User talk:Nick/Archive7

John Deacon

Excuse me, but why was the john Deacon article deleted?

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Image:Flag of Portugal.svg:

You recently protected[1] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 01:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCN

You are by far welcome to re open any rfcn's that I have closed and you feel are innapropriate. The RFCN's that I opened for blocks by betacommand that I generally unblocked for I closed only after 5 or more editors had commented, generally in unanimous support to unblock. I have not closed any that were any questions in deterining what the consensus was. and actually, in said RFCN's, i generally did not even give a !vote, just made an action based on the comments of the community. If there is a particular RFCN that you feel I closed in error, please let me know. Overall if you have an issue with my any of my actions, adminstrative or otherwise, I would appreciated a friendly comment/notice on my userpage. I have no problem addressing any issues. As I have said before, you are welcome to repopen any RFCN's that you feel were innapropriatly closed. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed on your RfAr comments

Nick, could you please modify your comments on the Betacommand RfAr to make it clear that you're referring to Chrislk02 rather than me? (My comments are immediately above yours.) When I first read your comments and saw all the references to "Chris" I initially thought you meant me rather than Chrislk02. I'd appreciate it if you could modify your comments to make it clear throughout that you mean Chrislk02 rather than ChrisO. :-) -- ChrisO 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that! -- ChrisO 23:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place

Dear Nick, I wonder if you can help me to understand the decision you reached re the above? This was a complex discussion, and counting up the votes they seem to me to be roughly 50/50. A further issue is that although there was very little support for retaining the England infobox I'd say virtually every Scottish wikipedian who participated supported keeping the pre-existing Scotland template, and two of the proposers of the UK infobox moved to a position of keeping it until such time as the concerns raised were satisfied. There is probably something very obvious I have overlooked, but I don't understand how such as result = consensus to delete the Infobox Scotland place and would appreciate some guidance. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to close the discussion as a Keep, but since Scotland, along with (primarily) England, Wales and Northern Ireland form the UK at this time, it seems that a large amount of confusion could result if we have different infoboxes, both from an article writing standpoint, as more so, from a readers standpoint. People looking at London's infobox want to be presented with identical levels of types of information in the Edinburgh infobox, and whilst it's going to be the same at the moment, invariably, someone adds a new feature here or tweaks a feature there, and before long, the infoboxes diverge wildly, with a large number of differences which make it confusing for both readers and writers alike. Even with the best will in the world, people leave the project, new people come in, and even firm decisions by people to try and keep the two templates alike can be overruled by consensus or forgotten about if they leave the project. -- Nick ^t 12:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the inherent logic behind standardisation, and although temperamentally I am more inclined towards allowing diversity unless it proves itself to be unworkable, what interests me here is more the procedure. (Whilst I find the template result somewhat dispiriting, I am a user of the Island infobox and not really involved in using Infobox Place as such.) I'd therefore like to be clear about the method by which the decision is made. Do I understand correctly that the decision was essentially up to you as a sysop, and someone else might have made quite a different one? Are there guidelines as to which %ages of votes constitute a 'consensus', which %ages result in such a choice etc? I haven't been able to find any relevant policies or guidelines and having seen 'no consensus' results before I honestly didn't think there was any chance of the UK infobox being imposed and I'd like to have a better understanding of the subject for future reference. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, XfD isn't a vote, it's a discussion, so we don't count the number of Keep and Delete comments to find a majority and there's no arbitrary number for a consensus (how many people do you need for a crowd, or a lynch mob). With this TfD, there were indeed a number of Keep comments, but a large number expressed a desire for the template not to be deleted until conversion had taken place or until features had been added to the template. Since these features appear to be underway and since the template will not be deleted until conversion has taken place. I honestly don't recall seeing more than a handful of totally sensible reasons to keep the infobox and even these were overshadowed by the benefits of one infobox and the larger number of more sensible delete comments. -- Nick ^t 00:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks for your assistance. Next time I'll concentrate on the arguments and not the votes. I think the UK infobox with its 'Civil parishes' and 'car registration number' fields is completely absurd in the context of rural Scotland at least, but its rather too late for all that. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for the template to be changed (or do it yourself) so the fields are optional (if they're not already). The benefit of this template is that it can have lots of things that are relevant to some areas and not others, and allows a more appropriate selection of pick and mix fields to use. -- Nick ^t 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: XJ Comments

Hi Nick Thank you for your comments regarding my changes to the XJ site. I'm confused as to why you wish to have a space between "4.2" and "L" when all the badges on the back of the vehicles have no space. Additionally, I find the use of Bhp as being just wrong. I've been an engineer for vehicle consultancies and OEMs for 10 years. It is never known as Bhp but either BHP (using capitals to indicate initials just as in VAT & HGV [you wouldn't have Vat, Hgv or Usa now, would you?]) or bhp which seems to be commonly used but isn't strictly correct. May i point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations which back up my comments

Horsepower, I believe, details how we deal with horsepower on Wikipedia. hp, being a unit of measurement rather than a abbreviation (though it is) would be remain lower case. If you were talking about horsepower in a context other than a unit of measurement, then HP would be correct. -- Nick ^t 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

page moves

Didn't they undo the move on Rahmonov? And what other pages have I moved recently? I can't remember--sorry for negligence though, and thanks for fixing...K. Lásztocska 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers.

- Michael Billington (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace Secret Shows

Just to let you know, I've relisted this as speedy as it has been recreated after you deleted it last week on March 25. Whitstable 17:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say it was delete the first time without warning. The second time becuase it lacked sources. Now it has sources to confirm its notability and you deleted it anyway. So check before you delete and i would appreciate if you brought it back and didn't delete it becasue it meets the criteria for a good article.Martini833 20:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK can you tell me exactly why you deleted it and did you know exactly why it was put up for dletion because its sounds like you dontMartini833 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted by myself twice. The first time, it was because there was no notability asserted. You recreated the material and it was taken to Articles for Deletion which was closed by a different administrator (i.e not me) as the consensus said the subject wasn't notable enough for inclusion. You then proceeded to post less than pleasant messages around Wikipedia expressing your displeasure that the article was deleted, before recreating the article only a few hours after AfD consensus was for deletion. I deleted the material once again in accordance with Wikipedia policy as it still doesn't show sufficient notability and the article wasn't hugely different from the one listed at AfD or the one I previously deleted. WP:CSD shows the criteria for speedy deletion and I would draw your attention to General Criteria, Subsection 4. I expected you would wish to question the deletion, so I suggested deletion review which would give you further opportunity to legitimately recreate the article. I really think I've been extraordinarily patient with you and I really don't appreciate your tone at this point. -- Nick ^t 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - thank you for answering so thouroughly (sp) but now if u check the deletion review (which as of now hasnt been answered after my last commemt) has 2 new sources that prove its notability and this time the discussion was tasteful and civil. I hope tht this meets the criteria. If you go to my talk page you will see the new revised article. It is up to date with new sources and less subjective. I think that if you would find it in your heart to forgive me for all my wrongdoing on wikipedia (ie: strong comments) then i would like it if you put back the article because i have confirmed notability not only for the US but other countries (its in 7 countries now) also i would like to add a section to the article (to further its notability) called myspace secret comedy so that it doesnt just consist of ONE type of secret show. Excuse my spelling or whatever im in a rushh. Thanks

P/s. heres the link [2]Martini833 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm afraid I am unable to close the deletion review or to restore the article due to their being a deletion review underway, however I'm sure if you make these points on the deletion review, they will be carefully and thoughtfully taken into consideration when another, impartial administrator closes the deletion review and decides whether or not the article should be recreated. I don't wish to appear to be trying to continually remove your article from Wikipedia, nor do I wish to have it appear that I'm pandering to campaigning by another editor, so I have to recuse myself from having any part in the deletion review and leave it in the hands of another administrator or trusted editor. I trust this is satisfactory and in trying to be fair and impartial isn't causing you too much hassle. -- Nick ^t 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your descision and i don't think your out to get anyone/thing but no one has been answering this deletion review for about 1 day and a half i believe so i think it's pretty much in your hands because you have the expertise or you could alert fellow admins to voice their opinion or something that might be clever and objective.Martini833 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Deletion Review will probably stay open for another couple of days (they should stay open for 5 days) and it's not unusual for there to be a lack of comments for a couple of days during the middle of the review period. If by Thursday (5th April) it still hasn't been closed, you could contact an administrator on IRC (irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia) and ask them to close the discussion or if you want, I'll ask someone to close it. -- Nick ^t 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would closing the discussion bring the article backMartini833 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer that, it is purely at the discretion of whoever closes the Deletion Review. It really is outwith my control, but if you make reasoned, rationale arguments showing it satisfies the notability policies, it stands a good chance of being undeleted. -- Nick ^t 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think i have done that so far? Martini833 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. -- Nick ^t 01:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you i guess this discussion is over. Sorry if i'm annoying you. Also do you think i should add myspace secret stand up to the article. Martini833 01:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm heading off for the night, but yeah, I'd add the Secret Stand Up to the existing article unless you think you'll be able to prove the notability requirements for a second article and it's not going to be a really short article with very limited context. -- Nick ^t 01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support.

Dear Nick,

Thank you very much for your kind words and supportive comments on my recent RfA. I've been shot down again, so it won't be happening this time. I hope, though, that I can hear from you again next time around - and there definitely will be a next time.

Best wishes,

-- Hex [^t/_c] 21:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection from creation?

Hello, Nick. I wanted to thank you for helping to handle the recent Myspace Secret Shows debate, and had a question about it. I see that the article was protected from re-creation, which I support based upon the history of this issue. I added the db-talk template to the talk page of this article, since the main article is now deleted, and no comments on that page contributed to the deletion discussion (everything there had already been said at the AfD). You may want to check the comment on that talk page regarding MySpace Secret Comedy, or keep an eye on the creation of pages like that, since creation of an article on another (different but non-notable) subsection of Myspace would logically fall victim to the same issues that Secret Shows had. (Sorry if that made little sense, I'm a bit tired today). I've not really seen this full process before, and am just trying to get a handle on how things work. Any input you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks! *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LostNav

At this point, there has been tons of discussion on the talk page and even a straw poll. I'd argue that there's consensus, but those in the minority insist there isn't and have reverted with no regard for the opinions of other editors. How would you recommend settling this dispute, since further discussion obviously isn't going to change the situation? --Minderbinder 23:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with WP:3O but I'm only protecting the template as a precaution to make sure nobody ends up getting into trouble for 3RR. -- Nick ^t 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will that help since at least six editors have given opinions already? And what if additional opinions come in, and the dissenters still insist there's no consensus and that their edits are justified by being "right"? It seems that without admin intervention, an editor can keep reverting against consensus as long as they don't violate 3RR. --Minderbinder 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd see what some other, more impartial editors say first before worrying about another revert war. What we can look at is keeping the template protected until more comments can be solicited and if there continues to be consensus, especially from the impartial editors, we can look at making the necessary changes with the template still protected until people move on. That way, should we be unable to stop an edit war for whatever reason, the consensus version will usually have the advantage of being on the correct side of the 3RR policy (not that I'm advocating gaming the system, but it happens). I'd be looking to have editors backing off and the template protected again before it gets to the stage where people are worrying about 3RR policy though. -- Nick ^t 23:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

We're allowed colours in signatures. Thanks --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your not allowed a signature of that length or one which is difficult for visually impaired editors to read, so once again, change it. -- Nick ^t 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it after a respectful request. "Change it" is not something I respond to --I'm so special 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. -- Nick ^t 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace Events

I've made a new page that is more detailed and no one has complained about: MySpace Events. I need a little bit of help though i would like to know how to put picture in the templates correctly and how to get some bugs fixed. When you write back I'll be more detailed. Martini833 04:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC) NEVER MIND thnx anywayMartini833 05:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly's RfB

Hey Nick, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support and I do intend to run again eventually. I hope you're enjoying your admin tools; once again, it was a pleasure to nominate you. See you around! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Canvassing for comments about your userpage

Please familiarise yourself with the relevant policy WP:CANVASS and please stop asking people to comment on your userpage leaving messages such as [3] on other users talkpages. I have also removed the poll, Wikipedia userspace exists to help users write an encyclopedia, we're not a social networking site. Best Wishes. -- Nick ^t 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- All reverted,and sorry for any problems Thenthornthing 22:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick. =] --User:Apda dancerx3

Thanks

Thanks for your recent support in my RfA, which was a success. J Milburn 16:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I still don't know what you were getting at here - would you care to elaborate? If you have issues with what I've done as admin I want to know them so I can work on resolving them :) Haukur 11:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no issues with your admin work at all, I was simply pointing out that trying to hold everybody to the statement they make during the RfA or RfB process isn't practical because life, like Wikipedia, is in a constant state of flux, just because a bureaucrat says he won't promote below 80% doesn't mean he should be held to that if it might not be for the overall benefit to the project (and I'm not entirely talking about Danny here), just as you, me or any other admin shouldn't be held to our various statements about doing adminy stuff a particular way or doing it at all if and/or when there is something else that requires our attention. -- Nick ^t 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - if you get the support of the community promising to do things one way you shouldn't then go and do things in the opposite way without seeking renewed support first. If that's how you want to do things then you should run on a platform of "I'm going to do what I think is best at any given time". That's a perfectly good platform but it's not the one Dan ran on, that's why I'm criticizing him. I'm glad you're satisfied with what I do, though. You seem like you're doing a fine job too. Haukur 13:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Frederick Field

On 11 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Frederick Field, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quebecois

I believe tou are making a mistake by blocking edits to Quebecois just after User:SoulScanner unilateraly reverted to his own partisan version.

First of all, the Articles for deletion/Québécois shows that no consensus was reach on the proposed deletion. It does not say that a consensus was reached on keeping the article as it was. To state A or B, not A therefore B would be a logical fallacy. That is, no consensus was reached for deletion, but there clearly was no consensus either on keeping the article intact. Far from it.

A group of users (User:Laval, User:Recury, User:142.58.101.27, User:iridescenti, User:RaveenS, User:metaspheres + myself) and now User:Joeldl did/do not favour deletion. We favoured redirection. We accepted and still accept that there was no consensus on deletion. That is not the issue. The issue, as we can see from the talk page, is that a single user, User:Soulscanner, (who sometimes uses another account named User:Soul scanner), wants to treat the article from the viewpoint of a certain politically active faction who claim to speak for the majority of Canadians (who speak English) all the while denying the perception which the majority of Quebecers (who speak French) have of themselves. Oh, and he refuses to acknowledge the factual errors and errors in reasoning which I patiently (OK, not always patiently because I don't have time for this foolish game) point out in the talk pages. The Quebecois (or French-speaking Quebecers) article is no more the place for debates on identity politics than the article on Anglo-Americans. I have suggested Quebec identity (as there is a Canadian identity) or Quebec nationalism as more sensible.

Should we go with arbitration at this point? What would you recommend we do to resolved this conflict? -- Mathieugp 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD result was Keep not Redirect or Merge - in this instance, I'm following the consensus on the AfD - I would suggest a fresh AfD in the first instance, then moving to mediation and then arbitration as a last resort. -- Nick ^t 22:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the admin incorrectly determined that there was consensus. The AFD should have been closed as no consensus. Second, can you add the {{totallydisputed}} tag back to the article. Soulscanner (who has constantly used sockpuppets and anon IPs) consistently removed tags from the article. I asked for semiprotection, but was declined. You can skim through the history if you like. For Gods sake, he has added an ethnic group template to the article, which is about a provincial group like Californian or New Yorker! He's probably laughing it up right now. It is people like this that make a laughing stock out of something potentially useful as Wikipedia. Laval 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And needless to say, Quebecois are not an ethnic group. If you read the discussion, you'll find that Soulscanner has been pushing his POV against the consensus by other editors that Quebecois are a provincial/national group, not an ethnic group equivalent to French Canadian. I would ask that you unprotect the article and allow removal of the ethnic group template and the contentious POV material. Laval 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had the discussion returned the No Consensus you claim it should have, the page would still end up fully protected to prevent merging (which, in this case is just a backdoor deletion). If you want to merge or delete the article, you would need to form a consensus to do this, it cannot be forced through by you, regardless of whether it is correct or not. I believe there is consensus amongst those who participated in the discussion for the page to be retained, as it was at the time of the discussion. You believe there was no consensus to do anything on that page, so you wouldn't have any right to move the page about, make it a redirect or to merge content. I will not be unprotecting the page until you can prove to me you understand why the page was protected in the first place and that you implicitly understand the page should not be turned into a redirect, merged with any other article or altered drastically away from the version presented at the AfD debate and finally, until you implicitly accept the outcome of the deletion discussion precludes you from carrying out anything other than routine editing on the article, spelling, adding citations and such. -- Nick ^t 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you followed the procedure. I do not mean to criticize, I just wish to point out an error. Indeed, it was determined there was a keep by the admin, but this was a mistake. The question raised was "delete" or "not delete". The result was "not delete" since there was no consensus on this option. There is no way anyone could convince a programmer like me or any person who understands basic reasoning that we can conclude from this "not delete" that there was a consensus to "keep". In addition, "keep" does not equate "keep untouched". In order to reach any conclusion on whether or not there is a consensus to "keep", we would need to hold a vote on that specific option. This consensus could logically never be reached with so many people voting for "redirect". There is no consensus on "redirect" either. That is the problem to resolve.

There is also another error in your reply. You have stated " [...] from the version presented at the AfD debate [...]" That version would be the one live at 14:11 on April 3rd 2007 which is this one [4], not the one pushed by User:Soulscanner afterwards. You will also note that at this time, there was already a merge tag going back to March 17 and a discussion for merger going on in the talk page since then.

What is the difference between mediation and arbitration in Wikipedia?

Lastly, what is the right procedure to have an admin check if User:Soulscanner is maybe not just a sockpuppet of hardbanned User:DW? -- Mathieugp 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite agree with you on this, because there was no consensus for deletion or redirection, it's therefore by default a keep, regardless of the consensus the closing admin determined existed. The version I've protected is the latest version that wasn't a redirect, I believe.

I understand what you mean. There was no consensus on deletion, therefore we fall back to keeping the article as it was. But this "keeping" of the article is not the result of a consensus either, it is just the current status quo. Discussions on redirect, dealing with the material User:Soulscanner is pushing for inside another article and using a Québécois (disambiguation) article should be left open. Otherwize, a single user (here:User:Soulscanner) would get his (or her) way as an accident of the failure of the involved participants to reach consensus on delete, and also because this very user has been, for a long time, blocking (and continues to block) reaching consensus on any other option. Oh, and User:Soulscanner does not respond to any of the concerns and problems raised by myself and others on the very validity and truthfulness of the material he or she has added to Quebecois. The situation is disastrous right now. -- Mathieugp 09:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation on Wikipedia is where mediators try to resolve a dispute amicably between both sides without making any real decisions themselves, whilst Arbitration is more like a trial, with the participants, interested parties and anybody who feels they can provide useful background submitting evidence with the Arbitration Committee then deciding on sanctions. They probably wouldn't accept this case at this point but I'd certainly start with another deletion debate, then followed up by an attempt at mediation before submitting the case to ArbCom.

Thank you. -- Mathieugp 09:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find a checkuser who can confirm if Soulscanner (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of DW (talk · contribs) but there doesn't appear to be any online at this time. You would be best to submit a report at WP:RFCU where one of my colleagues will help you submit a request. If it is determined that Soulscanner is a sockpuppet then I would be in favour of holding a fresh deletion debate and deletion of all the edits Soulscanner has made to the article. -- Nick ^t 07:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, when you froze the article, why did you remove the neutrality tag that I put in? The material in the article is non-neutral in my view, in the examples of use of the term, and in the identification of "Québécois" as an ethnic group. Is there a policy against having tags in protected pages? Joeldl 07:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted to the last version that was an article, not a redirect. -- Nick ^t 07:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last version that was an article was mine [5] and had a neutrality tag. Joeldl 08:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you have just reverted to the article version that was submitted for deletion? The current article is significantly altered when compared to it and contains duplicated material from French Canadian. -- Mathieugp 09:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam whitelist - what do you think?

At User:Eagle 101's request, I have gone to various editors seeking a consensus on this discussion, as I personally know the artist whose site it is - therefore, there is a small issue of WP:COI. Please take a look and leave your thoughts there.--Vox Humana 8' 23:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment in due course. Please be aware of WP:CANVASS though. -- Nick ^t 23:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soulscanner

I am sorry, but I don't think I can help you. I wasn't actually involved in the DW's case (in fact, he was banned by Jimbo Wales himself); I was just scanning the list of banned users and noticed that some of them have an empty block list, so I reblocked them. Try the administrators' noticeboard. Regards, Mike Rosoft 05:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Hello, when I reported bad Usernames to AIV, they were unused but most accounts are unused which are inappropriate, they are meant to be blocked anyway regardless of whether inappropriate or not, thats what all the other admins do. Thanks - Telly addict 10:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't block unused accounts for username violations - if they're not being used, they're not presenting any problem to Wikipedia, if and when they do edit, the type of edits (useful or vandalism) gives us a much better idea of how we need to treat these users and how to configure the block - do we leave account creation enabled or disabled, and do we block their last IP or not.

I really don't want to be blocking good faith users who have been reported through AIV and would much rather open a dialogue with them on their userpage where, if they're good faith users, they're likely to be responsive and either register a new account or request an name change. -- Nick ^t 10:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

If I made a mistake please change it, I am not sure which article you are talking about, I have changed many articles from honor to honour in the past hour, I try to check and make sure what I edit the article to is correct. However, I don't check very thouroughly and if you think I made a mistake, you are probably right. --eskimospy ^(talk) 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me which article it was so I remember not to edit it again.--eskimospy ^(talk) 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually wondering why your converting any articles - it's usually frowned upon. -- Nick ^t 18:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External link

Please see Talk:Abraham_Kuyper#External_link. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of Delete Jose R Trinidad

You say that he is not a notable Martial Artist. But #1 he is one of the 3 person of open a Taekwondo school in Puerto Rico and he has won many Tournaments in New York, Cunneticut, Michigan and Massachusset. Also he is an 1996 All American Champion Karate/Kung Fu/ Taekwondo of S. Henry Cho the same tournament that give the Fame to Mr Chuck Norris in 1967 and 1968. He is on of the only 4 people in Puerto Rico with the Rank of Eight Dan Black Belt and Puerto Rico do not have any 9th Dan so he is one of the hightest rank in Taekwondo in Puerto Rico and dedicate 40 years to make this acomplish. You can found information of Mr. Jose R. Trinidad in the World Martial Arts College website http://www.worldmartialartscollege.com/ and in his personal website at http://www.freewebs.com/jtkdi/ . Sorry that you are not related with the Puerto Rico Martial Arts and Taekwondo History. --WMACPR 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, please feel free to recreate the article but please include sources which show notability in future. If you don't show sources which satisfy our notability guidelines or Jose R Trinidad isn't truely notable however, you may find that any recreation of the article is also deleted. -- Nick ^t 10:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page revert

Thanks, much appreciated. The Rambling Man 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. -- Nick ^t 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ministers of the environment in 2007.

For the move you wrote "to bring in line with similar articles". What other articles other than Category:Lists of foreign ministers by year is there? The original has more info on the page, and also has the advantage of showing the frequency of changes in a country. -- Jeandré, 2007-04-19t21:21z

The original version of that article was unsourced, poorly designed and impossible for visually impaired readers to read, I took the decision to bring the article in line with the various other articles which show lists of ministers by year, such as the example listed above, and the heads of state. -- Nick ^t 21:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many sources that they were moved to a separate page - the link to this page is still at the bottom of the page. I don't understand why you consider the original impossible for visually impaired readers to read. Splitting up the page is reducing its usefulness. -- Jeandré, 2007-04-20t19:17z

Sources don't go on a separate page, they go at the bottom of the article text. You may also wish to read http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/03/todays-paradigm-of-quality-on.html. -- Nick ^t 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Nick. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I will use your comment to help improve, and I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block Concern

Hi, this is a user logged onto a computer that you recently informed would be blocked from editing following an abusive edit to a page on the Spanish Armada. I would like to inform you that this computer is one in a school library which multiple users log onto daily. If you could, perhaps you could place a 'softened' block on this computer allowing only logged in and registered users to edit and blocking everyone else. Thank you, Treali Storm. (Internet alias, see http://journals.aol.com/trealistorm/traitor-starlesssky) I will probably be creating an account with wikipedia soon too under the username trealistorm most likely.

165.138.236.2

Looks like this anon has called your threat for a block: [6]. Block time? -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Martin

Thank you for the feedback on my recent warning of Kelly Martin. I kindly request then that another adminstrator or other party review Kelly Martins lack of civility. Telling them that "there likes" are not wanted around here is complety uncivil and a violation of WP:NPA. My warning was in response to her innapropriate response to lankybugger and what I feel was an appropraite action as an administrator aside from the interpreted conflict of interest. Had any other editor left that message, they would have recieved a warning in a similar manner from me. I find that her discourse is not helping to build this encylopedia and why I felt a warning was appropriate. Please note, I went above and beyond to make sure that I stated in a civil and nice way, while also gettign the message across. However, per your advice, i will refrain from warning Kelly Martin and ask another uninvolved administrator to review and make a decision. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Maule speed record?

that's the first time I've had a copyright violation article disappear before I had finished putting the warning on the user page - quick work, thanks! --Alvestrand 16:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Thank you for closing the thread; you're right that it had degenerated much too far to be of any use any more. I'm extremely concerned about whether all Wikipedians are equally treated with regards to policy, but this probably isn't the best venue. *** Crotalus *** 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was probably going to post to that thread again, but I'm not going to revert your closing. I was busy writing another post [7] for that page that I think is relevant. CMummert · talk 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was going to post the below comment, but as it's closed I'll just drop it in here.

While I can't say for sure, it was my opinion at the time I took our discussion to Kelly's page that bringing up libel, while not an explicit threat, was meant to intimidate. It would take an extraordinary amount of evidence to prove a libel charge, especially when qualified with "I don't think". I'm not saying my comment was accurate or entirely civil, but again, it didn't qualify as libel... ignorant, perhaps, but not libel. As an additional note to this, if I'd truly thought this was a clear legal threat I would have brought it to ANI myself.

As far as WP:CIVIL is concerned, both Kelly and I came within shuffling distance of the line if not crossed it entirely. I'll admit that I could have been less confrontational in this matter, just as others are noting that Kelly probably could have handled this in a less confrontational manner. After the initial cool off period, I find myself more amused than angered by all this. I don't think I've ever been accused of "violating" anything with my "mere presence", but it was a refreshing pinprick to my ego. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say what??

Are you deleting a userfied user box on my page because you disagree with its viewpoint? Please don't do that.. very that's uncool. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already deleted - please don't recreate it. -- Nick ^t 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S - could you please use a more informative edit summary than "??????". Thanks in advance. -- Nick ^t 20:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Now, I'll thank you in advance for an explanation of why you're deleting legal and Wikipolicy-compliant content from my userspace? Thank you! Jenolen ^{speak it!} 20:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's deleted because its "opinion" uses Wikipedia resources to directly attack Wikipedia and Foundation policy (contrary to your assertion that it doesn't). That's why it was killed the first time. Don't do that - David Gerard 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, "opinion" has not be outlawed on Wikipedia, and certainly not in user space. Also remaining kosher on Wikipedia, despite the efforts of some, is fair use. So I'm not sure how stating a preference for a fair use image over a poor quality GFDL image requires this kind of hand wringing. It's not an attack on Foundation policy; it's a preference, which is well within Wikipolicy. Try to understand the distinctions. Jenolen ^{speak it!}

Policy prohibits someone using a fair use image in the place of a GFDL image, regardless of the quality difference. This "opinion" your supposedly promoting is something policy prohibits, it's therefore a totally redundant opinion. That's why anything that promotes fair use over free use will be deleted and will remain deleted. -- Nick ^t 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And policies at Wikipedia aren't subject to change? Consensus never shifts? The Foundation never changes its mandate? I mean, the Foundation could come out tomorrow with a dictum that all Wikipedia pages include content about alligators... and we'd busily try to meet that goal, while rightly calling it a silly policy.

What I hate about these types of ham-handed deletions is that they leave no room for dissent - "SHUT UP ABOUT FAIR USE, GFDL IS EVERYTHING!" - much less actual, intellectual debate. Don't be so afraid of contrary ideas. And try to go along with consensus. Consensus on that box was, "userfy." Which I did. Which wasn't good enough for you; fine. But a little less fear and a little more trying to work with other editors, instead of deleting good faith attempts to respect consensus would be appreciated. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 21:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit the deletion of the userfied version did make me go "eh?", especially after I saw the contents of the box. "This user would prefer not to use free images if there are better fair use ones available." - I thought it would have been something like "This user is against the GFDL and refuses to license his contributions under it." or something similar licence-technical-problematic. But it only says that he would prefer to use fair use images if they are better than GFDL ones. Quick technical question: would you delete my userpage if I stated, plaintext, "This user would prefer not to use free images if there are better fair use ones available." I have that copyright-paranoia-is-distruptive box, is that ok? Still I won't challenge you on this one for two reasons - first of all the "all userboxes must die" faction is already all over the place. And secondly, given David Gerard's position, it would be probably quite easy to slap WP:OFFICE on the whole thing and make it untouchable. Still, I'm quite disappointed that we again get the kind of gag-orders here. Personally I think it would be extremely stupid to leave the GFDL images if at all possible path (since fair use is a murky water) but I'm saddended that people are not allowed to say they would prefer it otherwise. "My way or the highway" was not the Wikipedia way as I knew it. Charon X/talk 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

Please leave {{test7}} on the Talk page when you indefinitely block a vandal-only account. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retinono Virginia

Retinono Virginia being my adopter left me this message that he was going to retire because "of some horible people" I noticed your denial on his talk page and I think that is what made him leave. Kinglou135 10:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just reinforces the idea he was wholly unsuited to being an administrator here. Please kindly stop with this melodramatic nonsense and return to assisting others in creating a free encyclopedia. -- Nick ^t 11:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Deacon

I guess that my solution, merging the new page, wasn't exactly the one that many editors would have taken. For what it's worth, as stupid as it might sound, it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. It seemed like more of a notability issue than a personal attack/libel one to me when I looked at the new page. Sorry for any inconvenience. Darkspots 17:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simoes

At least one administrator, Alabamaboy, has endorsed the interpretation that this was BLP removal, which would entail an exemption to 3RR.[8] I'm undecided on the specific argument there, but I do believe the user was acting in good faith toward BLP, and not using that exemption as an excuse to game the system. Considering all this, I would like to unblock Simoes. Would you object to my doing so? ··coel acan 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope it was for the best. ··coel acan 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simoes

It looks like the block on Simoes (talk · contribs) was perhaps unjustified. Could you please take a look and if necessary, unblock? Thanks. --Yamla 02:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stubbs Userbox

Um, did you really have to delete the whole userbox? Couldn't you just have taken out the picture? --Averross (u♠t♠c) 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Kelly Martin situation

I think I made that comment out of anger at the situation in general. However, I learn as I go and I feel now the best remedy for any situation like that, that unless it is absolutely blatant is to not justify or dignify it with a response. Not worth getting completely wikistressed over and losing sight of what I'm actually here to do, and that's help improve the articles of this project. Thanks for the advice though! Bmg916^Speak_Sign 15:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCN

Hey Nick, I'm interested in hearing your views on what to do about RFCN, I know you want it deleted (which I have also stated too). Would you be willing to hear any compromises such as a new noticeboard? I really believe we need a completely new system for username problems, firstly, it's not fair taking them to WP:AIV and labeling them as vandals, but WP:AN would get backlogged. I want to work with you on this one! (Note, I think we need to sort out problems with people reposrting usernames wrongly, I just feel education is better than blocking!) Ryan Postlethwaite 21:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions. Just stumbled across something on the MfD too - I think (and hope) one of the problems might be the username policy isn't clear enough, perhaps we need to think about adding in examples of what usernames would be acceptable and when users should start reporting potentially unsuitable usernames and perhaps a more robust process to follow, if the username is disruptive in a foreign language provide a translation, if it's an obscure references to a 1934 Nazi propaganda film, provide a reference and beyond reporting the username, provide a rationale as to why the username would be disruptive in day to day usage.

I'm keen to move away from one click reporting but not go as far as to dissuade people with a genuine concern from reporting something concerning. We'll still get a few newbies stuck in the crossfire, I only want to reduce the number of false reports as much as possible. -- Nick ^t 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the username policy is fairly clear if you understand it, but not to relatively new users, or users not entirely experienced with username issues. I like you suggestion of putting examples of what is acceptable in policy, at present, it seams only to have usernames which are very clearly inappropriate. It would be nice to see borderline cases which are allowed to clarify matters. I've actually created a new AIV style noticeboard; User:Ryan Postlethwaite/AIV/U, all usernames could go through here and it would be a much less painfull experience; usernames are either blocked there and then, or allowed to edit, still allowing similar discussion as on AIV, but sorted much quicker than at present. At the end of the day, a username isn't going to determine whether we have a good encyclopedia or not, so those borderline cases that we see on RFCN all too often should be allowed to just get on with things. I'll be interested to see your views. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivium

Hey I'm not sure how to do this, but I'm preety sure that Trivium (band) is more notable than Trivium and since people will search for Trivium most probably looking for the band, and then not find it, and new users may not understand how a dab works, compared to someone who would be looking for Trivium is more likely to look for the dab and find the education system. So I'm trying to change it so Trivium becomes the band article, and the old Trivium becomes Trivium (education) or (medievil education). How would I go about changing all this, I'll also fix all the 'pages that link to this'. Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair use images removal

Can you please show me the image fair usage policy and explain me the reason for removal of the episode pictures from this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_episodes&diff=127703854&oldid=127703703

Thank you.

Jernejl 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair use images removal #2

So, if i obtain permissions to use the images tagged with fair use, the images are OK, and i can restore them? Jernejl 19:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image removal #3

Hi, I've noticed you're removing a lot of screen caps currently, but I can't seem to find the discussion/decision on this, aside from one dating Nov 06 where it seems it was decided to allow screen caps under fair use. Could you point me in the direction of the more recent decision where this was over-turned? Would just like to make sure I'm following current guidelines before I spend time editing. Thanks --Jenny 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes is this weeks discussion. It should be pointed out we are simply ensuring Episode Lists follow the Fair Use policy, we're not having a huge crusade against fair use work, just bringing these articles back into line. If you do upload a fair use image, it really needs to comply with all 10 criteria of our fair use policy. If your still uncertain, please don't hesitate to contact another admin. -- Nick ^t 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question concerning User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Hello, Nick. I have a question concerning the little debacle that happened a few days ago. Did Gustafson contact you directly requesting that you block me? I ask this because you were apparently unaware of the false 3RR report he made, even after you unblocked me. It all seems a little odd, so I was hoping you might be able to shed a little light on the event. Thanks. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the block to be unjust, looking through your contributions, you have made a number of reverts within 24 hours on a number of articles, even if you technically hadn't violated the 3RR rule on this occasion, I consider your editing behaviour detrimental to Wikipedia. Your behaviour is also a cause for concern. I only unblocked you as a courtesy to the other administrators, and in the hope the block might have prompted a change in your editing behaviour. -- Nick ^t 01:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that doesn't answer my question. Did he contact you directly? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- Nick ^t 01:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd, then, that after you unblocked me you wrote, "I would strongly recommend that instead of reverting more than 3 times to remove unsourced material, you make a report to one of the admin noticeboards." Of course, I didn't make a fourth revert, and I did make a report to AN/I (this was done almost an hour before you issued the block). You also didn't even see the 3RR report issued by Jeffrey O. Gustafson, for these facts were all made clear there, too.

I mean no offense in questioning your actions, but there were obviously shenanigans of some kind going on here. I hope you don't mind if I continue my inquiry through the proper channels. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to investigate in what ever manner you see fit. If there's anything I can do to be of assistance, please don't hesitate to ask.

I notice your saying you made a report to AN/I - I must have missed it. AN/I is quite a busy old messageboard though. -- Nick ^t 01:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal

Hey Nick, could you explain the rationale behind removing the images from Star Trek episode pages for "fair use" purposes? Considering they are still used on other pages in wikipedia? I only ask because people have seen it fit to give you a few extra wikipedia commands that I don't have (eg. protect). - Diceman 13:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in regards to your question, I would first refer you to our fair use policy and in particular, Criteria 3, and also Criteria 4 and 5 (I've quoted, verbatim, below for speed)

“

3 Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice. None is used if one is not necessary.

4 Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace.
5 Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose.

”

Further more, per the Non Compliance section, images need to satisfy all 10 fair use criterion, none of the images removed do so.

“

Non-compliance

Images that do not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor, or another Wikipedian, will need to provide a convincing fair-use defence that satisfies all 10 criteria. If an image on which fair use is claimed is not used in any article (Criterion 7), it may be deleted immediately. For images that were uploaded before 13 July 2006, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days

”

If you wish to seek permission, you need to contact the copyright holder, ask for them to supply screenshots under either a GFDL licence or CC-BY-SA or CC-BY Creative Commons licences. If/when you receive permission, please forward it to permissions@wikimedia.org and it will be archived on the m:OTRS system.

I also refer you to a recent discussion where it was generally agreed that fair use doesn't extend to using a large number of images in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes. There are additional arguments away from core policy which I think should also be mentioned, the necessary code to display all these images drives pages to in excess of 100Kb in places, and there have been reports from fellow administrators of pages taking over 5 minutes to load on dial-up. These images prevent us from giving away a free encyclopedia, all text is licenced under the GNU Free Document Licence, which all contributors understand, there are main contributors who would be displeased to hear their work cannot be redistributed free (gratis) because of fair use images (removing small numbers is possible, but these images are embedded into tables which forces a manual removal). In addition to these images preventing Wikipedia from being free gratis, they also prevent the information from being free (libre), where freedom of speech is being hindered, people cannot read what has been contributed because of the painfully slow download times and can also be prevented from contributing to such articles because of the download and upload times when contributing further text. It must be made brutally clear, not administrator working on this current issue is against the use of fair use imagery across the entire encyclopedia, we're simply ensuring Wikipedia fully complies with copyright legislation and that the project is as free (both free as in freedom of speech and free as in free beers) as is reasonably possible.-- Nick ^t 14:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair use questions

I saw your question on a RfA. I have an adoptee so I have to stay one step ahead as far as wikipedia knowledge. Furthermore, I've been restrained as far as submitting images so that I don't violate policy. In short, I only contribute photos that I take myself. Your RfA question was
...should high quality fair use images be used instead of low quality free images, ...should fair use images be hold on Wikimedia Commons ? ...Can you explain how fair use images impact of the libre and gratis aspects of Wikipedia.
What are your thoughts on #1? What's Wikimedia Commons? VK35 17:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free images over fair use images any day of the week and under any circumstances. Wikimedia Commons is here - our sister project for collecting and cataloguing free images, media files and such. -- Nick ^t 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what?

Nick, you reverted my rollback. I'm not sure if you saw what happened—Tony was modifying another editor's signed comments to suit his own style preferences. This is something that is strongly discouraged for a number of reasons.

I'm not going to edit war with you over this, but I hope you'll undo your edit, and I would appreciate it in the future if you'd contact me when undoing my changes like that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the use of confusing acronyms totally unacceptable on a noticeboard that is designed to be accessible to the entire community, including people who don't have the faintest idea what the hell all these acronyms are. The changes have a net benefit to the project (people might actually be able to understand them now). I don't even know what the problem is, the comment is exactly the same as it was before, just that an inexperienced editor might now be able to understand what was said. Unless you don't want people to know what is being said. You can revert back to your own edits, but I'd much rather you didn't. -- Nick ^t 22:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goatse

Could you please tell me why you speedily deleted my image which had clear sources and a destined use without motivating it? Salaskan 00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Welcomecreation

Nick, Nice working putting this together. One issue though, when using Images in the MediaWiki space, we need to have a LOCAL COPY of the image uploaded and indef protected to prevent vandalism. I can't do this from where I am right now but should be able to in a day or two if it's still outstanding. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, when it was first created, several people grumbled about the images so we trimmed the welcome message back to a text only version. I'll go fix it if it's still outstanding. -- Nick ^t 12:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Image:Maradonahand3.jpg found on Hand of God goal

I show that the Maradonahand3.jpg file was deleted by you from en.wiki yesterday as being already located on commons, but the corresponding image there was removed 23 April 07 for already being on en.wiki. Suggest that one or the other be restored for use in the above named article. en.wiki log: [9] commons.wiki log:[10] CzarB 05:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please restore one of them. This is a clear example of cross-wiki confusion. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 05:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. The image originally uploaded to Commons contained a fair use image without using a fair use image licence. I've removed the fair use image and uploaded the file on Commons. Two reports were a little unnecessary though and in future. -- Nick ^t 12:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for removing the screen shot columns from the KP episodes page. I'd have done it myself but I'm locked out of the page because of all the other users edit disputing it.

If it's not too much trouble, would you mind having another quick look over the page as there is still a column for season 2 that needs to be deleted.

perfectblue 11:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease, I'm in the middle of something

I'm trying to use these images to update/create episode guides (which are fully covered under Fair Use) now that they are no longer on the main episode guide page (they will be deleted as orphans if I don't finish soon). It's only going to be there another hour but will take longer if I have to keep referring back to code.

Please note, that when quoting policy, it is helpful to link to the policy so that it can be read. While you might be honest, other users have dishonestly quoted policy in the past and refused to link.

perfectblue 14:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore

Please restore the images that you have deleted, I am trying to move through the list of episodes one by one so that they can be brought into line with fair use criteria, but you are making this very difficult for me.

perfectblue 15:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop and read our fair use policy before creating galleries in userspace. The images your working on lack a suitable fair use rationale, they're unused at present and some have been incorrectly given a public domain licence when this simply is not the case. Images should be uploaded with the correct licence and full rationale as and when they are needed. Saving people time in uploading isn't a satisfactory reason for me not to delete these images. Also, the quality and resolution on any images you choose to upload needs to be reduced. Our image and copyright policies exist to stop Wikipedia being closed down, basically, so they need to be complied with. -- Nick ^t 15:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats 100% beside the point. I was attempting to move through the images one by one and put things right, but you jumped the gun and deleted them before I could finish. It's all well and good telling me that "there are policies", but you need to give me TIME to comply with them I can't type at a million words per minute.

perfectblue 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you've not added a fair use rationale to any image today. Not only do the images need to be used in a proper context, but they need to be fully justified. If your not going to add a detailed fair use rationale for each image to wish to use, they will ALL be deleted, regardless of whether they are used in an article or not. Please try and understand that this is a copyright law issue as much as a Wikipedia policy issue. -- Nick ^t 15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you deleted the images right after I'd cataloged them. I didn't have time to do anything. That's why I'm complaining.

For my own reference, and in order to avoid future complications, please write a rational for the following image KPRecapTheNewRon.jpg, it is copyright to Disney and displays two unique Disney characters. The image a low grade low resolution file that is included in a single page for the purpose "critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television". The contents of the image are a scene that sums up and illustrates a specific sub-arc of a story/theme.

Please do not point me to guidelines or quick reference guides, please simply write a rational that you yourself would consider acceptable so that I may see EXACTLY what you think a rational should be.

perfectblue 15:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any fair use image rationale must address all 10 points of the fair use policy

If I were uploading such a screenshot today, this would be the sort of rationale I would use.

“

This image is suitable for use on Wikipedia under the fair use policy as it meets all the criteria of the policy. The reasons for it meeting all the criteria are detailed as follows.

No Free Image Exists - the image is the property of The Disney Corporation who retain copyright over the image and the characters portrayed therein. Additionally, because of the IP ownership, no free image could be created or can be presumed to exist.
Respect for commercial opportunities - this one frame still image should have no impact on Disney's ability to sell DVDs, merchandise and should have no impact on audience figures for each episode.
Minimal Use & Resolution - this image is used in the following article x which is the only article where the image is necessary to assist in the description and discussion of the image. Any further use would be considered as being decorative. The resolution of this image is below the native resolution used during original broadcast.
Previous Publication - the image has previously been published. This image is taken from the DVD which is readily available for purchase
Content - this image is encyclopedic and will assist readers in understanding the topic(s) discussed in any article which uses this image
Restrictions on Location - the image is only used in the article namespace and must not be used in any other namespace, specifically it must never be used on userpages for decorative purposes.
Image description page as per Media Specific Policy, the image page contains all necessary information including this fair use rationale. The copyright owner of the image is The Disney Corporation who retain all rights over this image. The creator of this screenshot (though not the creator of the content) is Nick (talk · contribs).

”

Will do

Although I do think that was a reasonably fair description of the article, he was simply a shopkeeper who got in some legal trouble. On the subject of AfDs I'm in the process of preparing a vast dossier about all the antics that have been going on lately with canvassing, partisan voting and votestacking. I'm not sure if it's going to go to RfC as the only person who probably could endorse it would be Vintagekits which immediately causes more problems, but I think it might be best if some people take a close look at what's been going on to see if this tedious dispute that I seem to be peripherally involved in can be solved somehow. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G8

You've been kept busy keeping Sarko from replacing Chirac! I'm surprised no one's changed Blair to Brown (or did I miss that?). I hate to think what will happen during the two-month interregnum when Bush gets replaced! Emeraude 11:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was intended for User:One Night In Hackney, but it seems he got the message. Can't imagine how it got here. He's suggested I've been drinking, which I will accept as an excuse because I can't think of a better one other than pure incompetence. Emeraude 13:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Firstly, I'm not aware of any canvassing of members of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, although it certainly isn't a secret that Kittybrewster hasn't exactly endeared himself to some members of the project, so it is likely when they see an Arbuthnot AfD ongoing they decide to comment. That said, there has been canvassing by the "other side". Now I've set the table, on to the actual question:

How simple would it be for an arrangement to be created where both groups mutually agree to refrain from voting in Arbuthnot (or Irish republican, but there haven't been any of those for a while) related AfD debates, so rather than (allegedly) partisan editors voting (and arguing in the case of Vintagekits and others) and muddying the waters, a clear consensus from editors who aren't involved is gained? Would that be easily enforceable? When I've finished the dossier of evidence you'll be able to see which editors are involved on the Arbuthnot side, and I'm sure they will be happy to point fingers as well. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a splendid idea. I'd suggest you and the other members of the Irish Republicanism project reach a gentleman's agreement with Kittybrewster. I really don't think you want to go for Arbitration in this case (certainly not at this time, anyway). -- Nick ^t 13:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we've not really tried any other steps in dispute resolution yet so Arbitration is unlikely (and most definitely unwanted, as I'd rather spend my time more productively). The problem with RfC is that the only other person I can guarantee to certify it is Vintagekits, which instantly poisons the well. I'll still finish compiling the AfD evidence, then you can take a look and see if it's reasonable whether certain editors shouldn't be commenting in those AfDs or not. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to chip in, if you've anything to add. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agtnut

Thank you :) Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 15:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for undoing the vandalism to my user talk page - within a minute, too! I assume that you must have some autmated system in place for detecting such vandalism. Thanks again. JH (talk page) 17:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt even warn me..

How bout puttin my page back. I dont delete your edits.(!)--PowerBeat93PlaysALLTheHits! 00:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- Nick ^t 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified block and reverts of my bot

Hi, I am not sure why you blocked my bot the infoboxneeded tag is supposed to now be on the mainpage, it is the sole purpose of my bot. Also the user User:Doc glasgow has reverted all of my bot's edits. If you could somehow correct this that would be great, since he/she didn't add the tags back to the talk pages my bot has no way to redo what he/she has undone. Thanks --Android Mouse 02:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who decided the infoboxneeded tag would now be on the article page and not the talk page ? -- Nick ^t 02:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just followed through with a bot request, according to the requester, User:Timneu22, it was recently discussed on WP:VP and agreed. Either way the reverts need to be reverted or my bot needs to be reverted completly and have the infoboxneeded tags added back to the talk pages. Leaving it how it is means that the tags were removed completly. --Android Mouse 02:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you personally confirm there was consensus and/or policy amendments to support what your bot was doing ? -- Nick ^t 02:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was approved by an admin. --Android Mouse 02:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 isn't an admin, BAG doesn't have the power to approve a change such as the one your bot was carrying out and 2 people agreed to this change at the village pump. Sorry it's all landed on your head, but the entire approval process for your bot has failed. -- Nick ^t 03:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MedBot

Thanks for letting me know. I've let Martinp23 know so he can fix it. It's been kinda screwy recently. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Nick, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to point out to you that you are msitaken on a small point. There is no policy against use of fair-use images on the main page. There was an effort to make such a policy, but it failed to achieve consensus. Therefore, please revert your change so that the more relevant image can appear on the Main Page. Thanks! Johntex\^talk 18:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you want a more relevant photo, and I want a free photo. Stalemate ?! -- Nick ^t 19:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the free photo will still exist on Wikipedia. It does not have to be used for this tangental purpose. Let's leave the free picture to illustrate what it illustrates - a pregnant woman. Let's leave the picture of Baby Gender Mentor to illustrate what it illustrates. Since Baby Gender Mentor is on the front page, wouldn't you want the photo illustrating it to be what we show? Johntex\^talk 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'd rather have a free image - we're supposed to be and are trying to be "the free encyclopedia". We've gone without fair use images on the mainpage for a little while now, no image of Warhol's Campbells Soup Tins on Thursday, for example, but a free image of Warhol instead. If you really want to change the image, it's upto you, I'll certainly not revert again. -- Nick ^t 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect tag? I don't think so.

If these images aren't orphans, I'm going to use the non-orpahn tag. ---- DanTD 00:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery removal

Dear Nick,

Why did you remove the image gallery. You wrote CSD U3 in the deletion log. It took me quite a while to find it [11]. Would have been nice if you had left a more obvious reference. On that page it reads: "Galleries in the user space which consist mostly of non-free images." That's not true for the gallery you deleted. Why was it deleted then?

Best, Jasu 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what page your referring too, but if that's what it said in the deletion summary, that's why it was deleted. -- Nick ^t 23:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to this page [12], bottom panel of this [13]. Would you care to elaborate? CSD-U3 might be an admin's everyday's vocab but it's not clear to me. I kept self-made and uploaded images in that panel as a reference. Now, since you deleted the page I cannot count, but many of the pictures were free. Why exactly did you deleted the gallery and what kind of gallery could I keep there. It would be very helpful to users if the U3 policy were explained on the page mentioned above [14]. The one-liner there is not clear. Hope to hear from you. Best, Jasu 12:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD-U3 is where a page located in your userspace, such as the one I deleted, contains a number of fair use images. Our fair use policy prevents users from displaying fair use images, even ones they have uploaded themselves, in userspace. It's perfectly OK to have free images, stuff under GFDL, Creative Commons and similar licences along with public domain material, just not fair use images. Our fair use policy outlines what is and isn't fair use and where you can and cannot use such material. Hope this clears up your concerns. -- Nick ^t 13:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly. Thanks a lot. Now, how can I reconstruct a gallery only with the free images. Can I get hold of the code you deleted and remove the fair-use images from the gallery. Or do I have to start from scratch? This would mean quite some time lost for me. Best, Jasu 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the page. Hope this helps. -- Nick ^t 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. Btw, I adapted your lucid explanation for the relevant policy page, so others can easily find and profit from the info. Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#User_pages Best, Jasu 13:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

protein template

I just uploaded and added a picture to this article. I cannot figure out why the protein template box at the top right of the article does not display the image. Could you help out?

Best, Jasu 14:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you've got it fixed now, sorry about the delay, I forgot to create a clean talkpage after archiving. Any other problems, don't hesitate to stop by and ask. Best Wishes. -- Nick ^t 19:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of My Picture Gallery

You deleted my picture gallery. Why? I notice that on your talk page you ahae a "my pictures" section. If what I have is not allowed, could you tell me what you have that is? ɱўɭĩє ^{What did I do}_wrong 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots and other non free images are not permitted on any other page than the article(s) for which they were uploaded, and for which they have a suitable fair use rationale. Free images, such as those in my gallery, are, on the otherhand, perfectly acceptable. -- Nick ^t 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some users are not welcome

Apparently some users are not welcome to communicate with Matthew. I was just about to fulfill the request for protection for the template, but I'm fearful of validating that sentiment. The only reason the template won't change at the moment is because he knows that someone else, by changing it, would violate 3RR. -- tariqabjotu 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the last time I try to help Matthew out. -- Nick ^t 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McDiarmid

Hey, I was just wondering what exactly the rationale was for deleting the photo in the infobox on this article. In your edit summary you stated 'remove fair use image used incorrectly', which seems to imply there is right way to use it, as if I just needed to edit the summary on the image or something, which I cannot do now that the picture is deleted. Cheers. b_cubed 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our fair use image policy precludes us from using a non free images to illustrate a living person. If you want to include such an image, you'll need to contact the photographer and have him release the image under a free licence such as GFDL or a non restrictive Creative Commons licence. -- Nick ^t 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aslan

I think it was probably a mistake to protect the article yourself after editing it, particularly to revert this non-vandalism edit. While I agree with your edit, would you please revert or unprotect?--Tony Sidaway 19:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ;-) -- Nick ^t 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot tagging dispute

You were one of the respondents at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive241#Disruptive_edits_by_Tony_the_Tiger.

“

If this article is going to be tagged by the Chicago Wikiproject, they need to be putting in time and effort expanding and improving the article. If they will do that, I see no good reason not to let them tag the article as coming under their project. I do agree it's a bit of a tenuous link though, but if they're going to help improve the article, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. -- Nick t 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

”

User:Pmanderson and I are preparing for WP:DR by attempting to understand each others arguments. You can see some debate at User:TonyTheTiger/DR_bot and more on his talk page. Actually, I am trying to understand his. It seems one contention may be that use of {{ChicagoWikiProject}} conveys a promise or responsibility to actively edit an article.

As stated on his talk page, I actually believe that a tag is appropriate for other reasons such as cases where

By virtue of their editorial interests and resources they are likely to be strong researchers capable of adding significantly to an article.
By virtue of their editorial interests and skills they are likely to be strong copy editors capable of refining an article.
By virtue of their editorial interests they are likely to be interested in vandalism fighting for an article.
By virtue of their editorial interests they want to monitor quality improvements for an article.
By virtue of the readership interests (related to their topic) they want to monitor and assist in quality improvements.

I believe that a project could become active in an article for any of the above reasons. The categorical screening for articles where the above are likely to be true is what we have used the bot for.

The project from which I gained my assessment experience was Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography. They currently have 373,659 articles tagged. Even if they had 250 members each active enough to actively edit almost 100 articles they would need to remove their tag from about 350,000 articles if they were promising to actively edit the articles which they are tagging. I am not aware of any such promise. A tag is a statement of relevance in this case. It is not harmful to the article being tagged. The long and the short of it is if we tag an article we will at times take positive actions on some. For example, I nominated Hillary Clinton for WP:GAC because even though it is a mid priority article for us I noticed it was well developed. I make no promise to get any more involved in the candidacy than this. Right now our main task is to identify our Top priority articles and keep on top of new partially assessed articles. Can you give me some clarification. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]