket to Ride - Close up.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ticket to Ride - Close up.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- 狐 FOX 15:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Samurai game.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Samurai game.JPG.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly ^hi! 00:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS

Because you have edited Wikipedia:No consensus, your input is requested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Ticket to Ride1.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ticket to Ride1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno^talk 18:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno^talk 01:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]