This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Dear Neurolysis, I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2008 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2009 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2009 :-),
Thank you for fixing. Now, about that Gregorian Year thing... just think, if the Gregorian calendar had been around sooner, we would still have the winter solstice on Christmas, as it once was, instead of 4 days earlier. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?01:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See? There are a few of us online (mind you, the new year's 14 hours old here...) Thanks for the good wishes - I hope that '09's a good year for you. Grutness...wha?01:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you changed from "Oppose, suggest withdrawal per WP:NOTNOW" to "Strong oppose", so I consider that a change. Then in your comments you said you were "changing to strong", yet your original !vote, as it is, shows no change. That's what I meant by continuity. But if you prefer not to, it's not much concern to me, I'll leave you alone. :) Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ANI is a noticeboard for incidents that require administrative action, the thread you are "helping others draw conclusions on" is a joke, and result of a banned user trolling and just trying to be disruptive. His complaint was over me (and 5 or 6 other editors) undoing the material he had been trying to add for days which he was citing with blogs and youtube videos. I deleted his comments from my talk page because he was trolling, this user has a pattern and that is what he always does. What conclusion are you helping others draw exactly? Have you noticed you are the only person commenting on my actions on that thread in a negative manner? I did absolutely nothing that requires administrative action. Again, ANI is strictly for incidents that require administrative action, and should not be cluttered up with irrelevant comments by users with an axe to grind. I am allowed to remove whatever the hell I want from my talk page as long as it isn't a block template while I'm blocked, etc. There is nothing to discuss regarding my removing comments from my talk page. Doing so does not violate any policy or guideline, and therefore the matter requires no administrative action. Remember ANI='s Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Landon1980 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neurolysis simply stated that you have a history of such behaviour. That was completely relevant to the discussion. He didn't insult you or do anything else. He didn't say removing constructive comments blindly from any talk page is perhaps the most uncooperative and destructive thing a user can do on a collaborative website, which I would now like to add. How else can you collaborate, if not through talk pages? It's completely against the spirit of a wiki.--Pattont/c21:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it was not relevant to the discussion, the thread was about me and several other editors removing edits from a banned user that were sourced with blogs and youtube videos. USEDfan stalks my contribs and edits where I edit. Regarding the past incident he is referring to I responded every time he left a comment on his talk page. The entire thread on me is a joke and was started by a banned user that tortures me everywhere I go online. I'll try explaining this again: ANI is for matters that require administrative action. I have violated no policy or guideline, therefore my removing comments from my talk page does not require admin intervention. The thread was not even about my removing things from my talk page. Landon1980 (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the threads may not have been constructive, I do not know, however something makes me doubt Neurolysis would make trolly posts to your talk page. Because this thread also concerns you removing threads from your talk page, Neuolysis's mention of your previous behaviour is perfectly relevant.--Pattont/c21:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link me to the thread that is about my removing comments from my talk page? All I can find is where a banned user mentioned it in a thread he started pertaining to something else. Do you not understand that users are allowed to remove comments from their talk page? There is one thread about a banned user with his new account edit warring with multiple people, and a bogus thread created by the banned user while he was trolling my contribs. If you want to start a thread about me removing comments from my talk page by all means do it. USEDfan was making the same exact comments he always does, this has happened over two dozen times now and of course I'm going to revert them. What do you do when banned users troll your talk page, myspace, facebook, etc. and make comments harassing you? What was I supposed to say? Landon1980 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Hi, thanks for pointing me to the images page but I still can't get my head round the basics, like where the uploaded images actually ARE right now and so on. I may be being dense, or maybe I've just spent too many hours editing in the last three days :)Astral highway (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Youn know, instead of just slapping on a useless tag, maybe you should consider mentioning on the talk page why you believe the images are inappropriate.
Homerpalooza.png - illustrates a key plot point and key moment of the episode, Homer getting shot with a cannon. Both of these are mentioned in the plot section.
Simpsons Sonic Youth.jpg - Probably the most expendable of the four, but it shows the designs of four guest stars, again discussed in the article.
Rover Hendrix.png - The Rover Hendrix joke - again discussed in the article - has been mentioned by the shows producers and by several critics as one of the worst jokes in the history of the show. Appropriately, some may wonder what it looks like, so there is an image.
Simpsons No Doubt.png - The members of No Doubt were animated into the episode by one of the animators. This is very much an "easter egg" and not easy to see, so the image does help aid in the commentary.
Discussed on IRC, ended with above user claiming that I was part of a cabal, that I was an "idiot for ruining perfectly good articles", and that I have an "agenda". Admittedly, they are now on my ignore list, so no, it didn't go well. — neuro(talk)00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might I ask that you consider not closing AFDs like this so early? There was nothing wrong with the closure and I won't reopen it, but there's a standard five-day listing period that should only be cut off in the most obvious of cases. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was posting there simply because the post was on AN/I. Users who are not administrators can archive threads or close threads on AN/I when it's clear there is nothing more going on. When a very long thread is on AN/I, and it is no longer serving it's purpose, archiving can make the board easier to navigate. --KP Botany (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You, happy new year to you to. It's for issues that require administrator intervention. But, once that aspect is over and done with, and a thread is taking up a lot of space, it's convenient to archive it until the bot gets around, so I disagree with you. However, what the heck.
thanks for supporting the reduction of my block, happy new year.
I have a question. Am I supposed to archive my discussion page?
Also what is "flagged revisions?" Mdandrea (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User_talk:Spotfixer. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I've reverted your edits to the talk page.
Feel free to revise your edits, to communicate your point without inappropriate language. Poor behavior on the part of one editor does not justify poor behavior on the part of another.Thesoxlost (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, what an awful notice. Didn't mean to imply that you were a newbie. Just wanted to point out that poor behavior on the part of other editors doesn't justify a nasty edit on your part. Let's not let this escalate any more. Thanks, --Thesoxlost (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm being over-sensitive, but I was trying to put a conflict to bed without any more hostilities on either side. I (optimistically) think it worked. You told Spotfixer to be quiet, and I don't know what a "trolling" edit is besides an edit made by a troll. :) If it is not an explicit personal attack, it is an implicit one. But that aside, I don't think your post would have served any purpose except to elicit an angry response. Anyhow, my post here was meant to be friendly and not offensive, as you mentioned here. I hope you don't take it that way. I'll happily assume good faith and move on. Happy New Year to you as well! --Thesoxlost (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to find that with very new articles, there is always an author determined to keep the article, who will de-PROD it, so you always end up at AfD anyway. As a result, I rarely PROD new articles. If it aint a speedy, it is going to need an AfD anyway (IMHO) Mayalld (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neuro, may I ask for your help? The AN/I discussion concerning "bias" on Andrew Vachss has been archived without a resolution.[2] I wasn't the one who filed the incident report, but I would like very much to have a decision. My reason is that I want to remove the "bias" banner ("This article or section may represent a biased viewpoint inconsistent with Wikipedia's neutral policy...") The banner says the dispute should be resolved before it can be removed. It was placed on Andrew Vachss when Plh25.0/65.110.137.227 opened the AN/I report. Could you review and resolve the situation? Thanks very much for your help, and have a wonderful New Year! Golemarch (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your assistance. Personally, I do not consider the matter resolved. In fact, I don't even consider it to have been discussed. And I think Golemarch's actions show just how interested or uninterested he is in actually discussing it. Andrew Vachss is a popular writer who holds some very controversial opinions and then advocates legislation and other actions based on those opinions. I'm amazed anyone disputes this. On the other hand, I need to familiarize myself with wikipedia a bit more. And, by the way, sorry for the confusion. I thought you, "Neuro," asked if I were you. I am, for the record, not you. Since I was clearly being badgered by someone engaging in wikilawyering and didn't understand the question, I answered truthfully. I did, for the record, make the edits alleged to have been made by me, but was not aware I was violating any policies (and still am not convinced I violated any policies, in fact, it appears to me that Golemarch has violated the spirit if not the wording of several policies and is much too emotionally involved with the subject of Andrew Vachss to be impartial, but will research the matter further before proceeding. All the best and thanks again. Plh25.0 (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped by now that I've figured out how to do this.
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for being the impetus that brought me back to Wikipedia. Your patience and clear-headed help made participation possible again. Kallimina (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spencer has had 1 successful "In the news" nomination.
From the Judges
This years WikiCup started off great! It's only the second full week of competition, and we already have a lot of content promoted. We have some very close pools, such as Pool A and J. We also have some pools who have not been very active yet, but hopefully that will start changing in the coming weeks.
Garden and iMatthew have also opened a new pool, the "Judge's Pool" where we are competing against each other and following the same rules as all of you. This pool however, will never have any effect on the actual competition, but you can still check back often to see how we are doing compared to yourself.
That's it for this newsletter edition, everyone. Any questions or comments are always welcome on the WikiCup talk page, or our user talk pages. Until next time, Garden. and iMatthew // talk // 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list.
Current leaders
In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Catalan (138)
Gary King (86)
Spencer (67)
Pool B
Sceptre (22)
Spittlespat (7)
Greatestrowerever, Malinaccier (6)
Pool C
Candlewicke (60)
Scorpion0422 (24)
Steven Walling (9)
Pool D
NapHit (27)
ThinkBlue (18)
97198 (11)
Pool E
X! (69)
Sasata (10)
LOTRrules (4)
Pool F
Bedford (29)
RyanCross (21)
the_ed17, Howard the Duck (5)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (46)
Skinny87 (16)
What!?Why?Who?, Pedro_João, Ceranthor (2)
Pool H
Juliancolton (133)
Tinucherian (41)
Ottava Rima (28)
Pool I
Durova (144)
Theleftorium (121)
Wrestlinglover (15)
Pool J
Paxse (78)
Climie.ca (67)
Useight (46)
All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.
Thank you for the Christmas and New Year's well wishes. My apologies for the late reply. Something off-Wikipedia came up and I've been away for the past few weeks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you caught me; I was just logging off. I gave the matter a lot of thought over the last couple of years. There's been such an upswing in nonsense and organized vandalism that I couldn't just sit back and blow the whistle. Thanks for the nice words. Good to be back and able to help. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for removing the DICK banner is because m:DICK is such a horrible "policy" that it should be deleted outright, not promoted anywhere. If you'll notice, it's already been chased clear off Wikipedia, and so it now resides on Meta, where it's slightly more immune from deletion. The fundamental problem with "Don't be a dick", and even its original creator admits to this now, is that it is often used in an argument as an excuse for calling someone else a name. Instead of saying "Please be nice", which is a reasonable non-inflammatory thing to say, people will say "Don't be a dick", which is pretty much just an insult hiding under the guise of a wikilink to a pseudo-policy page. This page expounds more on the issue.
Also, having an ad bar rapidly saying "Don't be a XXXXX" where XXXXX is a dozen different euphemisms for penis is just stupid, and causes terrible confusion with random readers uninformed on Wikipedia culture stumbling across any of the hundreds of places where the template is used. The templates advertising WikiProjects at least serve a purpose, this one doesn't. Hence the removal. --Cyde Weys01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neurolysis, cheers, but I don't think I edit enough at the moment to ask for them back. If I wanted to come back as an admin, I'd probably ask Tim Starling to reset my password on my old account and discontinue using the new account. But I appreciate your kind vote of confidence! :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk09:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. You were a participant in the discussion for this article, which I closed as delete. I restored and relisted the article at AfD yesterday. I notified most participants, but somehow missed you and a couple of others. Please accept my apologies. The discussion is here. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done04:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you can keep a look at that page, and see if as I leave, these people who have provided so much hate on Wikipedia come in to throw stones. [3]Icsunonove (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, and I understand. It is a bit difficult to do though under such attack, especially when people such as PhJ and Gryffindor try to use this as an excuse to bash someone. I'm already disappointed in myself for coming back to respond and play in the mud with such people. I've gone through a lot of grief because I was at the front of pushing for balanced multilingual content in these articles. These German/Austrian based users got real twisted over that. :( I still feel vindicated though because the fighting on the discussion pages went all but down to zero. Anyway, sorry for the babbling. I'd just hope some people can keep an eye on the admin noticeboard. Because I really don't want to go in and defend myself anymore against such people. My regards, Icsunonove (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I'm curious if you also read what these people like PhJ and Noclador say about me. Do they get a warning about keeping cool? =) See, how it makes me feel when I was editing a page under good faith, then get bashed by these German-centric users, and then no one actually goes and warns them severely against this behavior. It is indeed what makes Wikipedia a lousy place to work. :( Icsunonove (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Anyway, I've already convinced myself not to edit articles on here ever again, now I need to just get away from even addressing those people like Gryffindor, PhJ. Also, sorry stranger, for taking your ear. :) There are indeed more important things in life than to waddle in the mud with people such as these, especially on the bloody internet. :) I should focus on more important things. As a Humanist though, I really feel most sad to see such people I've encountered on here such as those that come to attack me now. But then again, the world is what it. Regards, Icsunonove (talk)
He doesn't even want me to speak, you see. And about going on and on and on, check out Noclador's fact finding mission. [5]. LOL You'll also want to see how his colleague has started to do the same thing now on Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Like clockwork, they will start another edit war, and then spend hours upon hours making accusations (of italianization, fascism, neo rome, mussolini) towards whoever next they piss off on the admin noticeboards. Don't know what to say, except this is why I said from the beginning that admins needed to look at what they did over that bridge, how they came to lambast me through abuse of the noticeboards, etc. Is that really correct? It is downright harassment, and they are happy to chase away anyone who wants balance in the articles. I could of reported them first I guess, I could of mentioned the nonsensical reverts. I just don't have so much time on my hands as they apparently do. Laughable in the end, I guess... Icsunonove (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I personally feel it is the very worst of human behavior that these editors show us. That they have no shame, is the part that is truly scary." "Do you feel somewhat guilty for the slanderous accusations you made above?" "Noclador has too much time on his hands." "to waddle in the mud with people such as these," (all made after you warned him - which btw. was his second warning in three days) for me these lines constitute a personal attack on another editor - especially as this has been going on since 2 days now and yesterday he only avoided a block by declaring to go on a permanent sabbatical... and as you just pointed out - the last comment on your talk page above was yet another personal attack... --noclador (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noclador, you deserve a month-long block for the aggravated slander of calling people italianizer/fascist/mussolini/etc. and for repeated blind reverts of good faith edits. I make an instructional comparison of how what you said is equivalent to accusations of germanization and hitler, and then you call that a personal attack? It is incredible behavior noclador, it really blows my mind. I think you'd do well to go on your own sabbatical. You do know that everyone can see now that you and Gun Powder Ma instigated this farce; it is in the edit history. Multiple editors have now debunked your claims. Is that why you don't want me to speak, to not point out your behavior? If I make mention of your name, or any rebuttal of your "truth", it is a personal attack, right? Is that why you are spending hours upon hours trying to bring up edits in the past, because you are so desperate to continue on an attack? Wow, just wow. Icsunonove (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how the hell my talk page became some sort of intermediary, but it isn't, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't treat it like it was, Icsunonove. — neuro(talk)22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
before i punch out of this place, please do explain to me how that was a personal attack above? and also why it is ok for noclador to come on here and say such stuff, but you get on me only. I'm sorry that your page became a thread above, apologies for that. Icsunonove (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've kinda finished the article, but I can not find refernces. But what I have I'm pretty sure is right - I'm a teenager, and I know people my age like Dance parties (to the extent one gets talked about each day or near enough). What now? -- PartyDude! (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neuro Chris, thanks very much for your ongoing contribution to the project. With regard to non-admin closures please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. While that page is an essay, it is intended as a supplement to Wikipedia:Deletion process. Non-admin closure should only be done in cases where there is an unambiguous Keep or Redirect or Merge. In the above deletion discussion, this was not the case as the discussion was closed before its full listing period. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That woudl have been kept anyway so no harm done. Why are oyu calling him Chris? If that is his real name, which I doubt, I don't think he would like it used frequently to address him...--Pattont/c19:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you guys are racking up the DYK's fast! Good articles are also coming in quite quickly, and we also have a few new Featured articles. This is coming along great so far; we're glad to see almost everyone working on something.
Also, Thehelpfulone is our newest judge. He will, starting Monday, be helping maintain the WikiCup and help us ensure all runs smoothly. It's hard to gain consensus between two editors, so I guess "majority rules" (with three people) will start to apply while we make our decision. :-P
In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Catalan, Gary King (191)
Spencer (127)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (112)
Sceptre (34)
Spittlespat (9)
Pool C
Candlewicke (182)
Scorpion0422 (72)
Steven Walling (16)
Pool D
97198 (79)
NapHit (29)
ThinkBlue (25)
Pool E
Sasata (91)
X! (69)
Straight Edge PXK (6)
Pool F
Bedford (55)
RyanCross (31)
the_ed17 (24)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (104)
Ceranthor (34)
Skinny87 (17)
Pool H
Juliancolton (230)
Tinucherian (64)
Ottava Rima (28)
Pool I
Durova (319)
Theleftorium (196)
J Milburn (65)
Pool J
Climie.ca (101)
Paxse (97)
Useight (81)
All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
Image (PD and others) Licensing tags -> Commons candidate Auto tagging
In getting certain groups of images under 'free' license, auto tagged, the following should be inserted into
PD/CC etc license tags before the section at the end.
<includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|works created by the [[United States Congress]]|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly>
<includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|works created in [[Estonia]] for which copyright has expired|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly>
<includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|works created in [[Finland]] that are copyright exempt|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly>
<includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|from the named archive or collection|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly>
<nowiki>
<nowiki>
<includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|works under a 'free' licence|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly>
<includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|the named work in which copyright has expired|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly>
Obviously the names in the messages should be changed appropriately for the relevant tag. Which line to add for which tag
should be common sense, but ask if unsure..
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that the thing was nonsense and it already had a speedy tag on it. I don't know who did a prod tag, but IMO it's a clear speedy. No biggie; it'll be gone soon. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Just wondering if you were ok with replacing File:Qxz-ad162.gif with a version that points to WP:ERRORS, which is where we want them to go. I know that this is stated prominently on main page talk, but most people, unfortunately, don't read more than the first sentence before skipping it and complaining on the wrong page. :P Cheers, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D14:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.
Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.
Maddie! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Thanks for the kind words & holiday-related wishes, and a special thanks for your efforts in re. the FUR for elements of "my" article. Please feel free to contact me personally via any medium listed on my userpage should any niche of my background be useful to you in improving the content or community of Wikipedia, inter alia.
In getting certain groups of images under 'free' license, auto tagged, the following should be inserted into PD/CC etc license tags before the section at the end.
<includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|works created by the [[United States Congress]]|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly>
<includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|works created in [[Estonia]] for which copyright has expired|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly>
<includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|works created in [[Finland]] that are copyright exempt|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly>
<includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|from the named archive or collection|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly> <nowiki> <nowiki> <includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|works under a 'free' licence|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly>
<includeonly>{{CommonsEncouraged|the named work in which copyright has expired|commons={{{commons|}}}}}</includeonly>
Obviously the names in the messages should be changed appropriately for the relevant tag. Which line to add for which tag should be common sense, but ask if unsure.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(the above post is taken from from the archive)
I am not sure how Neurolysis fits into this but as the above post was made January 20, 2009 saying the "following should be inserted into PD/CC etc license tags before the section at the end" I will respond to it. I have seen no public discussion and see no consensuses for the changes made on January 20 to numerous templates by adding the {{CommonsEncouraged}} tag. We now have incorrectly licensed images not only being tagged with "Images from works of this type are candidates to be copied to the Wikimedia Commons using the Transwiki process" but also being added to Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. Please consider reverting all of these changes until there has been a community discussion on this change. As this seems to have been been done by Denelson83 and Sfan00 IMG I have posted messages on their pages as well. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the images are incorrectly licensed , change the license, rather than moaning about licenses which ARE commons compatible saying so.
You can also use |commons= This image is not compatible with Commons on any images which are in dispute.
Which specfic examples are of concern? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There was no consensus to make the site wide change you made. More on your talk page and keeping discussion on your talk page. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
From what I could tell from what SF00 told me, there was consensus. Mostly to save strain on the job queue, I will leave the template until SF00 tells me that I assumed wrongly, and that no such consensus exists (or if he fails to respond in a reasonable timeframe). I am merely the proxy making the change, and I trusted and trust Denelson83, so I felt I didn't need to ask (since he is an admin, he obviously knows about the nature of consensus and the requirement of it). If I was wrong in believing that consensus had been achieved, I will revert all changes made. — neuro(talk) 16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Where was this discussion? Not being sarcastic but I see no mention on any of the template talk pages nor have I found a centralized discussion. I see SF00 asked you to make the changes and I see that Denelson83 made the changes to the locked templates but I see no discussion about doing it anywhere. (Note: Above reply may answer the question - "be bold" may mean there was never discussion) Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RFAs should just be closed per NOTNOW/SNOW if the candidate has very very little experience (and edit count), for example: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neckername. However in Hereford's case that does clearly not apply. Please have a look at this and this and please be more careful in the future. Also, please remember that the main point of NOTNOW is to help users who are not aware of the withdraw process. Given the candidate's experience on Wikipedia he should be allowed to decide himself whether his RfA should be withdrwan. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion00:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it seems I misunderstood. My belief was that it was created by the basepage user, since I can't see for myself, and it seemed a reasonable enough thing to think. Striking upon this new evidence - but I don't see why Frogger would do that, especially since the user claims that he is unaffiliated. — neuro(talk)00:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your apology, although I dispute your claim that your comments were aimed at what I said "What I expect is for people to not be hateful and malicious, and to show some common decency by not being completely and utterly insolant" seems to be aimed at the person. I intended the comment in a light hearted way and feel that your response was far more insulting than the way I phrased my oppose. I have apologised on Peter's talkpage and he has been very understanding, no doubt one of the reasons he is so popular. I accept that the way I phrased my oppose was ill considered, but I think a well considered response would have illustrated the point a lot better than two "angry" responses. Anyhow, no hard feelings King of the NorthEast01:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know about the "multiple users" rule. I am still learning Wikipedia rules. I did reply on my talk page, and attempted to notify you using Neurolysis: [message]. LegitScript (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Neuro, how you doing my friend? I've seen your comments around a little, and just wanted to drop back in to say hi. How's that new GPU you got over the holidays working out for ya? Well, I didn't really have much to say, just wanted to stop by and say hi. Hi!, ;) ... Ched (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well besides the (forumish snow and cold weather stuff), not bad. I've been getting into a little recent changes and vandal reverts lately. I'd be interested in Huggle, but would need rollback for that. I still don't completely agree with the wording on the WP:V policy, and the way it says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." I know it goes on to clarify the statement, but first time readers might have a problem, thinking that we don't want "truth" here. I know that truth can be relative and all, but it just seems there could be a better way to word that. I voted on my first RfA (in favor of PeterSymonds). Have found that some RFC's aren't really serious, but rather just a forum to start a wiki-drama. So all in all, I'm learning. I guess really I shouldn't have dropped the first message, (kind of forumish) - but just wanted to say hey - and I don't do IRC much.
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Neuro, I am curious as to why editing wikipedia is considered vandalism? I did not remove entire sections on the exercise physiology page like you (are you also littlehow?) did. I suggested removing the poorly written first paragraph and replacing it with the older (although more general) opening. Explain why this is vandalism? Wouldn't vandalism be silencing other voices who wish to contribute to wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realep1 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content is continuing to pile in, it's great! Nothing significant this issue, but we currently have a straw poll going on regarding the point values of featured pictures, sounds, and lists. Garden., iMatthew // talk, and TheHelpfulOne
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
WikiCup At a Glance
As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of:
In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Catalan (254)
Gary King (215)
Spencer (150)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (189)
Sceptre (35)
Spittlespat (10)
Pool C
Candlewicke (250)
Scorpion0422 (146)
Steven Walling (29)
Pool D
97198 (89)
ThinkBlue (37)
NapHit (31)
Pool E
Sasata (140)
X! (105)
Straight Edge PXK (9)
Pool F
Bedford (101)
the_ed17 (40)
RyanCross (32)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (107)
Ceranthor (67)
jj137 (50)
Pool H
Juliancolton (355)
Tinucherian (71)
Ottava Rima (28)
Pool I
Durova (462)
Theleftorium (264)
J Milburn (88)
Pool J
Climie.ca (135)
Paxse (134)
Useight (116)
All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.
17:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
AFD proposal for the New York Senate election in 2 years
The deletion procedure mandates a minimum discussion period of five days. How can the decision after only two, 2-1/2 days have been legitimate? Hurmata (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to handling vandalism. The problem is on the exercise physiology article. An individual is changing the page and removing comment from the current version of the talk page. Just a few minutes ago my comments explaining why I removed this individuals changes was deleted. I had cut a section that this individual inserted as a simple cut and paste. On returning to it after a break I googled it and found it is from another website and could potentially be violating copyright. This page has a long history of problems. It seems most people give up. The procedures of handling vandalism are unfamiliar to me. I would appreciate help--or at least being directed to someone that can aid. --LittleHow (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your non-admin close at AfD. Given that most arguments are based on inherited notability, which isn't even established in most of the other related articles, I'm asking you let it run it's proper course. I don't find such arguments at all relevant,a nd the sources now provided continue to all exist as WP:CRYSTAL violating solicitation sources. Allow an admin to review and decide at the end, per policy. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keepscases made a good point in this thread: "You'll also notice that my talk page is filled with messages from established users who appreciate my questions". Among people who are still left on Wikipedia, you made one of the 4 supporting comments on Keepscases' talk page. Is that still your opinion after reading the other messages on Keep's talk page and in the link above, and if so, would you like to argue this position in the current conversation? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that the problem isn't the gallery page itself (I don't need that, and have blanked it), but rather the images that the gallery page linked to. Regarding those, I have (a) no idea why there would be watermarks (presumably either something that the Snagit screen capture software automatically inserted, when I took the initial screenshots (why?), or that O'Reilly Media staff added when they prepared the screenshots for the book; and (b) no idea which images do and don't have watermarks.
Could you help me with (b)? If, for example, the problem is with greyscale images, that's a lot easier to deal with than if the problem is color images.
Ah, good - the example you pointed out is greyscale. Those were intended to be replaced sooner or later; looks like it may be sooner. A list would be appreciated; hopefully you can compile that in some automated format.
To answer your question - yes, I have the source images, but in tiff format, not png. And there is also the issue of properly sizing them, since they are framed, not thumbnailed (so if I do convert them to png format, that may not suffice - or perhaps it will.
But (to repeat myself) if only greyscale images are problematical, then the best solution may be to speed up their replacement by color images, as opposed to trying to replace them with non-watermarked images. (On the other hand, O'Reilly may have a non-watermarked set easily available ... ) -- John Broughton(♫♫)23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. And I appreciate your help on the watermark problem. Regarding my uploading images, I'd like to hold off until I've got a better sense of the scope of the problem; then I can lay out what I see as possible solutions, and then we can do what seems to be best. -- John Broughton(♫♫)00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was only a single link to this redirect, and there should be no problem with people getting lost, as this only just happened last night. There is no reason to keep this redirect in place, all the others were deleted as well, this is just the last one.— DædαlusContribs22:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have undone your closure of this AfD because it did not run for the five days mandated by the deletion policy. I note with some concern that this is the second time I have noticed an incorrect non-admin closure by you, and a section above raises concerns about yet another such closure. Please be considerably more careful when closing AfDs in the future. Thanks, Sandstein 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
