User talk:Cohesion/Archive4

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

RfA

Thank you for the response. I took it out, I guess because I'm still a little shy, as I am new to much of this, and wasn't sure I was following protocol or something.

I was looking for the idea that authority didn't apply, because I don't think it really does either. Had you responded with "admins' authority should be...have authority over..." I would have been somewhat wary. But thanks. I want to be comfortable that who I'm voting for is firm in the idea that admins are just regular editors trusted with certain tools, and that it's not a formal position of authority over anything. You answered my question very nicely, thanks.

I also like it that you went out of your way to address a concern by a noobie who you could just have easily ignored. --Shadow Puppet 19:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bingley All Saints Parish Church1.jpg and others

Que? You seem to have edited a bunch of images I uploaded to commons 9 months ago with copyright tags & everything. I took them all & released them all so there should be no problem. To add 2 my confusion I can't see what the edit was. MGSpiller 02:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC) p.s. if i'm missing somthing obvious sorry, I'm checking after a session in the pub.[reply]

No problem, I didn't actually edit the images on the commons, the image you mentioned Image:Bingley All Saints Parish Church1.jpg had a page on wikipedia but no image here, it's a problem that sometimes happens. I tagged the page on en.wikipedia.org as needing deletion because it was empty, and the image was actually at commons. If you were watching the en page you would have seen the edit, but the page was then deleted by someone else. [1] so edit history doesn't exist. When you go to the page now what you are seeing is the version from the commons. It's kinda confusing, especially coming back from the pub hehe. If you have any other questions though feel free to ask, the images are fine though all that happened was a little housekeeping :) - cohesion★talk 06:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging

You recently expressed interest in helping people with putting the correct copyright tags on their images. I've created a page for people notified by OrphanBot to ask about image tagging: User talk:Carnildo/images. If you could keep an eye on it and help answer questions, that would be appreciated. --Carnildo 05:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, thanks for contacting me and thanks a lot for running the bot, it's indispensable. - cohesion★talk 06:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

(Good grief, your Talk page fills up even faster than mine...) Thanks for changing the licensing info — that looks right. I have left a message for the original up-loader on the Vietnamese Wiki, but he seems to have left the project. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; this should have gone your sub page. Sorry. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't run the bot though, that other sub-page is Carnildo who runs it, the system we have for responding to tags the bot sends out is new, previously Carnildo had to do it all. Did it seem smooth to you? I don't know, it's sort of weird bouncing around 3 talk pages, I'm not sure how to make it easier though :\ - cohesion★talk 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

search

You said re: SymNRT that the search was updated weekly, thats why its not in there -- well, its been way more than a week, check the history page!

thanks

...for telling me about the search -- i usually do use google, yes Mbgb14 19:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's only appropriate as I got second vote in your RfA that I get to give the second congrats here ;) So there you go. Happy mopping! Petros471 22:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to add on to your monobook to automatic some of the more repetitive tasks here? I do not use pop-ups or anything else that lags.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it...though I noticed that you do have pop-ups on, at least in myskin.js.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have it commented out right now, i turn it on when i'm doing disambig sometimes :D - cohesion★talk 01:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Cohesion. Good luck--Ugur Basak 23:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!! Mushroom (Talk) 00:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed the vandal revert...but not the link. If that works...do note that I use both "revert as vandalism" and "rollback". The vandal revert has a different summary, opens the vandals contribs page, and opens his talk page in edit mode simultanuously, for quick warning. I like it. If you are going to get rid of it...remove the "//add revert links to diff page" script to.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 05:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and a question

Congratuations Cohesion on your unanimous election! I do have one thing you could help me on: Isn't it against policy to openly solicit votes in an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" on an AfD? The user in question has been creating 9/11 conspiracy articles like mad, and now that they're all getting nominated for AfDs, he's started to run around looking for "keep" votes ... and he's getting them. --Aaron 23:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help; I thought you should know he's doing it again, more blatantly this time. This guy's entire 9/11 WP:POINT-violating schtick is really getting to the point where's it's becoming very hard to assume good faith; it's going to end up in some nasty edit wars if some admin doesn't reign him in. Should I just blank his post to Talk:Alex_Jones_(journalist)? That certainly doesn't feel like the right move to me, but at the same time but at the same time I no longer see how anyone will be able to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrie Zwicker as a legitimate consensus if the closing admin ends up declaring it a "keep"; or, indeed, if any of the AfDs he's currently involved with end up being closed as "keeps". Check his user contributions; he's all over the place with this stuff, and even has an entire WikiProject page set up as a one-stop AfD-watching shop. --Aaron 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cohesion, have you seen me asking anyone to vote either yes or no, outside of a AFD? --Striver 03:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

You are welcome and again congratulations on your new mop and bucket.The best. --Dakota ~ ° 00:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes congratulations; thoroughly deserved. And thanks for the thanks! Batmanand | Talk 00:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! :) - Mailer Diablo 01:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 05:26Z

Here is an admin star for you. Use it in good health. --Ancheta Wis 12:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You deserve this position. Keep up the good work! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your message. Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Thank you for your message. May i ask what complaints? I did not send out messages at random, rather to people i know hade voted in similar cases. Thanks again and peace. --Striver 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the revert madness

You know what I am talking about...

Ahh, anon users adding links to jimbo usually are bad news, sorry for the revert :) - cohesion★talk 08:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MN Republic Vandalism?

You reported my corrections to The Minnesota Republic article as vandalism, I would like to know why.

Introduction of POV content was reverted, you had mentioned something "totally sucks" etc see WP:NPOV - cohesion★talk 08:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was correcting vandalism to our article through humour, apparently the attempt failed, and I shall not try again after running afoul of a responsibile wikipedia communtiy member. But I would like to point out that Tom Meyer does write a humour column, not meant to be taken seriously, and that this should be made clear through a correction. I was indeed overzealous in claiming that my own article "totally sucks" but the grammatical error found within was in fact correct, though I admit that it was inserted as a point of sarcastic humour and I will not add it again (I shall leave that responsibility to whomever it is that has taken such a keep interested in editing our entry for us).

Prakash Puram (AfD discussion)

I've AFDed Prakash Puram -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Puram. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 11:00Z

HI

well, hello there! :O - cohesion★talk 05:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a response to yours regarding my query about deletion

Thank you for your response in answers to my questions. I have some concerns about all this which I hope you can give me direction. Right after I asked the initial question regarding Rebecca H. Davis page for deletion, I went back into the comment box and figured out a way to put in my support of why it should NOT be deleted. The answers you gave, although WIKI in explanation, don't seem to cover some these concerns in depth nor my technical difficulties. Specifically, regarding a commentator's motives, you said that I have to use "good faith." Normally, I would agree, but when a specific commentator's personal talk page has in his bio a listing that he is an "atheist" and also boldly a "WIKI atheist" -- what am I to think when I am writing about a Christian woman -- and he adds to the negative comments? Are you telling me I am supposed to use good faith that there is NO underlying bias in his comment? If he didn't boast on his bio, then yes, I would have more reason to grant good faith. If my writing is to be encyclopedic and neutral and yet anyone can say anything they want about it, then so should I have the same freedoms to WRITE and KEEP my article, within good taste and with responsibility. ALSO, though I want to better my writing on this story for inclusion, if it is going to be deleted anyway, WHY BOTHER? I can't even further my research in FIVE DAYS. No one else but me has spoken in support, so it comes down to being outnumbered and with BIAS. And don't get me started that there are no sensitive WOMEN commentators or advocates on the lists! The advocates I found had all macho or rude entries. Thanks for your help in addressing these issues.

mshafbMshafb 18:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may be atheists, but they still should be acting in a neutral unbiased way. I can't answer your question about the nominator's motives other than to tell you at Wikipedia we try and assume good faith. Also we try and reach consensus about decisions, such as this article's possible deletion. The article has been deleted now, and the discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca H. Davis. If you feel strongly that the article should not have been deleted the process you are looking for is Wikipedia:Deletion review although I should warn you, unless you have new information about why the subject is notable the review process will likely make a similiar decision. - cohesion★talk 06:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template on Newcomers Help Desk

Hello! I was wondering - you've been very efficient at copying questions to the Ref Desk when they needed to be. If your standard response ("Your factual question has been moved to the reference desk and is available here.") a template, or are you just typing it in manually?

Cheers! — QuantumEleven | (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually type it manually the first time then just paste it, there usually aren't as many as there were today and I was actually thinking about making it a template, haha. Do you think that's a good way to handle those questions? I'm not really that familiar with the reference desk culture so I was somewhat concerned they would think we were dumping questions... Anyway, if you think a template would be good I'd be for it. - cohesion★talk 09:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we really need a template for this - after all, it's just a line of text with two links in it, it's just as fast to cut-and-paste (or even just type!) a response. As for 'dumping' questions on the Reference Desk, I've been hanging out there for a bit and I don't think it's ever been seen as a problem. Other users do the same by bringing over questions asked at the Help desk or from the Wikipedia mailing list. So I see no reason to stop! :)

Update: I just found a template from the help desk (Template:RD) which points the person asking the question to the ref desk so they can ask it again. IMO, what you've been doing (copying the question itself, as opposed to just pointing the user at the RD), even though it involves a bit more work, is far more constructive, and I think it's great that you go the 'extra mile'. Thanks for taking the time. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's good to hear about the ref desk people being ok with it :) . I think that template might be a little rough for some of the newcomers, I sometimes worry the idea of their question being moved and answered on another page might be a usability issue, having them pick the category and rewrite it I think would almost never happen. :) - cohesion★talk 10:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

Thank you very much for your nice comment! I got dinged for a few other things yesterday that people thought I was wrong about or did poorly, so your message cheered me up considerably! It is nice to know someone thinks I did something OK. Best, Johntex\^talk 18:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruin our fun

I don't think to many people are going to look at it and care if I put an "Important People" section in the middle of a borring statistical page on a small town. I don't see what its effecting when a few teenagers decide to just spice up their little hometown wikipedia page.

Deleted image

Dear Cohesion, the picture at article ANZAC Day Image:Lone pine memorial.jpg was taken with my own Camera and i was the photographer. I included my info at the image upload and wondering today why it got deleted ? Anyway..

The above paragraphs explain the system, there was no information at the page about the source as far as I can tell, the page has since been deleted and I can't say I remember that particular image out of thousands. When the image is tagged as having no source the uploader is notified and then a week later someone else will usually review it and delete the image. This is what has occurred. It was deleted on Jan 30th. You are free to re-upload it if you would like, be sure to mention the source and the copyright information. If you have any other questions let me know. - cohesion^t 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not just assume that the user was notified without taking the time to check their talk page first before deleting an image. I'm sure you and a number of other Wikipedians are working hard to clean up images, but we've been getting good stuff deleted-- for example I've had a number of images which I went to a good bit of effort to locate from original sources and scanned which were deleted with no notice given me in advance. This includes PD images "orphaned" when some user replaced them with a "fair use" image they simply copied off the web, and images for which the originals which I scanned from no longer exist thanks to Katrina events. This can be damn annoying. No doubt some Wikipedia housekeeping projects can seem daunting work, but taking the extra time to check on things (linked discussion, seeing if user was notified on talk page, etc) can save valuable unique information for Wikipedia. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 20:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly want to help, and understand your frustration, and am interested in a dialogue with you about this. The easy way out of this would be to just ignore your message and continue the image tagging system as normal, but I would like to reach some agreement honestly. I researched this particular image a little bit more, and there was no source information on the page when I tagged it, it was subsequently delinked by Orphanbot and then deleted by someone else. Orphanbot usually notifies the user on their talk page, but you are correct, for whatever reason that didn't happen for you. There is some code in Orphanbot to not flood a users talk page with notifications so maybe the bot put your page in that category for some reason (I don't know the specifics of how that works.)

The request that we make sure the user has been notified on their talk page and checking relevant other pages would be very helpful in saving the few images that should be saved. Unfortunately this type image is the extreme minority. We currently have well over ten thousand images untagged, and are unfortunately not keeping pace with the untagged images being uploaded. I hate that we sometimes lose good images, but if we can't expect users to put their images on their watchlist and source/license them correctly I don't know what solution we have. If you have any suggestions we honestly would like to hear them because, I think, most people realize what's happening now isn't a perfect solution. Any solution we come up with though has to be able to work with hundreds of unsourced unlicensed copyright violations being uploaded every day, because that's the actual situation. - cohesion^t 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find the image on mirrors to see if I could restore it, and I think I may have made an incorrect assumption. I was thinking you were the uploader, anyway, the actual uploader was notified before the deletion as per the usual system User talk:Olympos2. I'm a little unclear about the reason for my note or how I came to your attention, but if you have any ideas I would still be very interested. - cohesion^t 00:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I came to your page as I noticed you deleted one of my various images scanned from vintage sources which are now gone, and added my comment to existing discussion on your page under "deleted image" as that seemed relevent; sorry if it led to confusion of me with an earlier commenter on the topic. As to me specifically, I do put my images on my watch list. For a while with the hurricane, evacuation, no power, intermitant telecommunications, etc I couldn't check it regularly. In any case, some of the image seem to have been deleted without any notice on the image page, and the vast majority without any notice on my talk page (in the few cases where they were when I had net access, I was usually able to do something about like moving the image to commons). A couple of images were even deleted even though as far as I can tell they were linked in pages still at the time. I'm very frustrated as I am continuing to notice images of mine which were properly tagged and credited as to practices at the time (for example some had not been yet updated from the previously prefered "PD" tag of a couple years ago) that are missing. I do not mean to take my frustration out on you. I used to do a lot of Wikipedia housekeeping myself, and know it is a daunting and often frustrating case. However if you have suggestions on how we can minimize this I would appreciate it. My suggestion to take extra care no doubt can slow down work that seems too large already. Sorry for that, but I think it's very warrented. The loss of original sometimes irreplacable information from Wikipedia is in my opinion as bad as vandalism, except that it cannot be reverted. Thank you for your kind attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ghost"

from his only edit I took him to be an obvious sockpuppet of a recently banned user, back to "haunt" Talk:Rajput. dab (ᛏ) 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, ok, I thought it was probably something like that, but I didn't want to tell them that until I knew :) - cohesion^t 08:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.