User talk:Meegs/Archive 3

This is my talk archive. If you need to contact me, please leave a message on my active talk page.

User talk:Meegs	2005 Nov →	2006 Feb →	2006 Apr →	2006 May →	2006 Jun →	2006 Aug →	2006 Oct →	2007 Jan →	2007 Apr →	2009 Jun →

Removed Edits?

I recently spent several hours on some edits to the Basil Poledouris page. I was unaware of the neutral point of view policy, which I understand now. The thing is that I didn't save any of these writings and I would like to have a copy. Do you by any chance have access to the deleted files so I can save them for myself? Thanks!

Pistiswalker 06:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pistiswalker. Unless an entire article is deleted (not the case here), you can view all previous revisions. All you have to do is:

1. go to the article you're interested in
2. click on the "history" link above the article. That brings up a list of all of the edits to the article, starting with the newest
3. click on the date of the version you want to see

If you want more information, take a look at Help:Page history. If that was already more than you wanted to know, here is a direct link to your last version. What you wrote was a very good critical review of the soundtrack — I enjoyed reading it — but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. I hope you will find another home for it, though. ×Meegs 06:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 12:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for Speedy Deletion - Talk:Nicholas BARBARO

Thank you for letting me know. I don't list pages for deletion often so I'd forgotten the different criteria. I figured an admin would likely speedy it when they saw it but I didn't remember that there was a specific process for speedy deletion. Thanks again! -- Renesis13 05:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Backups of deleted images

^{Copied from my talk page. --Sherool (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)}
Also, I'm curious, how many people have requested copies of images you've deleted, and in what time period? Maybe I should keep copies too, as a courtesy. ×Meegs 05:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well so far -- none. Though I once deleted a wrong image by accident and promptly uploaded my backup to replace it. I have gotten two or three e-mails from people wondering why an image was deleted or tagged, but no actual requests for deleted images. I suspect most people either know where to obtain new copies of images they have uploaded before, or they don't know how to find out who deleted an image or why, and I guess a lot of people have been "conditioned" to believe that deleted images are lost forever so they just write them off. That said making a habit out clicking "save image as" (for small inline images) or "save target as" (for big images or non-inline formats, like svg (you want to save the source, not the PNG thumbnail) OGG and such) before deleting something doesn't rely slow you down all that much, and it's nice to have a backup if you do make a blunder at some point. I just make one folder for the month and then one subfolder for each day and then delete the old month folders at some point when they are at least one month old. Not a huge amount of work. --Sherool (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Zero, that's what I was guessing. Seems like a good idea, nevertheless. Thanks. ×Meegs 18:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Shaa

Please read Talk:Ralph Shaa. Thank you. DS 15:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Flex Loader Page

It has come to my attention that the page (created and somewhat-maintained by me) is constantly recieving vandalism. May I request a temporary (if not, permanent) restriction on all edits to users that are not logged in?

I'm sorry to have to call this to your attention, but you have been the only Admin who has even considered helping my article, and I feel quite disappointed that my entry recieve so much vandals. Thanks for your previous help, and please continue helping! Teckie 04:26, 05 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stanlie. The article has been vandalized three times in the last ten days. I know that it is really frustrating, but it's not really enough to warrant page protection; that's generally reserved for articles that are vandalized several times an hour. I undid all of the vandalism, and have added the page to my watchlist and will keep an eye on all of the edits made to it in the near future. You should take a look at Help:Reverting; it will show you an easy way to reverse this type of vandalism yourself. On a related topic, I really need to warn you that the subject of the article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites, and it is possible that someone will request the article's deletion in the future. If that happens, do not take it personally. Articles about sites of this size are deleted ever day. In the meantime, I will do my best to help you keep it vandalism free. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Take care. ×Meegs 06:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be adding more content on the article soon, as I have recently released a new version of Flex Loader, as well as a forum. Hopefully things will work out for the better. Teckie 19:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Donald M. Kendrick

I have done so. I trust this satisfies. My apologies. Masalai 11:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've deleted the old article and moved the temp into its place. Thanks. ×Meegs 13:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Image fair use

I'd like to ask you a question about the comment you posted here.

Specifically, I'm wondering what you meant by, "permission for use in Wikipedia is not sufficient, anyway." I think I understand what happened in the rest of the interaction. Whoever first posted the image declared it to be a promotional image. You subsequently found evidence on the source site that clearly indicated that that was not the case and edited the page to indicate that. But would you mind explaining to me what exactly you mean by your next sentence: "Permission for use in Wikipedia is not sufficient"? If some entity explicitly grants permission for their image to be used in Wikipedia, that's still not sufficient to actually do so?

(Note: I'm not taking issue or disagreeing with your assessment; I'm just trying to slowly but surely educate myself on all of these fair use subtleties, so I'm asking because I don't seem to understand that point.) Mwelch 01:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mwelch. This isn't your question, but just for clarification, the image's uploader uploaded many other images the same day (e.g. Image:Antonio Gates TE.jpg) with the following text: © Photo File, Inc., Yonkers, New York. The NFL, NFLPA, and Photo File give permission to use these images as long as they are kept in their original form and not used in any derogatory way. I just realized that they did not make that claim on the Kobe image, which is from a different source, so my permission comment does not apply to it. For the images like the one of Antonio Gates, though, there are three problems, any one of which is grounds for deletion:

1. The images are very likely not Wikipedia:Publicity photos.
2. The claims of permission are almost certainly bogus (it contradicts the site's legal notice, plus the uploader has a long history of deceptive practices)
3. If the copyright holder had given permission, the images would still not be usable per CSD I3.

I think the third is the one you were asking about. This email and its links to can probably explain better than I can at the moment. These images' permission is likely fabricated, so I don't want to dig into its particulars, but permission is problematic whenever it is restricted to non-commercial use, restricted solely to use on the Wikipedia site, or contingent on something like it is here ("not used in any derogatory way"). 99% of the time, the best way to get permission to us images is to get the copyright holder to irrevocably release its rights, or license it under the GFDL or a compatable Creative Commons license. I'm not an expert, but if you want more information I can point you to a few places that you could ask questions. ×Meegs 04:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. I unilaterally replaced the {{promotional}} tag on the Kobe image to put it on the fast track for deletion largely because of this editor's long history, but if you'd like, you can remove the {{No license}} tag and deal with it as you see fit. ×Meegs 04:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes, if you get a chance, I'd appreciate your pointing me to somewhere that I could gather more info. I must confess that I don't follow why specific permission to use on Wikipedia or for non-commercial use would be considered problematic. For something nebulous and subjective like "not in a derogatory way", certainly I can see why that would be a problem. And I understand that this issue is moot with regard to the Kobe picture or the Gates picture or the other specific pictures from that user, becuase of 1) and 2). But moving away from those specific instances, just in general, if the copyright holder of an image really does verifiably say, "this may be used on Wikipedia", I'm not seeing where the problem arises. So indeed I'd love to find out more.

(I'm not doubting you that it is a problem somehow. I'm just not able to discern exactly why that is so. So I would like get to the point where I could actually explain why, if anyone ever asked me the question.)

Thanks for taking the time out to respond. It's sincerely appreciated. Mwelch 06:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The permission issue is sort of like fair use, and I see two general factors influencing WP policy in the area. One is that since even accusations of copyright violation cost money, we make our policies quite conservative. The second is that WP's goal is create a free (as in not constrained by law) encyclopedia; restricting parts of the encyclopedia to, say, education use only, while other parts (incl. all the text) is restricted only by the GFDL falls short of this goal (on top of being awkward and complicated). Part of the reason I'm willing to contribute here is the assurance that there is nothing tying the encycopedia's content to this web site, or to the foundation, and that similar projects could step-in and continue the work should catastrophe strike. One more tidbit: I'm not sure how real this one is, but images with non-commercial restrictions could conflict with Wikipedia's fundraising efforts.

There's an article on the topic at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-05-23/Noncommercial images, and a couple of related discussions in the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags, and Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. Search the talk pages for permission.

Where should you ask more questions? The talk page of Template:Copyrighted is the most topical place, but since it has such a narrow audience, I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. If you do learn more, through whatever means, please check back and give me some links. ×Meegs 07:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that last advice. If you want other opinions, jump into one of the active topics at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags, "FreeUseProvidedThat" or "The Best Tag for copyrighted images being used under 'fair use' for educational purposes". Regards. ×Meegs 07:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that second point in particular that you mention above is definitely an eye-opener for me. I hadn't put two and two together regarding this whole issue of images and what is stated about commercial redistribution on the GFDL page. In that light, it does seem to make more sense to me now.

My head is still spinning from all of the nuances and caveats involved in all of this. But I do feel like I've got a much better grasp now on this aspect of it, at least. Thanks again for your time and patience. Mwelch 08:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA

Hello, Meegs! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Renaming John Henry

John W Henry is known for his acomplishments in the field of money management and not Baseball. The (baseball) comment should be removed !!

The W must be included in the naming of the article as it is the name in witch he is most communly refered to as !

The article should be renamed John W. Henry without the (baseball) part.

When you do a search in google for "John W Henry" you get the all the top 10 results relating to the subject of this article and when you do a search for just "John Henry" none of the top 10 results are about the subject of this article.

Also do a search at newslibrary.com for "John W Henry" and you get 1213 articles in major news publications related to the subject of this article. When you do a search for newpaper articles realted to John Henry at newslibrary.com you get results not related to the subject of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trade2tradewell (talk • contribs) 2006 April 8 09:09 (UTC).

I see you discovered Wikipedia:Requested moves a few hours after leaving this message. Since the page obstructing the move in this case is just your own cut-and-paste, and since your reasoning isn't likely to be controversial, thought, I've gone ahead and performed the move ahead of schedule. ×Meegs 07:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"HYMPS" article

HYMPS is a commonly used acronym for college discussions. One such example is the College Confidential forums. I'm not sure if this qualifies as a good example, but it's what I have and I've been hearing it for a long time. I replaced the article because I believed the old one was simply deleted due to a stupid edit refferencing chimps. Thanks. PS: I had to add it this way since some link from above was stopping me from editing.. Royrules22 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Terms that are thrown around in online forums are still neologisms. As I noted in the AfD, it gets only three google hits: that's orders of magnitude too small to be notable enough for its own article. Honestly, this isn't a matter of finding sources; the article simple should not exist. A similar acronym, HYPSM, is mentioned in Big Three (universities), though I'm not sure if deserves to be. If you must have HYMPS represented somewhere in the encyclopedia, I suggest a brief mention there. ×Meegs 10:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! Hello Meegs/Archive 3. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

plays

Ghost to the Post was already in there, so I added the other ones I could think of. Maybe create a parallel category like "Notable American football plays" or something?--Mike Selinker 15:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My first thought is just to move Ghost to the Post from plays to lore. I take it your new cat would be a subcat of both? I need convincing. I think lore is a better cat with the plays, games, and miscellany together. It's nearly the ideal size (for now), if you ask me. ×Meegs 15:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's all fine. Ghost to the Post made me think the others belonged here, so I'll just delete the plays category for it and the rest.--Mike Selinker 16:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lastscan.jpg

I saw that you changed the license tag on this image to {{logo}}. While it may look like an official, copyrighted logo, it is actually more insidious. There actually is no city of "Anaheim Hills" in California, it is a neighborhood of Anaheim, California. This image is part of a concerted effort by one particular user to promulgate their erroneous opinion that it is a "city" when it is in fact a neighborhood (cf. Anaheim Hills, California). I'm not sure what the copyright tag should actually be, but the image can probably be deleted as patent nonsense. Mike Dillon 02:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I sort of figured; that's why I didn't reinsert it into the article. I did tag it {{or-fu}}, though, so it may well go-down that way. If the author reinserts the image, we can think about WP:IFD under the UE criterion. I just added {{or-fu}} to Image:Lastscan2.jpg; any thoughts on that one? ×Meegs 04:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I'd actually be much happier if we IFDed them now and asked the unloader to defend them there. Would you nominate them? ×Meegs 04:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Counter Vandalism Unit.png

Can you delete every page on my userspace that displays this image? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Just confirm, every page? ×Meegs 19:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

They are all files that have fragments of my vandalism detection bot. Since I can no longer run it the pages have no purpose.

I'd like to renote only files in my userspace.

Thank you. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm starting now. It's sad news about your bot and the IRC channel; I don't know anything about your conflict, but hopefully things can be worked-out. Let me know if things change and you want these undeleted in the future. I'm keeping a list of these deletions at User:Meegs/Cool Cat deletions for anyone that might need it. ×Meegs 20:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your message. I'm not sure how far you got with them till now, but yeah, it's ok to delete them. Even though I did create some of them, that was just to help him out, it was his text. If you need any help with it, let me know. --JoanneB 21:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I've got it. I stopped when I came across pages other editors, but I'll finish them up now. Thanks. ×Meegs 21:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Image:Coolcat's CVU FAQ1.png is now an orphan, by the way. Take care. ×Meegs 22:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re Omoo

Well I seem to recall some of his edit summaries mentioning "permission" when he reverted some of my "no license" tags. I left him a message asking him to clearify as "with permission" is not a usable license, but he aparently just removed that message as well. I find no contact info or copyright statement at the blog (nor do I understand the language), and as you said some of those images are most likely not the bloggers pictures to begin with. I'd say leave him another message asking him to either come up with a fair use claim, present some proof that the copyright holder have rely said that all rights to the images have been released for any purpose, and tag them with {{permission}}, and if nothing happens after a few days just delete them under I3. I was meaning to follow up with him, but I tagged hundreds of images that day and he simply disapeared in the crowd. --Sherool (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi Meegs, I’ve been experimenting with userboxes on my personal page, but I haven’t yet quite gotten the hang of it. Do you think you can you help me organize my page? EKN 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

How's this? ×Meegs 22:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much Meegs! EKN 01:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

Photos I added

To start off, I have read the Wikipedia photo policy a few times. But I was wondering why my photos always ended up getting deleted (most recently all my current photos by you) Apparently I am doing something wrong. However I list as much information the photo has. To be honest with you, I can't see how any of them got deleted. Pllease explain this to me under my user talk page. Could you add a photo under one of my pages to show how it is supposedly properly done. Quite frankly I look at other pages and they have less copyright then mine. Honestyly it is frustrating wasting your time to upload a photo and have it just end up getting deleted. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bdman (talk • contribs) 2006 April 16 03:04 (UTC).

I just uploaded a photo under the Denny Hamlin page. I followed what other people did. Please let me know if this is acceptable. If it is then I am starting to catch on! Thanks again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bdman (talk • contribs) 2006 April 16 02:28 (UTC).

Hello Bdman. First of all, I am extremely reluctant to help you when you have removed my previous messages on the topic from your talk page with the comment "Removing Useless Photo Talk".

In short, though, if you are not the copyright holder of an image, as with Image:Dale awardd.jpg, you can not release any of its rights; such a decision must be made by the copyright holder. In general, Wikipedia includes only free content, so getting the copyright holders to release most or all of the rights (as licensing under the GFDL does) is critical. There are a small number of cases when unfree images are usable under fair use, but there is no such claim for a portrait from a commercial site, such as Image:Denny H.jpg. Carefully read WP:Fair use, and all of the links in the messages that you deleted before uploading any more images. I also suggest you talk to User:Royalbroil, who has kindly offered to talk to you in person. After that, if you have any more questions, you'll get the best help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Also, I'd like to ask you to stop removing messages from your talk page, especially personally-written ones (removing ones from OrphanBot is alright). It breaches etiquette and might be interpreted as rude or evasive by the people who have taken the time to write to you. The most important reason, though, is that it make it very hard to communicate with you over time. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and if you isolate yourself from the community, you will not be able to contribute effectively. Regards. ×Meegs 10:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Meegs,

First off I would just like so say thank you for the information you gave me. With that said I appreciate the help you gave me. I am also sorry for the sort of outburst in my original message to you.

Also I am sorry for deleting your entry under my talk page and adding "Removing Useless Photo Talk". I was just frustrated that my photos kept getting deleted. However it was my fault and you were just doing your job. It won't happen again.

I hope to continue to constribute to Wikipedia and the community effictevely. I will not act out of line like I did again (the only time by the way).

I also deleted the photo under the Denny Hamlin page. I don't plan to add anymore.

Best Regards, Bdman 2006 April 16 20:19 (UTC)

Changing Usernames

Do you happen know if we can change our usernames? When I first made an account, I just typed in random letters, but now I think I'd prefer something that sounds nicer. EKN 02:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

Hi EKN, I'm glad you liked the redesign of your user page. Yes, you can request a new username at Wikipedia:Changing username. By the way, I would extend the same advice to you that I made in the preceding topic about removing messages from your talk page. Take care. ×Meegs 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Stupid tables looking awful

Hi. Just wondering what do you think about that table in Andy LaRocques discography page that an unknown user introduced. And he did it only for King Diamond albums. Should it be there since it is not so important to have a table there than just a list (and a similiar table is on King Diamond discography), like it was before. And it makes a page look a bit clumsy and takes the attention away from his biography on to albums. I know I'm bothering you with something completly irrelevant but... I can't help it. Post replys on my talk page. Death2 07:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey. So there is the text about the problem on the talk page. By the way I think that Andy produced Evilution (album) with others from the band (corrected the links on the talk page). And also I haven't understood what is your issue with the fair-use of covers and as for images link to images that is because wikipedia is opened for everyone to edit (unlike other webpages). Death2 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Death2#Discographies ×Meegs 18:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it looked like a vote, mostly because I wanted it to look like a vote, haha! It's better this way. About fair-use images (to put it plainly): to represent an album on the album page OK, in the table not representing the album and no-commentary so NOT-OK. I understood it like that, you can add that too to the argument on the talk_page. I knew the Evilution album was included in the main page I just wanted to note that Andy was the producer. By the way are you planning to archive your talk page it's getting really big! While tiping this we had an edit conflict! See ya. Death2 18:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the whole article doesn't need to be about the album, but there should be at least a couple of sentences of commentary about the album to allow its image to be used securely under fair use. As for the producer credit, sure, but if we're going to start adding that level of detail, we might as well list his roles on each album for all three bands that he was in. That's what I did for Waldemar Sorychta, though with him it was a necessity since he plays several different instruments. Discounting engineer, and minor things like that, is Andy credited with anything other than guitar or production on any of the albums of his three bands? ×Meegs 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And, yeah, I'll archive soon. ×Meegs 18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

He has not been credited (he should cause he does those kind of things but it's tough to get accurate info so...) Death2 18:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

AfC

Hi there, I'm not familiar with how to move pages using the Pywikipedia framework, I've tried searching through the documentation, and have been unable to find any functions to assist in doing so. Having said that, I don't think it's possible for me to do, since I only know how to use the Pywikipedia framework. If there is something else I can assist you with, please let me know. Cheers. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 05:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks anyway. ×Meegs 05:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps User:Tawker can help? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Cryptic's Crypticbot might be able to do it, it might save a little time, otherwise I'll add it to my to do list (you in a rush, fairly major upgrade to Tawkerbot2 is in the works :) -- Tawker 00:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Crypticbot was my first thought too, but Cryptic hasn't edited in a month, if he returns, I will certainly ask him. Tawkerbot 2 is really great, and I don't want to take you away improving it, but if you could squeeze this in sometime soon, I'm sure all of those anonymous editors would really appreciate it ;) I don't know how it became my responsibility, but I've been doing the archiving myself since the end of February, but won't be nearly as reliable in the future. The problem is that the page grows very quickly and becomes unwieldy after not long if it's not archived. One quick question: User:Lightdarkness said he does not know how to move pages with the Python framework he uses; do you (using whatever you use)? Thanks. ×Meegs 01:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Freakofnurture has pywikipedia movebot code, I'll ask him -- Tawker 16:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you think u're doing?

All of the pictures you have removed off tamil films, are all film shots. Don't go around changing things you don't know about. Keep out! Soz. Please R.Madhavan 18:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the majority of them obviously are not (e.g. Image:Peralagan.jpg, Image:Asin502.jpg, Image:80 villain.jpg), and I have liberally undone User:Jathu's taggings, since they are not reliable. If some of the images are indeed screenshots, feel free to retag them. Copyright is a serious issue, though, and deceptive practices that impede our efforts to keep Wikipedia legal and free can not be allowed. ×Meegs 19:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about personal attacks

HI, I just want to know about the action you may take against a user if he or she is making personal attacks ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phippi46 (talk • contribs) 2006 April 23 .

Well, it depends tremendously on the circumstances and the nature of the attack. You can read the official policy at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The ideal is summarized at the top of that page: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

I hope you don't mind, but I've looked though your edits and see that several of them have been undone by User:Siddiqui, some with the edit summary "Reverting changes by another Sock Puppet". The sock puppet comment may just be a misunderstanding. Both of you need to work on your communication, though. For example, while he should not have reverted this edit without explanation, you should not have restored it without first attempting to communicate on the article's talk page.

I will leave Siddiqui a message asking that he provide explanations when reverting edits. I would advise you to cite your sources when contributing specific information to articles, such as demographics, and also to leave edit summaries summarizing every edit that you make. If there's anything else I can help you with, please let me know. ×Meegs 02:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to the word Sockpuppet, defination from that page:

A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name.

The Chenab Nagar page has seen lot of reversion. The government of Pakistan changed the name from that town from Rabwah to Chenab Nagar. Chenab Nagar page is a stub and has only one line info about the town to avoid any controversy. It also informs that previous name was Rabwah. The Rabwah page has all the info that Phippi46 wants to add to this page. If anybody wants more info about this town then can click and go to Rabwah page.

The additions in Zulfikar Ali Bhutto page is his POV and are very controversal. These subject have indirectly refers to the same controversy regarding actions of government of Pakistan that have already been dealt in pages Ahmadi, Qadianism, Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, Maulana Muhammad Ali, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, etc pages. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto page and these pages has reached a compromise. If the these addition to Bhutto page are added then these pages will also see additions and reversions. So the status quo is the best policy. You must also consult with Nazli with this issue.

Siddiqui 14:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui, you miss my point. Whatever the quality or appropriateness of the contributions, they are not vandalism and should not be reverted without explanation. Please, in the future, explain reversions to the other editors in edit summaries or on talk pages. This is all it takes. ×Meegs 17:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well thanx alot for clearing some doubts, I also like to state that I am a new member of wikipedia and have very little experience, so i was wondering soon about the statements like sock puppet and vandalism etc. any way I will be care full but I will be happy when I get a explaination from any user who want to revert/change any artical, as it will help me too improve my information. Phippi46

Sounds good. Next time someone reverts one of your edits, whether they explain themselves or not, please try to discuss it with them on the article's talk page before taking any further action. ×Meegs 17:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Phippi46 18:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Thank you once again. I hope I will be a good contributor to others and also improve my self.

Yahya01 or Phippi46 ' The user Phippi46 previously posting as Yahya01 ([1]) probably Sockpuppet of another Wikipedian is again making POV changes in controversal page. It may start another reversion war in many pages. That will distract many Wikipedian into this controversy. I just wanted to inform you before I start reverting each and every modification of Phippi46 in all Wikipedia pages. Siddiqui 13:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I know you are frustrated, and I appreciate you vigilance, but you are under the mistaken impression that this user's having edited under two accounts, at two different times, gives you carte blanche to undo all of their actions. It's good that you're aware of his previous account, and fine that you've labeled the old user page, but you have not described any behavior under WP:SOCK#Prohibited uses of sock puppets. For example, they are not evading a block or attempting to pass themselves as two people in a debate. You should not revert this user, or any other user's contributions without communicating a reason. ×Meegs 19:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The reversion war just ended three weeks ago. I really don't want another controversy starting. Phippi46 nee Yahya01 should not add his controversal POV to pages where Nazli and I have reverted his changes.

Siddiqui 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ringmail and vandalism

It seems some unbidentified vandals keep replacing the ringmail article with stuff about it being a historical mistake. After all the work I had do to prove to myself it was a true form of armor, I am tired of having to revert the page on a regular basis. I suggest protecting it might be a good idea.

Yours truly --Svartalf 14:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The replacement is not happening frequently enough to consider protection, which is mostly reserved for vandalism thats occurring several times per day. I will add the page to my watchlist and keep an eye on it, though. ×Meegs 18:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

About your citation neededs : I can't quote anything about the broigne maclée... all my sources on the matter are so old they would be discounted by the other side. about scale armour being older than chainmail, that's easy : we have data that such armour was used in ancient Mesopotamia, say, about 2000 or 3000 BC, while chainmail is generally acknowledged to have been invented by the Celts between 1000 and 500 BC. I can check and quote my dictionary of Mesopotamian civilisation for dates of apparition of scale mail... but that's worth no more than my French speaker's word... --Svartalf 19:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you please consider copying this comment to the article's talk page. I am not its only audience. ×Meegs 19:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding Viral Ad information

Wikipedia has an article on Lenovo Group. 3 Viral Ads for this company, sometimes grouped into one, are floating around. They show a laptop displaying a hologram of a man, a kind of thruster system to make the laptop float in midair during a fall, and a shield that senses falling liquid and auto-deploys itself. The ads, especialy the one with the hologram, seem to good to be true, and it is the sense of the internet community that these ads have been computer generated or modified. What is the protocol for adding this kind of thing to an article? You can view the ads here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCLMdXrBbNs&search=lenovo Thanks a bunch m Matteboy2001 02:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matteboy. I can assure you that all three are the product of special effects, CG or conventional; they're really cool though! Now, what is it that you want to add to the article? If there is not substantial commentary on the commercials in the article, fair use of a still from the video is out of the question. I'm not certain if the ads even warrant mention in the article, but then again, I don't know any more about them than you just told me. If you think they do, go ahead and add to the article. If you are hesitant, you can always post your proposed addition to Talk:Lenovo Group to solicit opinions. ×Meegs 02:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If the ad is truly well know — and I don't think that it is — you could also add it as an example to Viral marketing. ×Meegs 02:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

preventing OrphanBot notification

Hi Carnildo. How does OrphanBot determine whether a user has been notified about a particular image? Often I write personalized messages to uploaders with numerous problem uploads, and would like to avoid them being overshadowed by redundant warnings. Is including a link to an image in an ad-hoc message enough to prevent subsequent warnings, or does one of the subst'd templates have to be present? Best regards. ×Meegs 05:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought of this back when I was first designing OrphanBot's notification system. A simple link to the image will work, as will a non-link mention (ie, both Image:example.gif and Image:Example.gif will be seen as being notifications). --Carnildo 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic. ×Meegs 06:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice to meet you and I thank you for your wishes - I was not knowing that my "absence" shall be noticed. Thanks. --Bhadani 10:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Timo Kotipelto

I don't know the source, and thought that promo will do fine but... Sorry, you know how it goes. Will a fair_use tag and a rationale for fair use be enough or do I need to search for a source. By the way since nobody objected to our proposal can I remove the discography table from the Andy LaRocque page? Thanks. Death2 01:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Legitimate publicity photos are not easy to come by, in general, and that tag is widely misapplied on WP. Hopefully one day, we'll sort through them, and get rid of all of the ones that are misrepresented. In this case, without a source or information about its copyright holder, we definitely can not keep it. As for Andy LaRocque, yes, let's do it. It's possible no one besides us even read the proposal; record producers aren't too popular around here, but we made a solid case. If you don't want to do the editing, give the word and I do it. ×Meegs 01:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Andy's page is cleaned. User Spearhead works on it but he probably had no comment about the talk page. Should I remove that one on the King Diamond page and leave it on the King Diamond (band) page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Death2 (talk • contribs) 2006 April 27 02:16 (UTC).

Oh, I didn't even know there was a King Diamond (band) article apart from King Diamond. The former really needs to be merged into the latter; there is extreme redundancy between them. Also, note that the latter's solo discography is more extensive, including more singles and compilations. Oh well, that's a separate issue, and requires wider discussion. You did not propose the format change on either article's talk, so people may object. You can make the change now anyway if you really want, but you should at least briefly post your reasons on the talk page. ×Meegs 03:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

About the image tagging, I understand the copyrights and it is not right to break them but this is not "exactly" breaking the copyright because I'm not using the picture for anything else then to represent the person in question and i'm not representing myself by his picture so... Anyway people want to see the person in question and when they come to WP and there is no picture there not going to search through the internet to find it. And an additional rationale would be that we are promoting the person in question so certainly they ain't gonna have a problem with it. By the way most of the pics I upload are album covers so to represent the album in question so I hope there is no need for a rationale there (or a source except the tag). And I was planning to upload another pic for a person's biography that really deserves it (refering to Jerry Goldsmith). How can I do that when the image will have the same problem as the one in question here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Death2 (talk • contribs) 2006 April 27 02:16 (UTC).

Take a look at WP:Fair use, especially the introduction and the "acceptable uses" and "counterexamples" sections. There are a couple of key issues:

1. There are uncountable examples of copyright infringement under the guise of fair use on Wikipedia, so do not simply copy what you see in other articles. One day, hopefully, they will all be reviewed.
2. Wikipedia's restrictions on fair use are somewhat conservative with respect to the law, because even an accusation of infringement can cost a lot of money.
3. Wikipedia's goal is to create a free content encyclopedia. That's one reason for the "where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" requirement. There's no alternative for an image of an album cover for illustrating an album, but there is ample opportunity to procure or produce free images of living people. Adding copyrighted images to wikipedia masks the fact that we're in need of free image.

If you do need to rely on fair use to use a particularly important image that doesn't fall into one of our basket categories like {{albumcover}}, make sure to use the {{fair use in}} template, and to write-out a detailed rationale for its use in its article.

I'm willing to answer as many questions as you have, but if you want other opinions you can post a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. You can also learn a lot by reading the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Fair use and its archives (e.g. Wikipedia_talk:Fair use#Promotional images and source). ×Meegs 03:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have work to do but I will write a fair use rational later when I catch some free time. I'll give it to you and then you can tell me is that acceptable. Also I don't think that King Diamond should be merged whith the band it's not logical since one article is a biography and the other about the band. Considering the overlapings especialy in the discography that is what I am trying to clean up. Catch you later, bye! Death2 05:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So there is something on the Talk:King Diamond page. Take a look at that if you have time, and add the thing about the table removal thing if you feel like it. +I'm sure i signed my comments! Bye! Death2 23:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Intermission dab

• Good spot, I was doing the job to help out Death2, he gave me the text and I created the page without monkeying around with it too much, same for the link I copied about the movie. Nice one Deizio 01:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

AFC

It appears AFC is suffering from lack of attention of registered users. When it started a lot more people tended to the page. When it's blanked it's basically because people can't read instructions. If we were to protect the page from blanking it would also stop new stuff being added. I think most problems could be resolved by getting more attention. Try rallying a few people on the mailing list before you propose to close it down. You could have the people from WP:CP check for copyright problems on AFC regularly. And vandalism patrollers should be able to tend to nonsense and blankings.

This page was specifically created to allow people without the power to create new pages to suggest articles. People should have a way of doing that if they can't do it themselves yet.

Let's try to revive the page before we declare it dead. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps we can get someone to make the task easier by creating a tool for patrolling AFC. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I too like the idea of the page in theory, and certainly most of the problems I listed could be eliminated with better staffing. Nevertheless, it remains an extremely inefficient process considering all of the user and anon that is involved in, at best, the creation of 0-3 quality articles per day. The low upside also discourages me from the idea of pursuing new tools. Nevertheless, advertising for volunteers is a good idea in the short run. Before we do that though, I'd like to get better instructions in place for the volunteers so they don't make mistakes like failing to attribute the content's author. Would you take a look at my proposed revision, linked from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation#New instructions? (I'm not sure how much attention I'll get if I don't solicit opinions).

Once that is in place, would you be willing to help with the advertising, either on the mailing list or the VP? An optimistic voice might work better than mine. Best regards ×Meegs 23:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll take a look at it this evening (in approximately 5-12 hours). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• If we include the templates and perhaps move them out of Deskana's userspace for general use (and less typing) I think those instructions would be fine. Perhaps we should mention this to Wikipedia:Esperanza too. According to the Barnstar Brigade they want to encourage newbies and posting their early articles or coaching them to make good submissions seems to fit their plans. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• I think if you add the templates, the new instructions are ready to go live. I'll move them from Deskana's userpage, leave a redirect for later use and work on a note for the mailing list/VP/ and Esperanza. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

new crusade

I've fired a shot in my new against the category:Singles. See if you agree, and whether or not you do, you might make a post one way or the other. Because I think I'm going to spending some time over there.--Mike Selinker 03:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, seriously, stop reading my mind. ×Meegs 04:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Norman Vincent Peale The article needs a picture

Norman Vincent Peale The article needs a picture. I found a very good drawing of Mr Peale here http://www.gordonwetmore.com/celebrity/peale.htm so I emailed the artist/painter and he told me that we (WP) can use his drawing of Dr Peale. My question is what is the proper Tag to go with the image ? ThanksTrade2tradewell 20:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for this brief answer, but I'm on my way out the door. As is evident in the template {{permission}}, simple permission for use in Wikipedia is not sufficient to use an image in the article space. Take a look at the discussion I had higher on this page with User:Mwelch at User talk:Meegs#Image fair use, read some of its links, and let me know if you have any questions. ×Meegs 21:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

preventing OrphanBot notification, not true

Hi, I saw this talk on this page before, it stuck in my eye so I had to read it. Sorry for spying you but i'm glad i noticed that because OrphanBot left me a message so... but I recently cleared my talk page so that must be the cause. And why does Orphan notify's for some images that have "Licensing" and no Source info. I uploaded some other pics with "licensing" and no source and he sent no messages???!!! Stupid little Bot. Death2 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You received the message from OrphanBot because you removed the image's pervious mention when you blanked your talk page. You really should not do that, by the way; the only thing it will accomplish is discouraging people, including me, from communicating with you. Please reconsider your policy, and archive what you've already removed.

Second, OrphanBot does a lot, but it can't do everything. For missing source information, it can only work on images that are tagged by humans; In your case, I only tagged Kotipelto. For your other images without sources, please take responsibility and save others the trouble by adding {{nsd}} to their image description pages. Removing them from articles would take load off of the bot, too. ×Meegs 23:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Archives, I was considering making them but it doesn't make sense since the all material is already saved in the database through history so... I will make them, although I do not see how that can alienate anybody I remember with who I work with and to who I communicate. You will not be forgotten Meegs! About orphanBOT, there are a lot of images with the tag {{promotional}}. Removing them all is like taking apart the whole wikipedia project that many have work to built to what it is today. Many articles will just loose their meaning by removing the pics. And I don't think that we can e-mail everybody whose pics are included for a license? Thanks for the warning, but why don't you like aliens? Death2 16:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The archives are there now, they aren't searchable but they are archives nevertheless. Have fun! Alines roam free on this Earth! Death2 17:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but Wikipedia's need for images does justify copyright violation. Thanks for posting those archive links on your talk page. ×Meegs 04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In my defence (this sounds like a court session, haha) I posted does images before your explanation how are things standing with pictures. I have not uploaded any since Timo (except album covers). I will add t1nsd, but for now do I have to remove images from the article, and if I do can I direct unsatisfied users to you :)! I hope this rule will not extend to album covers because I'm sticking to those from now on. And thanks for searching through my logs I was planning to do that myself but was waiting for your response. By the way do you know those pics i posted are not even 0.01 % of promo pics others posted? See you Death2 05:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No defense is necessary; I know they're all old uploads, I know you're a good contributor, and I thank you for being receptive. And believe me, I know how large the problem is, and I do not mean to pick on you. By the way, I didn't go through majority of your uploads because most looked like album covers, so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed some. And yes, album covers are as solid as anything under fair use, provided they are used in articles that are about the album. There is only a potential problem if they are used merely for identification in an article not about the album, or in one that does not contain substantial prose about the album. Regards. ×Meegs 05:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, we removed most of them, e.g. King Diamond discography, but you may not noticed Kylie Minogue discography page, on WP:ALBUMS says "over excesive use of fair-use". You missed a coupled of my pics, but they are my dearest, the best musicians in the world Image:Galder_Jackson.jpg Image:Silenoz.jpg. Please don't delete them, i'll send them a mail as soon as I can? This one has source and credits, can this one stay Image:Alexi Laiho live.jpg. Bye Death2 05:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Alexi Laiho's is a publicity photo — such images are usually labeled — but I'm not going to challenge you on any one particular image so long as you're more rigorous in the future. A critical part of WP's fair use criteria is that we allow copyrighted images (promotional or not) only when free alternatives are not available. Such is the case with Image:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg, but for living, musicians, there is ample opportunity to procure or produce free images, and no excuse for using copyrighted ones. Consider that while it might be great to have an image to identify Galder, that image, in the long term, hurts our chances of acquiring a free image by obscuring its need. ×Meegs 07:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't done another sweep through images, I forgot about Quorthon. He's images and any info is vary rare. I will give you the source of the image as soon as i locate it again. As for other two hmmm. While your at it I remembered another one Image:Stian Arnesen.jpg, and here are two for which I'm not responsible but when it's an image cleaning day i'll give them all, so I can suffer today and not tommorow more... I'm not sure about this two, check please Image:69 jpg.jpg and Image:Shagrath.jpg... Death2 07:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

rfa

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 NFL Draft players

I was planning to create most the players articles from round one to round three as they are almost guranteed to make it to the Pros. Im mostly avoiding the later round players. Im planning to expand some of them later. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

college basketball split?

See Category Talk:College basketball players, please. (I'm trying to have discussions there since another user blew up over the decisions we made on our own pages.)--Mike Selinker 14:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)