User talk:Mike Rosoft/archive3

MissWikiGirl

You just blocked MissWikiGirl for a week for spamming, after one warning ({{test1}}. This seems a little harsh; the links were added in good faith, and I was emailed after the warning with a polite query about why the links were considered spam. I forgot to do this, for some reason: 80.189.237.91 05:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looked liked spam to me, so I'm not sure why the quick unblock, you might also like to look at the edit history of 66.245.23.115 - [1] to see more spam --ArmadilloFromHell 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may look like spam because I was adding links in one sitting, but it wasn't meant to be that way. I took the quote from the main page "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" literally, not realizing that if you add a lot of links that it might be viewed as spam and be frowned upon. I appreciate being unblocked since I did not receive advance warning and did not realize I was doing anything that might be considered malicious. I just wanted to point people to free images that related to topic articles. I saw others doing it and thought it was okay. My apologies. (Sorry, but I don't know how to sign this correctly.) MissWikiGirl

Calton, Glasgow

Thank you for pointing out the copyright issue, I assume the text I transferred into the page was ok since it was cut and pasted from an existing Wiki page "Calton" and I had no reason therefore to doubt it legitmacy. GoldenMeadows 11:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TetraSoft

Why do the admins keep deleting the article entitled TetraSoft? This company is very significant, at least in the North Georgia area, and has even been featured/recognized on a national level many times.

Consider this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicious_monster

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? It's short, to the point, and is about a company in a similar field. Why don't you delete it too?

At first, I suggested Mr. Davis create the article about his company, and it was deleted. Then I (Sheila Rae) created the article, and once again it's been deleted. Your guidelines and policies are unfair. I'm a journalist and work for a very large national news publication. I will most certainly publicize Wikipedia's actions in this matter. Your administrators are rude, careless, and abuse the "power" they have been given.

If you insist on not allowing the article "TetraSoft", but keep the article "Delicious Monster", I expect a FULL EXPLANATION as to why. If you do not respond, someone from the agency I represent will most certainly contact Wikipedia's administration as part of the story we are preparing. Perhaps someone with more authority than yourself (or the previous people who have deleted this article), would be in a position to better explain your organization's actions.

Eric Trump

Thanks for your help with the 2nd nomination bit! Optimale ^Gu 13:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I a vandal?

Hello. Could you please explain me the reason of not deleting e.g. Stade Malherbe de Caen redirect and reverting me like a vandal with the [rollback] button? Thanks, -- odder (T.W.K.) 16:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornered Rat Software

Hello, I was one of the contributors of the Cornered Rat Software page that you removed on Nov 10th. I'm wondering if you would be able to provide a reason for the deletion and recommendations on how the second attempt could be more successful. Thanks DocVM 11:12, 12 November 2006 (AST)

Hi Doc, Target here. Warbirds got deleted too. Same guy. Note said "lack of notability". I guess we think too highly of our genre! LOL

The only thing I can think of is for all of us to start one page about massively multi-player 3-D combat games. Find people that worked on AW to pitch in, along with all the old ICI guys. Doesn't appear that Ubisoft has a problem being on Wiki. Guess if the editors see you on a shelf at Walmart, you're suddenly notable.

TargetWarbirds 19:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC) TargetWarbirds[reply]

User:MikeRowesoft

User:MikeRowesoft < -- Just created (and blocked). What do you think, coincidence? Glen 09:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta T Pilot Project Page

The META-T Pilot Project page was deleted without any warning at all and without indication of why it was deleted. We understand why the Iridium Pilot Project was deleted and will find another home for that, but the Meta-T page was well populated with information and linked to legitimate documentation on the topic. Could you please re-instate it (or do we have to log an entry at Wikipedia:Deletion_review?) and give advice on how to improve it? The discussion page was being used by contributors and we have no record of what has occurred now that it has dissappeared.Hjviola 08:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please recreate the article and discussion page, long enough for retrieval of the information contained? Thank you Hjviola 12:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definition of the term "band vanity"

i'm curious as to what the term "band vanity" means, at least in the context of wikipedia terminology. Gringo300 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FourthAve

FA's last known edit is [2] from the IP 67.1.121.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on September 23, 2006. If that counts as evasion, his ban timer should now be set to September 23, 2007. Scob e ll302 20:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few questions about the deletion of the flare magmus page

1. Did you read the discusion page on it? 2a. If yes, did you even bother to give me a chance? 3. Did you read about my self implimented time limit? 2b.If no, why not? 4. Why did the page get deleted, exactly?

I am trying to get these stories that I have made out to the public. There are so many movies that are just remakes I just can't help but create these stories, as the world is in grave need of good stories.

~~If it is possible, please put the page back up. I said i would continue working on it until it was finished, and i want to be able to follow through on that.~~

~~Thank you for your time.~~

Thank you for bringing thins to my attention. I did not relize such was true.

Removed speedy

I could not find history showing Cherie (actress) went through Afd but I can see the 3 deletions which is why I tagged it as a repost. Maybe I am missing something though.--Dakota 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article "Stripy"

You deleted an article Stripy at 09:52, 19 November 2006 for the reason "(Web cartoon, no claim of notability)". Stripy is is not a web cartoon. I've seen it, and on an official web page [3] you will see that, though short and low in count of episodes, they are not for download. Look it up on IMDb, and you will see it is a regular movie.

Besides, I don't see why should the article be deleted even if it is "just" about a web cartoon. In that hipothetical case, it could be merged with some other article.

Cartoon-lover896 83.131.111.47 23:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed thanks to a much more responsive Admin.
Resolved by user Mo0 -> User talk:Mo0#Please review the deletion of article Stripy

Cartoon-lover896 83.131.173.68 03:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Wargaming and the Influence of J.R.R. Tolkien

I would just like to make it clear that this article is no longer copyrighted. The company that held the copyright went out of business in 1974, shortly after the article was printed; and it is not listed as having had its copyright renewed. As a result, the copyright expired in 2002, as per the 28 year convention. Your comment referring to a template is not clear. Please clarify. Generalklagg 09:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Articles must have their copyrights renewed every 28 years under United States law. As the article was written in 1974, it had to have its renewal done by 2002. As it was not, it is in the public domain. What you're looking at is a database that is searchable for titles prior to 1964. As this is a post-1964 article the proper database to use is the U.S. Copyright Office's LOCIS database, which covers articles written after 1964. The LOCIS database does not go prior to 1964, which is why Rutgers University made the other database. The fact that the Rutgers database only goes to 1964 has no bearing on the copyright status of this article. The Rutgers database is not a template, it is just one of two databases available (pre 1964 and post 1964). Generalklagg 02:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W Bush

Thanks for your comments on my correction of this article. I have responded on my own Talk page, to keep things in one place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pol098#.5B.5BGeorge_W._Bush.5D.5D Essentially, the error I corrected is, as you point out, widespread throughout Wikipedia, and needs discussion in general, not in association with a particular article. Best wishes, Pol098 10:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

You recently deleted the articlei posted Dan Saenz. There was no explanation for the deletion of any sort and i specifically asked for comments/ concerns regarding the articles. I have referenced numerous similar articles and the ones that i have posted are very similar is format and style. I do not understand why they are not acceptable. I can't make changes if I don't know what the problem is. Please help!!! I have read all the logs and have made all the changes accordingly. I have posted a (hangon) with questions with how to improve the article , but people feel the need to unfairly delete the page with no explanation other than the original comments, which have already been fixed. Most of the points are no longer valid, nor have any relevence to wikipedia's guidelines. If you could be more specific as far as what is actually wrong with the page, that would be helpful. I don't really understand how some articles get approved when they are simply two lines of text with no other actually information. for ex. System Recordings How is this acceptable but my article about Dan Saenz & Jetset Music Group is unacceptable.Please help INT001 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert to Grendel

Can you have another look at your revert on Grendel. You restored the Joel Han section which had been removed by an IP user. However, the text the user removed looks like nonsense to me and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject of the article. The Joel Han section was added earlier today by a newly registered user who has done nothing other than add this section. --Mark S (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may well be true; I have been watching recent edits using the vandal fighter, and perhaps misjudged this one. - Mike Rosoft 09:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No problems. I usually fight vandals myself (at least I did until Vandal Proof stopped worked). So I know what its like. --Mark S (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln and Greco-roman wrestling?

Yes, that sounds fishy to me too. I've only ever heard of him and cricket - I suggest there might be a possibility that wrestling was added to "mock" the cricket reference. I say remove the wrestling until he comes up with a reference. Mattabat 09:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted entry: Konstandinos Koukidis

Hi Mike,

First of all, I appreciate your effort to keep wikipedia accurate and objective. Now, to the point: Concerning my recent entry Konstandinos Koukidis and it's subsequent deletion, foreign (non-english) names are liable to transliteration inconsistencies between native languages and english. You can find references to the sublect of my article using the following google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Koukidis+flag+acropolis&btnG=Search

If these do not satisfy wikipedia standards I accept your action.

Portal:Transylvania

You were quite right to unspeedy this; I was going through Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion and re-tagging articles where the original author has removed the db tag and left only a hangon, and this was one of those. On closer examination, the article shouldn't have been speedied in the first place - how should I handle this in the future? Should I still put a drmspeedy template on the user's talk page? Or just remove the hangon tag and be done with it? Perel 22:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Pappé

Please explain why you reverted my edit to Ilan Pappé. Thanks Abu ali 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that your edited version is more neutral? And don't you think that "criticism" section crosses the line of villification? Abu ali 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue _has_ been discussed on the talk page. Have you read it? Abu ali 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two particular editors have rejected my arguments. And these particular editors have both been banned for various periods for their aggressive POV pushing and edit waring. Your edit to the article has removed all explanatin of Pappé's ideas and reinstated a virtriolic attack on the individual. Well done! Abu ali 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question Mike: You have asked me to seek consensus on the article talk page before performing a revert. Why did you not do likewise. Thanks, Abu ali 22:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swoops

Please tell me, why did you delete this article? These are a popular snack and i thought I'd make an article about it =/ Thanks. Blue kiko kid 21:26, 17 December 2006

Question on speedy delete

Hi. You just speedied an article for the band Pedestrian Vs. Vehicle. I was wondering if you could give me a link to the talk page of the original contributer. Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the fire-drill

Sorry for the fire-drill, Mike, but I was rather concerned that your account might have been hacked, since creating WoW accounts was so out of character with your normal behavior, and WoW (or one of his many impersonators) happened to be online at the time. I'm glad there's a rationale for those particular accounts being created, since it makes your recent behavior comprehensible. I'm glad you're still you. -- The Anome

Extrasolar planet

I think the article Extrasolar planet should be a protected page. The reason that I think that is because that article has been vandalized many times. Please feel free to put a note on my talk page to ask any questions or to discuss what you think should be done. Kamope 13:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villanova College

If there is a version to revert to, revert to it. If there is not, just remove the text. You know best where it is. —Centrx→talk • 07:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I ask for indef. blocking of this user, it is plus minus the same reason as this user. Cinik 21:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC) + [this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LiReRo] (the same vandalism). Cinik 12:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandal With a Grudge" is back

It appears that the Czech "vandal with a grudge" is back - his latest sock(s) include Frank R. Nolan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Užjsem sevymrdal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which, at the time of this writing, haven't been blocked, but haven't been active for hours, so they will likely get rejected by AIV. Can you block these accounts (plus the one mentioned by Cinik in the above section) for me? Scob e ll302 04:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I missed an account from a few days back: Garry F. Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this edit says it all. Scob e ll302 05:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage

May you please semi-protect my userpage? Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum

Thank you. That page really offended me. GCFreak2 06:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me protect my userpage

Hi Mike, First of all, thank you for protecting my userpage once. My userpage is subject to recent attacks of vandalism with nasty comments after my site The Freethinker became popular recently, as it attacks illogical religious sentiments. It has enraged some Hindu groups after I published videos in the site last week exposing the cheating of a legendary Hindu guru/godman, Sai Baba. His followers are taking their share of revenge by scandalizing my userpage, filling it up with dirty comments. They are doing so without signing in.

Can you possibly help me protect my page, or do something to stop this user who is doing so? Pl visit my userpage & the history of the page (recent one week) to see their activities. Thanks you.--Pinaki ghosh 02:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Mike! --Pinaki ghosh 23:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good and evil

Sorry about that screwup -- I don't know how I must have bungled it. Thanks for stepping in to correct it so quickly. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Hi Mike. I seem to have gotten myself into trouble again by trying to move the page Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy to Analytic and Continental Philosophy. The former is an AfD. I thought I could do this to help make clear that the issue in the AfD is with the article title, not the content per se. But the page history of the former has been blanked out! I'm very sorry. Is there anything I can do to fix this blunder? { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help earlier. I have another question... on the same page, a non-administrator has blanked out all votes that came after a 5-day period. Is this a legal maneuver? { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Beckham

thanks for reverting vandalism on beckham. In the future can you make sure his height stays at 5ft 11 1/2 -I have sourced it officially. Some user thinks he is 6 '2. ThanksErnst Stavro Blofeld 17:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep excellent Miller Center materials --it's a leading scholarly center at U Virginia

The essays by the Miller center are not "spam" -- they were individually written by leading scholars and are exactly appropriate for Wikipedia. Rjensen 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Behaviour !

Hi. A number of your recent edits and rv v's do not seem in keeping with the quality and precision one would expect to see from a Wikipedia administrator. Could you perhaps check that your account has not been compromised. Pedro1999a | Talk 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Again Dad !! - Sorry I got confused between yourself and another user. My humblest apologies. Pedro1999a | Talk 11:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71Demon

Please see WP:ANI where I included a bit of information about the 71Demon situation. Note that the user is now claiming that you have blocked him out of spite and that you are part of the dark side, etc. etc. I didn't bother copying that from the user's talk page to ANI, though. --Yamla 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analytic and Continental

Hello Mike,

the page you put for speedy deletion Schism between Analytic and Continental philosophy is no tthe same article as the one deleted. It is the beginning of an attempt to re-write the article. It is open for anyone to edit it and does not mention of Anglophone which the previous delete request objected to. As to the image it is a free one.

--Lucas 16:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lucas 17:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contents were very different, except for the uncontested history part. Any other part is inevitably going to have some similarity but nothing that an editor could not fix and nothing mentioned on the deletion page. Also one of the editors explicitly sought favours from others to delete it and harangued others to revert their votes if they voted for keep.

I never did any "mobbing," and just left it for open discussion of those involved.

The "Schism" title is not a partisan title as you suggest, the problem with the previous title was that it had the word "Anglophone" in it. People only objected to the title, as they said, because it had "Anglophone" in it. I removed this word from it. Also lots of other articles link to this article and now arrive at a blank.

No one in philosophy denies that there are Analytic and Continental philosophy. And the reference from a world renowned philosopher occurred in the first paragraph talking of the schism occurring in 40s and 50s. But it was deleted before I could even save the extra work dont there, is it possible to retieve this just so I can have it?

thanks, --Lucas 17:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I wasn't sure exactly what the process was. For these sorts of vandal accounts, is a perma-ban allowed from the "get go"? If so, does that user have any recourse? Maury 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of FLELEE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Perhaps it should have been indefinitely blocked as a vandal-only account? — Nearly Headless Nick 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Berrebbi notable tag

There have been three votes for keep on the Brian Berrebbi article, and no votes to delete, including at least one admin. I request you review the discussion page and see if the criteria are satisfied that you would remove the notablility tag you placed there, or at least participate in the discussion.

--Xkimota 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Block log

Hi. I was reviewing my block log for fun and noticed that you gave me an indefinite block back on October 24th. This displeases me, because (as silly as it sounds) I like to appear to have a "clean record." Also, your unblock comments are rather vague ("This version may be a legitimate account") and do not explicitly acknowledge that you made a dreadful mistake.

I realize, at this point, you will likely not remember why you blocked me several months ago, so I will not bother to ask. What I would like to know, however, is whether it is not considered good ettiquette to inform a user whether he or she has been blocked, even if you unblock the user a short time later. Love,--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a block

The anonymous user 66.30.48.15 has been vandalising Cool (aesthetic) frequently and I've also kept on putting warnings on his/her talk page (starting at {{subst:test}}). Now I've got to {{subst:test4}} and has still vandalized. May you please block him/her? K a mope · talk · contributions 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked User 12.160.33.128

Can I just check if the above user was blocked for the edit to User talk:BigHairRef? I was heading to his page to add a warning but the block sign was up. If it was could you sign it as I had to check the history page for when the block was made. Thanks. BigHairRef | Talk 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just to clear up I wasn't asking you to justify your decision I agreed but I was just trying to see if the block was for the edit to my page or someting else. Judging by the language it's not the first time this person has vandalsied a page of mine as I suspect s/he put almost exactly the same thing on my user page before. Thanks for the reply. BigHairRef | Talk 20:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet

Check out the Jennifer Granholm article as I just reverted vandalism from User:Rightwing02 which I believe is a sockpuppet of User:Rightwing01 whom you banned indefinitely. Steelbeard1 03:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Trainer

Hello. I am the creator of the article Sports Trainer and there has been a number of vandalising incidents to the article, by unregistered users (it has been vandalised about 12 times in the past few days). Is it possible for you to put a block onto the page so that unregistered users cannot edit? (Bradleigh 02:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

User:NazismIsntCool

There already was an RFC for this username: [4]. You may wish to reverse your unblock. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject

Hello Mike. Would you be interested in supporting/participating in the WikiProject Czech Republic? I think it is much needed. You can vote or comment here: [5]. Have a nice day. :) - Darwinek 10:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Hey Mike. I find it interesting that you have the Canadian flag associated with Democracy on your page, and the American flag associated with Dictatorship. Being a Canadian and having lived in Canada for most of my life, I can assure you (at the risk of invoking the wrath of many patriotic Canadians) that Canada isn't a democracy any more than America is (or perhaps, better stated, as you do, both are dictatorships of the majority?) :-) Best regards, Icemuon 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

Greetings. I'd like to note that the vandal you've been blocking has apparent access to multiple IPS. See 69.234.145.60, 69.234.144.27, and 69.234.144.165. Please consider a wider IP block. Thanks! -- GJD 21:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up my User page. First time I've been vandalised.... Thanks again! Romanticcynic 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nazi insertion man

You said: "You seem to have granted the user's request to unblock to ask for a username change; however, the account is still blocked. (Personally, I wouldn't have unblocked the user, as he seems to be only here to cause trouble; but if your opinion is different, it's your call.)"

Yes, I agree on both points. I think possibly unblocking the user is stretching WP:AGF but hey, I'm a hopeless optimist. --Yamla 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12.216.20.198

Just wondering if I just missed something. :) I don't see any contribs or even talk page warnings for this IP. But you blocked it for a week. I realize that articles he contributed to which were deleted wouldn't show up in his contribs but still. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! OK. Just making sure I wasn't nuts. Well. I AM nuts. lol --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robert Benfer. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Esn 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rightwing777

The pesky vandal is back! You dealt with him before. Steelbeard1 04:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN

I just wondered why you removed a BJAODN from the BJAODN. Isn't that what it's for? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because in my opinion it wasn't really funny, just insulting. Like I said, Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Dramatica. If your opinion on the removed piece is different, then do what you believe is best; I won't be revert-warring in BJAODN. - Mike Rosoft 23:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it funny but then again I'm a fan of the show. You may not have realised that Sonia Fowler is a fictional character. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devalo

Fine, I guess that's ok. But for the record I worked hard on those pictures.

You don't have to recover those images it's ok. I suppose your decision in the end was reasonable. I'll leave it where it is.

Blacklisted Czech spam link

Please note that the discussion for the Czech spam link you ordered blacklisted has now been archived here. You may want to change the link you posted on the Czech Arbitration page from the main spam blacklist talk page to the archived link above. Scob e ll302 08:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it appears that jkb has stopped updating his vandalism and impostors page on this wiki - he has instead resorted to listing the latest vandals on the Czech Wikisource. You might want to change this information to the latter link as well. Scob e ll302 08:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request for protecting

Can you pls protect Jan Koukal (Infomat) and also Informační materiály (see link in Jan Koukal; see de:informační materiály, written by myself. Thx, -jkb- 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block or checksuser or something like that

I'd added another half a dozen of sockpuppets in Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nácek Ignácek. If you can handle it, please block his IPs or so, the idiot obviously knows that the address are recorded. Treba ho ty roupy prejdou a on si misto blbnuti tady najde holku. Pavel Vozenilek 18:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another undetected "vandal with a grudge" sock

I've just detected another not-yet-blocked (and not-yet-listed) sock of the "vandal with a grudge": Nadržená jebtiška (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this edit says it all. Scob e ll302 19:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add Pan Vajíčko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list as well. Scob e ll302 22:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thisuser2isblocked

It appears you've bitten a newbie who now won't be back. (See [6] and [7].) AGF, please. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely apologized. Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About merging the all articles lacking and articles with unsourced statements

This is BigBang19, please e-mail me so I can talk about how to combat against both articles lacking sources and articles with unsourced statements. User:BigBang19 12 February 2007 19:18 PST

Image:Hitler Blondi Berghof.jpg

Thanks for reincluding the ifd- I had included it but it was vandalised from the page by user smith2006. He also vandalised the 2 other ifd images. Left 3 warnings on his talkpage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.229.116 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've discovered 12-14 other images uploaded by smith2006 or suspected sock 'GeneralPatton'. All but 2 are Frentz/Ullstein images. All are incorrectly attributed, dated, and given a misleading rationale or tag. I suspect this is deliberate. 2 of the images were deliberately lied about. Both were take from the same site- axis101.bizland.com - but with 1 listed as PD and the other as self created. On checking with the owner of the site, he didnt give permission and is the sole creator.

I do not want to go through the entire process of notifying this guy (he ignores the notifications and requests to update rationale/attribution), and then listing each image as a copyright violation or FairUse infringement etc. Its clear to me that he doesnt give a damn what hes uploading and assuming good faith is a fools errand in this case. Can you tell me whether wikipedia has a legal department or some other body that can deal with this persons activities more quickly? The only other alternative is to notify Ullstein Bild and let their legal dept figure it out with wiki. 82.29.229.116 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all the Frentz image uploaded by smith2006/GeneralPatton infringe Ullstein Bild's copyright. All are mistagged, incorrectly attributed and basically bogus to mask the rights of the copyright holder. In all Frentz image where feely availble image of the object exist then a FairUse rationale cannot be used. You identified Blondi as a single case where no PD German gov image or other suitable image might exist, I am looking into that. In all other article where Frentz image is used there is either a free image of object already in there or a FairUse rationale on another copyright image in the article. I left word here since listing 13 images (so far identified) as copyright infingements is not sensible when its obvious the uploader is just being silly. 82.29.229.116 18:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]