User talk:Holly Cheng/Archive4

thx howcheng

thank you kindly for the welcome message. i did indeed intend to create a user page and not an article. thank you for moving it for me. --Aria Parsi_2.8.06

From Thr3D0

I recently posted an article on an independent presidential candidate because I noticed that one wasn't there. The candidates name was Daniel Imperato. The article was deleted as speedy deletion.

Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in user space, or undeleted per the undeletion policy. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject. In case of a speedily deleted page, they must also determine that it did meet a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place.

After reading this I wanted to see if what I wrote was an identical copy to what was already written. Turns out it wasn't. I went through google's and yahoo's cache and found out that there was an article on him that was substantially bigger than the two sentences that I wrote. So since its a new article on the same subject, shouldn't it not have been speedily deleted? And also from what I read in Cache from talk pages, I didn't think that my two sentences sounded like a commericial.

Please Advise

Thr3D0 14:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From James D lamb

Thanks for the help, I'm still learning the ropes.

I have a personal interest and expertise in Livermore Valley Wines. Some of the information I have stems from 20 years of experience in the industry.

I'm also a resident of the new town of Mountain House, and am interested in maintaining a robust article on our new town.

It looks form your posts that references are publisher right on the article? To avoid copyright issues, is it enough to cite the material in my own words, and then cite the original? I'm new to all this, but would very much like to contribute.

I'm aware of a lot of the history regarding the Wente family that goes back five generations. The source comes from the Wente family. Is that usable?

Thanks for your time,

Jim

Protection

Hi Howcheng. Can you protect Sharia. There's some trouble there with an editor who doesn't want to compromise, and is using IPs to revert. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hoping he will compromise now. ;) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Howcheng; I am the person Mr. Anonymous is having "some trouble with". -- Now could you unprotect the darn thing so Mr. Anonymous' on-going campaign of vandalism, blocker-running and commitment to "protect" the perception of Sharia from anything infidel Westerners might construe as hopelessly barbaric (e.g., Muhammad's own words, quoted from the Quran and Hadiths, and sourced, regards appropriate punishment for adultry and extramarital sex) can be relegated back to only half the day? Please also observe that Anonymous (and Yuber) have had no interest in using the Discussion page while they enjoyed free rein to edit (you can verify this easily enough by examining date-time stamps).--Mike18xx 03:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia

(Quoting Howcheng's mail to me)

It also looks like you are engaged in discussion with other editors on the talk page as well, which is the whole point of protection in the first place.

There was no exchange in the Discussion section with any of the primary reverting opponants (Yubar, Anonymous) for over a full day prior to the Protected flag. They are the ones who are not interested in prior debate.

If you'll permit me to make an observation as a neutral third party in this, from what I've read of the discussion,...

You're not going to get an accurate perception from the discussion (see above); you need to examine the various iterations of the Sharia Wiki entry to see which are POV'd and which are not. The desire of Yubor, Anonymous, et al, to focus upon "honor killing" (not permitted under Shariah, they say, that point to be hammered repeatedly) as a red-herring in lieu of attention paid to the harsh punishments for extramarital sex including death-sentences (which are in various places), are, IMO, part and parcel of a running campaign of google:al-Takeyya weaseling and neutering spread out across all Islam-related Wiki topics.

...you need to read carefully what User:Tickle me wrote: Your using the Qu'ran as a source is by Wikipedia definition original research. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, meaning that you should be citing secondary sources.

...Sources were cited. Anyone who's saying none were is either lying or not paying attention.

If any of the other editors are inserting content contrary to this policy, then call them on it -- make them provide their sources. If they can't, then you have every right to excise it.

That's not possible to do while the protection lock is up.--Mike18xx 08:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> Reasonable adults should be able to work out a compromise.

It is not the purpose of al-Takeyya to be reasonable or indulge consensus in any capacity beyond lip-service and superficial appearance, because accuracy is not its objective.

The inability of great, heaping gobs of adult humanity to be reasonable results in disputes scaling up to full-blown wars, Howcheng; imagining it'd hold sway in a medium as tempting to propagandization as this requires, dare I say, a pronounced detachment from reality. I had hoped that Penny Arcade's lampooning had it all wrong when I gave this place a shot under the assumption that some fantacized-to-exist-by-me "upper tier" of fact-checkers exerted some means of control over the romper rooms -- but I see now that I erred there.

> Anonymous is an administrator himself....

Then the inmates are definitely running the asylum here, and the whole project is as much a factored-in lost-cause as the United Nations.--Mike18xx 20:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Lott

Article should have been full protected. Definitely an edit war, not vandalism. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re semi-protection request for Cannabis, Cannabis (drug)

Could you reply to my latest, please -SM 15:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re semi-protection request for Cannabis

Could you reply to my latest, please. I consider the request for SP on Cannabis still open, but it was inadvertently deleted. I took the liberty of reconstructing the dialog on Cannabis, while redacting out that from Cannabis (drug) -SM 21:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

question

Hello, Howcheng. I came here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terence John Arbuthnot. I was wondering if you knew of any other cases of Croix de guerre recipients nominated for deletion, to see if there was any precedent. Maybe there isn't, I'm not sure. I'm sort of new to Wikipedia. Also, I noticed on your user page that the link to Bret Harte middle school leads to a page with links to two bret harte middle schools. you might want to change that. Thanks a lot. B.U. Football For Life|Talk 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC) thank you.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 19:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jahbulon

Thanks for the quick response on this entry. Are you sure it has no AfD history? If so, I am very confused. I thought it was deleted sometime around the end of December last year. I know we discussed it, and I had it on my watch list around that time, and the link changed to red... when I checked it, the article had disappeared. I assumed this was due to a deletion. Perhaps not, but then why would it go away? In any case, I am suppose we could go through a (another?) AfD review if needed. The article is a sure AfD candidate. Blueboar 20:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jahbulon's history

You said "At what point was it deleted from Wikipedia? There are no deleted edits in the edit history, nor is there any link to a VfD or AfD discussion. I'm removing the speedy deletion tag for now. If you can prove that this is a repost of previously deleted content, then I'll be happy to delete it."

Here's the history:

Listed as a candidate for Transwikification 02:52, 12 December 2005
Created on wiktionary 05:43, 12 December 2005
Removed from Wikipedia, with note:
finally pointed to wikyionary 07:00, 25 December 2005

recreated on wikipedia 23:56, 20 January 2006, w/ the summary comment "revert either vandalism or POV-inspired blanking; make it nPOV)"

This Has been transwikified to wiktionary, it was recreated here, & remains a wiktionary article. Grye 12:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please block Roitr

...he has been vandalising articles under the IP address 84.109.80.143. He responds neither to English nor Russian - so perhaps a block will set him straight. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet of this user, Tt1, appears to be at it again at Comparative military ranks of World War II, now reinserting over and over again the title of Komandor, stating its an equivalent of Kommodore (which it is not). Hes one revert away from 3RR violation. Again this bears watching, but not yet protecting. -Husnock 20:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked User:Aaron

Please see my rationale at WP:AN. Just wanted to let you know. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Sorry about not using the sandbox

--Hoot 18:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Hoot[reply]

Please punt this vandal

(Apologies for not going through whatever "official" channels which may or may not exist, because I have like about two seconds before I need to rush out the door.)

Please jack the following turd, whom you see in action here through the uprights. Or at least ban his IP address. Basically, User:66.166.118.99 swings by once or twice a day to re-direct links to (his?) blogs, and has been doing so for over a week.

Thankyverymuchgottagobye.--Mike18xx 19:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Sean Sinjin

My friend Howcheng,

I am completely aware that your personal information is available online should anyone wish to pursue it, and that is your 'choice' to make that personal information available; and I stress 'choice'. But, because of Wikipedia and its policies, 'I' no longer have that 'choice'. You, and Wikipedia, have not given me the 'choice' to remove my personal information that accidentally ended up on the net before I had a chance to rein it in (which I am currently in the process of). You may hide behind the fact that Wikipedia's policies do not cover 'privacy' issues when related to factual data, but I see that as a failing in your company's design, and a moral infraction in terms of respect. Do you honestly believe I shouldn't have the 'choice' of revealing my personal details?

Effectively, your website has now become a very powerful tool for recklessly endangering people's lives; yes, lives. I'm sure there are many politically-sensitive people listed in Wikipedia whose lives can also be similarly endangered by the frivolous exposure of 'facts' that may slip out, and can never be rescinded from the black hole of Wikipedia simply because they are true. Well my friend, I volunteer that Wikipedia needs to augment its policies to include the removal of 'factual' information that may result in very real harm. It is neither pious, nor noble, to exercise 'freedom of the press' for no other reason than to be able to 'boast' the most information.

This entire diatribe is probably moot, since even if the article itself is ultimately deleted, I'm not certain that your prior chat entry that 'also' disseminates my personal information, can be deleted.

I leave you with a desire for peace, so please exercise your beliefs as you see fit, I will no longer confront the issue.

-- Galgitron 19:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My good friend, Howcheng, I see the history articles in question have been erased. Thank you very much for your assistance.

-- 70.192.20.64 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

accidental deletion of my workshop page

Sorry, I forgot to put the nowiki tag around the 'deleted by user' clip. How do I get my page back? Thanks, Chris 22:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you sir, will fix it now :) Chris 22:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Turkish People Protection

Discussions showed that the factual accuracy and neutrality of this article is disputed. As long as he article is kept protected there is no way to put these tags in the article. please unprotect the article or put these tags yourself. Thanks. AverageTurkishJoe 20:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DC streets

An AfD that you recently particpated in has been recycled. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination). - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Borrell

I provided discussion on Willy Borrell's article, but it didn't get responded to. If I re-write the article making sure to cite quotes and just try more to keep to the rules would I be able to not get done for redoing the same article? What I’m really saying is...is their a chance I could get my article back up if I improved it? I’ve had many Razorlight fans ask me to make this article, and I’m sure many more would like this article to be made, and many more would benefit from the article being made.

Heathcoteheat 19:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states

Thanks for protecting List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but why didn't you protect it at the status quo ante (the version of the article before the content dispute started, which includes the disputed regions). The current protected version doesn't include them. Did you protect the article simply at the version you encountered? Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 20:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC) I wanna emphasize that this is not meant as an accusation, even though it may sound like one.[reply]

To Aecis

Actually de facto independent states are includeed in the current version, in the separate list below the sovereign states. It wasn't me who separated the lists, though I believe, that would be an acceptable compromise.

I stand corrected. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 20:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you do not favor one version over the other, and that you didn't take any side in the issue. Perhaps it's all just a matter of personal preferences. I personally think it's best, when protecting an article, to "freeze" it at the version the article had prior to the eruption of the conflict. When I saw the article in its protected state, I noticed that Abkhazia had been removed from the A's. This led me to conclude that you had frozen it at 212.72.135.1xx's version, which was the version during the content dispute. I didn't look any further, and I therefore didn't see that Abkhazia and other unrecognized states had been moved to the bottom of the page. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you give a glance to the talking page, you will see, that arguments for separation of the de facto independent states from sovereign states are more solid. And they are still undisproved right now.

Separation of these two lists (i.e. the current version) whould be a reasonable compromise.

Guys, I really don't care. Take this discussion to Talk:List of sovereign states and let us know at WP:RFP when you've reached some sort of agreement. Thanks. howch e ng {chat} 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mihintale

the article under mihintale still appears to have problems with copyrights, but i have made it clear and have informed that permission was granted to use any information of the site in consideration.

Please look into it .. thanks.

Request on Turkish people

Hi Howcheng,

I was wondering if you would be able to replace the current image on Turkish people with Image:Turks2.jpg. There has been agreement on the talk page for that image. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. howch e ng {chat} 16:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would you also be able to protect Image:Turks2.jpg from new images being uploaded over it? --Khoikhoi 00:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closings

Thank you. I appreciate your helpfulness. I won't close any more non-unambiguous AfDs. If you think any of the closings should be reversed, please put a note on the AfD subpage and I'd be glad to undo any of the actions I've taken (such as unmerging the Tacchinardis). Sorry about creating this mess. Thanks again. -- Jonel | Speak 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Assumpção

Hi, i'm sorry for the violation, i'm aware it's not the correct manner to do an article. While i was writing the article, someone sent it for speedy deletion, so i pasted the text from his website just to have something in the meantime and dont have the article deleted Sorry! -- Joaobonzao 00:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: My Username

I saw the policy regarding use of scatological usernames after creating it (I've used that username for years in various venues...its basically habit to use it now). If some backstory would help, "bugturd" is what popped in my head when I saw my Mom's dog for the first time (a chihuahua).

While it is technically scatological, I considered it only mildly so, but I have no issue with changing my username if there are problems. I will also copy this into the RfC. --Bugturd Talk 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up, I have submitted a request to have my username be changed in order to avoid any issues that may arise because of it [1]. While it is not a big issue, I would have appreciated the opportunity to handle it without the public scrutiny and formality involved with an RfC.--Bugturd Talk 16:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Howcheng

We didnt made an agreement about khoikhoi's propagandist picture.All of we are supporting the other picture(you can see in discussion page).I hope you could change it by the decision of most users.If you decide to do it,please protect it as well.I believe a great wikiadmin as you dont permit any unfairness...Sincerely

-Inanna-

No one ever made an agreement of Inanna's picture. In fact, her picture has been reverted by different people ever since she added it. --Khoikhoi 01:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk it out on Talk:Turkish people, not here. Thanks. howch e ng {chat} 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi howcheng.Please dont believe the lies of khoikhoi.How can i have more than one IP adress.I think he should be blocked due to his unfair lies.You can ask all the Turks if they are famous or not.One of them is the biggest singer of Turkey.Other one is the biggest actress of Turkey(most awards belongs to her).Orhan Pamuk has no importance.He only wrote two books.He was sent to prison as well.How can we show a guilty here? That's why khoikhoi and his band try to show this picture.I request the changing of the picture, please.

-Inanna-

You can have multiple IP addresses if you're connected to the Internet with DHCP. Every time you connect to your ISP, you get a different IP address. See for yourself at http://whatsmyip.net. howch e ng {chat} 21:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt see and understand anything.By the way, what are we going to do picture?

-Inanna-

We are not going to do anything. I put up a poll about the image on Talk:Turkish people. howch e ng {chat} 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can I get your action

Hi howcheng. You posted on something I was watching, and I've seen your name a couple times, so I thought I'd ask for your admin assistance. Oh now I remember, it was the protection of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq entry.

Well, there's something else going on with that. The anonymous user who prompted the protections has two pending 3RR violations, a Request for Mediation, and a Request for Comment. I'd appreciate it if you could look at the second 3RR violation, in light of the first one where he was blocked (and noting that he uses multiple IP addresses to get around any block.) All relevent information can be found in the RfC [2] . Swatjester 18:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been a few days now since I've posted the 3RR stuff and nobody's taken any action against the address there. In fact there's been no real activity on the 3rr notice board lately that ive seen. Swatjester 03:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research - State of the Union

That's ridiculous, how am I suppose to discuss the speech? All of what I've pointed out is factual, but it's not legitimate unless it's posted on another site? This policy needs to be changed. KI 22:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey, i was just wondering why my stub on westwood drive was removed. frenchfry22

userfying

What is it? Never heard of it till I found Wikipedia...its not a subject on Wikipedia either. What is userfying?

Please advise about Talk-pages deletion

Hi, Howcheng. When you decided the AfD for the Aetherometry entry and deleted the entry, you left the Talk pages in place. I believe they are no longer needed, and since they are the Talk pages for a deleted article, I listed them on Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions. However, this has not yet produced any results, and I am therefore not sure that just listing them on that page is procedurally sufficient. Can you please advise? Do I need to put a template somewhere as well? Mnay thanks in advance. Helicoid 15:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore this request. The talk pages should be kept. I've removed them from the SD page. William M. Connolley 16:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

They should be kept on what grounds? The template on those pages says they will be kept until the editors decide they are no longer necessary. Who are the editors that make the decision, what is the decision procedure, and what are the pages necessary for? I would like to have a clear statement of the policy governing this, please. Helicoid 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Howcheng. If you have the inclination, would you please comment on this issue at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#What_are_the_policies_governing_the_(non)deletion_of_Talk_pages_for_deleted_articles? Somebody there suggested that the deletion is at your discretion. Helicoid 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lenson

Sorry if I have been treading on your heels. I will leave you to sort this out now. The source of the copyvio says site Copyright 2003 Parva Productions Ltd. All Rights Reserved so we need to establish that Barry Lenson is also Parva Productions. The other aspect is the concept of insult to Wikipedia which I tried to introduce but it did not go down very well: even if the author has permission, I consider that simply copying and pasting a slab of text (and then usually going away and thinking they have contributed!) is an insult. See my note at Barrylenson - it was I who made the images work! -- RHaworth 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Bryant achievements

Moved to Talk:Kobe Bryant.

Hehe

User_talk:Will_Beback#Attempts_to_delete.2Fvandalize_by_Infinity0
User_talk:Mr_Phil#3RR - second paragraph.

Hehe :P Well, I'm finally unblocked, I can go report that user. :D Infinity0 ^talk 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Mernagh

Dean Mernagh is a famous UK jockey. This was stated in the article. He won a big tournament in the UAE. This was stated in the article.

So I fail to see why you deleted the article. Reasons? Mikeroberts 09:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AudioDetour

Hi Howcheng,

AudioDetour is upcoming band and wanted to write a description of the band. Is it not a good enough criteria to enter the information?

AD Audiodetour 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larsinio

I noticed that Larsinio (talk · contribs) seems to be nominating a bunch of pages for speedy with a pretty wide swath. He also recently removed my hangon tag from one, as well as reinserted the speedy nomination after you removed it. Thought you should be made aware. I will put a note on his talk page about it. --Hansnesse 20:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it

You're right, I should have tagged it with the copyvio template and referred it to WP:CP. I normally do that, but I Googled and jumped a few steps. Sorry about that, it's been a long day..JHMM13 (T | C) 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning out CAT:CSD

Moved to User:Howcheng

Re: Haji Piyada

Yes, I discussed the tag with him and we came to a consensus, but I forgot to remove the tag. Thanks. haz (user talk) 08:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football AID 5 February - 11 February

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Bayern Munich has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

"questionable ahadith in sahih bukhari"

Hi! It says that my article "Questionable Ahadith in Sahih Bukhari" was deleted because it had content from a copyrighted site. The site from which I took some material is copyrighted but its free to use. I say in the article that I regret not remembering each and every author's name whose material I used. But I wanted to mention their names out of politeness, not because I had to. Another reason given for its deletion is that it was "unencyclopedic" because of its format: each hadith being followed by a critique. I do not see how that is unencyclopedic. Isn't the purpose of an encylopedia to disseminate authentic knowledge? The article is not just my POV. Anybody who has read it can see the logical foundation of my critiques. What do you think? My email is raunaq_dehlvi@yahoo.com

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't see me having left anything on your user talk page, and I don't see me having deleted any article with that title. Questionable Ahadith in Sahih Bukhari does not have any edits that were deleted. Please point me in the right direction so I can help you out. Thanks. howch e ng {chat} 23:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Hello, voting is end [[3]].Thanks--Altau

I disagree. I think the voting closes later today, not exactly on 00:00 Feb 6. --Khoikhoi 00:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing what khoikhoi does is unjustice.He is provoking everyone against Turks and try to ask sympathy.Look at the all user pages please.He is calling everyone about pictures as chaldean,latinus,southerncomfort who we cant expect them to be neutral.He is already insulting me at all times and reverting my edits.It's so obvious that he is a propagandist.I request a warning about him, please. Altau 13:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about doing something this Inanna sockpuppet Altau who keeps deleting other peoples' comments? Talk about insulting and frankly useless user. Tombseye 23:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Billbrock

I am leaving this message here because I see from User:Billbrock's talk page that you have reprimanded him in the past. He has left a link to all the women User:Sam Sloan has had sex with on the talk page of the [[Sam Sloan] article in this edit. Surely this is vandalism? I'm hesitant to remove it myself given the stigma associated with removing others talk page comments, and my own uncertainty about what constitutes vandalism. You seem to be an admin familiar with their dispute so I thought I'd request you to look at it. --Pierremenard 10:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AJJIF - All Japan Ju-Jitsu International Federation

Thanks for the heads up! --light darkness 12:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Turkish people

Hi Howcheng, as an admin please take care of Talk:Turkish people voting. Otherwise this poll thing can't finish.I hope this last poll will solve everything about picture crisis--Ugur Basak 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Craigie

Hi Howcheng,

I have a (small) bone to pick with you over the way this copyright violation was resolved. You edited the copied text until it wasn't exactly the same. The resulting work is derived from the earlier copyvio. Copyrights extend to derived works.

Please resolve copyvios by reverting to the pre-copyvio version (per WP:CP) or by deleting the offending text altogether (per WP:C). It isn't possible to edit out a copyright violation in the manner you tried. After the copyright violation is correctly resolved the article can be expanded.

I strongly suggest that you read the instructions for resolving copyright violations on both WP:CP and WP:C before doing any more.

I've reverted the article to the pre-copyvio version. --Duk 01:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. But you didn't address my point. Copyrights extend to derivative works.

Also; you quoted:

In addition to nominating potential copyright infringements for deletion, you could:

* Replace the article's text with new (re-written) content of your own.

You didn't do this. You modified the copied text, somewhat.--Duk 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my experience that when people start blatantly slapping pejorative labels around in a course of an argument, directly or indirectly, they don't have a case. When people who do this they are engaging in ad hominem attacks; to follow process blindly, you've got an acute case of copyright paranoia.

Can we please be WP:CIVIL.

you said-Which is why I said on the talk page to please do any more editing if anyone felt it was required

If you want to resolve copyvios then do so, but do it right. Don't leave the job half done. And don't be un-civil when people ask you to do it right. --Duk 17:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wente Vineyards > Wente Clone

Can you just redirect Wente Clone > Wente Vineyards, There's no need for the separate subject on the clone.

Dispute between Sam Sloan and Howcheng

As I notified you before, I have opened a dispute with you before the Arbitration Committee regarding your blanking of the Tom Dorsch Article.

It is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Sam_Sloan_against_User:Howcheng_regarding_Tom_Dorsch

You are invited to respond. Sam Sloan 17:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the wrong foot

Hi Howard, I think we got off on the wrong foot. I hate fighting. I'll answer your latest note in a little bit.--Duk 17:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyvios

OK, I think you hit the nail on the head with:

Let's get back to the point here. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what constitutes a "derivative work." My guess is that the line between "derivative" and "good enough to avoid a copyright violation" is fairly subjective

I've always completely avoided this subjective question by resolving copyvios per the instructions on WP:CP. Revert or delete, that way there is no subjective question whatsoever. Afterwards, the article can be rebuilt. I think this is the intention.

It's understandable that people get upset about deleting an article, but we have to if it doesn't belong to us. Also, your perspective will change a little after working copyvios for a while; I think I investigated and resolved several thousand copyvios before you made your first edit :)

Regarding Jill Craigie, lets compare the two methods of resolving the copyright violation and still ending up with an article;

modify little by little, as needed (your method).
Result: there will _always_ be a reasonable claim that the resulting article is a derivative work (IMO).
revert to pre-copyvio version (per instructions at WP:CP) and then expand.
Result: there will _never_ be any possibility that the article is a derivative work (unless more copyvios are added).

In my experience, it takes a lot of effort to re-write the article (which illustrates the value of something that doesn't belong to us.) However, it also takes a lot of effort to tediously compare and re-write as needed. I'd rather dedicate that effort to something I'm sure won't cause troubles later.

I agree with you that it's wrong to blindly follow policy. On the other hand, let's acknowledge that policy shouldn't be blatently ignored without a very good rationale, specific to the case at hand. In this particular case, after thinking it over and talking about it, I sure that the Jill Craigie copyvio should be resolved per the instructions at WP:CP (revert to the pre-coyvio version). --Duk 18:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my Article?

Why did you delete my Article?Mike92591 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I can see you are a Hater of the SAP Corp.

May the Pigsigners have mercy on your soal.

Alright, let me explain,

Dude, even though you have never heard of the SAP Corp, it doesn't mean it is important. It is a religion to most of us, and maybe you shouldn't be such a racist jerk and jump to conclusions. Do some research before you step all over a religious group. Who are you anyway? Hitler? So just step off, ok you racist bastard, thanks.

Charles

no problem

Lo Phat Ham article

If the article has to be removed that's okay - if it violates your policy or something. However, I read the policies and thought I followed the guidlines.

Lo Phat Ham has been writing on the Internet for over ten years (notable/verifiable) He's been published in some pretty big publications (notable/verifiable) He's my boss (okay - not so notable) He has over 8000 members that subscribe to his Internet site (fan club/cult following)

And I cited sources where people could verify what is posted.

Lots of people are getting to know his name and I know that lots of people use Wikipedia, so I just thought I'd put it up.

Thanks for the tip

I'll incorporate it in my future edits. Any other suggestions are much appreciated. Netkinetic 05:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between iTap and T9

According to the criteria for speedy delete, I thought it was a {{db-repost}} CSD G4 - copies of previously deleted material. Please explain why it's not a candidate. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz 05:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support on my request for adminship. It ultimately succeeded with votes of 52/1/2, so I am now an administrator. Should you have any questions, comments, complaints, or requests at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail.

—bbatsell ¿? 05:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on speedy delete

You said "The article Molella has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia...." That's fine. I was trying to clear out a bunch of red-links by writing short stubs for references that someone had put into a longish Music of Italy I am working on. I had never heard of that one but thought someone else might have. UCLA Medical Center? Nice place? I used to deliver mail there. I'm from Venice (California) and live in Italy (near the other Venice!)

Godfrey Williams

Hi

I'm a bit perplexed that my entry keeps being deleted. It's about an eminent local businessman who is also well known in the field of local radio broadcasting. I made a mistake in the original entry - but all subsequent entries have been purely factual.

Here is the text: "Godfrey Williams is probably best known as the pipe-smoking former chairman of Marcher Sound / MFM radio, based in Wrexham. It was here that he became actively involved in Welsh relations.

He is also thought to be a member of the Welsh Language Board and Wrexham Rotary Club.

A well-known local entrepreneur, he also became involved in a business to create portable advertising boards - although the logo left something to be desired!

He latterly sold the Marcher Radio Group to GWR (now known as GCap Media). The group now looks set to be on the market again."

Any ideas why this is not acceptable?

DAve

Molella

Hi. I wrote an objection to this speedy deletion in the talk page (Talk:Molella). I do not insist on keeping this article, but it seems to me that it didn't meet CSD. Why was it deleted? Thank you. - Liberatore(T) 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I have read your explanation on Jeffmatt's page. I was objecting on a speedy based on "little context", but "no assertion of notability" is ok. I overlooked the A7 on the explanation for deletion. - Liberatore(T) 13:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Donald Ratajczak

Dr Donald Ratajczak is a well known economist and frequently quoted * [4] He is the man to go to for forecasts.John wesley 19:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are people like Victor Gotbaum who I known are important to American legal, cultural or business history but haven't been on wikipedia until I started a stub. Later someone else who knew plenty more than me filled out the Gitbuam entry. How can I get someone to put in a fuller entry without having to do it myself? I know I'm asking to be lazy about it, but my area of expertise is more in calculations for finance and economics or legal aspects and not the reasons for someone's celebrity status; I only know that there are some people I constantly hear in the media. John wesley 19:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poopgang.

Hi.

I'd just like to clarify that it wasn't a test, more a work in progress. See:

http://www.poopgang.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6221

Obviously I should have gone to Uncyclopedia instead.

Aneurin

Hesse

Thanks for the quick reply. The correct title is (Louis II, Grand Duke of Hesse. I did move it there afterwards but somehow it doesn't work now. Please make that change, if you can. Str1977 19:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Davidchockachi2.jpg

I have a doubt that the image comes from WireImage, but its source is yahoo. Also, after the removal of copyvio, you tagged it with a fair use in and provided your rationale. Anyway why don't you admit the copyvio for the image? adnghiem501 00:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the image has been cropped and is of low quality. Such a view can be used to identify the subject of a sole person. However, I noticed that the uploader had complaint and was worried about this image being copyvio at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Another result like this image, he uploaded an image of Christine Lahti, which was also from WireImage. He continued to re-added the image to her article, after I removed it from that article. He said "the copyright is fine I assured you" to me twice on my talk page. Later, I reported the image to User:Zscout370 on his talk page. The user removed it from Christine Lahti's article then deleted it immediately for copyvio. Because you called yourself IANAL, this image was given with your argument for the result of being fair use. I was unlikely to deal with the consensus at all the time. adnghiem501 03:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddush Club - speedy delete

Hello Howcheng,

I respectfully request that you reconsider your decision in this case.

There is not a consensus on this topic, but because it wasn't allowed to run its course this did not come to light.

This is a well-known group - the fact that the original submitter is unaware is not reason enough to invoke a speedy delete.

Thank you.

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FTed.27s_Kiddush

David Meisel

This kid is a well-known Birmingham athlete so I'm struggling to see why the article on him has been deleted. It was a misinformed and disrespectful move on your part.

David Meisel again

You: "The article as written is simply about a young athlete who was good at basketball in school but now is enrolled in university, just like hundreds of thousands of other people in the world."

Wrong.

Hundreds of thousands of other people in the world can do 360s and between-the-legs dunks? In dress shoes? That's news to me.

Thanks for moving

Thanks for moving the warning I posted on that user to the talk page. I'm new at RC Patrol. Thanks. --Aking 19:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Heloise.jpg

Sorry for the mess. Thank you for pointing me out the templates. I'll use them next time right from the beginning. I've put the proper template into the picture article. alx-pl D 20:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Theaker

Right...I actually meant A1. Fingers-faster-than-brain. ;) PJM 20:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave Amerianada alone!

Hello, I'm kstephent. And I have a complaint about deletion of Amerianada. I am the King and founder of Amerianada. My country has 86 citizens, and I am trying to tell the world about it. The problem is I don't have all the time in the world to write it! And everyone is therefore reading an incomplete article. I do not wish to have my article subject to deletion until completeion. Even if others do not find Amerianada notable, there are people who do. The Geography portion of the article isn't that notable, but it is to get a general idea of where Amerianada is. Plus, I feel Wikipedia is a place where we can share information, on everything appropiate. After, there is an article on the Somerset Railroad, one of the world's most unotable railroads. I'm sure nobody in Russia, Sweden, Oklahoma or somewhere else doesn't care. I only know about the SOM, because I live near the SOM. Wikipedia, I feel is to be the true, ultamate source of knowlegde in the world for everything. Plus Sealand and Lovely are the only spefic micronations I have seen an article on Wikipedia.

THNAK YOU

That whole thing was ridiculous. You can't have asmall dispute without a trigger happy admin jumping the gun and protecting? I appreciate it and it looks like it's workign out (not hanks to the protection). Thanks again.Gator (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilsonian

Good "thinking-outside-the-box" effort!! Hopefully, the vandal won't bother to retype the whole nonsense and I won't bug you to protect the page. Thankx! Happy Edit --Hurricane111 22:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortuantely, it appears the vandal is back and vandalise the page twice. His IP seems to be in the range of 69.253.108.x - which is from Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. If this pattern continues, should we add the page/vandal to WP:VIP list. --Hurricane111 04:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reversing the speedy delete on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ted's_Kiddush#.5B.5BTed.27s_Kiddush.5D.5D and thanks for your personal message!

--Listedit25 23:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I understand my mistake. I just wanted to discourage some bad nationalist edits. My aim is to have neutrality at wikipedia.--Pjetër Bogdani III 23:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leyasu's ArbCom case

The anon who has been revert warring with Leyasu on Children of Bodom left me a message on my talk page that Leyasu broke 3RR again after I blocked him, so I went to User talk:Leyasu to see if he'd been blocked. I saw your message about not wanting to take him to the arbcom, and for several months I was hoping that wouldn't happen myself.

He's been in numerous disputes with other editors (maybe most prominently at Gothic metal) - pretty much since he got here in November - and currently has an ArbCom case against him. It's at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu, and a lot of evidence has been posted regarding Leyasu and Danteferno. We're currently in the Evidence and Workshop stages, so if you have any comments/recommendations to make there about any of the editors involved, they are welcome too.

--Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Juego

Thanks for catching that. User:Jonty303 was on a vandalism campaign to put references to The Game in as many places as possible (thereby forcing anyone participating in that nonsense to "lose"); I guess I was too hasty in tagging that one. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Fox/Temp

What happened to the replacement article for the copyvio version of Selena Fox that I had written at Selena Fox/Temp? - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 01:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was something like that. No worries, accidents happen. Thanks for your help! - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 03:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Romeo

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate the courtesy. ping 06:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free

I'll tell you what I told William, I stand by my edits and you are free to fully investigate them here and on the John Lott page where I compleely stand by my hard work to tone down the POV and work with dificult editors. Please, I'm an open book. :)Gator (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poly Prep

When a protection comment says WP:OFFICE, please leave it as is. There are reasons for this. Danny 17:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller Baptist Church

Regarding Fuller Baptist Church, I was wonder if you had heard back from them or not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My signature

Thank you for letting me know about the sig. I find changing the signatures difficult. However, you motivated me to have another try and I've sorted it. Many thanks!!!--File Éireann 20:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, doesn't work - I'll fix it!--File Éireann 20:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Done--File Éireann 20:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robsteadman

Even though I fully support the 48 hour block and dont think he should be unblocked (even with an empty promise), I want to act in good faith and let you know that Robnsteadman is contesting the block on his talk page. Take a look, do what you will (you know my position) but I thought the blocking admin should know and be the only one making promises and that you should know what is being requested. Thanks!Gator (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, feel free to look "into my behaviour" I have nothing to hide and am always open to good advice from those more exerienced than I.Gator (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob is complaining that his 48 hours is up and that he's still blocked. I don't know if it's true or not, but please look into this and unblock him if it is true. (Oh and feel free to let him know who came ot bat for him. lol).Gator (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

david chockachi...

I upload hundreds of photos and I have probably had about 10-15 copyright problems in all. About half of the mistakes questioned where of the mistake of the editor. Some of them where in fact my own personal error which I have fixed. With regard to this case it was a press release photo but I didnt release who took the photo. I will list it but as you said copyrights are tricky things.

JJstroker 00:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoid Mary image

Concerning the image and its fair use problem;

I'd look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive07#Header_for_linking_purposes:

One: If these are truly promotional images, then the fair use argument is quite good, actually better than for scanned images of the covers. Such images should be tagged as {{promotional}}, however, not as "comic book covers", because they're not. And they must be sourced or they will be deleted.

- SoM 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (originally on my talk page).[reply]

I don't want to get in another edit war, but if the promotional images really are fairuse, I would like to change them back--DrBat 02:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the mess, I've put in a request @ WP:RPP for this page to be protected. Like you noted @ DB's talk page, it's not going anywhere right now. I'm reminded of the Zatanna mess of a few months back... - SoM 03:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller Baptist Church

I did take it off the list, but it wasn't me who added the {{confirmation}} tag. I had thought you did it, but it looks like it was User:Thefeds. I'm not sure if it's legit. Well, if the church gets back with you saying the use is not allowed, we'll remove it. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Hall deletion

I can understand why the article had to be deleted. I am relatively new to editing the Wikipedia and I just wanted to test the waters as it were. The reason why I created the article was because this particular person is part of the of the phenomena of viral video as a whole. I was simply trying to give information.-SweetHeart666 02:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you
Hello Howcheng, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 63/4/3. I am honoured by the community support and pledge to serve the project as best as I can. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 17:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Article Talk Page

Would you take a look at the talk page? We've documented that the majority of scholars believe Jesus existed, allow for a sentence revealing that a minority does not and yet Robsteadman is not satisfied. I would like to finish the documentation and move on, but he still is not willing to let it go. None of this is in violation of the rules, but I'd appreciate your guidence on how to bring the matter to a conclusion. --CTSWyneken 02:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Cel es tianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

copyright issue: duse muhammad ali

Thanks for looking at the page and clarifying that the link is not from a commercial provider. Any idea as to when the copyright warning will be removed, i beleive its been more than a week, and the thing hasnt been lifted nor deleted. Any ideas? thanks for your help Wilis.azm 08:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Turks

I have prepared the picture: [5]...Thanks. Inanna 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry.I supposed the page was still protected.Thanks. Inanna 08:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/Quarl

Hi Howard, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 11:49Z

Semi-Protect please

There has been a great deal of anon vandalism to the Jesus page for a fews straight tdays now with little or no real contributions from anon editors. Would you please semi-protect until further notice? Thanks.Gator (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

After having his image deleted three times and beging told by 3 different mods that he should stop reuploading and reinserting his image, DrBat constantly makes the same changes. You might remember him from here. Any guidance would be helpful, thank you. AriGold 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr and Typhoid Mary

I saw you protected the page, but looking at [[6]] is there any reason not to block them both for breach of the 3RR? Steve block talk 23:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I blocked AriGold for an hour and DrBat for 24. Steve block talk 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng, I came to you for help (oh, thanks for not responding) when I revert something back to what THREE MODERATORS said was the better use, and remove an image that had been deleted 2 or 3 times in a week, and you tell steveblock to block me? Kudos to you also, sir. AriGold 15:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did talk to DrBat, I just couldn't keep up with his spamming my discussion board. Why don't you go look at the history of his discussion board and see for yourself. I honestly could care less which image gets used, I was just reverting what he had been told not to do, over and over. Again, thanks for the help. I appreciate you guys coming to me and talking to me after I asked for help and not just banning me without warning. Oh, wait... AriGold 16:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Consistent Life Ethic

===>Thanks I'll e-mail the creator. I appreciate it. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image proliferation

Seems some want to delete my images. Thank you for preventing this AND for the additional links to the image (we'll see how long they last).

J. Crocker 01:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football AID 19 February - 25 February

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Football (soccer) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Deletion of ISO 15288

Dear Howcheng,

I've created and article titled ISO 15288. I found that it was deleted by you on 23:43, 16 January 2006. I couldn't find any AfD for it. Could you please let me know why it has been deleted? Mahanchian 12:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this. I felt that this could be considred as fair use of the webste. I'll try to rewrite it later on. Mahanchian 11:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again

Robsteadman is violating the 3RR again. See Jesus. He's reverted three times and, so far, seems to gaming the system with the fourth revert. (but we'll see). I really don't know what has to be done for him to stop this other than a much longer block, but that just enrages him, so maybe blocking his talk page would also be necessary. Your call. Sorry to keep bothering you with this guy. I hope this is the last time you hear about it.Gator (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it looks like it's been taken care of. Thanks. I hate making a public spectacle out of things when I don't have to, but you're probabaly right (tranparency and all). Thanks!Gator (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

Hello. Do you think {{Coordinates}} should be nominated for deletion? I think {{Coor dms}} is just fine. - Darwinek 13:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see why both can't exist. They both serve the same function in different formats. One incorporates an inline display of coordinates while the other sets the coordinates apart in a frame. - Cybjorg 19:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roitr again

Hello Howcheng, I noticed that you blocked User:Roitr indefinitely on Jan 18, 2006. This user however got unblocked and is now vandalising 2002 Winter Olympics. Your intervention would be appreciated. Thank you, --Kalsermar 22:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Copyright

Hi. I think the crown copyright template needs a strong warning added that not all UK government websites are included. Many users are using it (understandably) as a blanket tag for all images from gov. websites. I notice you've edited the template page recently to include:

"The licensing terms described in this template do not apply to all British Crown Copyright sources. Please check if the site you are taking images from is included in the list of sites this template applies to, found on the talk page, before using this template."

I think this needs to be within the template itself so that it is produced on image pages. Regards Mark83 12:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mark83 10:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing image from my user page

Please provide the Wikipedia policy page where it states that fair use images are not allowed on user pages. Thank you. --Wolf530 23:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page to avoid taking up space here. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 00:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose, California

I noticed you have moved this page. A few months back, there was a discussion about this topic, which is recorded on the talk page. So, there is a clear consensus that the title should be San Jose, not San José. As I see you were an admin, I would like your help in moving it back to the previous spot. Thanks in advance. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N'vyus

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 1 (almost at the bottom) is an apparent Afd for N'vyus. However, it looks like it's actually a link to an old AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N'vyus) that you closed as a deletion and then more text underneath that was added to the Log page and not the AfD nomination page. I'm guessing this is actually an improperly formatted nomination for a page that was recreated after deletion & then nominated again, but having never seen the original, I thought I'd bring it to your attention since you are the one who closed the original. -- JLaTondre 21:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]