User talk:hmwith/December07

I retracted my comment. See the page, and thanks for your concern/notification on my talk page. Have a great day! нмŵוτн τ 17:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Omgili Page

HM Hello, I left a message on your talk last week but haven't gotten a response. You removed the page for "Omgili" and i think it should be reinstated. Please give me your answer for last week's message. Thanks,Yoav Pridor 14:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I responded on both your page (diff) and mine (see November archives). If you want to read the full response, please see your talk page at User_talk:Ypridor. нмŵוτн τ 17:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your response for some reason. I would like you to look at this quote of Nishkid64 who was the one that removed it when i first wrote it and then restored it: "I have restored the article. I did some additional research, and I feel Omgili does warrant an article on Wikipedia. Also, can you please fix up the article to conform to WP:MOS and make the whole formatting similar to other articles? I can help out with this a bit, too. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)" Please reconsider. I will gladly change whatever needs to be changed and add which ever references you think are necessary. I would appriciate it very much if you could guide me regarding this. Thanks Yoav Pridor 09:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yakyakyak

Hey, you stole my talk page picture! (which I stole from someone else, who probably stole it from someone else...) :P GlassCobra 17:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but it was just so pretty! =) I'd seen other users have it in the past, and I decided, yeah, I do that, so let's add it! I added in the mouse=over that I was inspired by its use on your page. нмŵוτн τ 17:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really? I didn't see that! Aw, well I feel special now. :) GlassCobra 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well, I added it after you commented on my page, to be fair. нмŵוτн τ 17:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. :) On an unrelated note, have you got Facebook? GlassCobra 18:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I try to keep things separate between internet sites. I didn't at first, then I realized how much personal information people could get about me from a really creepy close call, so I removed a lot of information from here and there. нмŵוτн τ 18:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me saying, you've still got quite a bit of personal stuff on your page, but of course I understand. :) GlassCobra 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I had even more. Can you image? Haha, but now it's basically my school and hometown. Although I probably shouldn't mention my house... haha, I'll take that out. нмŵוτн τ 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, alright. :) Well I've got my name on my page, so if you'd like to look me up at some point, you're more than welcome. Happy editing! GlassCobra 18:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mwuhaha, it's always interesting the things you can find when trolling on other peoples' talk pages... request incoming. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thieves, the lot of you! Stealing ~~Mailor Diablo's~~ my image! :P Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 22:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Fair Use?

Hi .. im trying to add a couple of publicity photos to Still Life at the Penguin Cafe‎, and theyre getting removed ... I thought my fair use explanations were proper. I must be misunderstanding the guidelines. Can you educate me? Thanks in advance, Noleander 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem was that they were replaceable images, AKA they could reasonably be replaced by free images, without copyright. We prefer free images on Wikipedia, as opposed to copyrighted ones. нмŵוτн τ 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delection of "James Belasco Page"

I completely disagree with the aribtrary deletion of the "James Belasco" page; Belasco is one of the best-selling writers of business/organizational development books around... having sold millions of copies in dozens of languages. He has been an advisor to numerous U.S. Presidents, and some of the world's largest corporations. I'm going to re-do... do not delete without discussion. (I'm surprised a woman from a GCL school would delete a fellow GCLers work without a least some consultation ;-) Jrneumann 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Jrneumann[reply]

It was nominated for speedy deletion by another editor, and I deleted it. Not because of any personal opinions, but due to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See WP:BIO: it lacked sufficient sources saying why he was notable. нмŵוτн τ 22:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David L Cook Image

Now that you have deleted this image, I would like for yout o explain to me why you deleted it? I changed everything to eet the requirements and I do not believe you checked to see that it had been changed. Now, I would like an explaination if you don't mind. If it still did not meet criteria, I would like to know why it did not and what I could have done. Because I will reinsert the photo at some point. Junebug52 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to the image, please? нмŵוτн τ 02:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] There is the link to the picture you deleted. Junebug52 02:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just restored the image to take a second look, but the problem was that it was a replaceable image, AKA it could reasonably be replaced by a free image of him, without copyright. We prefer free images on Wikipedia, as opposed to copyrighted ones. Let me know if you have any further questions. нмŵוτн τ 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have made this statement that another image could be used, where can you suggest that I go to get a copy of that picture? I have looked and there is no other resource for that photo. I took the photo and I don't know of anyone else who has it. So please, since it was deleted for the reasons of finding another free image, please tell me from where it can be had.. I can assure you that it can't. While I have your attention, I have also gone on and tagged or retagged the other photos for this article, The Cook Family Singers and Gary S. Paxton. Could you make some suggestions as those photos are not replaceable either. I own most of them.. I would request that this phot be replaced. Junebug52 02:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not need a copy of that picture at all, actually. Number 1 under policy gives a good example, to make this simpler to understand: "As a quick test, ask yourself: Can this image be... adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" Since this image can, it's not necessary there. нмŵוτн τ 02:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I can appreciate that, I included that photo under the heading of awards. I felt that since it displayed the award that he had recieved, it would be appropriate in the place on the page. Just as many many other articles on Wikipedia have included multiple photos to highlight certain points within the subjects article. Now, the info box photo on the same page was flagged. Can you please look at that photo and the tag and tell me if you think I am going to have a problem with this photo beiong deleted. The photo has a rationale placed on it now. I would appreciate you telling me if you think it will still be deleted and what I can do to stop it from happening. Junebug52 02:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will end up being deleted, probably. We try not to use nonfree images to depict living people. Most articles about people have no image for this reason. You can stop it from happening by taking pictures of things yourself and uploading them or finding free images to upload (which is difficult). I agree that articles look nicer and are more informative with more photos, but we have to stay within the lines of the law. нмŵוτн τ 04:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non native student work on wikipedia

I'd like to discuss the multiple deletions of my student's work (Satoe2158) in her user page. I am teaching students for whom English is a second language, so am asking them to use their user space to construct their articles which will then be moved to the namespace. The first deletion was by User:hmwith and occurred approximately 20 minutes after she had copied a portion of the Uzbekistan-Japan_Center, while she was still logged in.

The second deletion by User:Dlohcierekim occurred after a smaller section had been inserted and the inital process of converting the explanation so as to provide a template for an appropriate article, which was done at the end of class to give the student some basis to complete the first steps of the assignment. There was no warnings or discussion for the Uzbekistan-Japan_Center, so it certainly appears to be an appropriate model, but if there are problems, they should be addressed in the authentic namespace and not going into a student's personal user page. I appreciate the problems with spamming and vandalism, but for constructing an article and having it proofread by a native speaker, the sandbox is not a feasible alternative. Furthermore, the Minamata Open Center is an non-profit academic center, established by the Japanese Ministry of Education, to research Minamata disease, so I believe that it fulfills the requirements of inclusion in the wikipedia.

Please advise if there is an alternative process to this, the other students who are working with wikipedia are utilizing the same process and do not seem to be having the same scrutiny applied. Tomeiter 08:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that in the Speedy_deletion section it specifically notes that

Testing is permitted in the sandbox and in users' own user space. If this is not official Wikipedia policy, please let me know. Tomeiter 08:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some review I've restored some of these speedy deletions, please see User_talk:Tomeiter and User_talk:Satoe2158#Page_Deletions for my rationale. You do not appear to be online right now, but I wanted to let you know about this. Please talk page me if you think this still needs to be deleted, or feel free to MFD it if I'm not around. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same things to say as Dloh. Someone tagged it as an advertisement page, and I saw that at first, as well, so I deleted it. We have a problem with people trying to advertise here using userpages, so you can understand how that's how it seemed. But I apologize, and good luck with the page that you're trying to create. нмŵוτн τ 16:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, It has been moved to the appropriate sandbox so it will not be confused as an advertisement in the future. I agree with the undeletion. нмŵוτн τ 16:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of The Klopecs Page

You have now deleted The Klopecs page twice. I asked in the first discussion for a hang-on of the deletion and gave reasons. The most important of those reasons is that the definition of what makes a band significant is missing from any discussions on the policy. Does the page need to actually say "The Klopecs are important because ..." If so, almost every band page on Wikipedia would be deleted. I also noted that The Klopecs were listed on another page - Mutant Pop Records - in which many bands have Wikipedia pages (and none say why they are important explicitly). For example, Dirt Bike Annie. I would also note that the page for huge rock bands, like U2 for example, do not explicitly mention their importance or significance. Frankly, I think this is unacceptable. As far as I'm concerned the multiple deletions of band pages like The Klopecs is in direct violation to the mission of Wikipedia and surely will not donate to an organization who censors information based on arbitrary criteria. Please respond and let me know who above you I can discuss this issue with.

--Bmwbzz (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through WP:MUSIC, and if there are still any issues, please let me know. нмŵוτн τ 22:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Klopecs were a band on the well known label Mutant Pop Records. They were a significant band to the thousands of people who purchased their records and saw them on tour. They were a punk band that came from a rare place, small town Missouri, and managed to build up a large following and were an integral part of the late 90's pop punk scene that revolved around Mutant Pop Records. They were just as significant as bands like Dirt Bike Annie, the Connie Dungs, ect et al. Just because you personally are unaware of their significance is no reason to continue to delete the page. Despite no releasing a record in over 4 years, that are still being discussed on message boards. There are many bands with wikipedia pages that the Klopecs were more significant than. 10 Years, they released 4 records, yet, by your judgement, they are not worthy of wikipedia. They are also referenced on two other wikipedia page. Mutant Pop Records and Alyson Hannigan. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be a source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternalbadluckcharm (talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my personal decision to decide whether or not a band is notable. See WP:MUSIC. You can try a music wiki, such as http://music.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. нмŵוτн τ 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not your personal descision, then why did you delete it? I will, just for you, drudge up the issues of Maximum Rock 'n' Roll, articles in the Columbia Daily Tribune and websites where other bands cite the Klopecs as an influence to appease you. By the guidlines you presented, the Klopecs are absolutley fit wikipedia guidelines. 1. They were on a notable label, Mutant Pop Records, they were influential in a local scene, they did a national tour, they are very comparable contemporaries of the Connie Dungs and Dirt Bike Annie, they have played with Pansy Division, they have recieved radio airplay. I'll give you all these links. What I don't want to do is write the page and have it deleted again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by hmwith (talk • contribs)

It's not my personal decision: it's Wikipedia's as a whole. If you have sources proving that the band meets these requirements, I can immediately undelete the article. Please get back to me. нмŵוτн τ 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Londo06

You have removed images after previously advised that I had two days to rectify the issue. You have deleted prior to these two days lapsing. Londo06 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What images? нмŵוτн τ 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harlequins Rugby League player pictures that I obtained permission to use, but there was a problem with my OTRS login, which I am to resolve. Londo06 (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if and when this is resolved, I can restore the images. нмŵוτн τ 15:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your attention to this matter, will aim to resolve the situation today. Londo06 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just let me know. нмŵוτн τ 15:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empacher deletion

Yes, please. Everything. --Empacher (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done нмŵוτн τ 19:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Lennon

Can you please explain why the photo of Cynthia Lennon was deleted, as I made/took my own photo of the photo in her book? It was not an internet screenshot, but a photo I personally took with my own camera, corrected it for size, light/colour, and then uploaded.--andreasegde (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have also done it for Pete Best. Is there some bias I am not aware of? :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images were tagged and deleted as being "replaceable", AKA free images of the people could reasonably be found, without copyright. We prefer free images on Wikipedia, as opposed to copyrighted ones. Let me know if you have any further questions. нмŵוτн τ 17:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"images of the people could reasonably be found". My point is the word "reasonably". Should I fly to Majorca and track down Cynthia in her private retreat? BTW, " We prefer free images on Wikipedia". Who is "We"? Since when have I not been a part of Wikipedia? --andreasegde (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) It doesn't mean it can be reasonably found by you; simply that it can reasonably be found. There are free images out there or new ones that can be created that have the same information as these images.

B) "We" refers to Wikipedia's editors, developers, etc. This does include you. It's the community as a whole, based on consensus. нмŵוτн τ 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think "we" would rather have a fair-use image than none at all. I challenge anyone to "reasonably" find a picture of Cynthia without incurring great costs, unless they are in Majorca, that is. Any editors in Majorca willing to stake-out Cynthia's house to get a photo? Don't worry, Wikipedia will pay your bail after you get arrested for stalking. :) (Sounds of deafening silence, methinks..) --andreasegde (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the opposite. At WP:DYKI, it even explicitly states, "don't upload a non-free image just because the article doesn't have one right now; we can (and will) wait for a free image to be created or released." нмŵוτн τ 18:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Town of Windsor

Hi!

The reason I nominated it for speedy deletion, although WP:CSD#R1 may have been the incorrect criteria given, is that it seems that the intention behind creating it was to create a disambiguation page for two articles about towns named Windsor:

Since the creation of said intended disambiguation page, disambiguation page Windsor has been created that lists those two particular articles. So Town of Windsor was a redirect to the disambiguation page Windsor. I saw 2 issues with that:

1. On disambiguation page Windsor, there are no place names Town of Windsor. The phrase was coined by the creator of Town of Windsor to distinguish the two previously discussed place names from other people and things named Windsor. Therefore, in my opinion, it makes it highly unlikely that a user would search Wikipedia by typing in Town of Windsor as opposed to just Windsor. Special:Whatlinkshere/Town of Windsor contains only 1 link to the Town of Windsor article and that is from a user page of someone who is, seemingly, interested in redirects and disambiguation pages. Therefore, for reasons listed above, I thought the redirect page was unnecessary.
2. Windsor lists names of different places named Windsor but also people, structures and other things. Therefore, I thought it was incorrect to redirect from Town of Windsor to Windsor if Windsor contains more than just names of towns.

Again, I might have been incorrect to list it for speedy deletion the way I did but that was my reasoning. I didn't mean to imply that the page to which the redirect was pointing didn't exist, I meant to say that, in my opinion, the redirect was unnecessary and perhaps erroneous. But, I might be wrong. I just wanted to get it out there. Thanks for listening.

Peace! SWik78 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a reason for it to be deleted, I'd say, but, as you realized, not speedy. You can add it to Redirects for Discussion. нмŵוτн τ 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1994 French Grand Prix

It might have been more appropriate to delete only the offending text from this article, which I assume was the copyright issue. The table of results and race infobox, if it had one, are not copyright infringements. I can also see no need to delete the many redlinks created by your action - it's just creating work for an article that will soon be recreated.

Could I ask to you to reinstate the article and the many broken links. I will delete the offending text as necessary. Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't see any immediate reason to believe the text of the article was copyright: searches for random strings of text from the Google cached version have only been returning one result for me - the article itself. What was your reason for believing there was a problem? 4u1e (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the entire article besides the two sentence intro and infobox was a copyvio from http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr555.html. I reinstated the article, but I deleted the offended text. нмŵוτн τ 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed backlinks to the 1994 French Grand Prix from List of Formula One driver records, removing many more records in the process, including the references section and the categories for the page. Was this your intention? Could you please explain why if it was? Many thanks, Schumi555 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - would you mind reversing all your related changes to F1 articles as well? It will take forever to do them manually. 4u1e (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I simply deleted the page using Twinkle, which automatically removes links to the page one's deleting. If a problem occurred, it must be due to an issue with the script. нмŵוτн τ 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I love those 'tools', I'd avoid Twinkle. Seems to be more trouble than it's worth! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had any trouble with it in the past. I'm currently looking into this... нмŵוτн τ 18:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's also deleted all wikilinks to the '1994 French Grand Prix' from all articles it appeared in. Which is a lot. Please see if you can reverse the damage automatically, people are already doing repairs manually, but as I say, it's a lot of work. 4u1e (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've restored the results table to the page as well. My understanding is that you can't copyright information, although you can copyright the format in which it is supplied. The format used here is very similar to that of Grandprix.com, but not identical, and there are limited ways of doing this. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the wikilink removals. There's really no need to delete an entire article after someone adds copyvio text. By the way, there might be problems at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 December 4/Articles. I don't have time to look into it right now. Prolog (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I know. That's what Twinkle is meant to do, but it looks like it's been taken care of (thanks, Prolog). The entire article appeared as a copyvio except a two sentence intro and an infobox, which is why someone tagged it as a copyvio. нмŵוτн τ 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm also getting to the bottom of this Twinkle bug (diff). нмŵוτн τ 18:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I don't think race results can be considered as a copyright violation. If I'm wrong we'll have to think of a cunning plan. I've also been deleting more copyright content from other race articles. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. The results are fine. At first, it just seemed like it was an exact copy, but I realized it's fine. No worries there. нмŵוτн τ 19:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the person that inserted the copy-vio in December 06 - February 07, I apologise for my actions back then. I have since got much use to Wikipedia and the rules. I've also removed the articles from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 December 4/Articles as the offending material has now been removed. Thanks, Dav nel 03 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi Köchler Clark

Dear Hmwith,

You speed-deleted this image less then 48 hours after it had been restored following a procedurally defective delete for another reason (alleged non-use, later acknowledged by LaraLove to be erroneous).

A revised and considerably expanded fair-use rationale had been added to the upload page shortly before your deletion.

Politically, I find it puzzling that as a self-described libertarian, you lend yourself to doing the dirty work of European Köchler-bots who have persistently sought first to obliterate and then to sugar-coat any mention of Köchler's long-standing and acknowledged (since 1972) schmoozing with third-world tyrants. Perhaps this version of the talk page] and this version of the Köchler article (read the first paragraph and also look at the image next to "Conferences and Speeches" section) will give you a better idea of the background to this controversy.

Please review carefully the page on fair use and read some of the cases. A key concept is "transformational use". For example, retelling "Gone with the Wind" from the point of view of a slave transforms the point of the entire narrative, even if many elements, characters etc. remain the same.

A deeper reading of the fair use doctrine - as stated in the federal cases announcing this legal doctrine - is precisely that we MUST NOT allow a mechanical understanding of copyright to swallow up our freedom of speech. For this reason, a robust and considered understanding of fair use, rather than reflective "speed-deletion", is required.

Please note in particular that the Wikipedia image is now the ONLY published image of this encounter on the web, since the Köchler-bots have by now obliterated it from their site, and web caches do not store images.

Kindly restore the image, at least to permit 48 hours for thorough review of the restated fair-use rationale. Thank you. WikiFlier (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use policy #1 gives a good example: "As a quick test, ask yourself: Can this image be... adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" This image conveys nothing that text cannot. Therefore, it's replaceable... by text, and there is no need for it in the article. Note that this has nothing to do with politics, not only because I don't bring my personal opinions and points of view into my work, but rather that I had no prior knowledge on this issues at all. нмŵוτн τ 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. THe image is EVIDENCE that the Köchler-bots have previously denied. A few words can serve as DESCRIPTION, but not as evidence. Also, as I have explained, the entire usage scenario must be considered IN DETAIL to do justice to a fair use issue.

As regards the issue of politics, I am not calling on you to make politically-motivated decisions (which is what the Köchler-bots do with relentless energy). Rather, I wished to draw your attention to the longer-range implications of a mechanical understanding of copyright law. To put it more plainly: U.S. courts have held that copyright law MUST NOT be applied where to do so would unjustifiably stifle the public exchange of information and open debate. It is this corrected understanding of copyright that is the law of the land.

For your edification, British and continental European law is much more sensitive to the need of people like Köchler to maintain a "reputation" that may be based significantly on lies of omission. In other words, it protects reputation at the expense of truth.

Please do NOT restore the image. I do not wish to rely on your trigger-happy yet ignorant judgment. WikiFlier (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks and remain civil. нмŵוτн τ 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mage:Game7.gif

The image was used in a hoax article, hence filed for speedy under Nonsense. The page article has now been deleted and nothing links to the image. Hammer1980·^talk 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NONSENSE. It says there that "nonsense" is "not to be confused with hoaxes". It may still deserved to be deleted, but not for being nonsense. нмŵוτн τ 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Larson

Please stop blindly removing links to Lance Larson without checking the context. The speedy deleted article was for a different person than for many of the existing links. Those are for the Olympic medalist in swimming (inherently notable) for which an article still needs to be created. Thanks, Andrwsc (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use Twinkle, which deletes the links automatically when I delete an article. нмŵוτн τ 06:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Twinkle is clearly broken, as it cannot handle this situation. This is not the first time I have had to clean up this sort of mess after a Twinkle edit, so it is rather annoying. I would strongly encourage the developers to adopt an AWB-like approach, where you have to manually approve or ignore every edit. Andrwsc (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golem (band)

You deleted Golem (band), based on a speedy request, apparently without looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golem (band), which was closed as keep, and it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CSD#A7 since it apparently meets WP:MUSIC#1 (multiple independent sources; with apparently two separate interviews with the band). I don't know much about metal, so perhaps I'm being overly generous with the quality of those sources, but I think some of the people who commented in the AFD know more and (apparently) thought they did. Is there something I'm missing, or should the article be re-created? Rigadoun (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been restored, and I'll let another admin use his/her own judgment. нмŵוτн τ 06:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Nazi?

No offense intended, but you seem to have an awful lot of people complaining about what many of them deem to be hasty deletion of photos. Some might even call you the photo Nazi. I understand that Wikipedia has policies on photos, but do you think that maybe you as an administrator might do better to point out some of the problems with these photos to the person who uploaded them. Also what about maybe "mentoring" some of these folk with ideas and/or suggestions about how to fix the licensing tags (if they can be), and them delete them only after the time limits, and after the person has been given a chance to fix the problem.

Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm only trying to give a bit of constructive criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sf46 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Laws can't be broken. I delete them according to policies, and clearly state and link to the policies when I delete them, but most people don't understand US copyright fully. Once they understand, it's a non-issue. нмŵוτн τ 06:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Hmwith, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!--User:Hmwith (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FROM YOUR FRIEND:

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, sorry for missing your birthday! Hope it was a great one! :D GlassCobra 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity centre publicity photo.jpg

Hello. I fully understand US copyright laws. Photos released for promotional and publicity reasons are fair use, such as the Celebrity centre publicity photo.jpg (formerly John-I.jpg) that was displayed on the Ileana Ros Lehtinen page. You deleted it without even the courtesy of discussing it on the talk page as requested. (After reading the above messages, I see this is a recurring pattern.) The photo was originally incorrectly flagged by a bot as violating NFU (it doesn't). I will restore the photo again. I would appreciate it if you would please discuss the issue on the Ros Lehtinen page before deleting it again. Thanks.--MiamiManny (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. A lot of people get angry when "their images" are deleted, but, once they understand and read Wikipedia's policies, they agree. I was like that when I was new too. Obviously, no one likes when an image that he or she found is deleted. Fortunately, they can go take a free picture themselves and upload it!

Celebrity centre publicity photo.jpg was tagged and deleted as being "replaceable", AKA a free image of the person/people could reasonably be found at some point without copyright or what was in the photo could be adequately conveyed through text. Free images are preferred on Wikipedia, as opposed to copyrighted ones. Let me know if you have any further questions. нмŵוτн τ 19:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing the policy correctly, but your application is the problem. The picture is a unique one-of-a-kind publicity photo of Art Estopiñan (Chief of Staff of Rep. Ros-Lehtinen), Actor John Travolta, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Actress Kelly Preston at the Church Of Scientology 35th Anniversary Gala. Text cannot convey the same powerful concept as Ros-Lehtinen and her Chief of Staff with two of the highest profile celebrity Scientologists at a Scientology event. It is unreasonable to believe that a free photo exists that conveys this concept. Ros-Lehtinen would likely have avoided cameras at these events. I have searched high and wide for a free non-copyrighted photo conveying this powerful image and none exists. I have used every search engine available. Why do you beleive it is reasonable? Have you found one?--MiamiManny (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use photos are not to be used to illustrate a person's appearance. We will and can wait until a free one if found. It's okay! The article can go without an image. нмŵוτн τ 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stamp

Here's a stamp from the Faroe Islands for you! Stamps from the Faroe Islands somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Vatomanocu (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eagle 101/linkfarms

Hey. What you might want to do for these is originally strike them, then a few days later go back and make sure the links haven't been thrown back in, as have been the case in a couple, I've noticed. Just a suggestion. Wizardman 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess I just assuemd whoever did it would watchlist it and watch it in the future, but feel free to revert. Cheers, нмŵוτн τ 21:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk page deletions

Kindly delete the Talk pages for Empacher and DashaKat. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.118.244 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly delete the Talk page for User:DashaKat. Thanks! --DashaKat (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done нмŵוτн τ 16:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why do people have to be so mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humpme13 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who was mean to you? нмŵוτн τ 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omgili Removal

HM Hello, I wrote this on your talk last week and havn't gotten a response: Sorry, I didn't see your response for some reason. I would like you to look at this quote of Nishkid64 who was the one that removed it when i first wrote it and then restored it: "I have restored the article. I did some additional research, and I feel Omgili does warrant an article on Wikipedia. Also, can you please fix up the article to conform to WP:MOS and make the whole formatting similar to other articles? I can help out with this a bit, too. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)" Please reconsider. I will gladly change whatever needs to be changed and add which ever references you think are necessary. I would appriciate it very much if you could guide me regarding this. Thanks Yoav Pridor 09:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I would appreciate your help on this matter. Thanks Yoav Pridor (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was undeleted under one condition: changes were made. The changes were not made in 8 months. нмŵוτн τ 16:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

radioio

i am michael roe, founder of radioio. it was brought to my attention that you DELETED the entry regarding radioIO? while entries remain concerning other similar internet radio properties (soma fm, radio paradise, etc)

could you please explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioioguy (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article "didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject". Also, please see WP:COI. нмŵוτн τ 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dyeus.png

Could I ask you to undo your speedy deletion of Image:Dyeus.png and put it through the proper Ifd process? Since I had objected to your proposal for speedy deletion, the case was one of dispute and did not qualify for speedy deletion without further discussion on your part. thanks, dab (𒁳) 14:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't & don't see any objection on the page or the talk page of the image. нмŵוτн τ 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:O2bcukeyelogo.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:O2bcukeyelogo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mangostar (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Speedy deleted the image per WP:SPEEDY#G7. нмŵוτн τ 22:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]