User talk:Keegan/July 07

Non-free use disputed for Image:N24680.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:N24680.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:02, 03 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Birthday Committee is proud to wish you a very happy birthday. May all your wishes come true! Thank you for all of your contributions to this wonderful encyclopedia. Yours sincerely, Eddie 01:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing Keegan/July 07 a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

Happy Birthday Keegan!

The Wikipedia Birthday Committee wishes you a very happy birthday! Enjoy your special day.

Party on and have a great time! Cheers - --RobNS 19:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA/ACL 2

Hello, thanks for your support in my request for adminship. I hope I can live up to your expectations (no, I will live up to your expectations! :) ) Acalamari 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont get it

I don't understand what you wrote... Explain it to me. Smkohnstamm 05:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adminship

Personally, right now I want to see how my editor review goes. If anything comes up that I should try to improve, I will try to do so and then consider adminship. I have experience with the tools, as I am an administrator at LyricWiki. I feel that I am trustworthy as I have been a good editor in my time here so far. I would appreciate your nomination in the future when I believe I am ready. Thank you for your consideration. I'd also appreciate you comments at my editor review if possible. Thank you. --WillMak050389 05:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection

My user page actually is semi-protected. It had been semi-protected by User:Alison due to vandalism. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 12:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Kerkar image

Please restore the Kesarbai Kerkar CD cover image. It was incorrect of you to have done that (even without notifying the uploader), as everything was done properly. Thanks very much for this. Badagnani 04:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and what you did (deleting without allowing for any discussion, or in fact alerting the uploader) was very wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, though, and I guess you got a little excited about deleting, without considering the care and effort other editors took to make sure everything was uploaded and used properly. To avoid the impression that you acted improperly, please restore the image and we'll start over, doing things in a more proper, courteous, Wikipedian way! Thanks! Badagnani 05:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What you did was very wrong. You deleted an image summarily, without allowing for discussion or notifying the uploader. That was wrong. You left an edit summary that said "no source," which was incorrect (I always specify the place from where I took an image). You also stated that the image was used improperly, which is also incorrect. The fact that no discussion was permitted made it impossible to have a dialogue about this before you summarily deleted the image. Then you denied doing those things. That is also wrong. But everyone makes mistakes. Let's go back, replace the image, and go through the proper steps. Doing what you did, then defending it by stating you didn't do those things shows that you are abusing your powers and showing a lack of transparency or accountability. That's very un-Wikipedian. I'll ask again: restore the image and we'll try again, in a proper way. Badagnani 05:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Blaming "the bot" for not notifying the uploader is wrong, and even worse is the fact that I am getting the sense you are not going to fix this error of lack of notification in your future edits, but continue to do what you are doing, improperly and uncourteously. Please undelete the image and we'll through the proper channels. Everyone makes mistakes and I'm giving you the chance, again, to rectify your error to avoid the appearance that your actions are without accountability or transparency. You may feel you're "cleaning" Wikipedia and get a good feeling from this, but when you do so at the expense of our own rules (and our fundamental ideals), it's really no good. Thanks very much for this. Badagnani 05:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The source is here, which I am sure was included in the photo description page, but which I cannot see because you refuse to restore the page pending discussion. That was the proper way to have behaved. I really don't care how editors who edit in a worse way than you might have behaved, but thanks for mentioning those editors. We really don't need editors like that here, IMO. In future, please do make sure the uploading editor has been alerted, allow for discussion, and don't blame "the bot." That's just wrong. I'll remind you that it's never too late to make good on a mistake, especially when it shows courtesy and honor--admin powers can and are abused on a daily basis and you've done nothing to convince me that you don't think that's a fine and okay thing. It really does show disrespect for committed, productive editors. Badagnani 05:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

From the other side

Sorry, Keegan, but now you'll get a complaint from the other side. You de-tagged a number of images today as "source and license provided" which were validly tagged as "no rationale" (like [1], [2]). These images still have no valid rationales, and I'm convinced in at least some of the cases, such as Image:Musa55.jpg, no such rationale could be given. Incidentally, the image Badagnani complains about was also tagged not as "no source" but as "no rationale", and it still had none at the time of deletion. Note that current consensus on the policy is towards saying that recording covers should only be used when there's at least substantial prose discussion of the recording in question, i.e. an article or at least a section of its own. This also goes for instance for Image:Mindi_Abair.jpg, which is used illicitly as a (replaceable) illustration of what the artist looks like, not in a discussion of the recording. Please don't de-tag images like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I certainly don't object to you providing rationales and de-tagging if appropriate; however, the current rules seem to demand that a real "rationale" should be somewhat more specific and extensive than just "it's a bookcover" etc. (although I'm not really a big fan of rationale fetishism either.) But at the least, before de-speedying an image, one should check whether its use is such that it can be covered by a proper rationale, and I think you missed a couple in that respect (like the ones I cited above).

As for Badagnani's complaint, those images were tagged by me, and he wasn't officially notified because he interrupted me with reverts and shouts of "harassment!" before I found time to notify him, and we had a conversation about them on his talk page a little later. So it's a tiny bit disingenious if he's now complaining he had no opportunity for discussion, it's not as if he hadn't been aware during all these two weeks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Waziristan War article history

Hi,

The situation with the article was: Waziristan War was redirecting to Waziristan conflict (2004-2006) as it does now. From the redirect I created a totally new article, and the Waziristan conflict (2004-2006) remained as it was (with it's user history). A user sent me:

Can you go to WP:AN and request that an admin merge the edit histories of Waziristan War and Waziristan conflict (2004–2006)? GFDL requires traceability for edits and your copy/paste move from conflict to war breaks that traceability. In the future, if you wish to move an article, please follow the instructions at WP:MOVE or post a request at WP:RM.--Bobblehead (rants) 16:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Without fully understanding the situation, I asked on WP:AN to merge the histories, but now I realize that it was not needed as the edit history remains on Waziristan conflict (2004-2006) and some sections of that article I only copied to Wazristan War, making the illusion of a move.

So, now the edit history of my edits on Waziristan War are lost, can you make me have it? Thanks, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Mop application

Re: [3]

Thanks for the offer, but I am not interested in being an administrator at this time. Aside from the periodic sock and vandal report I prefer to keep a low profile.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community.

Now... where do I get one of them-there vouchers? - Philippe | Talk 07:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: happy note

Why, thank you, kind sir, and same to you! I'm slogging through the CSDs – presently, the oldest of User:BetacommandBot's wake – and it seems endless, so it's nice to have a pat on the back. Thank goodness for Twinkle or I'd be insane by now. Back to the chain gang... thanks again, very much! :-) - KrakatoaKatie 06:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bwitty

I closed the associated AFD, but note there is now an orphan redirect at BWitty which should probably share the same fate. Also, the AFD called for salting; I'll leave that up to you, but the creators do seem persistent. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of bWitty

Hello, I'm kinda new at this. But why was my page Bwitty deleted, I fail to see my Bwitty it not notable but PtiMemo is and Stickies. Please explain how is my page corporate publicity and those pages are innocent encyclopedia entries.

Please respond in my talk if possible.

I commented on your comment in my talk. Please have a look MyWiseData 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please have another look at my talk. MyWiseData 07:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dash Signature

no assertion of notability ?? Why? Why the history of Native Instruments is notable and the one of Dash Signature is not?

BTW I hope it's not like that big companies get a clean ticket, small ones are spam. This would mean that Wikipedia is already sold out.

Please let me know thanks.

Luigi 87.18.46.60 15:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Keegan, it was actually I, a keen user of audio software from Dash Signature and many other independent companies, that made the Dash Signature page.

I do have some concerns with the deletion - I would understand if I found no precedent on wiki as it exists - but this is not the case. For instance Native Instruments are one of the most commercially visible audio software companies. The Native Instruments page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Instruments ], which has been there for some time, uses as its only source of reference their own 10th anniversary party document, hosted on their own site!!!!! However, there page is being "discussed", while the Dash Signature page is "speedily deleted".

How do you explain this?

Can you even be sure that the user who recommended the deletion does not have commercial interests in the audio software and VST industry?

I, as a serious and committed academic thinker, cannot for the life of me see why the Native Instruments page doesn't receive a "speedy deletion" on the same grounds claimed for the Dash Signature page. You may argue about the visibility of Native Instruments, or their corporate power, but that would put the wiki editorial process in a somewhat dubious position, wouldn't it?

There is clear bias here that needs to be remedied. The reality of wiki does not match the stated criteria for submission (the Native Instruments page is only one of several examples I can give you from the audio software industry, not to mention other commercial industries represented on wikipedia), meaning either (i) Wiki changes the criteria for addition to the wiki, or (ii) you guys and gals get busy deleting a hell of a lot more pages not jusy "new" ones (iii) you re-consider when, how and by whom the "speedy deletion" function can be wielded

There are many concerns I have touched on here, partly from my concerns as an academic reflecting on the editorial process at wiki, and partly as an audio software fan. In summary, I would just like to know how the Native Instruments page can stay on Wiki, yet the Dash Signature page be deleted - on what grounds.

Thanks - Paul

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dash Signature. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Paulrwalsh 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dash Signature

Hello,

I don't know if it's ok to reply here, anyway it's just to say that I didn't take it personally, I was invited by my friend Paul Walsh to check the page and I found it deleted and I was surprised .Thanks for your help. Luigi --Luigi 23:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Dreamstime article, please advise

Hello again,
Following your reply regarding deletion of the above mentioned article I am obligated to add some more relevant information. A great part of your encyclopedia refers to companies and a great part of those companies have no relevance for the industry they are part of. Our article was clearly showing the fact that our company created the microstock competition on this market and helped expanding the phenomena to what it is today that you could observe in the CNN article quoted before. There are companies like Fotolia and Shutterstock, that should be targeted more by your intention to keep this an encyclopedia and not a company database, that are being left online. Furthermore Istockphoto is the first company based on the microstock concept to exist in the world but our article was emphasizing the fact that because of Dreamstime this phenomena grew and expanded to the point of becoming competitive against the traditional stock business it would only be fair the article would be left online with the proper modification that you would expect from us. Also, we have noticed that links towards our site have been removed from all microstock companies articles that are currently online probably put of revenge or something similar. Our article was fair to all companies and provided links to all of them, was also based on explaining how the industry came to be and didn't talk only of Dreamstime which led us to believe that it may have been edited by others to seem advertising and not what it was in the beginning, a wide view of the microstock industry written by one of the companies in the business.
Thank you in advance for your answer, Nikitu 08:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

=Toad Fan Accusation ;)

I am indeed. The page I've made the largest number of edits to is Toad the Wet Sprocket. I still browse Glen's forums, but not the exceedingly dead Lapdog forums (whatever happened to their xmas song last year?). As far as I know (I've checked a few times in the past) every hit for Gertlex on google is me. Nice seeing other Toad fans here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_symbol#Radioactive_signGertlex 14:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)