User talk:Cleared as filed/2006

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year to all Wikipedia editors. Best of wishes for 2006. —Cleared as filed. 00:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a Happy New Year

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 03:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course — you'd do the same. Congrats on your adminship and happy new year. —Cleared as filed. 06:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fireworksxyz.jpg

See User_talk:Djm1279#Image_Tagging_.5B.5B:Image:Fireworksxyz.jpg.5D.5D - the user was never notified and by the time I did the image was already deleted. Looks like it was tagged improperly... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball on Wikicities

Hi Cleared as filed, Googie Man here. I've noticed you do some editing on baseball players, so I thought this may be of interest to you. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done such great work on Wikipedia I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please tet me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man^(Talk), 15:57, 4 January 2006.

hi

yes, there is something you can do for me. My main trouble is that I'm not a native English speaker that loves comics, editing, wikipedia, archirecture, and English... but I have my hands tied, because I need some sort of tutoring!! Especially since I have such a tough guy blind reversing me. Are there some administrators that do or would like to do some sort of tutoring for newbies or people like me?? This is a nightmare. He is such a harasser, he is probably going to read this, b.t.w...he usually add few lines whenever I ask for any kind of help, even with your talk page in the past. Is'n something I can do to stop this?? I'm seriously thinking about quiting. I found your previous answer useful, but I'm still looking for more orientation. Thanks beforehand!

--T for Trouble-maker 07:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of terrorists

I see that you deleted this list. I want to read this list. How can I read it?--Antispammer 08:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't — that's sort of the point of deletion. I suppose one way you could do it is to become an admin, they can view deleted articles. —Cleared as filed. 12:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite disturbing to say the least.--Antispammer 00:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship is rampant on Wikipedia. I imagine that all terrorist-related articles and categories will eventually be censored. It's always a tough fight to keep them, against the Al-Qaeda fans, IRA supporters, etc. who don't want their guys to be lumped in with the bad terrorists. Mirror Vax 04:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you're aware, I made no judgment one way or the other on the article's validity. I was just the closing admin, a purely housekeeping function. You can find the deletion debate/discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terrorists. —Cleared as filed. 14:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're just a glorified computer program, at least disclose the algorithm and the results of your computation. All you wrote was "The result of the debate was delete", which is far from self-explanatory. It suggests that the debate was somehow important, but I'm guessing that you ignored the debate and just counted votes. Mirror Vax 20:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counting votes is a part of analyzing the debate, and in my analysis, there was no logic so obviously superior and persuasive among the minority opinions that it was enough to overrule the extremely large majority. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but counting votes is part of determining consensus. I have a feeling from your message, however, that what I say here doesn't matter and you have your opinion made up, so don't feel compelled to answer if you'll feel the need to continue being condescending. —Cleared as filed. 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that you considered the debate. It would be nice if you included some of your thoughts when you closed the debate. After all, if a judge just said "I rule X", without giving any reason, it wouldn't be very credible. Mirror Vax 05:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I will attempt to explain my reasoning from now on whenever I close a debate where the consensus might not be obvious, and thanks for the suggestion. —Cleared as filed. 12:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShixxNOTE LAN Messenger deletion because copyvio?

Hi. You recently delate page ShixxNOTE_LAN_Messenger and no reason is given. I have permision (send by e-mail to me) from author of the original web [site http://www.shixxnote.com] to publish info about that program. It is put on appropriate category like other similar program, so please put on talk page info about reasons for deletion, so we could improve text about that program. Thanx in advance, --Shixx 15:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your constructive comments on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs 2000

22:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and congratulations. I've removed the colors from your comment box in an attempt to keep my page nice and simple. —Cleared as filed. 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Casualties of the 11-M article

I have put again the photo that was in the article about Casualties of the 2004 March 11 Madrid bombings. I think that you deleted it by error with the AfD message. Bye! Eynar Oxartum 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, you're right. Thanks for fixing that. —Cleared as filed. 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks from rogerd

File:Baseball (ball) closeup.jpg

Hi Cleared as filed- Thanks for your support on my RfA. I appreciate the kind words that you used in your comments. If I can be of any service please leave me a message --rogerd 01:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicities encylopedic AND with opinion

Hi Cleared as Filed, thanks for returning my email. There will be plenty of parts of the Baseall Wikicity that will be encyclopedic. The articles so far are completely encyclopedic, because they are all from Wikipedia so far. However, I think it would be great if we had our own encyclopedic content, so personally I find this a good opportunity to be at the beginning of a new wikiproject. So much of Wikipedia baseball has already been done, in my opinion anyway. I hope you change your mind, but if not I of course respect your decision. Take care Cleared as Filed. Googie man 17:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Googie — I'm kind of confused about what the purpose is. If there's more content that is encyclopedic but isn't yet on Wikipedia, why aren't we adding it to Wikipedia? —Cleared as filed. 00:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI CaF, I don't mean to discourage anyone from adding encyclopedic content to Wikipedia. What I meant was it would be good if the encyclopedic content wasn't Wikipedia's word for word. Ideally Wikipedia and Wikicities will be companions to one another. Take care, Googie man 19:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there things that are not notable enough for Wikipedia that would be covered on the Baseball Wikicities? If so, what? —Cleared as filed. 19:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Enlisted Forums

Thanks for the heads up. I know my application of A3/4 (A4's been annexed by A3 now, I suppose) was slightly murky. I should've just AfD'd it in the beginning. I voted and put up some reasoning on its AfD page. Thanks again! RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 15:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move exchange

With your permission, I would like to move our recent exchange at my RfB up to the "Comments" section, where it would be better placed. Regards, Redux 22:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely — I was going to suggest the same thing. Refactor as you think is appropriate. —Cleared as filed. 22:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Thanks.--Jondel 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject AFL

Why was the Australian Football League logo removed from WP:AFL? I thought it was appropriate considering the whOLE project is based on AFL? Rogerthat 11:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rogerthat. Based on Wikipedia's fair use policy, we can only use fair use images in the actual article namespace. They are copyrighted, and our claim of "fair use" doesn't extend to userpages or WikiProject pages. Ideally somebody should replace the image with one that is available under the GFDL. Hope this helps. —Cleared as filed. 12:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Farrell (political scientist)

I just undeleted Henry Farrell (political scientist). I may not have followed the correct procedure. I've explained why on the talk page there and Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Linked_pages_from_Crooked_Timber William M. Connolley 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding 00jeremiegragekids.jpg

Quote:

An image that you uploaded, Image:00jeremiegaragekids.JPG, is copyrighted and used under a claim of fair use, but is not currently being used in any articles. Unless a valid reason to retain it is given, it will be speedily deleted in 7 days. Please see Wikipedia's fair use policy for details. Thanks! —Cleared as filed. 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above mentioned image is not a direct screenshot, but a shot that I took while viewing Antefilms' public domain dubbed version of Garage Kids, which is no longer available online. I cropped, cleaned, and enhanced the image myself. If this is not sufficient to allow the use of this image (which has been used elsewhere without complaint), then please let me know so I can contact the author and/or owner of the copyright for more information.

P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user pages

Please don't directly mess with user pages. It's insulting. -- Netoholic @ 04:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dzonatas

I noticed you unblocked User:Dzonatas earlier than the standard 24 hours. I'm sure you had several very good reasons for this, however I would like to inform you that he is up to his old habit (reverting against consensus, archiving active discussion, ...) and would request you assistance on the computer science talk page. I'm away this weekend and I'm afraid not everybody will be able to keep their heads cool. Cheers, —Ruud 13:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Nice name btw. Wish I'd have thought of it. Swatjester 02:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lasertag

Regarding your cleanup[1] of this article, I think it was badly needed, however some of the links cleaned up were of high quality and contributed to the overall completeness of the article. While I agree with you that we aren't a collection of external links, some coverage of the various equipment types as well as the manufactures would be nice to retain, that information isn't easily obtainable in a complete form elsewhere, and very little has been written that explains how the various systems differ - the differences between two systems can be as dramatic as the differences between paintball and water guns, at least to experienced players. I'm trying to put together such a comparision, although my experiences are limited to a playing on few equipment types - mostly zone, actual reality, veqtor, laser runner, laser quest, and laser tron. A lot of equipment manufacturers have forked off, merged, gone under, etc, and this also leaves a considerable mark on the game - each systems tend to have their cult following and subculture...

Anyway, would like to discuss which of the links need to be there and which ones don't - cross references and detailed information on the various systems would be nice. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the table of manufacturers and equipment is worthwhile, I have no objection to including it. I tend to be a minimalist when it comes to external links, but I have no problem with a limited number that you think are important. —Cleared as filed. 01:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

242157227

Wondering has this editor crossed the line to get blocked? Vegaswikian 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes — and I just did it. It was about as blantant spamming as you can get, inserting links with deceptive titles and inserting them all over the place. Thanks for the heads up. —Cleared as filed. 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm crushed

Does this mean this sight will not be posted? Let me know what I should do? - twdamour -

Please feel free to write an article on any notable subject, using that source as a reference if you like — we just can't post copyrighted material here on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Copyright for details. Thanks! —Cleared as filed. 03:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha...Thanks!=

I understand thanks for getting back... twdamour

69.235.196.161

You must have not looked carefully enough. The article is about Persian Jews. He had claimed that Persian Jews are "Aryans" and denied the fact that they speak Persian. You don't think that's vandalism? Aucaman^Talk 03:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, he hasn't been warned properly. There was certainly no need for an edit summary of "URGENT" in the report on WP:AIV. There doesn't seem to be anything urgent about his edits. —Cleared as filed. 03:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like he made some edits and then took them back? I'm not sure what he's doing. You're right, I might have over-reacted. I saw 5 different edits in about 5 minutes (at least two of them vandalism). But it looks like he took the edits back. I'll leave a friendly note on his talk page and try to figure out what's going on. Thanks for your help. Aucaman^Talk 04:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:pookster11

He dleted whole sections from 2003 invasion of Iraq, made false claims material were moved somewhere else, breaks 3RR, deleted a neutrality dispute tag and even discussion about it from talk page as well as warning on his user page. How else should I have warned? Which list is empty? And since when is deleting NPOV tags, article sections and even talk a content dispute? 84.59.67.92 04:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If he's violated 3RR, the evidence should be posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. The page you used, WP:AIV, is for simple, blatant vandalism. The user has to be warned on his talk page before he can be blocked. And I haven't looked at the specifics of this user's edits, but often I'll delete sections of articles if I disagree with their content. I'm not defending his edits, but I'm saying that it's not simple vandalism and other pages (such as the 3RR noticeboard) are more appropriate for this kind of issue. —Cleared as filed. 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll take it to 3RR, thanks. I would still like to know what you meant with "list is empty". He did not just delete sections from the article but also from the talk page and the warning I put on his talk page. 84.59.67.92 04:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since a lot of admins have WP:AIV in their watchlist, when someone clears out the last entry, they write "list empty" in the edit summary so that people don't have to look in there when there's nothing to see. That's all it means — it has nothing to do with the conflict you were talking about. —Cleared as filed. 04:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think given the sourced accusations you could have done more than just deleting the complaint. 84.59.67.92 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared as filed, I urge you to look further into this matter. The anon that requested this on your talk page has a pending negative RfC against him, as well as 1 past 3RR block, and 1 pending 3RR complaint, and a request for mediation, due do his abusive, vandalous, and unconstructive acts in the thread. Furthermore, he follows people onto their talk page and belittles and insults them. Unfortunately, no admins have taken any action yet on any of them. Could you please look at those for me? Thanks.

Swatjester 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Been a long time since I nominated someone for an adminship and the instructions seem to have changed dramatically. :) He's agreed to accept the nomination, though. I need to leave the acceptance template on his talk page. Thanks for the help. - Lucky 6.9 06:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I do not agree with your deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Ward-Recording Engineer/Producer. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review. Joe I 01:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I've responded on Wikipedia:Deletion review. —Cleared as filed. 02:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NAVCRUIT 1133.101

It wasn't originally a redirect page. It was an attempt to use WikiPedia as a source for another article within WikiPedia. Take a look at the edit history, talk page and this section for reference. If you want to dig deeper, then read the RfC I filed against the contributor. Thanks. McNeight 04:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did see the history; in fact, I originally made it the redirect. But the reasons you've given still aren't criteria for speedy deletion. I don't really care whether it stays or goes either way, but it can't be speedily deleted. —Cleared as filed. 04:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough (wasn't sure if you remembered or saw your original redirect). I'm not motivated enough to put any real effort into getting rid of it, and it just stands as further testimony to the abuse I've received lately. Thanks anyway. McNeight 05:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on the RFR poll

Hi, Cleared as filed, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my major concern with the rollback privileges proposal is that it creates yet another layer of bureaucracy and churn. Unless it happens somehow automatically (and I think most people would be against that, as there are plenty of untrustworthy editors at all levels of edit count and time with the project), it's a whole extra procedure that is doing nothing to write or edit encyclopedia articles. And from what I understand, there are scripts available to give anyone who installs it rollback privileges for all intents and purposes. Why don't we just publicize how to do that? I'm not completely closed-minded to the idea of rollback privileges apart from adminship, but I haven't seen anything to convince me that the application procedure won't create another layer of unnecessary churn. —Cleared as filed. 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your concerns about extra bureaucracy are fair ones but I do not believe that this will introduce significant bureaucracy. A bureaucrat has total discretion over whether to grant or remove the privilege from a contributor. There is no voting - merely someone puts their name forwards to be granted the permission, and a bureaucrat grants it if he/she thinks the candidate is suitable. There is no RFA-style voting and rollback is definitely no big deal. The proposed system is based on the principle of easy to grant, easy to take away.

In reply to your point about the scripts available, yes there are, but they don't work for everyone and they are less good for the servers than rollback is. See the first part of the replies to common objections for more. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 14:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Violation

Are you sure admins are able to just delete a page without allowing it to be listed on the AfD or CFD pages for its minimum waiting period? Also, can I get a copy of the wiki markup for the Varus Online article prior to its deletion today? (Lady Serena 22:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It was already listed on AfD for its minimum waiting period — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varus Online. I'll be happy to give you a copy of the wiki markup if you promise not to repost it. —Cleared as filed. 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't repost it. You also ignored the fact that there was an open discussion on the reposted article, and you ignored it. Please follow the rules concerning content within a discussion period in the future. (Lady Serena 22:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The AfD for the article already took place, and the article that was reposted was an identical repost. That's clearly one of the criteria for speedy deletion. People can't just repost articles that are properly deleted within process and demand a new discussion. Everyone thinks their web site is notable — Wikipedia has to set some limits. If you can point out a rule that I've broken, I'd be happy to re-examine my actions. —Cleared as filed. 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the Varus Online article will definitely be reposted on Varus Online's WikiVarus, which is under development as part of the Alpha 2 package. Yes, WikiVarus uses MediaWiki code. As for reposting it on Wikipedia, I'm waiting for it to clear the notability guidelines, which seems to have vanished (the 3-point list that included a 5,000 member minimum for forums). Maki's early repost of it kind of shocked me, I wasn't expecting that. (Lady Serena 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yeidckol Polevnsky

Hello!... could you move article Yeidckol Polevnsky Gurwitz to article Yeidckol Polevnksy. After that i will merge article Citlalli Ibañez into article Yeidckol Polevsnky. Thanks for your help, -Abögarp 00:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It's really comforting to know someone actually reads the articles I write. :) Halibu tt 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proffesional Curiosity

Why goes the laserquest guy then get to spam his website? ~~ Whatever ~~

No one gets to spam anything. If you see another external link that doesn't add value to the article, by all means please remove it. —Cleared as filed. 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit
might call me cocky but i concider myself to be a bit of an expert on this subject matter, not wikipedia , lasertag. and large chunks of this article is information i placed myself, if you'd prefer i'd do the same thing other people did, and refernced them selves, which may indeed be my fault, i'm all for it. oh and is there a rule against ugly ass tables?

help wanted

Can I get you to help me with a mediation I'm conducting at Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming? I stepped in with an outside view and was immediately personally attacked. I need some administrator firepower watching my back while I do this. Also, since I'm planning on becoming an administrator once I have more experience on wikipedia, having one watch my first mediation attempt would be helpful knowledge for me. Swatjester 15:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to watch the talk page as you work. Let me know if you need anything. —Cleared as filed. 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crash of aircraft N3381W on August 27, 1967 and speedy deletion

If you tag an article (for example, Crash of aircraft N3381W on August 27, 1967) for speedy deletion, it needs to meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion. If it doesn't (and the reason you posted, "non-notable aircraft accident," doesn't appear anywhere on WP:CSD), it can't be speedied, it needs to go through the regular articles for deletion process. Hope this helps. —Cleared as filed. 12:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I listed it as a speedy deletion on the criteria of "Unremarkable people or groups" based on the redirect of "Peter Barris" that points to the main article where his name is also bolded, apparently to imply that he was the center of the article and somehow notable. It appears the article was meant to focus on him, otherwise the redirect and bolding doesn't make any sense. I probably should have clarified that in the speedy tag and will do so now. Mexcellent 12:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article, as described in its title, refers mostly to the accident itself and not to Peter Barris. In any case, the article does make an assertion of notability about Peter Barris, and so it still wouldn't meet the speedy deletion critieria for biographies anyway. You'll still have to nominate it for AfD. —Cleared as filed. 12:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not trying to be difficult, but what assertion does the article make of his notability? I don't see anything about him that stands out, other than he was responsible for a pilot-error accident. Mexcellent 12:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, did you mean "... does NOT make an assertion..."? Typo? Mexcellent 12:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It asserts that he is notable because he crashed his plane into the radio tower of a well-known New York City radio station on the day before that radio station was going to start transmitting. If you disagree about that claim to notability, then nominate the article for AfD. But no admin is going to delete it as a speedy because speedy deletion of non-notable biographies is for obvious vanity articles. This is sourced, accurate, and obviously isn't vanity. —Cleared as filed. 12:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article doesn't even mention the bit about "on the day before that radio station was going to start transmitting", which is really the notable part of the whole article and an odd thing to have left out, in my opinion. I see it's mentioned in the radio station's article, but the crash article taken by itself leaves the reader wondering what is special about this particular instance of VFR into IMC. I'll add that bit of notability and remove the deletion tags. Mexcellent 12:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Miller

I am not against it. But it is improper to use Sir Robin Miller as article title. (This violates manual of style. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other non-royal names).SYSS Mouse 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've responded on Talk:Robin Miller (nurse) and I'll keep watching that talk page if you want to continue the discussion. —Cleared as filed. 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you gonna respond... or...

Edit
might call me cocky but i concider myself to be a bit of an expert on this subject matter, not wikipedia , lasertag. and large chunks of this article is information i placed myself, if you'd prefer i'd do the same thing other people did, and refernced them selves, which may indeed be my fault, i'm all for it. oh and is there a rule against ugly ass tables?

whatever

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. There is no rule, so far as I know, against ugly-ass tables. However, from a creating-good-articles standpoint, I would recommend against it, and if you see one, you should fix it if you have the desire. —Cleared as filed. 05:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air charter

Hi, CAF -- I need your help with an article. A user has been adding their spam link to Air charter and all the related articles for a couple weeks now. Originally, it was in "External Links" but now they slip it into the content. I have tried removing it and talking in User_talk:71.224.61.7 as well as in Talk:Air charter but they are getting very upset and don't believe me. The site they're plugging has <1000 hits on google and alexa rank >2.5M and they've added it to 4 or 5 articles at least. Dbchip 17:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note too and I'll keep an eye on it with you. Other than what's been contributed under that IP address, do you know what other articles he's tried to spam so I can make sure they're on my watchlist? Thanks! —Cleared as filed. 17:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There was the same contention in Air taxi, but I subsequently merged it with Air charter. It also came up in Charter airline and the link is still in VLJ and Air Charter Service. There exists the user User:CharterX which has the sole purpose of plugging the web site and they also uploaded the logo. Dbchip 17:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Tiki Tiki

As I reveiw the various threads, it appears that Wikipedia is little more than a click of self appointed know-it-alls. Sad, very sad.

The concept of "no orginal research" is misunderstood and applied by the "click" in a very counter-productive way and it bears no rational relationship to its supposed purpose. A fair amount of high quality information is being denied entry by control freaks with no real authority or knowledge base.

I suspect, as time passes, Wiki will manage to alienate a good portion of users and interested particpants, thus undermining the community. Too bad.

As they say at the funny farm, the insane are sane. So it appears with Wiki. Made one contribution that was "voted" out by the Wikirati and article was solid, informative and documented. Count me out of this garbage. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemazz (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry you feel that way. It always stinks to have an article you've worked on deleted. Please tell me, how do you feel we're misunderstanding the concept of "No original research" and why do you think Discount Hotels was something that should appear in an encyclopedia? When I read the article, I noticed that there were no sources for any of the assertions. Links to providers that supposedly work in a certain way aren't proof of anything, they're just links. It looked like original research to me. But I would be happy to hear your opinion, and perhaps some of this info should be added to an existing article. —Cleared as filed. 19:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify Article Deleted

Sorry if the "wikify" article I attempted to post was a "mess of text". I was sincerely trying to negotiate my way through to defining a new derivitive useage of the word "wiki".

I think the wiki concept is still evolving and to consider it a stand alone presence on the web is short sighted. I consider it a tool that will be consumed by the web at large (I'm doubtful it will survive in its present form at all). Everyone that I know and work with that has had contact with a wiki seems to exhibit the same head scratching and soon gets caught up in the argument surrounding it - what is is for? how should I use it? WHAT is it?

I tried to show how it could be subsumed by a larger entitey (a regular web site) and put to a practical use within that web site that people would "grok". To "wikify" a website seems to be a naturally derived useage of the original word "wiki" and I don't find this use of the word or definition of it covered on the redirected "Wiki" page you included it on (in fact I don't find the word mentioned at all on this page).

Again, sorry for the "mess" (did you read it before deleting it?) but... I think that the growth of language should be honoured on Wikipedia - even if it changes the meaning of the mother word. I know that success breeds contempt sometimes - but remember that the wiki application is a democratic tool and it will vigorously spawn its own varied offspring - often to the discomfiture of those of us who try to rope it down and control it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahovden (talk • contribs)

Hi, Ahovden. You should read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. We're writing an encyclopedia, and it's not a place for "honoring the growth of language" or "defining new derivitive uses." I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but please only contribute verifiable, well-sourced, encyclopedic material. Thanks! —Cleared as filed. 23:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Games Category

Help me out. You have removed several links that have been added as SPAM.

Last week I logged in, added some missing information about manufacturers and added a link to wheretoplaylasertag.com. This is a directory listing (for free) any known laser tag facility in North America. It is similar in scope and content to Laser Arena Database which you rightly did not delete. Also, Zone Systems web site is deleted, but the Laser Quest home site stands.

Should I be able to add the LASERTRON home site? LASERTRON has more locations in the US than Laser Quest.

What is the criteria you are using to remove sites?

I intend to add more information to the site. I certainly have credentials, having been involved in laser tag since the early days of Photon in Dallas and continuing to work in the industry and play competitively in a variety of systems.

But, I don't see a point in adding legitimate information if someone is going to arbitrarily decide it is spam. If WhereToPlay isn't listed, why list the UK site. If LQ is listed, why spam out the Zone site?

Thanks for your input.

The Baron

Why Clear My Link?

I added a very useful, non-commercial forum link, vljforums.com to the list of external links on the Very Light Jets page. I didn't see how in any way, shape or form this violated the intent of wikipedia. It seems to be a natural link to jump from a definition of VLJs to discussions thereof. Please reconsider allowing me to keep vljforums.com on the list of external links.

Thank you very much.

I fail to see how a link to an amateur discussion forum adds value to an encyclopedia article about Very Light Jets. While discussion forums are great, Wikipedia isn't the place to advertise them. In my humble opinion. —Cleared as filed. 18:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents and Incidents in the aviation sector

Hi CaF, I get your point about the categories, but there didn't seem to be any consistency with that particular category and what was in it at all as it includes few lists, some specific crashes, an article, and a very limited number of sub-categories.... hence my edits.

What I was looking for was a way of just browsing through airline crashes (getting my dose of morbid curiosity for the day!), and that category, which you are lead to from a search on 'air crashes' via the main article of the same name, doesn't facilitate that at all as it stood. Perhaps it might be good to do a thorough overhaul of the category and write a note on it explaining the structure so that people don't add random air crash links making it a mis-leading hodge-podge again.

Cheers,--Sepa 15:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're trying to do, but we never want redundant categories in an article; so if it's in a subcategory, it shouldn't be in one of the parents of that subcategory too. On the other hand, if you think the organization of the subcategories could use some work, we should definitely talk about how they can be fixed. But just adding everything to the parent category wrecks the existing category structure. Thanks! —Cleared as filed. 15:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I think the thing to do is make it clear that Accidents and Incidents in the aviation sector is the parent category and should have nothing in it but subcategories, lists and very general articles but NOT articles on specific airline crashes. It should then be removed from all the specific articles for which it is currently a category (which I would be happy to do if you want assistance). As for the subcategories, I had a quick glance and they are often overlapping, but I don't see that as a problem as one of the beauties of hyperlinks is that we are no longer restricted to linear categories! To be honest, this isn't my area, so I'll leave it in your capable hands... But let me know if you want me to do anything small... my main interest is Indonesia, so it's probably more useful for me to focus on that as I'm one of the few Indo translators on wikipedia, but aircrashes make a nice change! Cheers, --Sepa 15:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, category sorting is something we should be trying to do in every category; if there's an article that belongs in a subcategory but it's in a parent category instead, it should be removed from the parent category and placed in the subcategory instead. That keeps parent categories from getting unmanageably large. And it's true that overlapping subcategories are usually a good thing, so if an accident was caused by both weather and pilot error, there's no reason to not put it in both of those categories. Thanks again for your help! —Cleared as filed. 15:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gettysburg Address

Look at the picture of the New York Times article from November 20 1863 and see that it is written there "that the nation shall under God have a new birth of freedon...". Toya 17:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo at RFK

Dear CAF,

As you may know there is constant changing on wheter to put the D.C. United photo or the Washington Nationals photo on the top at RFK, I have noticed that you have put the "ballpark" picture up, but it gets changed in a matter of days. I strongly think there should be a vote on this. If you agree, go to my talk page and leave a message. Thank you! ColumbusCrew29 23:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Columbus. I don't think it makes any sense to have a vote on this — the baseball picture is clearly the better picture as far as image quality and clarity goes. I don't care whether it's a soccer or a baseball picture at the top, but it should be the best picture, and right now, the Nationals one is obviously superior. If someone wants to contribute a high-quality soccer picture under the GFDL, I'd have no problem at all with it going at the top of the article. —Cleared as filed. 02:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RFK

CAF,

I agree with you on the images (their quality). I was just getting a little annoyed by the constant changing of the top image. ColumbusCrew29 21:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesusism

The article deleted by AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesusism (Feb 4th) had reappeared. I put {{prod}} there so some admin may check whether the new article differs from the deleted one but it was removed (by article creator). Could you take a look whether it is just old version or whether it is something one can discuss? TIA Pavel Vozenilek 22:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like it's been improved enough to be reasonably considered different than the original deleted article. Most notably, it has some sources and a more neutral tone. Certainly a discussion to see if it actually passes encyclopedic muster would still be worthwhile, but I wouldn't be comfortable re-deleting it as a recreation of deleted content. —Cleared as filed. 03:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then this is finished for me. Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 03:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US --> U.S.

God bless you, sir, for undertaking this thankless task - I tried once, manually, and spent far too much time on it. BD2412 T 19:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm planning to repeat your reverted edit to the ASCII article, changing "Alternate USA version: ..." to "Alternate U.S. version: ...". But first, can you point me to a style guideline or other policy on "US"/"USA" vs. "U.S."/"U.S.A."? Chris Chittleborough 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Menarche

This user who we have both warned in the past few minutes just uploaded an image. Can you check it out? I think it should probably be deleted because the user has made no other contributions, but I can't see it so I'm not sure. Academic Challenger 00:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's some sort of logo that he supposedly made himself. Since it's properly licensed, it doesn't look like a speedy deletion candidate, but should probably be nominated for WP:IFD since it's not being used anywhere. —Cleared as filed. 13:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flight simulator

Hi! It seems to me that The History of Flight Simulator article is not a lspam. What is your rules to suppress this type of links?--Pantoine 20:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a post in an aviation forum. Wikipedia isn't a collection of external links. The links should point to relevant, verifiable information about the subject. Somebody's post in an aviation forum, in my opinion, doesn't meet the standard. —Cleared as filed. 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moo

What? —Cleared as filed. 17:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point exactly, when an anon creats an article that is patent nonsense, it get's a speedy, when an RU creates the very same nonsense page, it sticks around for about a week, and gets nominated for featured article status--64.12.116.130 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no idea what you are talking about. —Cleared as filed. 19:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation link spam in progress

Can you please look at reverting Special:Contributions/82.44.177.70? I left a message but seems lots of changes to revert by hand -- and on closer inspection it's sort of hard to tell. Lots of the links seem relevant but it seems inappropriate to add 50 or 60 links to the same two magazines. Dbchip

Thanks for the heads-up — even if some of the links seem sort of relevant, it's still obviously spamming. I've gone through and reverted. —Cleared as filed. 14:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. That was a horrible spammy site, popups flying open all over the place and more ad banners than information. I've removed them all. —Cleared as filed. 19:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I haven't seen You in a long time, I know 1400 edits plus won't win a promotion, but gimme Your feedback. -- Eddie, Monday March 6 2006 at 03:05

Hi, Eddie. I've taken a quick look through your contributions, and please tell me — why exactly do you want to be an admin? —Cleared as filed. 12:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pan Am Flight 103

Hi, Cleared as filed. I've just visited the above category page and find that on 12 February 2006 you removed some redundant cats. No problem there but, in doing so, you appear to have caused a sequence of 60 numerals to mysteriously appear under B – between the alphabetically listed articles Professor Robert Black and Edwin Bollier. I don't know how to get rid of them, do you?Phase4 17:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me, again: the numerals on this category page have now been replaced by Tony Blair. Not sure of the significance of this change, but the matter is now resolved. Thanks.Phase4 13:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Original Breakers, Newport, RI.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Original Breakers, Newport, RI.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 18:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for commenting on my recent request for bureaucratship. I deeply appreciate the comments and feedback that you left me. I hope that I can improve and gain your support in the future. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help showing me how to do something

I was trying to figure out how to correctly alphabetize some of the names on the Category: Accidents and incidents in general aviation page. By way of illustration Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy, J.P. Richardson and Richie Valens are showing up under "C", "J" and "R" respectively rather than the first letter of their last names. Since you are a senior Wikipedian and major contributor to this page, I thought maybe you could show me. Thanks --Hokeman 17:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hokeman. The way you do that is to put the name in the order you want it alphabetized after a pipe symbol (|) in the category. For example, in John Kerry's article, this appears: [[Category:1943 births|Kerry, John]]. That way, it is properly alphabetized under "K". Let me know if you have any other questions! —Cleared as filed. 01:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing me how to do that. I went backed and properly alphabetized eight names on that page. The individual(s) who added those names initially forgot to put the pipe symbol and then Last name, first name. You may want to go back and check that page because some stuff you may not want has found its way on there. For example, Crash of N3381W and Pilot error seem out of place on that page when everything else is the names of GA accident victims.--Hokeman 13:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If almost all articles in a category have proper names for titles, you can bring non-names to the front by doing [[Category:FooBaz|0]] in each article whose title is not a name. The zero tells MediaWiki to place the article at the start of the category, as digits come before Latin letters in Unicode. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 15:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC

You'll probably remember this chap: User_talk:81.111.172.198 who interacted with you in a characteristic way.

He is, unless I'm a chess opening, identical to (and overlapping[2] with) User_Talk:86.10.231.219 and is the subject of an RFC regarding trolling at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 which he tells us is premature, opressive, invalid and he is too busy doing far more serious things than we do to actually get round to responding to. I suspect he is also another named editor, but that account seems dormant at present. I wonder if you would look at the RFC and consider whether the identities are the same person, whether this is a persistent troll, and offer advice on whether this is one to take to ArbCom at this point or some other action is more appropriate? Midgley 18:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can only avoid attracting attention for so long

		The Minor Barnstar
		In light of your recent history of going unnoticed and "unspoken to" as reflected by your talk page history while making minor edits which improve the quality of this encyclopedia, and for implementing minor fixes on an article I've been watching, I'm happy to blemish your user talk page with The Minor Barnstar in recognition of your work. Keep it up! BigNate37_(T) 22:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I don't get it.

Linkspam?

Can you explain the edit tag on your edit on Apple Open Collaboration Environment? The page seems excellent, containing a number of images and other links that I was unable to obtain for the wiki article. Just because it links to a blog-like page does not make it linkspam. And no, I don't have any affiliation with the author in question. Maury 17:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I am going to re-add it. Until we have images anyway. Maury 12:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone

honestly, how many people that search for iPhone will want to know about Linksys? if you were a 3rd party, would you want to know about the much-hyped, much-speculated, iPhone, or the unheard of, no-name, Linksys thing? our options are to recreate the iPhone page, or redirect to Apple Computer. I'm telling you (and please do a poll on it if you don't agree) that 99.99% of people are going to look for the speculated Apple product. Scepia 05:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually, we are a popularity contest. there is a very clear reason why why don't have pages on gflkjgljge and tropihgrh. well, they aren't popular, are they? honestly, WP is a people's encyclopedia. if you do a Google search for iPhone, you will find the huge majority of links are for the Apple product. check out these pages, to name a few: iTV (Apple) and The Legend of Zelda (Wii). do you care about the Linksys iPhone? I certainly don't. it's only important as a trademark. Scepia 05:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the AfD was in August. I repeat: the AfD was in August. it's December now, and the speculation must've increased 10 times. please, please, please use common sense. if you could find a single person that cares about the Linksys iPhone, I would change it back in a heartbeat. but when absolutely no one cares about the Linksys product, and so very many about the Apple product, there is a clear connection.

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding."
that says nothing about our current situation.
"Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."
sure, you could throw a few links at me that document the trademark Linksys iPhone, but that isn't an end-all solution. Scepia 06:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey, I said it should redirect to Apple Computer. people have difficulty with an iPhone article, so why not do the next best thing? and BTW, I wasn't wiki-lawyering, I was pointing out the inaccuracies of your so-called point. Scepia 06:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]