Jump to content

User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Courtesy note

[edit]

Your name is currently mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red, in case you would like to participate. I realize that you haven't been involved with the Juice Plus article for some time now, but I wanted to at least make you aware. Best, Elonka 00:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Coach

[edit]

Hello! If you are available, would you Admin Coach me? If you would respond on my talk page, that would be much appreciated. Thanks! Deflagro 15:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am no where near ready enough for an RFA. And of course I will listen, who better to teach than an admin! Also, I didn't create those headers, it was Alison who created it. Deflagro 18:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we still going to continue this? Deflagro ♠ 02:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devo picture

[edit]

Hi Shell. Sorry to bother you again. During the recent drive to correct bad fair use claims, the band photo of Devo was (appropriately) deleted. However, an enterprising new editor TopherMadden (talk · contribs) left a note on the article's talk page saying that he contacted the webmaster from Devo's official site and they have given permission for the photo to be used on Wikipedia. However, he's not sure what to do now. To whom should he forward the email he received? Or what other step should be taken? Thanks for your help! --GentlemanGhost 01:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm this release, we need an email from someone at the official website (that can clearly be identified as coming from that website) sent to permissions at wikimedia dot org. It needs include the following:
  • Identification of the specific content they are releasing by giving the url of the image in question or the location on their website where the content can be found.
  • A clear statement that they are releasing the content under the GFDL or into the public domain, or in the case of images and other media, a similar license (such as certain Creative Commons licenses).
For more information, please see Wikipedia:Copyrights. Let me know if there's anything more I can do to help. Shell babelfish 01:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --GentlemanGhost 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ldingley/User:NokhchiBorz

[edit]

Hi, Ldingley (talk · contribs), who you blocked for bad image uploads, has apparently created a new account and had the attention of continuing editing, though under the continued promise of not messing with images. Just wanted to know if you were aware of this - Luis seems to be under the impression there was something like a silent gentleman's agreement to treat him as unblocked. I re-blocked, not being aware of the backgrounds, but he asks to have it reviewed. I personally wouldn't want to stand in the way of an unblocking arrangement, if this is what other admins want -- That said, what's the current status of the old problems, is there much yet to clean up? In that case, I'd say we shouldn't ask him to just refrain from further messing with images, but rather to actively help us identifying the existing problems, shouldn't we? For instance, sometime back in 2006 he apparently e-mailed a lot of images to other people and let them upload them on his behalf. Some of those have found their way to commons now (like [1] - I don't know how many there are.) Have these been identified and checked? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Ldingley, under whatever account name has proved to be a huge liability to the project. Even after a community ban was temporarily lifted under the condition he no longer upload images or violate our copyright guidelines, Ldingley continued to deliberately attempt to deceive others about the copyright status of images he uploaded, in addition to continuing to upload images by proxy through other editors. He's been asked for his assistance before and he seems disinclined to give it. Each time he was approached, the behavior would stop for one to two months before starting again unabated. This is not a case of mistakes or ill will, people have been incredibly patient and assumed good faith with Ldingley even in the face of deliberate lies, unfortunately, Ldingley has not chosen to take advantage of the opportunities extended to him.
Last I checked there were three to four people looking through his contributions and attempting to track down any images he passed along to others to upload. This is not an enjoyable process and, due to the sheer number of uploads and research involved, has been going on for almost six months to date. It is likely that this will continue for many more months and we may never be clear of all the damage this one account has done. I am not aware of any ongoing efforts to identify images that have been transferred to Commons, thank you for pointing that out. Shell babelfish 19:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you were not aware he had started the new account, then? In that case, I guess the block will have to stand in any case; it's simple block evasion. As for images uploaded by proxy, I found some uploaded by Khoikhoi in June 06, and some by Clevelander/Aivazovsky in August. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Deletion policy

[edit]

Well, that's true, but the page should be salted in such cases. Biographies are often deleted not because they should not exist, but because they are of poor quality. The wording I reverted would apply to all pages deleted "per WP:BLP". If there is a genuine reason not to recreate an article in any form, then that page should be salted. Salting is also more useful for new users who haven't read all of our policies and guidelines. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC) By the way, I like the quote at the top of the page.[reply]

I agree that we should be more careful about recreating BLPs but don't think that restricting all recreations, irrespective of the deletion reason, is appropriate. Perhaps the solution is to encourage the salting of BLPs that should not be recreated in any form. I think that such an approach would be less problematic. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

[edit]

Hiya, just to clarify what's going on... It looks we had a relatively stable version up through June 17. Then an editor by the name of Ned Scott came along and reverted the article back to a version from a month or two ago. Matthew has reverted Ned Scott's edit, to bring the article back to the June 17 version. Which version I wasn't entirely happy with on June 17, and I'm still not entirely happy with today, but I think it's much better than the "month ago" version. Does that help clarify? --Elonka 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy sneaky edit batman. I completely missed Ned Scott's revert. Thanks for pointing that out! Shell babelfish 00:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No prob.  :) There's actually more backstory there... If you want the gory details, ping me in IMs.  :) --Elonka 00:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or read the arbcom case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions), where it is extensively documented how Elonka likes to distort the truth and mislead others to gain their support. My reverts are to undue the damage, discussed here. If you've read RIR's RFC comments then you'll know of Elonka's newfound COI regarding the article and User:JuliaHavey, a Juice Plus distributor. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I was in the process of restoring good edits this second time around. It was just easier to go back and them step through the edits one by one. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ned, I appreciate why you may be suspicious, but believe me, you've got me way wrong on this one. I'm actually opposed to Havey's version of the article. Red and I are more on the same side on this, and the main reason for the RfC is WP:OWN issues. To be honest, I'd actually like you to help out with the discussions on the Juice Plus talkpage, as I'd love to have a genuine outside opinion on things. Right now most of the participants seem to be either Juice Plus distributors or competitors, and it's been a heck of time trying to navigate a neutral course in between. Please, join in on the talkpage.  :) --Elonka 06:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Since there were three of those opened, and DPeterson wouldn't pick one to keep open, I would have closed two of them myself. But, I didn't know if only admins could close discussions.

I'm not involved in that situation, but I am very much aware of it. It isn't one of wikipedia's finer moments.

Thanks for closing the AN one.

Peace in God. Lsi john 02:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • heh, ok that was a bit confusing. Sorry. I thought I had clicked on your signature. And I knew I was on a mainpage instead of a discussion, but the discussion was blank.. oh well, c'est la vie. Thanks for fixing it. Lsi john 03:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you saw DPeterson copied your post to one of the threads on AN/I.

Did you also notice he put it in both threads? here and here?

That only illustrates my concern that he is shopping for opinions against the other editor. In one breath he claims that the two threads are unrelated and were opened by different people (one thread being canvassing and the other being sock-puppet accusations). In the next, he posts your statement to both conversations in order to get the maximum viewing. Lsi john 03:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I couldn't tell you the number of times I screwed up and put a welcome on someones user page :) Honestly, I didn't notice that there were two thread on AN/I too - I closed another one; maybe we can keep this all in one place. Shell babelfish 03:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Though, if you read them, I asked him to 'pick one' and his response was 'perhaps its better to leave them all open because they are all getting responses'.
Based on the RfC on DPeterson, it does not look like the situation will be resolved soon or easily. Lsi john 03:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: You might be interested to know that your comments on AN are being used by DPeterson as support for his claims against FatherTree. here. (Its a long, huge and tangled RfC/mediation). (My involvement is watching). Lsi john 23:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Plus Revert

[edit]

Sorry about that Shel. I didn't think that I necessarily had to ask permission to make a few small tweaks, which I felt were reasonable and very well-supported. But I can see how this might have aggravated the situation just when it was calming down. I noticed that you agreed with my comments in principle, so I will wait for more comments before making the changes, if you think that is what is warranted. Rhode Island Red 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good suggestion. I think now that we have more eyes on the Juice Plus article I can safely turn my attention to some other areas that might be more fun and less controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) Revision as of 21:05, 24 June 2007
Thanks for the advice. I didn't mean it as a slur, seriously. "Argument from ignorance" is the proper term to describe the error and I hyeperlinked every usage of the term so that it wouldn't be misinterpreted as a slur against anyone. But if you think it seems inappropriate, I'll stop using it. I just hope my point wasn't lost. Rhode Island Red 02:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems continue with FatherTree

[edit]

I see that this user is again making veiled accusations regarding another user. You've been involved in this situation and wonder if you can take a look at this and followup with FatherTree. He seems to be purposefully being provocative. See: [[2]] RalphLendertalk 13:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Others feel that DP has made unveiled false accusations about me. Can you get them to stop this silly game of constant accusations. FatherTree 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, this is just too much. These accusations that I am "Becker" (I assume he means Dr. Becker-Weidman) are just false. There have been at least two investigations of the matter by members of FatherTree's group, each time unfounded. I wish he'd just give it a rest. Do I or should I file a RfC on this...I'd rather not...if you can intervene, that would be helpful. I just want him to stop. Regarding the previous investigations, see:
[[3]]
[[4]]
Thanks DPetersontalk 00:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can show how FatherTree's actions clearly fit a scenario from WP:BLOCK, there's little an administrator can do to resolve the dispute. It appears an RfC is already open; since it seems that no one is interested in resolving matters in that forum, perhaps moving on to arbitration would be the best solution. Shell babelfish 02:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure Question

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Given that those editors already have an open user RfC on DPeterson, is a second RfC appropriate or is there a way for the current one to be amended?

Thats just a technical question for my curious mind, as I believe that they are headed to Arbcom eventually anyway. peace in God. Lsi john 23:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's one open, there's really no need to open a second. There are several things you can do in a case like that:
  • If you have a user RfC open and the user in question continues or escalates their behavior, you can update the page or the talk page of the RfC with that information. You shouldn't update the opening of the case or a view that's already gotten additional signatures, but you can create another section if the situation warrants.
  • Another option is to immediately move on to Arbitration if you feel the user really isn't going to respond to the RfC or has no interest in stopping whatever they're doing to violate policy.
  • In very extreme cases where someone is clearly violating policies by, for example, constantly edit warring or making clear personal attacks, you can ask for administrator intervention or even discuss a community ban - you'd want to have a very clear, concise case showing repeated, extraordinary violations when considering those options.
Hope that's helped answer your questions. Let me know if there's anything more I can help with. Shell babelfish 23:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing at the moment, thanks. It's not my battle. I'm merely observing and curious about how some of the arbitration/mediation/RfC process works. Though, from what I have read (you may -or not- want to torture yourself and read the RfC), it does not appear that DPeterson (or anyone on that side of the debate) is taking the RfC seriously at all. Apparently they even edit warred over SPA tags for some of the editors. Lsi john 00:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The fighting over the SPA tags was on the (also open) mediation: here. Lsi john 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think I'd rather carve out my spleen with a dull spoon than wade into this dispute. Just a glance shows a number of people with clear agendas editing without regards to Wikipedia policies. Its not surprising in cases like these to see people uninterested in taking Wikipedia seriously. Shell babelfish 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha.. no doubt. Based on some of the calmer voices (and corresponding reactions), it sounds like there might be some substance to at least some of the allegations. But I haven't found a dull enough spoon to be willing to wade through it, and I couldn't do much about it even if I did wade through it. Peace.Lsi john 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that DPeterson can amend the RfC filed againist him to include the personal attacks rather than open a new RfC? I'd suggested on FatherTree's page that an RfC should be opened if he continues being disruptive and provocative. Is the proper procedure to open one on his behavior or amend the one on DP? I'm getting tired of all the needless accustions and provocations and would like to see mediation occur in a more friendly environment. JonesRDtalk 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I as suggesting that additional behavior by the person who is named on the RfC can be added as an update. Problematic behavior by someone who's involved the RfC but was not listed as one of the parties the RfC was opened about can be mentioned if it applies to the situation, but it sounds like in this case, you may want to open a seperate RfC. At this point, however, I don't know that all the RfCs in the world are going to resolve the issues if the editors involved aren't interested in changing their behavior. Shell babelfish 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, then why post threats of RfC escalation on user talkpages, instead of finding and proposing a compromise for both sides? Have you been involved in any of the name calling? Were you involved in any of the SPA tagging? Are your hands completely clean? Are you neutral? Can you see a middle ground solution? JonesRD, I have not followed closely, and I don't know how active you have been, though I have seen your username on occasion. If you want a peaceful solution, you have it in your power to accomplish that. But you have to want it more than the other's want to fight. Peace.Lsi john 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how one compromises on an issue of WP:No Personal Attacks or what middle ground solution would be when an editor is knowingly making false accusations about me being a sockpuppet? I suppose filing an RfC on FatherTree's activity would be appropriate if he continues. Well, Shell_Kinney, if an RfC is filed and there is consensus that his beahvior was disruptive and violated Wiki policy and FatherTree did not change his behavior that would probably lead to a block or ban, wouldn't it? I'd just like him to stop making false accusations and acting in such a provocative manner...especially if we are to engage in mediation together. DPetersontalk 18:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it depends on whether you want to address the symptoms or the disease. (med-speak).
Personally, I suspect that addressing the symptoms of the 'other side' by 'force', will only increase tension and suspicion.
One compromise might be to work together on the articles and allow 'both' viewpoints to be represented?
Another might be to stop calling the other editors 'single purpose accounts'.
Another might be to simply 'ignore' their implications/questions that you are becker and stick to writing the articles.
Another might be to not have filed 3 separate AN/I AN posts, or to have quickly closed two of them as soon as you realized there were three opened, or not to have copied (and misrepresented) Shell's post to 2 of the AN/I threads and the article talkpage.
Another might be to simply reveal your identity. (I'm not suggesting you SHOULD, I'm saying that you could.) Clearly some of the editors find your edit habits to be questionable enough to raise suspicion in their minds. Why not simply dispell their fears? (rhetorical question) I am not suggesting that you do this, only that it is an option. Since you said you could see no options for compromise in the situation. There might even be a way you could identify yourself to the 'office' and they could confirm that the suspicions are false.
From what I've read, there are concerns about you 'pushing' becker's views and linking to his material. Is there no compromise you can offer there?
Sir, your conduct in this entire ituation has not been spotless. We clearly have a WP:KETTLE situation here.
There are lots of good-faith gestures you could offer to the other editors to encourage their trust. I'm not familiar enough with the particulars to offer any specific suggestions. But I suspect that you know what they are. The question is, are you ready to offer them? Peace.Lsi john 19:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how one compromises on an issue of WP:No Personal Attacks or what middle ground solution would be when an editor is knowingly making false accusations about me being a sockpuppet? I'd just like him to stop making false accusations and acting in such a provocative manner...especially if we are to engage in mediation together. It's really that simple. DPetersontalk 19:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If your claim is accurate (that the only issue is FatherTree making personal attacks), then it's difficult to understand why there is a mediation, and a user RfC against you involving more than FatherTree.
The first step to success, is realizing there is a problem. The second step, is realizing your contribution to the problem. Only then, can you get to the third step of trying to find a solution. As long as you are going to deny any possibility of contribution on your part, I'm afraid you're stuck with the perceived personal attacks. Because even if you get Father Tree removed, someone will come along and replace him. They think you are Becker for a reason. Either you are Becker, or you aren't Becker. (personally I don't care which) If you aren't Becker, then perhaps you could try to figure out why you look like Becker to them, and make a shift? If you are Becker, then you might consider not editing in violation of COI. Either way, my point is to illustrate that YOU can do something to help resolve this, or you can keep crying NPA and it will continue.
Eventually you're going to have to confront your own contribution to this situation, it might as well be now. Peace.Lsi john 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I read this your comments are nearly as bad as FatherTree's comments. You are missing the point. The issue is FatherTree making "false accusations" against DPeterson, which FatherTree knows are false. You are just not being helpful in any way and are actually making this worse. SamDavidson 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled, because on FatherTree's page, I clearly told him to STOP, and I clearly told him to either get DIFF's or DROP IT. Exactly how is that not helping? or more specifically, how is it making it worse? Peace.Lsi john 00:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, you're welcome to answer the same question. If this is only about FatherTree's alleged personal attacks, then why is there an open mediation and why is there an RfC on DPeterson, both of which involve more than FatherTree?
My point, simply is this: This is more than just FatherTree's alleged personal attacks. Peace.Lsi john 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really are missing the point here. There is a mediation and an old old RFC...but FatherTrees actions while occuring within that are still personal attacks against DPeterson and warrant a separate RFC on his making those accusations of DPeterson being a sockpuppet when he knows that to be untrue. Your asking the same question really is also a provocation since you really should know better. SamDavidson 01:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask a question, let alone 'the same' question. In fact, I very clearly said I don't care what the answer is. You are simply seeing what you want to see. Whether FatherTree is right or wrong, isn't the point. The fact is that he believes himself to be right, and the question for DPeterson is why?. Because more than just FatherTree believe the same thing. And my point was, suppose you get FatherTree removed.. ok, what then? If DPeterson is contributing to the belief, then someone else will be along shortly to replace FatherTree. You simply cant make this all about FatherTree, because it isn't all about him. If he were the only one with that viewpoint, then ok, I'm on board. But he isn't. He just happens to be the one your side is complaining about the loudest right now.
How about if we stop debating this on Shell's page. It's not really fair to her. Peace.Lsi john 01:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, let's stop debating here. I think the best solution is for someone to file the RfC on FatherTree for his making accustions of DPeterson being a sockpuppet, when FatherTree knows that to be completely false because it has already been investigated and was unfounded. There seem to have been at least two, maybe three, CheckUser inquiries into the accusatios of DPeterson, Dr. Becker-Weidman, and others being sockpuppets and each time there was a finding, so to speak, of this being unfounded. See:
[[5]]
[[6]]
SamDavidson 02:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SD, if you agree to stop debating here why did you make the previous post? And I know that DP is not a sockpuppet?? How could I possibly know that? And When did I ever say he was? You are just trying to stir things up and are being disruptive. Please stop. FatherTree 11:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respond to your statement which is false and misleading. You've been informed MANYtimes about the previous finding that DPeterson is not a sock and there are numerous diffs listed elswhere (here too?) where you make such false statements. Please stop, as you've been asked to. I'd recommend you file an RfC on yourself and that will end this needless back and forth once and for all.SamDavidson 12:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shulamit Elson

[edit]

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Shulamit Elson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. KenWalker | Talk 16:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request

[edit]

I have mentioned (and quoted) you in my comments regarding an arbitration request: here. Best Regards. Peace.Lsi john 14:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nutshells and nonsense

[edit]

I didn't mean to vandalise. Then again, a lot of policies have "Nutshells." Why not Wikipedia:Consensus? VoltronForce 22:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What precisely then, was the point of giving the Consensus article a nutshell of "Conclusions are not reached because "majority rules""? Perhaps you could try a nutshell that is a little more in line with the actual topic? Shell babelfish 04:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page mentions the difference between consensus and supermajority. In eny event, I'll leave it off since another editor might take it down, if not you. VoltronForce 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Greetings Shell Kinney. I understand you are involved with deletion of images that may have a copyright violation that LDingley may have uploaded. I wonder if you would be so kind as to have a look at this. I would have requested speedy delete but I'm kinda new here so I'm a bit confused about the process. The image looks suspicious as it lists Author: Georgian Youth against Russian troops and the source is http://www.forum.ge/ which is just a general purpose internet forum. However the licensing says that the work is released to the public domain by the copyright holder. This seems kinda suspicious because an internet search for "Georgian Youth against Russian troops" only yields results for where this image is posted and I don't see how posting an internet forum constitutes a proper source. Furthermore, even if everything with regard to the copyright is in order, this image is unencyclopedic and should be deleted simply because there no information about "Georgian Youth against Russian troops" can be found. This is somehow being promoted as a grassroots movement against Russian involvement but it looks suspiciously like an astroturfing attempt. The image says that it is created through photoshop and yet it is being promoted in Wikipedia articles as a protest poster. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't the sole creation of one user. Even if this image doesn't qualify for speedy deletion I wonder if you could help me with requesting the slower deletion. Thanks Pocopocopocopoco 03:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that image! After reviewing the forum, I was unable to find the image posted anywhere. Since there is no evidence that the creator of the image released all rights and the uploader is known to have violated copyright, I have listed the image at possibly unfree images to consider its deletion. You are welcome to comment using that link if you'd like. Happy editing! Shell babelfish 15:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Europe1328ujabb.jpg

[edit]

Hi, you removed this image from History of Hungary for a supposed copywrite violation, but the image is still available, and no comments have been posted on its talk page. Can you clarify what's going on here? Thanks - TheMightyQuill 06:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was uploaded on Wikipedia as public domain without permission from the copyright holder. It appears the image also exists on Commons, which unfortunately I did not realize before hand. I will be double-checking the release on Commons, but for the time being, it would be possible to put the image back in the article. Apologies for missing that. Shell babelfish 15:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ldingley's Case

[edit]

Hi, as I can tell, you blocked User:Ldingley indefinitely from editing wikipedia for sock puppetry. However, he has clearly indicated that he was closing his account when he started editing from another one. Is that so unforgivable violation of wikipedia policy? Please, note that Mr. Dingley is also defending his Ph.D dissertation and wikipedia would certainly benefit by having such a good historian and a photographer as a contributor. SosoMK 09:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but Ldingley was not blocked for sockpuppetry - the sockpuppetry came after his indefinite block and was an attempt to avoid that block. Ldingley was banned by the community for pervasive and continued copyright violations - the photographs he claimed as his, were not. Shell babelfish 15:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and GoldenEye

[edit]

Hi, I see you removed my speedy request at the GoldenEye: Source article.

I think this article falls under CSD#R1. There is no mention of GoldenEye: Source on the GoldenEye article. Checking around, I see that it was removed in diff.

Should I take this to AfD instead? Should I just drop the matter?

Thanks, OSbornarf 05:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the source for the article, you can see the template for a redirect because of a merge. While the heading may no longer exist in the article, the text may have been incorporated and we need to keep the original article history because of the GFDL. Sorry if I didn't explain that well enough in my edit summary :) Shell babelfish 05:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. I'm not too familiar with the GFDL myself, so I wasn't sure. Thanks, OSbornarf 05:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Regarding removing comments from talk pages

[edit]

TY for the heads up. The warning in question was added after User:Wjbean removed a ((notability)) tag twice in a row [7] [8] and blanked his talk [9] page in what looked like an attempt to remove notifications on this matter. This action appeared to be “Avoidant vandalism” and I warned the user as such. The template I used was not my own [10] and I can see how its wording does not fit Wikipedia policy. I will reword it if I ever have to use it in future. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 14:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doogtoons Weekly Wrap-Up

[edit]

I would just like to thank you for deleting my article. I appreciate it a lot, and I also appreciate how you dedicate your time on the computer to editing articles. It's the perfect way to waste a life, and I would like to congradulate you on it! Have a nice, boring life, deleting articles because YOU believe there is no significance, when the rest of the world knows there is!:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.39.181 (talk • contribs) 06:10, July 16, 2007

You may wish to read the guidelines at WP:WEB to understand the notability requirements for articles and how to add references to properly substantiate notability. For more information on Wikipedia and a guide to getting around, you might want to look at the Wikipedia:Community Portal. Thanks. Shell babelfish 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okeshop

[edit]

Hi Shell, I noticed that Okeshop has been recreated and you removed another speedy tag added, citing the talk page for notability. I couldn't quite see how notability was being asserted, moreover the article doesn't provide any kind of verifiability so I've added a prod to it, hope you don't mind. The Rambling Man 06:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It sounded like a case could be made for notability based on some of the information on the talk page, but it didn't appear that any references existed yet either. A prod should give time for the editor to add those references, or it will rightly be deleted. Shell babelfish 07:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Robinson notability

[edit]

Shell,

I'm curious as to why you deleted the Cyrus Robinson article. I understand that when it was first created, I was helping draft the early part of my life for inclusion in an entry that a co-worker and another associate wanted to post. The early draft failed to establish notability. However, the latest major update by Imnotfamous definitely established notability by including links to over 9 publications within the DoD and links to briefing at conferences for the digital forensic community. Further, awards and decorations were noted and cited as well as educational background (as is typical for any biographical entry). Please re-establish the latest version of the article.

V/R

Cyrus Robinson Afcyrus 05:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please do not create an article about yourself on Wikipedia. Hopefully one of our editors interested in your work will come along and create an article about you. If you'd like to have the deletion reviewed, please feel free to post a request at WP:DRV. You might also want to review our policies on writing about yourself at WP:COI. Shell babelfish 05:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create the article the second time around. I started it for a friend who, after having me blank the page, started from scratch. The copy you deleted was not created by me. Please undelete.Afcyrus 05:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to hear, however, Wikipedia highly suggests that you not edit articles about yourself as well. Regardless, the article was deleted because other editors agreed that it did not meet the notability requirements outlined at WP:BIO, not because you edited or created it. Thanks and happy editing! Shell babelfish 05:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The other editors were discussing the original article that I created. I reviewed WP:DRV, which states that, if reasonable, you should undelete the article. You are not taking the time to review my complaint. The article you deleted was not the same article that the editors were agreeing did not meet notability requirements (that article was blanked after they pointed out my mistakes). Please actually review the article you deleted and I am certain that you will agree that the notability requirements outlined at WP:BIO are met.Afcyrus 05:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me see if I can help out with the specifics from our notability guidelines.

General Section:

  • The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. - No evidence of this in the deleted article.
  • The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. - No evidence of this in the deleted article.
  • The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. - Most military awards. including those you listed, do not qualify.
  • The person has demonstrable wide name recognition - No evidence of this in the deleted article.
  • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. - No evidence of this in the article; papers published by your employer are not sufficient for this requirement.
  • Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products - No evidence of this in the article.

Creative professionals:

  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. - No evidence of this in the article.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - No evidence of this in the article.
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - No evidence of this in the article.
  • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries. - No evidence of this in the article.

If you can provide a reliable, third-party source that shows the article meets any of the above requirements, please let me know. Shell babelfish 05:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you did NOT read the article. nearly the ENTIRE article was from reliable third party sources. The Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center website is not reliable or third party?! The Air Force Office of Accession and Training Services website isn't reliable or third party?! University of Louisiana - Lafayette News Website is not reliable or third party?! Technology Forums, a company that organizes large government-sponsored conferences is not reliable or third party?! Ma'am, honestly, almost all of what you say has not been evidenced in the article has. I see you delete over 3 articles per minute in your logs. You OBVIOUSLY do not actually read the articles... Please review the LATEST VERSION of the article that you deleted.Afcyrus 06:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am active duty military. How would YOU know what real military awards are. Every one of the listed awards is relevant to a military career (listed on my performance reports). Further, the format for which they were included was followed DIRECTLY from the Infobox for military persons format that the WIKIPEDIA website gave.Afcyrus 06:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that we continue to disagree on this issue; there is certainly no need to start getting personal. You can do one of two things - first, be detailed in explaining which of those notability requirements the article met and why or second, list the article at WP:DRV where other editors can review the article and see if I'm missing something. Thanks again. Shell babelfish 06:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


How is it NOT personal? I just told you how SEVERAL were met, yet you ignore me. Further, you feel offended that I point out that you are not actually reading the articles you delete (3 in one minute?!). Please take the time to review the items that I listed and compare them to your list. I did show notability.Afcyrus 06:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you have said is "9 publications within the DoD and links to briefing at conferences for the digital forensic community. Further, awards and decorations were noted and cited as well as educational background", none of which meets the notability requirements. I have asked you to clarify and specifically shown you the points that you need to meet. I have even given you the proper forum for review since we cannot agree on the topic. I'm not certain what else I can do to help you at this time. Shell babelfish 06:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 9 publications and the conference and the AFOATS website were all included in the article that you deleted. To show you the relevant publications see the following (text from deleted article):

Published works include IXImager Bad Sector Drive Imaging Study,[1] EnCase 5.03 Imaging - T&E,[2] X-Ways Forensics 12.2 - T&E,[3] Known Bad Sector Test Drive Creation - Study,[4] HP xw4400 Workstation - T&E,[5] Dell 690 - T&E,[6] Dell 670 Workstation - T&E,[7] IXimager 2.3 - T&E,[8], Cell Phone Forensic Analysis - Study,[9], and many other publications that can be obtained through a formal request by US governmental agencies and law enforcement organizations through the DoD Cyber Crime Center Website.

Also according to Technology Forums, Cyrus Robinson briefed on "Imaging Hard Drives With Bad Sectors" at the 2007 Annual DoD Cyber Crime Conference.

And also:

Also, he was selected[10] for an enlisted commissioning program which will have him returning to Louisiana Tech University in Fall 2007 on a Air Force Reserve Officers' Training Corps (AFROTC) scholarship with AFROTC Detachment 305.


Yes, I saw those clear as day. Papers published by your employer during your work there do not meet any part of the notability requirements, nor do the awards you mentioned qualify. This is not my personal interpretation, but guidelines established by the Wikipedia community. Again, if you do not agree with my view of the community consensus on notability and articles of this type, please take the article to WP:DRV. Thanks. Shell babelfish 06:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


All of this meets nearly every point on the list to establish notability.Afcyrus 06:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS each of the published articles can be found by performing a query for Cyrus, Cyrus Robinson, or Robinson.


Shell, I really do wish you hadn't tried to make it as difficult as possible for me. I question your info on your user page though. You say you tend to be an inclusionist, but I don't understand what you base that statement off of. However...

...your unwillngness to review the 3rd party sources listed in the article and your open challenge to the veracity of those sites, deleting the article without issuing a prod or otherwise attempting to increase the quality of the article is a violation of the wikipedia policy to "assume good faith". I would have expected a more welcoming attitude from an administrator, esp since since I've been on wikipedia, i've been encouraged to "edit boldly Please reconsider your deletion.Afcyrus 06:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of micropenis

[edit]

Hi, what was the rationale for your deletion of File:Micropenis erect.jpg? It seemed that there was licensing and source information on the image, and that it had been inappropriately flagged for deletion. Am I wrong? Silly rabbit 08:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only information on the page was a {{pd-self}} tag. Unfortunately, the uploader has not edited since January of this year and is unlikely to respond to requests for further information. Shell babelfish 08:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my ignorance of such matters, but why isn't Pd-self good enough? Is the author expected to hang around to respond to further requests? Would they have to reveal their true identity? I don't understand. Silly rabbit 08:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just requires a bit more than just throwing up a template though. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags give a few bullets about exactly what is needed. Shell babelfish 08:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, it certainly seems to suggest that Pd-self releases the rights of the image into the public domain. Am I missing something? What else is needed? Silly rabbit 08:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source and the licensing must both be listed. As per the page, Along with a tag, specify the source or copyright holder information. Provide as much detail as possible. This must be sufficiently detailed so that other Wikipedia's can verify the copyright status of the image. Hope that helps! Shell babelfish 08:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent> Isn't that implicit in the {{Pd-self}} tag, though? Certainly in other cases a full description is needed (e.g., I got this image from the USGS site http:...). But I always thought that, when uploading, you can just say "I created this work and release it into the public domain". Is that naive? I've done it with loads of self-made things, and so have many other established editors. Have a look over at some of the images at Frenet-Serret formulas for example. These are all {{GFDL-self}}, and don't have extra information associated with them. Should they? So again, I don't understand what the issue is, nor what is required. Silly rabbit 09:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the way I understand the Wikipedia:Image use policy, a license tag, even one that implies a source, isn't enough. However, I'm definitely not the authority on this - you might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy or Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and see if I'm mistaken. Shell babelfish 09:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm working on getting their feedback. In the meantime, to focus on the image under discussion, I think the speedy deletion tagging was suspicious here. First of all, the image had already been through an IfD whose result was speedy keep. Secondly, the image had both a source and license attached to it. I actually deleted the template because it seemed to me as though it was in error, but apparently I was too late. I don't know what the problem was with the source, since everthing was just handled via standard templates, and the Image use policy and Image templates pages are of no help at all. Is there any chance you would be willing to take a closer look at the deletion decision? It still seems fishy to me. Silly rabbit 10:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I re-checked every version of the image's description page and nothing other than the {{pd-self}} tag ever existed. The old ifd for the image dealt with the suitability of the image and didn't address the fact that no source existed. The problem with the source is that you need to explicitly state something about the source, not just toss a licensing tag on it, even if that licensing tag implies a source.
After having seen your comments on the image use policy talk page, I'm beginning to think that you have an agenda behind this line of questioning, especially since you misrepresented the actual question at hand. Shell babelfish 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to AGF. I am not an admin, so I cannot see the deleted page here or at meta. However, to the best of my recollection, there was sourcing information in an infobox on the image description page. Perhaps I am mis-remembering. Still, the fact is that Wikipedia is not censored, and I find it highly suspicious that an image which arguably had sourcing information attached to it by the uploader found itself deleted, especially when that image had been nominated for deletion and failed to meet the criteria at that time. How am I misrepresenting the problem, exactly? Silly rabbit 21:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Micropenis erect.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Silly rabbit 22:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fargoth World Building Project

[edit]

Alright, first of all, this was not a matter of advertising, and frankly, that you did not give this delete more than a few...hmm...seconds is extremely insulting. The page'll put back, and then a possible delete can be discussed, if you can abide to talk about something for a few seconds before you delete it like a f*cking juvenile. I am confused about your claim about advertising. The article itself had not 3, not 4, but 8 references to outside, independant sources all of which were reliable. Please note, I can copy and paste the article just as fast as you can delete it, so stop being a @$$hole and actually discuss possible editing of the page. The full name itself has over 200 independant hits, not huge, but certainly more than enough to warrant an article. Cronos2546 11:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)cronos2546[reply]

There's no word filter, so feel free to curse at me without using symbols. You might want to consider whether or not that will help your case and read our policy on personal attacks. Advertising is one of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria; you can read the entire policy at WP:CSD. Another editor tagged your article as not meeting the advertising and notability requirements (see WP:WEB for the relevant notability requirements). Having re-reviewed the references on the article, none of those would be considered reliable third-party sources base on the community's guidelines - user submitted directories do not have a policy of fact checking and do not meet other criteria from the reliable sources policy. If you feel the deletion was incorrect, you are welcome to open a review at WP:DRV - if you have any difficulty with the instructions, please let me know and I will be happy to help you open a case. Shell babelfish 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ma'am, I apologize for my language above. However, I have to say that your editing of the article of Fargoth before you placed it on Wikipedia is unappreciated. As a whole, the FWBJ Admin team is considering serious action, but as of yet have made no decision. We are saddened that, as an editor, you did not take the time to investigate the subject more deeply before you edited the content. If you had, you would have realized that the statement that "Fargoth has influenced John Howe's method of distributing artwork and the Internet artist's community" was incorrect, that "The dispute was solved expediently, and set up a precedent for the use of John Howe's, and many other artist's, intellectual property by Fargoth." was actually correct, and gave a distinctly different image than the former.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos2546 (talk • contribs) 01:56, July 18, 2007
Huh? I deleted the article, undeleted it and then removed the speedy tag and added the afd tag. You're the only editor to ever touch the content on that article. In fact, you even admitted you added the information about John Howe in the Afd on the article [11]. You do realize that articles have an edit history that shows precisely who did what? Shell babelfish 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Robinson

[edit]

The Airman featured in this article is, in fact, notable in the field of digital forensics. The "original work" are items that SrA Robinson contributed to the field of digital forensics. Government sources are allowed to be cited as references. The references are not self-published. Further, not all items are Test and Evaluations. There are several study/white papers referenced as well as links to references showing SrA Robinson's selection for enlisted commissioning programs (only 29% selection rate for the year 2007). Also, there are references to outside biographical sources and to condirm SrA Robinson briefing at the Annual DoD Cyber Crime Conference, a conference with over 700 attendees. While SrA Robinson may not be an international superstar, he is certainly a key (and notable) figure in the field of digital forensics and the United States Air Force. Further, the original article that was deleted did, in fact, fail to meet notability requirements. That article, posted by Cyrus Robinson himself, was done so at my request because I did not yet have a wikipedia account, and it was poorly written. After superbeecat's original complaint, I created an article myself and in my own interest. superbeecat is implying that Cyrus has a fake "sock" account set up to create this article. Cyrus' IP address is in the Reston, Va-Washington, DC area. I am posting from an IP address outside of Wichita, KS. superbeecat is making false allegations concerning this article, and seems to have a personal grudge with this article. Following the "good faith" and "edit boldly" policies set forth by Wikipedia, I argue that for the general interest of the digital forensic and United States military communities, this article should remain listed. According to WP:RS it says that the sources must be "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Every publication release by the DoD Cyber Crime Center is peer reviewed by no less than 2 field peers, and reviewed by government management for oversight reasons. The references were not published by SrA Robinson himself. Rather they are published by the USAF after a thorough review process. The website that contains the articles is a .mil domain (not a self-made website). The purpose of the self-published material ban is to prevent the situation where "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." This is certainly not the case in that an individual cannot register a .mil domain. It is common for universities or government sources to publish articles by their facutly, students, and/or staff. This is NOT self-publication. Please review the policy, and undelete this article. Again, Cyrus Robinson's contribution to digital forensics and the USAF is of personal interest at least to myself as an independent editor and the small community of digital forensic professionals.Imnotfamous 20:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As a Computer Science student studying at Louisiana State University, I can attest the article posted should be accepted and reinstated. SrA Robinson is not a "non-notable individual" as the original poster states. Rather, the work he has done in the field of digital forensics, as well as the sources used are indeed Government sources. The individual mentioned by this article is sincere, and the account used to post the article is not just another fake spam or "sock" account. The article should remain posted, as it references valuable and pertinent information in the digial forensics domain. spartas 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 *do not delete Please specify what sections of WP:NOTE or WP:BIO were not met.  I request that you please tell me where notability requirements have not been met.

WP:BIO and WP:N say that if ANY of the following have been met, the individual is notable. MOST have been met.

The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (TRUE - http://dc3.mil/dcci/contact.htm)

The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. (TRUE - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/biographies_2.asp#CyrusRobinson source)

The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. (TRUE - http://www.afoats.af.mil/AFROTC/documents/ECP_PostSelectionDatabase.xls)

The person has demonstrable wide name recognition (TRUE - briefed at DoD Conference - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/Descriptions.asp#ImagingHardDrivesWithBadSectors)

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (Arguable)

Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products (Arguable)Afcyrus 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently other members of the Wikipedia community also agreeing with my decision that the article did not meet WP:BIO isn't going to convince you either. The military, whom you work for, publishing your papers is not a secondary source. A forum is not a credible biography. Most military awards or other awards given by your employer are not significant in encyclopedic terms. One conference does not make your name widely recognized. Its good that you're proud of your contributions and have a wonderful career, however, this does not make your life an encyclopedia topic. Again, these are guidelines that the Wikipedia community has decided on, so contacting me personally will do nothing to help.
Also, you might want to reconsider asking friends to come in and disrupt Wikipedia by posting in several places and serially recreating the article. This is generally frowned upon by the community. Again, please review WP:DRV if you'd like to request a review of the deletion(s). Shell babelfish 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Robinson

[edit]

You salted that one; good move. You deleted it four times as many times as I did. What's the rule of thumb in number of re-creations before you salt in the case of a non-attack or copyvio? Just curious. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its more about whether or not the editors posting the material are interested in listening and learning how to work in the Wikipedia community or not. If someone is just going to keep posting material and ignore other editors, salting might be a good option after 2-3 (assuming its in a short time period), but like blocking, it should be used to end disruption if other options have failed. Shell babelfish 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Last Effort

[edit]

Shell, PLEASE ACTUALLY READ THIS. I will be going through the deletion review process. Here is a point by point reason why I'm asking you one last time to reconsider before I do go through the process.

You making FALSE and unfounded allegations against me, however, is also going to be brought to light. You accused me of having friends post on my behalf. First off, one is a former co-worker (not a friend) who ASKED ME if I minded her posting an article on me and my work (Imnotfamous). The other (Spartas) I do consider a friend, but he is also a computer programmer/computer specialist who understands the relevance of the article. I, along with spartas and imnotfamous, gave specific rationale as to why the article should not be deleted. You deleted it just for the sake of not wanting to be proven wrong. You are NOT assuming good faith.

I read the WP:BIO page and specifically addressed every complaint you listed. You addressed NONE of mine.

  • WP:BIO and WP:N say that if ANY (I only have to meet one of the following)of the following have been met, the individual is notable. MOST have been met.

The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (TRUE - http://dc3.mil/dcci/contact.htm) The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. (TRUE - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/biographies_2.asp#CyrusRobinson source) The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. (TRUE - http://www.afoats.af.mil/AFROTC/documents/ECP_PostSelectionDatabase.xls) The person has demonstrable wide name recognition (TRUE - briefed at DoD Conference - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/Descriptions.asp#ImagingHardDrivesWithBadSectors) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (Arguable)

  • Military awards:

On General T. Michael Moseley's WP article he has two awards listed, both military awards (you said mine were not eligible). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Michael_Moseley . The same is true of General John Jumper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Jumper . According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Military_person_infobox the decorations should be "any notable awards or decorations the person received." Apparently, the editor for the article about me thought my listed awards were notable.

  • Biography and well known:

According to WP:NPF (People who are relatively unknown)

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. It has been shown that while I may not be well known to the entire populous, I am at the very least, notable in my field. You made the comment "A forum is not a credible biography." You obviously did not even check the links that I listed. I did not list a forum as my credible biography. The name of the company that organizes many DoD and government conferences is Technology Forums (it is not a forum-website). Further, you made the rather subjective (and uninformed) comment that having briefed at one conference of 700 attendees does not make me well known within my field. This is one of the and most well known conferences in the digital forensic community. That, along with the release of the DCCI Cyber Files which includes over 10 publications authored by myself to every attendee of the conference makes me both published and well known.

  • Self-Publication:

You make the comment that my sources are self-published. I would refer you to Self-publishing which makes no mention of employers or academic institutions not being able to publish work used as a source. As a member of the USAF I am not capable of registering a website or paying for publication of my work-related studies. Almost every legitimate research publication is published by a government source or a source in academia. In those cases the studies are almost always authored by either faculty, students, or staff of those institutions. This is NOT self publication as is outlined at the bottom of WP:BIO. WP:BIO states that if someone purchases a website or pays to have a book published and self-labels as an "expert" is self-publication. For instance, Ron Rivest is a professor at MIT. He has two articles as bibliographical reference. Both are published through MIT Press (understandably). Self-publication is when you have something published yourself. I never requested that the Air Force publish my work. They do so at their own discretion. Where else would you think that military personnel or academic sources would publish other than through their respective institution?

  • Complaints:

You do not read articles before you delete them, as is evidenced by your serial deletion highlighted in your contributions site (despite your personal claim to be an "inclusionist". You sometimes delete 3 per minute. Further, you do not allow ample time for discussion and debate on either the site's talk page or the debate discussion site. Finally, the limited time that is allowed for debate you do not read or take into consideration at all. This seems to be a case of someone with authority not accepting it when their authority or stance is questioned. Look up your discussion page. It is full of people with claims similar to mine that you just disregard. In the end, you always claim you are right...end of story.

  • In Closing:

I hope you will take the time to tell me why, exactly (with specific reasons in rebuttal to my specific responses), you do not consider the editor who added me as notable, correct. Having drafted this point-by-point list of rebuttals full of sources and examples (from WP articles, policies, and guidelines), I ask you one last time to please reconsider before I file for a deletion review. Afcyrus 23:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cyrus Robinson. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

DRV

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fargoth World Building Project. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 00:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A grain of salt

[edit]

Did you know we have a new way of salting articles? Check out protected titles for details. >Radiant< 08:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh thanks :) Shell babelfish 09:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raiding Uncle Jack's Wallet

[edit]

Hi Shell - I saw that you deleted a page I created on the band Raiding Uncle Jack's Wallet. First of all, I don't believe I was given enough time to add the hangon tag before it was deleted. Secondly, I know that it's not an incredibly famous band (mostly only known in Los Angeles), but I think they are certainly up-and-coming. I would like to know why it was deleted. I've seen them perform and they are great. Are there any bands that can be deemed notable even if they are just regional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connectinglines (talk • contribs) 01:57, July 20, 2007

The easiest thing to do is browse through WP:MUSIC and see if the band meets any of those guidelines. If so, just let me know and I can undelete the article so you can add text (and references!) that shows how they meet the guidelines. Shell babelfish 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Loserz

[edit]

Just wondering if I explained things fairly and civily. Did I? -WarthogDemon 02:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. That was a very good way to handle things. Shell babelfish 02:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faithfull

[edit]

Hi Josh? You deleted one of my Marianne Faithfull entries, which is understandable, I don't have a lot to add. I want to know how to protest against the Pearl Jam song of the same name which also isn't notable in any way. There is even a classification of it being "a protest song" when it is clearly about fidelity. Is it too late to get for speedy deletion? It is tempting to just delete it without warning whatsoever, but I think its only fair to give some notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuvtixo (talk • contribs) 06:25, July 20, 2007

Speedy deletion isn't about how long the article has existed, it refers to the faster deletion process. You can take a look at WP:CSD and see if the article you're referring to meets one of those criteria. Category:Speedy deletion templates lists the templates you can use to nominate an article for speedy deletion. If it doesn't meet those criteria, there's also proposed deletions and the full deletion process. Hope that helps! Shell babelfish 20:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

solidThinking notability

[edit]

Hello Shell,

I have removed the reference to the awars although this is a well documented fact since it was on magazines. In any event I want to respect the Wikipedia guidelines. I am quite new to it and must certainly tune myself. I am now planning in integration to Sparta.

I am very surprised for this request of deletion since solidThinking is widely used in the product design community (I teach it in a well known industrial design school). See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:3D_graphics_software and you will find that Wikipedia lists many software which are by far less famous and notable than solidThinking.--Parametric66 09:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I removed a request to speedy deleted the article as not meeting our notability requirements because you listed those verifiable awards. Please go ahead and put them back; they were the reason the article didn't meet our speedy deletion requirements.
Don't worry about the deletion request, they're really no big deal. You might want to look over the article though and see what you can do to write it so that it more clearly states why its notable; looking at the Products section of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) might help you have some ideas on what people are looking for. Hope that helps! Shell babelfish 19:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shell, I misunderstood the edit summary.--62.13.168.67 21:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Ops, I forgot to sign in.--Parametric66 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of Military And Mathematics to AfD

[edit]

Hi,

I speedied Of Military And Mathematics last night, and you removed the speedy. I guess maybe I don't have a proper understanding of the different modes of deletion, or something. Anyway, I respect your opinion; still, I feel the article fails Wikipedia's notabiliy criteria, as so many thousands of indie-rock band artiles here do, so I've decided to take the article to AfD and see if there can be a discussion on whether the band is notable or not.

Tagging the article for cleanup, I agree, was a good idea; but as this article is completely orphaned, and as the band has (I suspect) almost no notability, it could end up sitting here as WP:VSCA for years before anyone even finds it again. And, sometimes, when an article goes to AfD, the people who care are inspired to clean the article up right there.

Anyway, feel free to weigh in there with your opinion. In any case, Wikipedia is not the end of the world, right? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see something that might help - instead of listing them as spam, you might want to use {{nn-band}} to nominate them if they don't claim any notability. Spam is really only for horrible advertising pieces, not just for promo-only articles or at least that's how I've seen it used in the past. Aside from their claim to being one of the top 10 unsigned bands, they really don't try to assert any notability at all. Anyways, the AfD was a good idea, or prod is always an option too :) Thanks. Shell babelfish 19:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chris Whittaker non-deletion

[edit]

I notice you decided to keep Talk:Chris Whittaker, which I nominated for speedy deletion. I would appreciate it if you took another look: you'll notice that Chris Whittaker is a redirect to Chris Whitaker, which has a second extant talk page at the correct spelling. We certainly don't need both, hence the nomination of the redirect's page.

Thank you.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I looked at that several times and didn't see the missing "t". Its deleted now in case you wanted to redirect it to the actual talk page. Shell babelfish 19:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Question That I Am Probably Wrong About

[edit]

Would a theme song on a userpage such as User:Eldooshbag be considered a copyvio? -WarthogDemon 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; lyrics are copyrighted and shouldn't be found anywhere in Wikipedia. I removed them from that userpage. Shell babelfish 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

You reverted several of my warnings on problem pictures. Well, the images do not have a source, since just www.agenciabrasil.gov.br is not a source. If it was I could upload virtually any picture I want and give a root URL as source. The uploader has to inform the complete URL address of the picture. The same applies to archival sources. How can we check the license if we don't know the real source? How can we know if the copyright owner really released the pictures under the informed license? The uploader has made some copyvios here and in Commons, therefore there is a real license problem here. Dantadd 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In cases like those, its probably best to add additional information to the image description page. That way an admin coming by has the whole story instead of just a tag to go on. Please feel free to renom them or drop a list here and I'll go through and do the cleanup. Thanks. Shell babelfish 22:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.Y.H.C. (film)

[edit]

I believe there has been an error in your deletion of N.Y.H.C. (film). There was recently an issue with this page regarding an incorrect redirection link but that was in the process of being repaired, which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_20 If anything, it was the incorrect page, entitled N. Y. H. C. (film) - note the incorrect spaces - that should have been deleted. There are quite a few pages that link to the deleted page which are now dead due to this deletion. None of those links connect to the incorrectly named page. Uncle Cheech 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the redirect (which was the proper title) with {{db-move}}, because I was reversing a redirect. See User talk:BigNate37#N. Y. H. C. (film) for a more involved explanation if you wish. It's all been taken care of, and Shell's deletion was correct (we didn't want to delete the article with history). BigNate37(T) 19:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bristol Mall

[edit]

I would greatly appriciate being able to finsih my entry. I had to go and get more documentation by searching a few records and such on the net. Since this is not my only life, I will be recreating this page with the time this time to deveot to every piece of information.

This is nottable because it is one of 3 shooping mall's located in the Tri Cities of TN/VAEtittle1978 19:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, being a mall doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Please see WP:CORP for more information on the criteria the company would need to meet to qualify. Thanks. Shell babelfish 22:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel

[edit]

Hi, I found your comments at Infidel to be useful. Could help as a voice to help define direction. More voices would help formulate a concensus. Thanks.--Tigeroo 20:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block of Standardname (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Hey there. I've engaged the above user in discussion regarding his edits, and was wondering if you'd consider reviewing your decision to indef block. In my humble opinion this was pretty much newbie eagerness, and although most of his edits ware blatantly inappropriate, I feel this user could contribute constructively in the future. Regards, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, looks like he's realized that wasn't the best way to go, I've unblocked him. Shell babelfish 01:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Keep up the good work. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Horror Channel

[edit]

Shell, my comments in regards to The Horror Channel entry were actually based on facts and my added link confirmed that. How is mentioning a web staff departure for a website entry violating neutrality? Sirand 03:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Sirand[reply]

Unfortunately you're basing your facts off your experience and something posted to a blog. The first is original research which cannot be used in Wikipedia articles; the second is not a reliable source and again, cannot be used to add information to Wikipedia articles. The entire point of you putting this information in the article is to try to skew the article against the company, which violates our neutral point of view policy. Its also probably worth a mention that you should read WP:COI to see our guidelines on articles you may have a conflict of interest in editing. Thanks. Shell babelfish 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, Good Evening!

[edit]

Erm, well, I was just reading your "About Me on Wikipedia" blurb on your userpage and you mentioned that you changed your username from Jareth to Shell Kinney - I was just wondering how do you do that and do your contributions under your last username transfer onto the new one. Thanks. R_O (Talk) 20:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually not too difficult. Check out the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. And yes, your contributions transfer over :) Hope that helps! Shell babelfish 22:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual Adoption Request

[edit]

Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.

Thank you!

Thelmadatter 20:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter[reply]

Port of Le Havre

[edit]

Hi, I'm confused with your claim of Blatant copyright violation without non-infringing content worth saving on the Port of Le Havre. As far as I know, and I typed the article, there was no copyrighted information used on the article. Could you actually have a list of violations a little more explicit than a standard and empty message? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the 2 articles and saw similarities but nothing 'blatant'. -- roundhouse0 13:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there were enough of those similarities (including tone, structure and placement) that more than one other editor felt the history section of the article was nothing more than a rewrite of the pdf. Since the offending section existed from the first revision of the article, there was nothing to move back to. If you believe the deletion did not meet the speedy criteria, you're welcome to bring it up for review at WP:DRV. Thanks and happy editing. Shell babelfish 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but you're not giving me much to work other than your word. You made a brash decision and the least you could do is gimme more than just "I looked it at it and it looks copied". I have quarrels with the fact the article was not neither a leech nor a copy so you must have come onto hard facts to come to your decision. I'd hate to have to include your brash decision in a DV query. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I (having never previously seen the article) agree with Capt Scarlet - if we are not allowed OR or re-writing then what is left? The copy-vio notice specifically states "Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words" - I believe this had already been done. And you too say it is a 'rewrite of the pdf'. The pdf itself is probably a rewrite of something else, in French I would guess from its phrasing - 'the physiognomy of the harbour facilities' is not a phrase likely to be used in English post-1900 or so. 'immediate neighbours in time and space, the same sediment prevented their survival by regularly invading the channels with each tide' - if this is written directly in English then I am Dutch. Indeed Google only finds the phrases 'physiognomy of the harbour' and 'sediment prevented their survival' in the pdf in question; google does yield 3 other hits for 'neighbours in time and space'.
I will certainly support an appeal to DRV. We had a good, lengthy article (with many sections) and it has been deleted summarily on spurious criticism of 1 section with no discussion. I would myself have put hang-on on the article had I thought the copy-vio bore any chance of being upheld. This is a nonsense. -- roundhouse0 14:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can be more specific. The structure of the history section and the pdf were identical; for instance, when the pdf started talking about benefits, the history section started talking about benefits; in the next sentence the pdf changed to talking about the king, the history section changed in the next sentence to talking about the king - it went this way through the entire section. In places where the pdf used bulleted lists, the history section used the same bulleted lists (with slightly shorter explanations) with the bullets in the exact same order. Many of the phrases were the same, with those odd words you mention replaced with something more readable.

No one is assuming bad faith here and trying to say that Captain Scarlet intentionally violated copyright, perhaps they read the article at some time or used it for source material. However, this doesn't change the fact Wikipedia can't afford the appearance of plagiarizing another article; that means that we have to do more than just take out a few words, we need to completely re-write information in our own words. More than one editor saw the wealth of similarities between the two texts, which is why it was deleted under copyvio.

If you'd like, I can make the original text, sans the history section, available so the article can be quickly repaired. Or again, you're welcome to take this to WP:DRV and have a few other people review it; if the consensus is that it was sufficiently different enough not to warrant a speedy, it will be undeleted.

Just as a side note, its quite possible to have these sort of discussions without becoming emotional. Veiled threats and other general incivility doesn't go far in helping reach a resolution to our differences. I always welcome my actions being reviewed since I can certainly make mistakes - just please don't assume malice where there was no intent. Shell babelfish 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard not to find this funny since I have only after this debacle opened the PDF you cite for the first time (take this statement or leave, it's true however). You seem unwilling to accept that this PDF might have been created after the Wikipedia article. I think Roundhouse describes the situation appropriately when he says that the deletion was done most than hastely on the words of one maybe two members only when the situation called at most for a hangon notice, a section rewerite being the acceptable and habitual way of dealing with this. You admit yourself it seems the History section alone seemed dubious yet the entire article was somarily deleted. Fault it may be but administrators cannot expect a deleted article to go unnoticed. Actions seem exagerated in this case and I believe you have yourself and suggested what should be done, I invite you to follow your own advice and restore the article as it were. Finally, don't call for moderation where there are no troubles, there were no vindictive coments left on this page, simple frustration at what looks like a quick decision. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've offered to restore the text without the history section for you; is that what you're asking about? As I mentioned above, the history section existed from the creation of the article, so only deleting revisions with the history section wasn't an option unfortunately. I'm sorry that you feel frustrated, but this is how the speedy deletion process works and why deletion review exists. Shell babelfish 22:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you offering to reinstate the article a second time however it has not yet been done. the quicker the better so that work may be resumed as soons as possible. Frustration isn't quite the word, absudity would be more appropriate to describe a situation where anyone can nominate anything yet long and cooherent articles are sommarily deleted whilst articles such as Bull Street tram stop are kept, survive successive deletion procedure yet remain empty and devoid of any kind of encyclopedic information. I await the article's reinstating, Regards. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was just waiting for confirmation that you wanted me to restore the text without the history section. It's up now. Shell babelfish 18:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restoring the article indeed. You have hoewever ommited the history section which by ignoring this section it does not enable us to work on it and improve quality of the asection and remove any doubts of copyvio. I remember vaguely the history section being the largest of all and the article is seriously truncated of useful and important information as it stands. Cheers, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, that's exactly what I said I was going to do - restore the text without the history section. We cannot restore information which may violate the copyright of others. However, you need only look at the PDF file to remember what the history section said and hopefully this time it will be written significantly differently than the source document. Hope that helps. Shell babelfish 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is still in Google's cache, bearing little resemblance to the pdf (except that both are, astonishingly enough, in chronological order, and mention the same facts - the word 'paraphrase' springs to mind). There seems to have been a knock-on effect on the fr wiki version, which presumably copied/translated the Eng wiki version, as we can see from its history that it began life in Jan 2007. (What is the date of creation of the pdf anyway?) Certainly I am myself discouraged from adding anything to wikipedia other than the odd remark given this sort of knee-jerk over-reaction to a cry of 'copy-vio'. -- roundhouse0 16:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you dispute the fact that the history section was sufficiently the same to be a copyvio, have this reviewed at WP:DRV. The pdf was put up in 2005, far pre-dating the history section on our site. Shell babelfish 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Now I can finally compare both I'm astonished you got away with this deletion. You must understand it is hard to treat of a major harbour's history if one cannot cite the port's initiator (in this case François 1er) and get accused of copyright violation. If the article is to be complete there has to be points that recoupe other articles on the net. There is little need for a DRV since it is clear now, having both PDF and article cache in front of me that there is no ressemblance other than similar fact dates. Prose is entirely different and details on some dates are different, there are also different dates cited on the PDF and article... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, again, here's the point: the history section ended up having the exact same structure as the pdf file - yes, you changed the words, but you still followed the outline of the other article exactly. This is not about dates and facts:

  • In both articles, the first paragraph states the king, in this year decided to create a port and then quotes the king. Both then go on to state that this was for commerce and defense, having suffered 200 years of military attacks by the English.
  • In the next paragraph, both articles describe the natural features that made this area suitable.
  • Both articles then have three bullet points describing the construction, sluice, quay and canal.
  • In the next paragraph, both articles give the dates of construction, noting the canal was dug later. Then next sentence discusses the "battle" with pebbles and rock.
  • In the next paragraph, both start by stating little was done in the 16th century except the fortifications and citadel. The next sentence discusses Richelieu and Colbert re initiating construction. Then they both go on to talk about the new citadel.
  • They both start the next paragraph discussing the Bassin du Roi being reserved for the Navy. They then quickly touch on the new quays, sluice and arsenal before talking about the hundreds of ships that were built. They mention when the Bassin de la Barre was opened to ships and finish with a sentence about Colbert and Vauban's work with the canal.
  • In the next paragraph, both start with discussing cod trade and then slavery's affect on the prosperity of the area.
  • Here they finally deviate with the article's paragraphs on the Lamandé plan and the larger ships needing to use Rouen being in the opposite order from the pdf - the sentence structure still remains the same. The article then omits the next two paragraphs in the pdf.
  • Back to cojoining again, they both start with the average capacity of ships doubling, and then both again use almost identically worded bullet points to discuss the expansions done to accommodate these larger ships.
  • Both discuss another capacity doubling in the next paragraph and go on to talk about the next expansion and how its called the "large basins". Then a sentence about the Canal de Tancarville and finally one about the tower demolition.

I could go on, but that would be beating a dead horse. I have no difficulty understanding that when historical articles are written, the facts will frequently be in the same chronological order and the facts will stay the same, however, I cannot stretch good faith far enough to image how the exact sentence, paragraph structure and choice of bullets would happen randomly. I will not restore the history section of the article. You may take this to deletion review or even the administrator's noticeboard if you would like to have my decision reviewed by other editors. Shell babelfish 13:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note, from your talk page, that the same information in the pdf file existed as one of the external links on the article. [12]. Shell babelfish 13:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Standardname

[edit]

Hi... A week ago you blocked User:Standardname for spamming a whole slew of articles with wikilinks to some psychiatric assessment article that was horribly misplaced on those articles. I am here to let you know that that person has no progressed to EXTREMELY aggressively editing Dissociative identity disorder and Multiple personality controversy to try to claim that there is no controversy.

I mean, I've been editing for years, seen a lot of edit warring, participated in some, seen POV-pushers, but this guy is just off the scale intense, and extremely forceful in wikilawyering policies to allegeldy things just the opposite of what they say, and claiming such things as (paraphrased) "If you do not respond in 15 minutes I will assume you agree with me now thanks to me being so obviously right and you so ignorant and I will revert the article back, and 3RR doesn;t apply to me because I am following the three policies that I'm not really following but some page somewhere says if I follow those then my edits are not negotiable and have to stay." etc.

Since you've dealt with him (saw it in the block log) and got the opinion that he would pay attention when you said he should not do such and such, it might be helpful for you to step in again. Three different editors (one an admin, though I don't know if Standardname knows that) have tried to tell him he was POV-pushing and all of them were very forcefully shouted down. This whole situation looks like a powderkeg ready to go off. DreamGuy 07:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eek. So much for the claims of a poor newbie editor who just misunderstood. I've seconded Bish's final warning and have no problem blocking him indef again if this continues. Shell babelfish 12:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We'll see how this goes. DreamGuy 20:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to the discussion at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching request

[edit]

Hi, I'm GorillaWarfare and am hoping to receive some coaching to become an admin. If you'd like to coach me, please leave a message on my talk page. You can see my edit count here but don't be surprised when you see that I have 25 edits. That is because I recently forgot the password to my old account, User:Theunicyclegirl. Here is my edit count from my old account. I almost have 2000 edits. I frequently revert vandalism by watching Lupin's filtered RCs. I also like to expand stubs, particularly those relating to cats or dogs. I am very good with user warning templates and speedy deletion templates. I sometimes respond on AFD. Thanks for considering me! --GorillaWarfare talk 16:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociative identity disorder and reverting

[edit]

Um...I hate to be a bother here, but I think you are actually incorrect when you correct User:Standardname about the editing on the DID article. Not so much about the 3RR, which he very clearly violated, but how he contests the rationale for deletion. I can't seem to find the actual talk page (this argument is all over the place) but he quotes the policy on reversion that says merely disagreeing with an edit is not enough to revert it. You have told him this only applies only to AfD discussion, but the page says this is a rule for reversion and, indeed, it makes quite a lot of sense. So...which one is it? This is really just for my own benefit, so I can clarify the policy to improve my future editing. CaveatLectorTalk 20:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was referring to his earlier statement According to Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus... and didn't realize he had dropped that part of the questioning. What he's referring to with Mere disagreement is not such proof. is actually a help page on reverting and not policy. While it suggests that reverting be a last resort and that editors should use other means of improving articles, unfortunately, not everyone follows those suggestions. Its always a good idea to discuss edits and work together instead of reverting unless the content is completely inappropriate. I believe DreamGuy's disagreement stems from the fact that Standardname's edits significantly changed the tone of the article and Standardname seemed unwilling to discuss his reasoning, however, since I have not been involved in the dispute or any prior discussions, I can't comment on the validity of that concern. I do think that it would have been better for DreamGuy to have discussed his concerns instead of simply reverting. Unfortunately, Standardname's actions after that first revert were what lead to him being warned about his block being reinstated. Shell babelfish 18:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

[edit]

Hi - I'm really impressed with your user page, and would like to know if you'd be interested in adopting me. I've occasionally edited various Wikipedia pages over the years, but only recently created an account. Lately, I've been updating articles and adding helpful facts. I would like to continue improving Wikipedia as a positive, contributing member. I'm particularly interested in fighting vandalism and learning the ropes of Wikipedia. Thanks for your time! Duerring 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments! I'd be happy to adopt you and help you learn your way around. The best way to get a quick overview of Wikipedia is to check out the five pillars and read through the simplified ruleset. I look forward to working with you. Shell babelfish 15:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Horror Channel

[edit]

How is THIS statement, "On June 17, 2006, the creative and editorial staff of Dread Central left The Horror Channel citing professional grievances and disagreements with the channel's management. On July 4th, 2007, the departing staff re-launched DreadCentral.com as a separate website." violating ANY neutrality? It's a solid fact. Dread Central is no longer with The Horror Channel, and the current article is out-dated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirand (talk • contribs) 21:20, August 2, 2007

The statement that you have repeatedly inserted into the article actually violates several policies; the last version that you mention was much better written than previous incarnations. Unfortunately, since this is coming out of your own personal knowledge and not being reported by a reputable media outlet, it runs up against our policies on original research and verifiability. While I understand your frustration with the article being out of date, until the change is reported in a reliable publication, the information doesn't belong in the article. Shell babelfish 15:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

[edit]

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

[edit]

Dear Shell, for each brief quote from a university journal, can I add it immediately to the article Dissociative identity disorder, or must I first post it in the article Dissociative identity disorder's discussion page each time? For example, I'd like to add this quote, under the section Dissociative_identity_disorder#Treatment: "Hypnosis can be useful in teaching patients about the dissociative nature of their symptoms by helping them to gain control over transitions among personality states, with the goal of improving internal communication and integrating disparate aspects of their identity." (Stanford University School of Medicine, The American Journal of Psychiatry, 2006, http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/4/566). Standardname 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly don't need to post to the talk page each time. Usually, if you feel the edit is something many people will disagree over, its better to have the discussion first, but that shouldn't happen frequently. The only concern with the three revert rule is that if you insert information and its removed, remember that you can only revert 3 times in a 24 hour period without running afoul of policy - its also important to follow the spirit of the rule, which is designed to foster discussion; reverting 3 times every 24 hours will likely lead to being warned as well.
As long as you're improving the article and willing to work with other editors when disagreements come up, you'll be just fine :) Shell babelfish 15:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shell, I assume this means that, if I revert no more than 3 times in 24 hours, backed up with reasons of my reverts in the edit summary, then I shouldn't be blocked. If this is the case, apologies for my previous actions, I thought the warnings were given for removing uncited text, and failed to realise the warnings were actually given for the frequency. Thank you for the explanation. Standardname 20:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shell... earlier you agreed that Standardname here had been pushing extremely NPOV-violating edits onto this article and gave him/her a strong warning (besides just the 3RR thing). Problem is he just recruited some other POV pusher who had conflicts with me in the past to show up and make his edit for him, simply reverting to the same old outrageously biased version. I also suspect from standard's bizarre edit history for a new user that there could be sockpuppeting involved. I have reverted the biased edits once again, but I'd appreciate it if you could watch the article for repeats under his name or someone else's. DreamGuy 16:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, shell, s/he's talking about me, these accusations of 'recruiting' and 'sockpuppetry' are beyond laughable and boils down to a rather disturbing amount of paranoia. As for 'edit conflicts in the past', I have absolutely no clue what s/he's talking about (an edit conflict I had with him before going inactive as I did for a long time last year?). As you can see at this AN/I DreamGuy's long term behavior has been incredibly disruptive and uncivil, and I think that this note on your talk page as well as his comments on mine (see the AN/I). I'm incredibly tired of this drama at the moment, but I just wanted to let you know what was actually going on here. CaveatLectorTalk 00:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other people are actively using sockpuppets and other means of harassment here, that's not paranoia, it's a simple fact, and if you looked into the controversy at all you would see that. Furthermore the main pont here is that you massively reinserted some extremely POV-pushing edits by an editor who came out of nowhere to make such edits and instantly started wikilawyering like a pro, which Shell here also admitted was clearly suspicious. So I suppose that's paranoia too? Your bad faith and uncivil remarks and your taking the word of the problem editors who continually make baseless complaints on ANI, show that you are not following the Wikipedia policies of conflict resolution. Your idea of trying to resolve the conflict is blind reverting to extremely bad content just because someone made accusations you didn't look into. DreamGuy 15:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Standardname understands the 3RR now and is not violating it, there doesn't appear to be anything here requiring administrator intervention. I would suggest using the usual dispute resolution procedures for any disagreements over content. Shell babelfish 01:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine and good, but as an editor who agreed that Standardname's edits were extremely POV-pushing it'd be helpful if you stepped in to help edit the article now that the POV-pusher has some bad editors drawn in from other conflicts and what might be an editor here above who is simply ignorant of the situation or the edits (it's doubtful anyone with any knowledge of WP:NPOV policiy could have actually looked at the edits in question and chosen to go with the bad version) and going off kneejerk reactions. You as an outside editor who has confirmed the problems can demonstrate to editors like CaveatLector here that his bad faith assumption that I am POV-pushing is way out of reality. DreamGuy 15:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations of POV-pushing with regards to other editors is certainly assuming bad faith as well. You would do well to realize that you are not always right. 69.19.14.20 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waves a white flag - Lets try to find a way to work this out instead of attacking each other. The edit warring needs to stop so that some kind of discussion or mediation can go on. If you would like, I can try to help resolve the issue, but please be aware that I have strict rules that would require all parties to cease editing the disputed topic until a consensus is reached; I also require that you stick to the dispute and avoid discussing other editors when at all possible. If everyone involved can agree to those terms and identify themselves (i.e. please log in instead of posting from an IP address), I would be happy to try to resolve the issue. Shell babelfish 18:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sindel

[edit]

As I posted on ANI, could you please salt this page? The user has created it many times, and been warned to stop. The original admin is AWOL, so I can't ask him. The Evil Spartan 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor momsen.jpg

[edit]

You removed the speedy delete template on this image [13], stating that "this image is under fair-use". The image was copied from an IMDb.com gallery here. IMDb.com specifically forbids others to use their images without permission. It is an image of a living person. I would appreciate it if you would explain how it falls under fair use when Wikipedia guidelines state: "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements normally fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and is thus unacceptable ... 8. An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph." Thank you. Ward3001 23:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting the image be kept permanently, but speedy and NFC are two different things. It doesn't qualify under the blatent copyvio provision of WP:CSD because a proper source and fair-use rationale were given, however, it will be deleted for failing the NFC test after its 7 days are up. Non-free content doesn't currently have a speedy deletion criteria for these issues. Shell babelfish 00:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar!

[edit]

How unexpected! Well, thanks anyway for the barnstar, which I will be soon adding to my "Awards" section of my user page. I suppose I'm one of the few privileged folks who know what Tallmadge is, and I suppose you are also one of these people, judging by your message (if that made any sense). It's really nice when someone recognizes your work, and again, I thank you for doing so. I'm just babbling now, so I'll stop wasting Wikipedia server space by finishing here without some witty comment at the end. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and I hope that you continue contributing in the future! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC archiving

[edit]

Thaks for archiving the old RFC that people were editing and erasing supporting comments on and so forth. I do think that it's confusing to having a link there saying looking for current dispute, as dispute seems loaded language, the link appears to be part of the archive when it isn't, the wording says "current" when the new RFC will also end up ending at some point and make that reference outdated, and, basically, the existence of the link in the first place seems to be mollycoddling some editors looking for conflict but who can't even be bothered to look up the right location. The wholeline in general seems to serve no purpose whatsoever other than to throw a bone to people who frankly don't deserve it. DreamGuy 20:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of Azar Nafisi

[edit]

Dear Shell Kinney, thank you for your kind message concerning the photograph of Ms Azar Nafisi. I have been in touch with Ms Nafisi about this photograph; Ms Nafisi's assistant, Ms Leila Austin, in her e-mail of 1 August informed me that Ms Nafisi does not own the rights to this photograph and for obtaining permission to display this photograph on Wikipedia pages contact should be made with the photographer or his/her agent. I have subsequently informed Ms Austin that I would not take any further action and would leave the matter to Ms Nafisi; you could find my statement to this effect in the copy-right section of the photograph at issue (please click on the photograph and see my statement). For some reason (which may be related to the fact that apparently Ms Nafisi dislikes her Wikipedia biography - Ms Nafisi is "very much dissappointed" about the biography), thus far no action has been taken either by Ms Nafisi or Ms Austin. Since I do not wish to pursue the matter (I believe that I did my part and frankly deeply resent the presumption on the part of Ms Nafisi that I would run errands on her behalf), two possibilities remain: (1) insofar as I am concerned, the photograph can be deleted at the earliest possible occasion; (2) someone (perhaps you) may wish to make a last effort to save the photograph, by reminding Ms Nafisi, or Ms Austin, that in the absence of an immediate action from their side the photograph will be deleted. I prefer the second option, but of course I see absolutely no reason why at all you should consider this option either desirable or feasible. For completeness, here are the e-mail addresses of Dr Azar Nafisi and Ms Leila Austin: anafisi@jhu.edu, laustin@jhu.edu, laustin3@mail.jhuwash.jhu.edu. With kind regards, --BF 23:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin intervention regarding user:standardname

[edit]

I'm contacting you because you've already given User:standardname a warning and he persists in disrupting the discussion on Talk:Dissociative identity disorder. He has posted two blocks of text, seen here and here, a total of 9 and 14 times respectively. I'm fairly new to wikipedia so I'm not sure what to do about it. Hopefully you can help out. Thanks for you time. Absentis 01:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Shell, I arrived at Dissociative identity disorder a few weeks ago and have tried to mediate in the dispute. There is a summary of the current state of progress in the article here. It appears StandardName has overreacted to what I believe to be an NPOV paragraph on the controversy around DID. Until that point he was agreeing to my proposals, but reluctantly. There was little sense that Standardname was accepting the feedback I was giving him and he was not working collaboratively but merely agreeing. He has now dug his heels in and requested that I refrain from editing in any way that harms the pro-DID POV. You might want to have a look at things when you have some free time. --CloudSurfer 04:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just gone back to have a look and in the early part of our edit Standardname was offering alternative text. --CloudSurfer 04:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Ensor

[edit]

You appear to have removed three pictures from the page I created about my grandmother without any warning or request for me to action. I have added what I believe to be licensing information to the pages but Wikipedia is about the least user friendly system and most arcane I have come across.

Please advise what I must do to restore them - they have been there for months and no one has objected. These photos belong to me and my family and no one else. The photographers died over 40 years ago.

Ensojer 22:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the pictures because you were warned back in May that the photographs needed both source and licensing information - instead of providing such, you chose to simply remove the warnings; any images without proper copyright information may be deleted 7 days after notifying the uploader. You indicated that you owned the photographs and the copyright, yet also mentioned that you were not the photographer and failed to provide information on the copyright licensing chosen.
I understand that things at Wikipedia are odd at best when you first visit; the good news is that the pictures can be easily undeleted if you can provide information on who owns the copyright and how they have released the photographs. For instance, if you assert that the photographer transferred the copyright to your grandmother and it now belongs to you through inheritance, you would need to decide what license you wish to release the photographs under. Information on the licensing tag templates for Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Shell babelfish 22:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photographers concerned did transfer the copywright to my grandmother and I inherited them. How I add the tags and which ones are virtually unfathomable. I am an IT systems trainer of 15 years and I have never seen a systems as over complex as this. Please advise which tags I should use and how

Thanks

Ensojer 08:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My research would indicate anyway that copyright on photograph lapses 70 years after they were taken. These were taken in the 1920s so are now out of copyright regardless of any other issues. I don't recall ever 'removing' requests for copyright tagging and, if I did so, it was inardvertently.

Please can you put the photographs back?

Thank you


Ensojer 12:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, having looked over our crazy copyright tag system, it appears that copyright lapses 70 years after the photographer had died, not just 70 years after it was taken. Works published before January 1, 1923 are also considered public domain, but it looks like these just miss that date. However, since you are the copyright holder, you can choose to release all rights to the photographs, essentially putting them in the public domain. I'm going to go ahead and restore them with a tag that indicates you are releasing all rights - if this is not what you want to do, let me know and we'll figure out another way to handle them. Thank you for your patience. Shell babelfish 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - do I have to do anything my end?

Ensojer 13:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I am more than happy for these photographs to be in the public domain Ensojer 14:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've got them all sorted and back in the article. Thanks for taking the time to sort things out and feel free to poke me in the future if I can be of any help navigating Wikipedia's confusing spots. :) Shell babelfish 14:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoni Dunin

[edit]

Lets deal with this one by one. What about the OR I deleted at Antoni Dunin? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Elonka.com a reliable source for information on her family? You realize that she can keep all these articles in their present shape by just creating pages on her website, right? Doesnt that viuolate COI? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are an ADMIN. Did you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? Please revert your references right now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read it? You behave as if it suggests one may not create reference material on one's ancestors - that's a novel interpretation if I've ever heard it. It doesn't even say one cannot EDIT. This campaign is getting you nowhere. I suggest you consider calming down for a bit and getting other opinions on your actions if you believed everyone so far is biased. Shell babelfish 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI says:

Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, his family members, employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources.

Elonka has used non-reliable refererences. Her own website is not a valid reference. Please revert yourself and remove the references to her website. She's pretty happy by the way because of the hits her website gets. Where does it get these hits from? Partially from the 122 links on Wikipedia. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I dont want to deal with these soldiers anymore. Where can I get unbiased opinions on this? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that Wikipedia links no longer report to search engines, right? I'd suggest going to RfC for some outside opinions; since more than one person disagrees with you, WP:3O probably wouldn't work. Shell babelfish 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And since we're on the subject, you do know that the incoming links from Wikipedia are about her work, not these biographies? [14] Shell babelfish 03:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its still her own website that she's linking everywhere. Anyway, for this diff, we cant use Elonka.com as a reference. We have to use reliable 3rd party websites, as per COI. Thats what the policy says. I've asked for an RfC on this. For the 4th reference, how do you know what was in that paper? The 4th reference is an issue of WP:V. I'll talk to Elonka about this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter that its her website. She happens to be an editor - if she wasn't, we'd have no problem using the link. I welcome other opinions though. As for the paper, I've seen a scan of the article and if you're questioning the validity, you are free to go look up the article yourself. I understand your concerns, but this isn't the right way to go about improving the articles. Shell babelfish 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cheszmastre

[edit]

Hi Shell, someone might want to block this account; it's a sockpuppet of User:His excellency.Proabivouac 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-register

[edit]

Hello, Shell Kinney! You are receiving this notice because the Cleanup Taskforce has been inactive, as a result of this all active taskforce members are being asked to re-register.

For more information see: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Not Dead Yet

If you do not re-register here within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the membership list (if you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just add you name back).

 Tcrow777  talk  04:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Galna Tuppen ==

You deleted some images that I thought I had added the licensing information to. I guess I did that in the wrong way. Anyway, how do I undo your deletion so that I can add the public domain license that I tried to add?

By the way, just deleting stuff like you just did is maybe very efficient, but then why not just let a bot program do the deletions? That would be even more efficient. The point of having a human in the loop is to.... ?

I took these images with my camere, and added them as public domain (in the wrong way, apparently) so that children all over the world should be able to use them for free in their essays about Astrid Lindgren. Please restore them.

(Galnatuppen 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Here you were refering to a discussion but which discussion were you refering to? There's a lot on that page. Proa guessed that this might be the one you were talking about. Is that right? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the one. Shell babelfish 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

photo removal Belgian beer article

[edit]

Hello. You removed a photo from the Belgian beer article with the comment "image deleted for lack of licensing information". Although it is not my photo, I find your comment confusing. The image very clearly has licensing information: "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License. In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of the file under the conditions that you appropriately attribute it, and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one."

I wonder if you could take another look and/or explain your comment. Thanks. Mikebe 10:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault; someone uploaded a copy of that image here with the same name and didn't put licensing information on it. When I deleted it, I missed seeing that a Commons image of the same name existed - thanks for the catch! Shell babelfish 03:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


MY PICTURE

Hi, my picture was taken with my Pentax and there are no copywright issues. It was taken by a friend. Please respond to my page. I thought I'd mention that before, but maybe I didn't make myself clearly understood. Mig 11:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

CGR Famagusta photograph

[edit]

You really shouldn't be so pedantic on copyright issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neo ^ (talk • contribs) 15:15, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, those are the rules here - either provide the proper information for the images you uploaded or they will be deleted. Thanks. Shell babelfish 03:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph was taken by me. Stop interfering with my articles.Neo ^ 11:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've already stated that the photographs were not taken by you [15]. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia; just provide the requested information. Shell babelfish 17:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit MediaWiki:signupend

[edit]

Can you please do me a favour? I'd like you, who is an admin, to edit that page, by adding a sentence saying that if the person who wish to register found that the desired name is already been registered, he/she/it may go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations to request for using that username, if that username has no log at all (Except user creation log). I make this request because once I've changed my name from Edmundkh, then re-register with that name. Now I'm regret for doing that, so I'd like to help the person who wish to register with that name.
Thanks for helping! --Edmund the King of the Woods! 03:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've already put a note on the talk page where others can see it; give it some time for discussion and if the consensus is to add the wording, someone will make the change. Thanks. Shell babelfish 03:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the Virtuti award

[edit]

Do you have any references for this? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it up Matt - find something more productive to do with your time. Shell babelfish 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

[edit]

Hola Mentors!

Im sending you this reminder because you volunteered to mentor my students in English Advanced B as they become contributing members of the Wikipedia community. We start working with Wikipedia in earnest next week. I ask you to take a look at your entry in the Mentor Table at Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors

Please update the information, esp. with what your technical and informational expertise is or, if you have decided that you no longer want to participate, please remove your information from the table. Please watch the pages associated with the project. Students will contact you via your user page and as soon as my students have user pages, I will put them on the navigation bar associated with the project.

I don’t need to remind you that your job is NOT to write their assignments for them, of course. I certainly will tell my students that… and the fact that you are volunteers that don’t have to help them… so they need to be nice. If any students misbehave (tho I don’t expect it) don’t hesistate to contact me and I will take care of it. The goal of this project is to integrate successfully into the Wikipedia community. Anyway… what I really need your help with is helping students get oriented to Wikipedia, make appropriate changes and write about appropriate topics (see Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Syllabus for assignments). I also need your technical expertise… I am only an English teacher after all! I appreciate what technology does for us but I am no technical expert!

Again, thank you for volunteering and you will hear from us again soon! Thelmadatter 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter[reply]

Reply from Cuddlyable3

[edit]

Thank you for contacting me on my talk page. I don't keep this material in view. Good luck with whatever you may choose to add to the RfA page where I have posed an optional question #12. Cuddlyable3 12:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

seeking adoption

[edit]

Hello, I'm seeking adopters, the first bit of trouble is that I have 2 user names. I can log in as Marinasail, I prefer MarinaSail and then I'd like to get some time to read up on wikipedia editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinasail (talk • contribs) 13:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Answered on your page; just let me know if you have any questions :) Shell babelfish 14:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, replied there, (should I tell you that here? or just reply there and leave it at that? Soo much to learn) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinasail (talk • contribs) 14:49, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

new policy

[edit]
any thoughts about this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again

[edit]

Hi,

Since you were the last to block OttomanReference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:OttomanReference , could you please take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=154524621&oldid=154523883

He is back edit-warring on the same articles, vandalizing them with dubious citations. He has since made an effort to contribute on the talk page or present reasonable citations.

I would greatly appreciate if you looked into this. Contributing with this individual's vandalism is becoming increasingly difficult.Hetoum I 03:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the Virtuti award

[edit]

Do you have any references for this? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it up Matt - find something more productive to do with your time. Shell babelfish 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

[edit]

Hola Mentors!

Im sending you this reminder because you volunteered to mentor my students in English Advanced B as they become contributing members of the Wikipedia community. We start working with Wikipedia in earnest next week. I ask you to take a look at your entry in the Mentor Table at Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors

Please update the information, esp. with what your technical and informational expertise is or, if you have decided that you no longer want to participate, please remove your information from the table. Please watch the pages associated with the project. Students will contact you via your user page and as soon as my students have user pages, I will put them on the navigation bar associated with the project.

I don’t need to remind you that your job is NOT to write their assignments for them, of course. I certainly will tell my students that… and the fact that you are volunteers that don’t have to help them… so they need to be nice. If any students misbehave (tho I don’t expect it) don’t hesistate to contact me and I will take care of it. The goal of this project is to integrate successfully into the Wikipedia community. Anyway… what I really need your help with is helping students get oriented to Wikipedia, make appropriate changes and write about appropriate topics (see Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Syllabus for assignments). I also need your technical expertise… I am only an English teacher after all! I appreciate what technology does for us but I am no technical expert!

Again, thank you for volunteering and you will hear from us again soon! Thelmadatter 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter[reply]

Reply from Cuddlyable3

[edit]

Thank you for contacting me on my talk page. I don't keep this material in view. Good luck with whatever you may choose to add to the RfA page where I have posed an optional question #12. Cuddlyable3 12:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

seeking adoption

[edit]

Hello, I'm seeking adopters, the first bit of trouble is that I have 2 user names. I can log in as Marinasail, I prefer MarinaSail and then I'd like to get some time to read up on wikipedia editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinasail (talk • contribs) 13:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Answered on your page; just let me know if you have any questions :) Shell babelfish 14:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, replied there, (should I tell you that here? or just reply there and leave it at that? Soo much to learn) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinasail (talk • contribs) 14:49, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

new policy

[edit]
any thoughts about this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again

[edit]

Hi,

Since you were the last to block OttomanReference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:OttomanReference , could you please take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=154524621&oldid=154523883

He is back edit-warring on the same articles, vandalizing them with dubious citations. He has since made an effort to contribute on the talk page or present reasonable citations.

I would greatly appreciate if you looked into this. Contributing with this individual's vandalism is becoming increasingly difficult.Hetoum I 03:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about showing some respect for other people?

[edit]

I see that you have decided not to reply to my questions, and you have also decided not to restore the images I took for the Astrid Lindgren page. The way you act does explain the lack of images in the Wikipedia, however. Don't you realize that it would be better for the Wikipedia if you helped people out instead of deleting their contributions? Don't you see that people get upset by your actions (or do you perhaps enjoy that?) Think about it! (And don't be evil) ( I have added you as a bad example on the cleanup taskforce page, as part of my argument to shut it down)

(Galnatuppen 12:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am tempted to completely ignore your request due to your incredible rudeness and personal attacks. I apologize if I missed an earlier message from you, however, if it sounded like the one above, its no wonder you didn't get an answer. I've reviewed the images I removed from Astrid Lindgren; in each case you failed to provide a source and copyright license; when you were notified of the lack, you simply removed the warnings, so please, lets not pretend I'm some meanie who randomly came along and deleted your images. I've restored the images and based on the previous message from you I found, listed them as public domain. Please confirm that they now contain the correct licensing information and consider reading the image use policy to avoid future problems when uploading images. Shell babelfish 01:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My picture

[edit]

Why was it deleted? I don't need a copy right because the image was taken with my camera, a Pentax? Please contact me and explain --Mig 10:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you didn't tell me specifically what photo you're referring to, I can't go look it up. Actually, since you took the photo, you currently hold copyright on the photo -- you need to choose how you want to release the photograph. You can choose to release all rights to the photograph, essentially putting it into the public domain -- there are a number of other options as well. Please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for a list of the copyright tags Wikipedia has available. Thanks. Shell babelfish 01:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Shields

[edit]

Why do you see it necessary to remove Ben Shields? He is the youngest politician ever elected in Australia. Just because he is an Australian does not make it any less worthy of Wiki. The pic has been released for the public - GET A GRIP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.118.155 (talk) 08:34, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

All you need to do is add a reference showing he is the youngest ever. As for the photo, we need confirmation that the photo is public domain - unfortunately a random IP address coming around screaming about it isn't proof and doesn't really help. Shell babelfish 01:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i said, I interview him for an assignment. The newspapers here in Australia do not have an archive section. He was first elected in 1999 - before most Australian Newspapers had a credible online site.

--Jez1985 12:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you don't have to have an online source at all. All you need is the newspaper, date, article title and author (page is really helpful too if you have it). Offline sources are just as credible (if not more) than online ones :) See WP:CITE for some more information on how citations work. Shell babelfish 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I added to the references the newspaper articles I have for the assignment... --Jez1985 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome start. When you get the chance, its best to list them separately and make sure to include those titles and authors at least. Kinda like you would do for a bibliography for your assignment - same format works just great here. Shell babelfish 16:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the whole thing has simply been deleted... I ask why bother now? It seems that there is a bias towards Australians for what ever reason. --Jez1985 03:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Shields. Shell babelfish 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was creating a disambig page for Wamu when I noticed ..

[edit]

...in the edit history of WAMU that 67.170.184.73 (talk · contribs) who has absolutely no vandal edits in his or her edit history, was blocked for 31 hours, and all its edits reverted. Was there a reason for this user's block? --69.118.235.97 16:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism. Check the user's contribs or talk page if you're interested in researching further. Shell babelfish 01:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chika with high commissioner kolade-1- (2).jpg

[edit]

my name is Mr A.A Adedayo I own the copyright of this image, I created this file myself at the Nigeria indenpedence day 2004 with consent of DR Kolade and Mr Chika Sylva-Olejeme, i also have the permmission of the International Peace Institute, International creed for peace for use this image of Wikipedia, refer to the official website of ICP for contact details of International Peace Institute or email Admin@internationalcreedforpeace.co.uk for futher confirmation on the copyright of this image Motegole 08:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is there a deletion page where i can also put up this claim please help Motegole 08:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've now added the {{GFDL-self}} template to the image page, which seems to properly reflect the way you want to release the image. The image policies can be a bit confusing, so please feel free to ask for assistance if you run in to issues like these. The image will not be deleted since the proper licensing tag has been applied. Shell babelfish 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altaf Hussain's Picture

[edit]

Why did you delete Altaf Hussain's picture? Altaf Hussain is the head of the third largest political party from Pakistan and the picture was taken from mqm.org's website which makes those pictures available for publication purposes. By the way, "Altaf Hussain" page needs to locked for new and unregistered users. There is a lot of vandalism on this page. Thanks. M12390 23:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was deleted because no licensing information was provided after the required time. Just because an organization posts pictures on its website does not mean they are free for the public to re-use. I reviewed mqm.org and did not see any indication that they released the copyright on that photograph. If you believe that the page has enough vandalism to be locked, please make a request at WP:RFPP where administrators who routinely handle protection will be happy to look over the case for you. Shell babelfish 20:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Hey Shell. I sent you an email a couple weeks ago and never got a response. I just remembered that so I came to your Talk page. I was asking if we were going to continue my admin coaching. I don't want to seem pushy but I haven't heard from you in a while so I was just wondering. Thanks! Deflagro Contribs/Talk 17:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Request

[edit]

Hi Shell Kinney,

I was the original author of this article and I had copied it from a Chinese website. Can you please delete that article for me? Thanks. --Jose77 23:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've deleted it. If you've got any other articles you mistakenly copied over when you first found Wikipedia, just let me know and I'll clear those for you as well. Shell babelfish 23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! --Jose77 23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must also confess that this article and this article was copied from a Library book (by me). Can you help me delete those two articles as well? Thanks. --Jose77 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing those out. They've been deleted now as well. Shell babelfish 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads of Fernando Amorsolo paintings

[edit]

Per your message below: I noticed that you tagged all of these as being available under the Free Art License - can you please provide a source that states how these paintings are licensed? I wasn't able to find licensing information on the source you provided and per the research I've done, it appears that these paintings are still under copyright. Thanks. Shell babelfish 14:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply: These images had been tagged as copyrighted already after being assisted by User:Calliopejen1 sometime in August 1, 2007. They are indeed copyrighted as I've learned. At the time of upload, I was fairly new and inexperienced with the taggings especially of copyrighted images. Regards. - Dragonbite 02:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Just wanted to make sure that they were correctly tagged now. Unfortunately, that means that they will be deleted since they don't fall under any of Wikipedia's allowed uses of non-free content. Happy editing! Shell babelfish 13:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a Lock on Gangs

[edit]

Hey if you know how to do it so all these absurd vandals will stop their nonsense, feel free! If not I'll try to figure it out. Will come back and get your response :-) Carol Moore 17:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Honestly I've really only dabbled in page protection so I'm not sure I'm up-to-date on the most recent protection information. However, the folks at WP:RFPP handle protection all the time, so putting a request there would probably be the best place to start. Shell babelfish 17:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel (band) photo

[edit]

I forgot to add the source of the photo. The copyright on the Hotel band photo is not listed and the photo was created prior to 1978 in my estimation. I had thought the source was the Hotel album, which would have been released not in 1977 as I previously thought, but in 1979; however, it's not on my CD which is essentially a CD copy of the album as it has the front artwork on it, so it must have been a promo photo for the 1977 Mercury release that was put out by the band for bookings, and that's the source I added under the photo. Unless someone knows better than I do, that's it. Even if found to be copyrighted, the group has long been disbanded and since no other similar photo could be found, it would also meet fair use rationale and I could add that tag if a copyright claimant or proof of copyright exists.

Does this satisfy the requirements in your opinion or should we go the fair use route? Please leave response on MY talk page --- Thanks.--Bamadude 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi there, I have a Wikipedia question.

We added a photo to our entry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Botanic_Garden

You tagged it thus:

m (Tagging Image:Brooklyn botanic garden cranford rose garden.jpg which is up for deletion per CSD using TW)

Image:Brooklyn_botanic_garden_cranford_rose_garden.jpg|thumb|200px|right|The Cranford Rose Garden|{{deletable image-caption}}

This is a photo that Brooklyn Botanic Garden owns copyright to. We would like to use it on this page, but not offer up rights for others to reproduce it. Is this possible? Or, does wikipedia require that all images on the site be posted into the open commons, free of copyright restrictions?

I’m pretty confused by the Criteria page so I thought I’d contact you directly.

If you could tell me how to tag it so it won’t be deleted, that would be great!

Cheers, eliz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealnico (talk • contribs) 22:29, September 13, 2007

Licenses which restrict the use of the media to non-profit or educational purposes only (i.e. noncommercial use only), are given permission to only appear on Wikipedia or do not allow derivative works are not free enough for Wikipedia's usages or goals. In short, Wikipedia media should be as "free" as Wikipedia's content — both to keep Wikipedia's own legal status secure as well as to allow for as much re-use of Wikipedia content as possible. For the image licenses considered "free" enough, please see Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses. If there's anything more I can do to help, please let me know. Shell babelfish 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I'll read up on policy, I promise! eliz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealnico (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TIM NOMBER JUAN

[edit]

Hi, how are you? We are Tim Nomber Juan and we want to know if you are interested becoming our Mentor, please we need your help! You can contact us in Tim Nomber Juan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Panchana (talk • contribs) 03:23, September 14, 2007

Answered on your group talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia! Shell babelfish 14:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TIM NOMBER JUAN

[edit]

Hi, thank you very much for helping in this project. You can help us a lot if you can talk us about your University, the teachers, the students life, admission facilities, in fact, all the information that you can give us. Again, thanks a lot. Tim Nomber JuanChristian Panchana 15:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TIM NOMBER JUAN

[edit]

Oh I see!, but can you tell us about the time when you went the University, it would be very helpful to us. The quality of the program, the schoolarships, the campus facilities, what they teach well and your student's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Panchana (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for adoption

[edit]

Hello. My user name is ILikePikachu. Adoption was recommended to me by Wknight94 for this eternally blocked user. I hope you accept my request. 72.161.149.136 14:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)(ILikePikachu)[reply]

Camille Loiseau image

[edit]

Please explain why this image was deleted even though it had source-material information.Ryoung122 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had been notified more than once that the photo did not have all the required information. In addition to the source of the image, there also has to be information on the copyright status of the image. See copyright tagging and the image use policy. If you have the information about what copyright the image was released under, its very easy to undelete it. Thanks. Shell babelfish 13:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

[edit]

I was just wondering why you deleted my image. Please respond. Thank you. Srkmet92 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was missing licensing information. Please see the image use policy for more information on what needs to be included with each image. Thanks. Shell babelfish 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re File:GAACollage2.png

[edit]

Can you tell me where i could obtain a Law Degree which would help me understand wiki's ever changing fair use and copyright policys? (Gnevin 17:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There have been no changes that would affect that image. The problem is that you used a copyrighted image in the work, which violates the original owners copyright. If you remove the logo, the image would be fine as the other images you used in the compilation are under a free license. Shell babelfish 18:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their are constant changes , its a joke ,The logo is fair use and was used in a fair use context (Gnevin 20:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
There was no claim of fair use on the image description page and fair-use does not cover re-use of a logo. Were the logo by itself, a fair-use claim for that organization's article could be made, but we can't go throwing copyrighted images onto collages. Shell babelfish 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not this week any way .Maybe next week when some on decides it the way to go, complete farce . The whole copyright policy is totally not understandable by the common user . Gnevin 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TIM NOMBER JUAN

[edit]

Hi, thank you very much for the information about the Universities. It is very helpful for our project. In fact we have other questions. How is the schoolarships program, and about the support for foreign students. The second one what they teach well and about the teachers. Also what did you study and the name of your University. Tim Nomber Juan.Christian Panchana 19:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A liitle question

[edit]

Hi, thank you very much for the details about your University. We also want to know the name of your University and what did you study, please. Tim Nomber Juan.Christian Panchana 02:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

[edit]

Hi. we are Borbotonesteam from the wikiproject for English Advanced B. We have uploaded some information and opinions about the last weeks of work we have had. We also put information about the wikiproject mexico and some more data about us. We hope you have the chance to read our userpage and give us some feedback about it. Thanks for your help.Please anwer at our discussion page. Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/ITESM Campus Toluca/Borbotonesteam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.131.16 (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Dunin AFD

[edit]

Hi Shell. In case you missed them, there's a few questions relating to your comment (particularly in the light of the further reviewing done on the claims made in the article) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 2. Neil ム 08:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm pretty disgust with some of the outrageous claims you made on the Afd and you attempt to pull Elonka's credibility into it. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from using my talk page for a bit until I can continue civil discussion. I will maintain responsibility for keeping an eye on the AfD you are trying so hard to tank. Shell babelfish 13:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

Hi I'm Isaac from los boogeys team, we need a mentor and it would be an honor to have you as our mentor. Could you please help us? Thank you. Los boogeys --IsaacFE 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

[edit]

I think this is turning into a minor edit war. Kirin4 seems set on pushing forth his own agenda about Gore rather than keeping a neutral point of view. I was hoping an admin can give me some advice on how to settle this. Thanks --Coffee and TV 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message to try to direct him to the talk page of the article. Given that his talk page says something about "lets see if admins won't censor", I don't hold out much hope that this is going to be a reasonable discussion. This is likely a sock of some other account or an account with a mission. Shell babelfish 17:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is this? I backed up my edit and the other user deleted without discussion why I am I the guilty party?Kirin4 17:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than one other editor has questioned your edit, including pointing out that the source you are giving does not back up the text you are adding. You can use the talk page of the article to discuss these concerns. Shell babelfish 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little help Turtlescrubber and another editor keep reverting my edits. I back them up on the talk page and then wait for a reply, can you suggest they stop. ThanksKirin4 15:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding, however will you also mention to Turtlescrubber about his conduct.Kirin4 23:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you contact Turtlescrubber he is reverting all my edits which are backed up and are on the tal;k page. I am requesting you warn or block him for a week. He is violating pillars.Kirin4 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

[edit]
For being the first (albeit unwitting) participant in the chipoll! El_C 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very, very afraid right now lol. Shell babelfish 03:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's peanut-and-carrot-related! El_C 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness I'm not a vegetarian. Can I eat the bunnies instead? Shell babelfish 03:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you're willing to risk some high-trajectory fire from the fan club... El_C 04:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh - that might be painful. Shell babelfish 04:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms of Belmonte Princes

[edit]

Good Afternoon,

Recently I have tried to put these pictures (awaiting for 6 monthes on the French CoA Project) on this page to replace the copyrighted ones. [16] As you can see on the revision history, I've replaced the pictures but it was undone by the person who look after this page. I have tried to contact him but he stayed silent. I'm sorry, if I'm not connected on the english wiki but you can answer me on my page on the fr wiki. [17]

--62.160.174.40 12:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JAWS Lake.jpg

[edit]

Hi,

Could you help me by explaining how i change the permissions for this image? I own the photo and its rights and have obviously posted it under the wrong permission —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostshark (talk • contribs) 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since your material is published on another website, you have a special case. Wikipedia can only use your material if you are willing to grant permission for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License or a similarly free license. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely—and even potentially use them commercially—as long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, or try to prevent others from using or copying them freely. This permission needs to be sent to permissions@wikimedia.org from an email address that we can associate with www.amityisland.net.
For your convenience, we suggest you word your release similar to the following:
I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK <insert link>.
I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE <choose at least one from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses>.
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER
If there's anything more I can do to help explain, please let me know. Shell babelfish 01:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that

[edit]

my autographed Image:JR---top-L.jpg would have been okay, but I no longer get involved in these things so you do what you need to do to feel good about yourself. Carptrash 13:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the image policies can be incredible frustrating; its easiest if you remember that everything on Wikipedia should be free and only in cases where there is no other alternative in the universe, we make a case for fair-use of something non-free. Since the album cover itself is still under copyright, we need some kind of fair use case in order to be able to use it or we need to find a free alternative. Thanks. Shell babelfish 19:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and Mo

[edit]

For some reason you or some other lamo deletionista pretending to be you tagged the image used on this article for deletion. Listen: the author makes his work available under creative commons as stated on his site and noted on the image page. And anyway he gave m,e permission to use the image. Find something useful to do on Wp or don't bother. Albatross2147 14:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, except that its a CC non-commercial which is not an acceptable license. Either it needs to have a fair-use rationale or it will be deleted. Thanks. Shell babelfish 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and if he gave you permission to release it under another license, you can just email that permission to permissions@wikimedia.org and someone from OTRS will update the image description. Shell babelfish 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

[edit]

Your nomination of Image:ISight.jpg for deletion on the grounds that it has no license tag is incorrect. First, it has a perfectly good GFDL license, and second, it's on Commons so it can't be deleted from the English Wikipedia. --Carnildo 21:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I've been doing hundreds of those non-cat images lately and must have gotten my wires crossed on that one. Thanks for removing the en page. Shell babelfish 04:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of image talk pages

[edit]

Regarding the deletion of these image talk pages: all of those images exist on commons, and don't really meet WP:CSD#G8. Would you mind undeleting those talk pages that aren't vandalism or frivolous image commentary (image talk pages on the bad image list should have {{badimage}}, in fact)? Thank you. Happy editing (and deleting!), GracenotesT § 17:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look through those images whos talk pages were still not undeleted and restored any that still have an image on Commons. Thanks for the note. Any reason those images don't show through to Wikipedia? Shell babelfish 19:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks From Suspected Sock Puppet at Juice Plus Talkpage

[edit]

There is strong circumstantial evidence indicating that the anonymous SPA at IP 72.254.148.181 (talk · contribs · logs) and 72.255.25.138 (talk · contribs · logs) is the Juice Plus distributor Julia Havey, who has an admitted COI with respect to Juice Plus. Since the anon has twice engaged in harassment and personal attacks,[18][19] while providing nothing constructive to the discussion, a block of this IP group or of contributions from any unregistered users might be warranted. Your thoughts? Rhode Island Red 15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, incivility, except in the case of egregious personal attacks usually isn't considered a reason to block a large range of IP addresses. Since this person has a dynamic IP, ignoring them might be the best option at this point. You might consider Elonka's request for another attempt at mediation, or review the article and sources with a keen eye to try to discover the problems that were pointed out. Shell babelfish 20:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#Block_Review_-_Netmonger.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29

[edit]

Since this was done by mistake, shall we made a comment on his block log saying that it was a mistake? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was a discussion on AN/I which will be archived as well as discussion on his talk page, there will be multiple locations to point to should there ever be a question about the block. However, if the consensus is that this could cause the editor problems in the future, I wouldn't appose a comment being left. Shell babelfish 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jan Bucquoy at Camping Cosmos making a revolutionnary cocktail.JPG

[edit]

27 september: why is this an image for deletion? Karel leermans 18:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was being used in a different article than what the fair-use rationale stated. Shell babelfish 19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is now correct. Karel leermans 21:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, its just fine now. Shell babelfish 10:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:An idea

[edit]

Thanks, I did file an RFCU a little while ago. This guy apparently flipped out when an article he created was nominated for deletion. He kept removing the AfD template on the page, and several editors, myself included, reverted it every time. He apparently took a liking to me, because he's created several impostor accounts, and gone so far as to create an impostor email account, and sign me up for literally scores upon scores of forums. I don't know if he's done the same to others who were involved. Anyways, where in Ohio are you from? I'm from Sandusky, but am in Fort Bragg, NC, for another 2 weeks until I get out of the Army. Regards, Parsecboy 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's pretty much all I have been doing. Reporting his socks, reverting the vandalism, and sending polite emails to the forums I've been signed up for asking to have the accounts disabled. I had another one of these earlier in the summer, and I think he finally got bored and moved on; haven't seen him in months. Regards, Parsecboy 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for taking care of those two images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for the notes - that reminded me to go back and look through all my other uploads in case I hadn't updated them. Shell babelfish 17:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Removing instance of image Jon-donaldson-color.jpg that has been speedily deleted per (CSD I4); using TW)

[edit]

Please advise why this was deleted, having stood unchallenged for six months? I had thought its rationale was clearly expressed; the photo is the personal property of the man's widow, who had given full (verbal) permission for its use on wikipedia and elsewhere. Thanks, --Ndaisley 20:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several reasons. First, the photographer is unknown, yet there is no assertion of who actually owns the copyright to the photo - just because a photo is in my possession, I do not automatically own the copyright. Secondly, "specifically for use on websites, and to disseminate information about her husband's work." is not releasing all rights - requiring that the photo be used on websites or to disseminate information puts restrictions on the photo, thus it is not a full release. Since Wikipedia's license means that any entity could be using our material, photographs must be licensed in ways that permit that reuse or must be tagged as "non-free". And finally, the widow would need to send an email to permissions at wikimedia dot org - or a letter to the Foundation stating what license she is choosing to release the image under. Hope that helps - see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for further assistance with copyright policy. Shell babelfish 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images based on photographs of Nobel Prize (R) Medals

[edit]
Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg

I had just agreed with your changes, when along came the PD-US-license reverter again. Could you please investigate the most recent editing change; again, it creates problems. It is not accurate. The image that User:David.Monniaux created (his photograph) is published in Wikipedia in 2005 (originally); the PD license is misleading. It is also unnecessary. The image is claimed to be within "fair use"; please see my reply to you in the image page. Thank you. --NYScholar 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the meantime, I undid the revision; but I remain open to your replies. (If an appropriate license tag (if even necessary) is found that does not create inconsistencies and related problems of perception, I think that would be good to have. One really does not want to confuse inexperienced Wikipedia users who might come along in the future and misunderstand what can be done w/ this image on Wikipedia and elsewhere.) --NYScholar 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image talk:DSCN0732.JPG is the other image, where similar problems in licensing are occurring; in dispute. Thank you for any assistance that you might be able to provide. --NYScholar 18:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have looked more closely at the tag. Since the medal design was published in 1902 and has not changed, it appears that US law considers this to be public domain - the image should be tagged as such. There is also an explanation of why the use of the logo also meets fair-use rationale. You have been on about these images for a year and have yet to find anyone who agrees with your interpretation of the law; perhaps its time to move on? Shell babelfish 19:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you did look at the tag. It is not accurate to say that I "have yet to find anyone who agrees with [my] intepretation of the law"; prior discussions have been inconclusive because some people have agreed with it and some people haven't. Please be more careful and examine the previous discussion (it is extensive); your summary of it is not accurate. I provide a direct link to [20] in my talk page. It is true that I really cannot take more time with this (as I've said over a year ago now). It came up again via other images that popped up on my "watch" some time about a week ago. I really had not been involved in this newer dispute until the infobox image in Nobel Prize occurred. I really think these matters are still unresolved and that these image page descriptions do not meet Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines pertaining to use of such images. If I thought differently, I would not have persisted. The image page description in the case of the one you worked on today was a mess; I thought that your changes had improved it. Please check the dates; even relating to "Public domain", using the earliest date possible (1902), the images from which the content derives are still copyright-protected (as well as registered trademarks of the Nobel Foundation: see Work for hire#Copyright duration. In Wikipedia, concerning potential copyright and/or trademark violations, one really does need to take a conservative position (acc. to Wikipedia). The claim that the designs of the medals were not "commissioned" Work for hire in Sweden does not seem legitimate. I think it needs more investigation. I would be happy to have others do the investigating. But I think the license featured needs to be entirely accurate. It appears to me that in order to "allow" or "permit" some images in Wikipedia, inaccurate statements are being presented on the image pages. That should not be happening (in my view). There is no necessity for some of these images even to appear in the articles in which they are inserted; they are merely decorative illustrations and not adding to information in the articles. I wouldn't mind them being there if their presentation were entirely accurate; but that is not the case. Please see the criteria for good articles pertaining to images using in them. These images need to meet the standards of such criteria. An important question is: Do they? --NYScholar 19:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment about the "Fair use rationale": it was I who initially provided it and who revised it prior to your changes. I attempted to provide an up-until-that-point "Fair use rationale" and revised its format after it had been altered to a first-person account, so that the presentation of the claims for the image would be more in keeping with the uploaders' references to "fair use." If the image were "in the public domain" as claimed, there would not need to be a "Fair use rationale" for the image page. A reason why such a "Fair use rationale" is necessary is because the basis of the image, the photograph, is a "Derivative work" which has content that is still a registered trademark of the Swedish Nobel Foundation and a replica of its currently still-copyright-protected images (according to its notices).
Adding the "public domain" template tag really confuses the nature of the image. The image itself (User:David.Monniaux's photograph was not "published" prior to 1923 in the U.S.; it was published in Wikipedia in 2005 initially (when first uploaded) and then published again when uploaded again, most recently in March 2007. This is the "image" that is in Wikipedia, not the actual medal that was designed in 1901-1902 and first minted in 1902. Please read the article on the history of the Nobel Prize (R) Medal designs in the website of the Nobel Foundation which is linked in the talk page, on my current talk page and which was linked until you removed the link in the image page. It is the source of the information pertaining to the designs of the Nobel Foundation's Nobel Prize (R) Medals.
The Nobel Foundation commissioned the designs in 1901 and they were "completed" in 1902 for most of the Nobel Prizes (R) (which were presented in 1901 without medals because they were finished yet. The Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal was completed later. The person credited in the article "modeled" the medals for the Nobel Foundation. The designs themselves were not "published": the medals were minted and then presented. Images of the medals in photographs are copyrighted by the Nobel Foundation and they are used as its registered trademark (according to its site).
Some Wikipedians using an extremely odd and unsupported idea of what "published" means in relation to minted medals are claiming "public domain" in the U.S.. But such claims are not consistent with the notices on the Nobel Foundation's website and are contradicted by the fact that there has been correspondence between the Wikipedia Foundation and the Nobel Foundation (apparently) relating to its notice.
Since images that the Nobel Foundation provides are in its website and can be linked to as sources (though not inserted into the articles as images), the information provided by these Wikipedia-posted images is not additonal information in the Nobel-Prize related articles. The webpage with all the images of the medals is already listed in the article Nobel Prize and via the template for Nobel Laureates. In the past, these Nobel Prize (R) images were removed by administrators from these articles.
To emphasize, I point out again that I have no "dislike" of the particular Wikipedians' images in question; I just want their image pages to feature claims, licenses, and templates that are fully consistent with Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines pertaining to all other images.
Currently, the "public domain" template conflicts with the author's (the Nobel Foundation's) claims to its proprietary rights to images of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals and its right to restrict uses of them. The image derived from the photograph of the medal on display is extremely similar to the images on the Nobel Foundation's website (a replica of them).
The image on the image page (the edited version of David Monniaux's photograph) itself was not "published" in the U.S. or elsewhere prior to 1923, as the notice claims. The design of the image of the Nobel Prize (R) Medal was also not published in the U.S. or abroad; the design and model of the medal was "completed" in 1902 in Sweden. Its Registered trademarks and copyrights are still in force in Sweden and they appear to be trademarks and copyrights that are protected by the Berne convention as well, to which the U.S. is a signatory.
The current "public domain" template tag reads: "The three-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States before 1923"; that is not accurate. The 1947 medal depicted in this image (David Monniaux's photograph) was not "published in the United States before 1923"; nor was any other of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals (the "three-dimensional work[s] of art") "published in the United States before 1923." I don't see how "public domain in the U.S." template tag applies to Monniaux's photograph-based image uploaded from 2005-2007 in Wikipedia at all. --NYScholar 20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even reading that. Making your claims over and over using lengthier paragraphs each time you tell me doesn't change the underling problem. Your interpretation of copyright law contradicts current usage on Wikipedia. Since I am not an expert, I have suggested you bring this up with the legal counsel for Wikipedia, or the community at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where someone may feel they have the time to answer your eternal arguments. Shell babelfish 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that. [I threaded this comment and yours and separated the discussion from what follows, which is not related, by adding a heading for it. Hope that's okay. --NYScholar 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hearn Generating Station

[edit]

Excuse me. I wrote and edited most of the article on the Hearn Generating Station. You flagged my photo hearn.jpg. I took the photo myself with my camera in the station in June 1983. Please, I would like it back on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill1983 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you just need to decide what copyright you'd like to release the photograph under. For a list of licenses you can use on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. Let me know if you need help figuring out how to get the template on the image description page or if there's anything else I can do to help. Shell babelfish 04:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I put in a copyright statement. I hope it is correct now, thanks. -Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.184.99 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rodryg Dunin

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rodryg Dunin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodryg Dunin (2nd Nomination). Thank you. Mindraker 11:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RE: ADOPTION

[edit]

Is that a yes to adopting me or a no? People have said that they will adopt me but they havent been active to tell me. (please say yes) :-? Lassie2501 02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Rodryg Dunin

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rodryg Dunin, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mindraker 21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (unintentional vandalism/test)[reply]

Hrm, I reverted your blanking of sources and I'm the one vandalizing? I believe you may be a bit confused; you seem to have been a productive Wikipedia editor in the past. I'm not sure if you and Elonka had some kind of disagreement that has led to your bizarre behavior as of late, but continuing this type of behavior is unlikely to end well. Happy editing. Shell babelfish 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please consult WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:Citing_sources. Thank you. Mindraker 14:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already survived multiple Afd discussions, so the community seems to disagree with you about the encyclopedic worth. Since you were the one removing sources, perhaps you could review the policies on verifiability and citing sources? Can you explain why it is that you continue to remove sources and sourced information? How about explaining the nasty comments you are making about Elonka on other people's talk pages? Shell babelfish 21:28, 3 November

2007 (UTC)

Shell, actually those two refs only mention the dates of birth and death as far as I can see. Is that correct? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, your new buddy Mindraker is the one who took out the original refs and put the one's you're questioning in to begin with. I really have no further interest in the drama being created surrounding these articles. I'm sure if everyone works long enough, all the Dunin articles can be brought to a poor state that allows their AfDs to achieve the result you want. Shell babelfish 20:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting the article deleted is not my mission and its not going to happen anyway. I'll take a look at the refs and maybe try to come up with a version of the article in my sandbox, which has no OR and relies on sources. I'll let you know when I'm done and maybe you could give your opinion on it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Matt, I'm just not interested in another wikilawyering session. Feel free to rewrite the article to your standards; I've tried reasoning and discussing with you and it simply hasn't worked. The fact is that if Elonka didn't edit Wikipedia, none of this would even be a question - that's a rather blatant lack of common sense and a detriment to the articles you've targeted. Your work on these articles has been strictly removal; you have yet to add anything positive or make the articles better. I hope you can find a constructive way to resolve your concerns and stop blaming this on some hidden cabal attempting to thwart your efforts. Happy editing. Shell babelfish 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If all I wanted to do is remove information, I wouldnt have done stuff like this. Ok, I'll not engage you in discussion for any of these articles, although you're welcome to give your input anytime on their talk pages if you want to. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few cleanup edits in the midst of the massive removals does not a positive contribution make. Shell babelfish 03:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. I refer Shell to Wikipedia policy and I come back two days later to find this nonsense on Wikipedia and private email. Take a deep breath, people. Stop fingerpointing. I really hope you do a better job than this on the Arbitration Committee, Shell. Mindraker 12:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mindraker, I have never sent you an email, nor do I appreciate you calling our discussion nonsense. You removed citations - you did not remove uncited information or provide a new source, you simply deleted the sources, period. In fact, you do not even claim the sources are incorrect, just that you don't like the citation format. Furthermore, you were the one who originally inserted the sources. Boggles the mind really. There is a world of difference between your behavior and Matt's - for example, Matt doesn't leave condescending and attacking messages or use ethnic slurs (which, by the way, is what you were actually blocked for). We were having a civil discussion of the difference in our views on OR; feel free to join in if you'd like. Shell babelfish 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that citation was put in by user:Piotrus see here, but apparently you're more interested in mudthrowing. I have more than once brought up the issue of OR, even related to that web page. see here

Please continue, this conversation is QUITE amusing. Mindraker 19:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well then you must have just copied it other places. You also talked about its inclusion on the talk page of the article. You do realize that the correct way to handle a citation like that is to look yourself and include the information, not remove it, right? Shell babelfish 22:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did reference a family tree web page when it became clear there was a lack of sources (and subsequently removed it, according to your own advice, see the Family subsection of the discussion page). That is the source you are referring to, not the source Piotrus added, which is an entirely different source. You are very confused. I will quote you here:

"Unfortunately, the website you're using as a source is nothing more than html auto-generated by a family tree program. The person who entered the data may or may not have correct information and the information may or may not be complete. I know my own foray into genealogy got rather iffy on dates the farther back I looked. Shell babelfish 02:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)" You can't spite us for following directions. Mindraker 22:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can you please explain why you removed the source instead of fixing it so that it was cited the way you wanted to see it? And in the section you're quoting, you were trying to exclude information based on the fact that it was missing at the family tree site you pointed to. Shell babelfish 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused. Some information in the Wikipedia article on Rodryg Dunin was attributed to the Polish Biographical Dictionary, which did not actually appear in the PBD transcript. (One doesn't have to speak Polish, some things were obvious, like missing marriage dates.) Therefore, more sources were required to verify this information. Unfortunately, the source which I provided (namely, the family tree website) was not to your liking (see your quote above concerning the 'family tree program' from the family subsection of Rodryg Dunin discussion page). You don't like a family tree program in one instance, yet you will allow this family tree... oh wait see here! Mindraker 00:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that you are interested in having a productive discussion. You accused me of vandalism for replacing the sources you removed for not being to your liking. You still have yet to look at the Polish Biographical Dictionary and instead continue to make claims based on the bit pasted to the talk page of the article; this is just silly. You refuse to answer questions about why you delete data and refuse to answer questions about why you feel your editing is appropriate given your external connection to Elonka. If you're unwilling to have these discussions, perhaps we can just agree that we disagree on these points. Shell babelfish 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to get upset, I have answered your questions several times now. If you feel that you were incorrect in advising me that the family tree website was to be deleted, that's fine.

FYI, "that bit" in Polish, is the article.  :) Ever consult the "Who's Who" book? Alright, that's what this is. It isn't a 5-page long Newsweek article. Mindraker 10:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: just to make sure we're on the same page -- the "Gazeta" article -- that's the alleged newspaper article, are we agreed? Mindraker 12:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So again - have you read the Polish Biographical Dictionary article from the source and not just from the talk page? Why would you delete a source (again, the advice I gave you elsewhere was NOT related to removing a source for boring biographical data)? And why do you continue to edit these articles when you have a clear conflict of interest? Shell babelfish 19:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the information on the talk page is from the Gazeta (Newspaper) source, not the PBD (Polish Biographical Dictionary) source. Not to mention the fact that the entire text of the Wikipedia article can be traced, sentence for sentence, word for word, to this article.

I put up a link to download the PBD article, but it was removed by Piotrus [21] (my mistake on that one, something about commercial sites). Please do ask something more original and enlightening instead of the same thing over and over. This discussion is as stale as that Cheerio I found on my floor this morning. Mindraker 23:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd simply answer any of the questions, we could move on. Are you now claiming that the text on the talk page is not from the PBD? (please note that the link you provided in that diff was to a book shop selling the PBD and two posts up you claimed it as the entire PBD article) It appears that you are again suggesting the article violates copyright, is this correct? You are claiming the article is a word for word copy of the 1928 Gazeta Rolnicza article? Shell babelfish 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I have answered your questions several times now. I'm going to let your temper cool, and not answer this anymore. Please see WP:CIVIL Mindraker 23:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but apparently I've missed where you have answered the questions. Could you point me to that please? Also, did you noticed I actually asked a new question to try to clarify your last post? Shell babelfish 23:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR and personal/family sources (arbitrary section break)

[edit]
Shell, before the Stanley Dunin article was deleted, it was essentially stripped and 'mass removed' as well. Were you against that? That was all OR in the article. There are many OR statements in other articles as well. Many people have admitted that. Anyway, dont worry, again, I'm not out to delete these articles and am not in any hurry of any kind. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issues of the Stanley Dunin article were that the focal claim of notability could not be verified. This is a perfectly reasonable deletion reason, however, gutting the biographical backfill on the article was unnecessary and completely beside the point of the AfD. It would be much different if what was being removed from these articles was contentious information, but what's being disputed is marriage dates, places of residence and other minor trivia that helps to flesh out the article - I just don't see what this accomplishes. If you'd like, I can take a tour through our biographies and show you other instances where family or self websites are used to add bland background data to the article - its rather common practice.
I understand your concern about OR. We can't have people creating websites just to provide references for what they'd like to see in articles. Major points, points of notability and anything at all beyond rather bland fact needs a credible source. However, so long as reliable secondary sources can be verified that support the existence of an article, do we really have a reason to doubt uncontested, unexciting biographical facts published by a family member? Shell babelfish 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good question (whether uncontentious information can be derived from family member's websites). I had asked this question before somewhere else. I'll look again and let you know what other people said and we'll see what outsiders have to say on this. In my opinion, no, personal websites are not enough for any information because they're not reliable sources, however it looks like WP policy does allow self-published sources, so I'll see what other people have to say on this. Yes, please show me some other bios where peronal websites have been used and I might be able to look at this from a more nuetral point of view. Our history in this dispute has made us biased somewhat, so it helps to view stuff from other angles. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started making a list and then lost it when my computer bluescreened :( I'll start looking some up again, but a few I remember offhand:

If you're interested in some examples of articles based mostly on self-published works, let me know and I'll include some of those as well as I rebuild the list my computer ate :P Shell babelfish 00:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the blue screen of death. I had a nice program once which saved all my keystrokes and if something happened, I could go back. Anyway mm, lets see: Neel Doff. I didnt see his descendent link anything here to his own personal website. The articles we're talking about, the issue is not who put in these materials. Its how its being sourced. Similiarly about Gregory Yob. Andrea who's worked on this article, sourced this to a news website, which is a reliable source. So these are all okay articles - they're nicely sourced. I didnt check the other two examples, but these two look okay to me. What do you think. Did you mean to show me articles with sources which had family/personal websites as sources, or did I miss seeing something? In Claud Beelman, I could not find any personal website sources as well. The desecendent may have written the article, but thats okay - as long as they are sourcing it properly. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I would suggest looking at the sources so you can see what percentage comes from a reliable source and what has been added from personal knowledge/websites. I'll have to find you the personal site of Msrs. Doff and Beelman - from having worked with both of them, I know that the information they included is sourced to their own sites/information and not from newspapers. If you look at the link I included next to Gregory Yob, you'll see someone added info based on an interview they conducted with family. The interesting thing about Gerald Mohr is that the bulk of the article is based on a random fan site - which somehow is counted as more reliable and not OR, even though the fan wrote a great deal of this article? I'll keep looking for other examples as I have time - this occur mostly on articles that are not highly notable, i.e. secondary sources are hard to find for biographical details. Shell babelfish 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But details drawn from unreliable sources may be false, even if they're not at first glance "controversial." It's not enough that something sounds plausible to a reviewer without expertise in the subject.168.103.150.1 08:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is wrong. He provided no source for his additions. Gerald Mohr's fansite would also not be a reliable source. It would fail WP:V and therefore, WP:RS. A lot of information in this article is unsourced. I've still not gotten around to ask people as to what extent family sites are acceptable as sources for an article; will do soon. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, LindaWood.bravehost.com is a self-published site and therefore, not a RS as per WP:SELFPUB. That goes for any family or personal website. If I was a fan of George Bush and made a personal website about him (like Linda did here), that would not be a reliable source for the article. If we cant find enough sources because the article is not highly notable as you say, then, that information should not be included. If its not notable, it should be deleted anyway but - poor quality sources should not be used just because we cant find any real sources. In order to make a high quality encyclopedia, tada.. everything must be sourced to a RS, as we've heard a million times before. I'll see what people have to say. Now, I could go after Gerald Mohr's article and take out poorly sourced information that is there right now and I would be doing the right thing. I might do it, however I'll leave it out there for someone else to fix and you know, if they did that, they would be right and their actions could not be contested. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:boneofherown

[edit]

I was debating whether to block that one myself, because it wasn't necessarily sexual and there was an apparent good faith edit in the contribs. I'm new at this, though; am just curious to hear your reasoning as part of my learning process. Dppowell 04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me that's pretty obviously a sexual reference; if someone comes up with another explanation for it though, I wouldn't mind unblocking. When a user has good contributions like that, there's no harm in leaving a personal note on their userpage. I also always make sure to use one of the {{usernameblocked}} templates in the block reason so they have instructions right up front for handling the problem. Also, when the user had good contributions, I make sure that account creation and autoblock aren't checked so there will be little difficulty for them to move to an appropriately named account. Shell babelfish 05:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks--trying not to have an overly-heavy hand as I learn the ropes. :-) Dppowell 05:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Its always easier to ask first than apologize later :) If you ever run in to any other questions, feel free to drop me a line. Shell babelfish 07:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reQall

[edit]

I request you to keep the article since I will make the necessary changes that would make it Wikipedic. Please give me an example for me to understand from the page to understand the problem. I really want to make it non promotional and an biased. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by NavaDavuluri (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugarrón

[edit]

I don't object to the page being moved to Wikidictionary. That's all I could find on the word. There were some 'urban dictionary' pages in Spanish, but I knew I couldn't cite them. I guess we'll leave it up to Wikidictionary. Mindraker 22:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CousinTree.svg

[edit]

I'm sorry to put up a fuss about the deletion of the self-made image, CousinTree.svg, but my friends and I have been able to view the image for months now. If the image appeared empty or corrupt to you, it must have been a temporary problem with Wikipedia's servers, not a problem with my image (originally created in Inkscape, subsequently edited and reuploaded by another Wikipedian). If you could provide some sort of clarification on exactly what you saw that made you speedily-delete the image, as well as some insight as to what our options are now, I would appreciate it. LinkTiger 17:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd. When I click on the link to the image on my talk page, it appears to be gone forever, accompanied by a line of text saying you deleted it for being corrupt/empty; however, when I create my own link (like in the comment above) or manually type the image name into the search box, the Image description page is alive and well, as is the thumbnail on the Cousin article. Before, I was curious. Now I'm intrigued. Exactly what is going on here? —LinkTiger 17:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you also uploaded the image to Commons. All images on Commons show through on the Wikipedia's so they can be used by all projects. I deleted the copy that was here on the english Wikipedia to avoid someone accidentally updating the wrong copy. Hope that helps! Shell babelfish 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I don't remember ever uploading the file to en.Wikipedia (I went right to the commons), but thanks for correcting the issue, however it came to be. —LinkTiger 04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of faked OTRS permissions

[edit]

Hi, as you are the author of this edit I thought I should inform you of this image deletion discussion. One should really be on the lookout for this kind of faked OTRS permissions, it is not the first one I have seen. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault; the image wasn't listed in the ticket and I made the mistake of assuming too much good faith. Should have clicked on the link to verify the image. Thanks for the heads up! Shell babelfish 14:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use image

[edit]

I saw that you closed speedy deletion nominations at Image:4000 interior.jpg and Image:4000family.jpg, claiming that these images were nonreplaceable. I'm not sure that was appropriate, though, given that they're just a pictures trucks. It's clearly possible to take free images of the interior and exterior of trucks still in use. The uploader himself has noted on one of these pages: "If I get the opportunity I will be getting my own photos." I've subsequently listed the image at images for deletion. He mentioned your name in a thread on my talk page, so I thought I'd notify you about my new nomination. -- RG2 21:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all I did was add a switch to the promo template that takes it out of the "image missing a rationale" category. I completely support the deletion; in fact, you likely could have speedied all of them for having improper rationales. I've explained on his talk page that I was not supporting the rationale, just noting that one existed. Thanks for the note. Shell babelfish 13:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the company states that images may be used in a way that is not detrimental to the company; I don't see how this is not a 'proper' rationale. does anyone here have a life outside of this site?? some of us have to work for a living.--Lpimlott (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine for most places, however, since Wikipedia's goal is to be free for all to use, any image that could be replaced by one under a free license is alway preferable. Otherwise, some very specific copyright licensing or language is required. I'm sorry this has been frustrating for you; image work on Wikipedia is an area that requires a great deal of reading and understanding of the GFDL among other licensing issues. Please try to refrain from comments that could be considered personal attacks in the future, other editors are unlikely to respond well to those types of comments and the behavior may lead to your account being blocked. Thanks. Shell babelfish 18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean anything personal; I merely meant that I simply don't have the time to spend here researching that other people seem to have. What has me confused is that these images came up for deletion before, and after I disputed it the decision was made to keep; by whom I don't know. My intent was to leave them there until alternatives can be found. What I've noticed on professional photographers' sites is their photos are somehow protected against downloading (ie "right-click--save as"). How they do this I don't know. I'm sure International wouldn't have any problems with images from their site being used here; they'd probably consider it promotional :) Otherwise they probably wouldn't be downloadable. I based my use rationale on what is said in their FAQ. I used to run an automotive info site Chevy Cavalier and I wouldn't object to images from it being used here. Anyways, once again I did not mean to be offensive :) Thanks.--Lpimlott (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry - it took me a good 6 months of being here before I had a grasp of the image policies, and I understood a great deal of copyright before hand :) I'm pretty sure International wouldn't mind either (in fact, you might even try emailing them and see if they'd be willing to release some photos under a "free" license), but what matters to Wikipedia is the actual copyright, which International holds and has not released in a way that is compatible with our licensing - in other words, it wouldn't actually be legal for us to use them, even if we might not get sued. You might see if the folks who frequent Wikipedia:Media copyright questions could give you a tutorial of how Wikipedia policies work with images -- they're a great bunch to ask any time questions come up. Thanks again. Shell babelfish 20:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom questions

[edit]

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
    Admin, OTRS
  2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
    I can help and have the skills to do so.
  3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
    Yes, I've taken two cases to arbitration, [Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh|Shiloh] and Monicasdude. In both cases, I was a party.
  4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
    I think the Attack sites case was a bit of a mess. It was a sticky thing to be going into and ended up producing a rambling list of decisions to try to remind the community of our policies. I think it would have made a lot more sense to either just clarify the earlier ruling or, once the case was opened, deal with the problematic behavior instead of making general statements.
  5. Why do you think users should vote for you?
    Because you probably don't know who I am -- this means I manage to contribute, clean-up, mediate and work for OTRS and still manage to resolve problems without creating issues and or drama. (Don't take this too far out of context - if Durova doesn't get a seat on ArbCom, it will be a sad, sad day.)

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given recent events, ending with Durova's withdrawal of her ArbCom bid and resignation of adminship, I've removed that portion of your statement; you can re-add it on the Signpost pages if you wish. Ral315 » 03:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring Barnstar

[edit]
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
message thanks for helping out my students! You made a lasting impression on them! Thelmadatter (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

An FYI - SRNC closed over a year ago and hasn't been disturbed since. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SRNC may have been closed, but the debate is brought up on the Admin boards and other places ad nausuem, or at least thats how it feels to someone not involved in the discussion. Shell babelfish 15:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its great that you put together that table -- in fact, that's exactly the type of thing I was talking about for ArbCom cases -- a summary table could do worlds of good in that sometimes convoluted atmosphere. Shell babelfish 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Maybe I can help you with that. I hope to win Newyorkbrad for the idea, too. He wrote to me something about ArbCom beeing too complicated a year ago. I'll ask him. — Sebastian 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]

See User talk:65.189.175.10. Was the indefinite block intentional? Also, could you explain why you did a block? From a quick glance, it looks like the edits were made in good faith. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was supposed to be indefinite in the hope that the person would give up and I could unblock the IP later. While they are now claiming the edits were made in good faith, the problem has been going on for some time from different accounts and IP addresses. They are trying to spin the article based on their feeling that the school is poor -- the fluff piece that's there now needs to be fixed, but calling it remedial and reverting anyone who tries to change it wasn't the way to do it. If they're willing to try writing from a neutral point of view and using the talk page when other editors disagree, there shouldn't be any problem unblocking the IP address. Thanks for checking! Shell babelfish 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay. I'll be checking to see if the user keeps up the same behavior in the future. Best, Nishkid64 (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

172.*, agreed but...

[edit]

I agree it's far to large a block range for any direct action, but I was hoping to get some more people, especially admins, to keep an eye on this. It's clear that someone is targeting specifically, especially since they have repeated the content of their vandalism multiple times ("CJ Currie is a fag"). --Kickstart70-T-C 05:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If its just that particular page that keeps getting vandalised, page protection might be an option. Considering that the person is editing from an AOL address, there's very little that blocking is going to do to stop them. Shell babelfish 05:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps name confusion, I was so sure!

[edit]

I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out how I could possibly confuse you with another editor here searching the archives of the talk pages where I was sure I saw your name. It was not there. The only idea I can come up with is that I confused you with Jkelly and linked my memories associated with the opinions of that user with your name. I am still puzzled on how could this possibly happen as I seemed to have clearly remembered a two word "Firstname Lastname" type user name which looked exactly like yours in connection with this. Perhaps a memory glitch.

Anyway, I most sincerely apologize for ascribing to you the views that in fact belong to someone else. It was a regrettable mistake. I will now strike my vote with an explanation and leave a talk page message to the users who voted citing my concerns. My vote was indented and supplied with an explanation promptly and I hope this should have warned the editors who came to vote at later time.

If I vote on your candidacy later, my erroneously cast vote would in no way affect my judgment. I would like to thank you for bringing my error to my attention in such a gracious and courteous way.

Best regards, --Irpen 06:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Stevens mediation request

[edit]

Hi - Despite the way he wrote this up, this is not a dispute between BoogaLouie and me - and it is not something that has just come up now - in fact nothing has been discussed about this since September as far as I recall. There were other editors involved in the discussions - in particular Sherurcij who in fact is the editor who came up with the wording we agreed to in July when we forked off the long discussions on the subject into a subarticle - and the main page has been quiet on this matter since the wording was posted and the fork created with only one minor tweak to this section recently. Booga Louie objects to this approach but has gotten no support that I recall. I appreciate your offer to help, but I don't accept the personalizing of this as being a dispute between Booga Louie and me, so I decline to participate under those circumstances. In fact he mentioned wanting arbitration quite a while ago and no one came in to support the request. Again, there is a long subarticle -Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie - that goes into much more detail - which is why we created that sub article: for when more was in the main article which characterized the man's statements and alleged positions, more had to be added to balance that and not give one side undue weight - and the end result was that the entire incident was receiving too much weight in the overall main biography - a point that has been made repeatedly, and not just by me. The short summary section pointing to a long subarticle with the details seemed the best way to handle this. BoogaLouie says that this is the most controversial thing the man has ever said - but that's just his POV. A link to the sub article is prominently displayed, and the subarticle goes into the detail. So - I don't know how you want to proceed, but as I said, I object to this being characterized as a dispute between Booga Louie and me - indeed, nothing has been discussed about this since September - and so I don't see this as a matter requiring mediation as described. I am interested in what you think, however. Nice to meet you, by the way.Tvoz |talk 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also - please be sure to see the lengthy discussion here and on the rest of the talk page of the subarticle, as only a portion of it was copied over to the main article's talk page, and much of the arguments for keeping the summary short are made there. Thanks. Tvoz |talk 20:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Photo Speedy Delete

[edit]

Hi Shell Kinney - We noticed that you put a speedy deletion on the image (photo) that was added yesterday. No problem with that really, but just wanted to explain that we have been looking for representative photos that were reproducable for the article, and this one was chosen at least for the time being because it ties in with the bluegrass element. Hopefully, we'll have a better bluegrass photo in coming weeks - we have a request with Peter Somerville, banjo player for the band, who is doing what he can in Australia. Could we leave the present photo in the article until we find something better, or do you think it's best to proceed with the speedy delete? Thanks for your attention to improving the article! Much appreciated. You could reply to my talk page if you wish. Cheers. --Georgette.mccallum (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for your prompt reply Shell. The source of the photo was the previous article that had been deleted, and the Wikipedia source-trail states that it was made by the subject of the article (no copyright issues/public domain). It was the only bluegrassy one we could find, this go-around, that was digital and thus loadable onto Wikipedia without a lot of trouble. (In fact, it had already been loaded previously, which made it easy this time.) Having said that, if you think it should be deleted, maybe the best thing is for us just to go ahead and delete it now, and wait until a better photo surfaces. Kindly let us know your thoughts, and we'll be happy to go along with them. Cheers,--Georgette.mccallum (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New admin coachee

[edit]

Is it okay if I put my name in your list of students on the admin coaching page? Please respond on my talk page. Best, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question

[edit]

Hi Shell Kinney - I've gone ahead and put in a copyright tag in the Forrester article, as per our previous discussion. (Public domain - photo owned/made by Gary Forrester). Could you please let me know if I've done this right, and if the delete notice has been appropriately removed? I don't think this photo will be the final one for the article, but I wanted to clean up the history anyway. Also, a very large "copyright" notice now appears in the article under the photo, so large that it detracts a bit from the article. Is there a way that this information can be "hidden" from the article itself but remain in the history? Thanks --Georgette.mccallum (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for the help with the photo. Now I'll have to figure out how to do "categories" and other links to Wikipedia stuff (stubs, etc.). It's kind of fun working this out. --Georgette.mccallum (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Request to remove an image from speedy deletion list

[edit]

Many thanks for your kind attention in alerting me to the problem with the image: Dignitaries.jpg. I have now added a fair use template to the image. I hope that the status is now satisfactory and that you will remove it from the list for speedy deletion.

This was my first time inserting an image and I've had to struggle some. In addition to the template problem, I'm was unable to present the image in its natural size within the article. (The version in the article is much smaller than the version viewed by double clicking). If you could possibly assist me in correcting this problem, it would contribute to enhancing the article on History of the Jews in Lebanon. Regards,

--Philopedia (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleting the article T.W.G.Hs. Kap Yan Directors' College

[edit]

Hi, I'm a new user on wikipedia and as I searched for my school's article -- It wasn't there. According to the "deleting log?" You were one of the users who deleted that article. I just want to know, why? Hope to see your reply soon, Brittanity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brittanity (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I deleted one edit that was a copyright violation quite some time ago (March 2006). Per the deletion log, the most recent deletion was back in August:
  • 16:55, August 26, 2007 Xoloz (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Kap Yan Directors' College" ‎(expired prod (nn)) (Restore)
Articles on Wikipedia are deleted according to our deletion policy. It appears the article was deletion because an editor believed the page didn't belong in an encyclopedia and proposed its deletion. Possible reasons include being not verifiable from outside sources, or because it was a page on a person, group, or idea that is not sufficiently well-known for an encyclopedia article. Pages proposed for deletion can be deleted by any administrator if, after five days, nobody objects to the proposed deletion.
If you believe after reading the deletion policy that your article was unfairly deleted, you can bring up the article at Deletion Review where the community can take another look to see if the article was deleted in error. Shell babelfish 07:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

Hey Shell, hope you're well. Just a note to say I sent you an email :) Cheers, Daniel 08:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote on my RfA

[edit]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1.

Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well.

I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely.

Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chakras_hand.gif

[edit]

Why did you delete this image? I have provided evidence that I am the creator of said image. Just because it was labeled a "suspected copyright infringement" doesn't mean it is one. [23] Please restore it and I will have a look at the license it is released under. Thanks Sfacets 08:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showing us a website with a sample image uploaded isn't the same as proving you are the copyright owner. It was not an identical image at the location you gave and currently, we have no proof that you are the owner of that domain. If you would like to release the images, please send an email to permissions (at) wikimedia (dot) org stating which images you are releasing and under what license from an email address that we can associate with the website you provided. If you let me know when that's done, I will be happy to go check for the email, undelete the image and fix the rest of them for you as well. Please let me know if there is anything more I can do to help. Shell babelfish 14:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

[edit]

Hi, I saw that I got a tag-mark on my page, regarding how to deal with harassment and patronising etc, on Wikipedia.

I'm a bit new on Wikipedia.

I have tried to go through the Dispute resolution process, with the user, but the user exited the process.

So the issue wasn't resolved.

And then the user re-appeared, on my discussion page, and continued to write posts, even if the dispute wasn't resolved.

So I've written a question for advice on my discussion-page.

So if you have the time to have a look at this, then that would be very fine I think.

Hope that this is alright, and thanks in advance for the help!

Johncons (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great success!

[edit]
  1. ^ "IXImager Bad Sector Drive Imaging Study". IXImager Bad Sector Drive Study available to US governmental agencies and law enforcement request only. 2007-01-217. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "EnCase 5.03 Imaging - T&E". EnCase 5.03 Imaging - US governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies may request this study. 2005-11-30. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "X-Ways Forensics 12.2 - T&E". X-Ways Forensics 12.2 - Test and Evaluation available to US governmental agencies and law enforcement request only. 2005-08-30. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "Known Bad Sector Test Drive Creation - Study". Known Bad Sector Test Drive Creation Study available to US governmental agencies and law enforcement request only. 2006-12-06. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ "HP xw4400 Workstation - T&E". HP xw4400 Workstation - US governmental agencies and law enforcement may request a copy of this study. 2006-10-26. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ "Dell 690 - T&E". Dell 690 - Test and Evaluation available to US governmental agencies and law enforcement request only. 2006-12-29. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ "Dell 670 Workstation - T&E". Dell 670 Workstation - Test and Evaluation available to US governmental agencies and law enforcement request only. 2006-12-29. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ "IXimager 2.3 - T&E". IXimager 2.3 - Test and Evaluation available to US governmental agencies and law enforcement request only. 2006-03-02. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ "Cell Phone Forensic Analysis - Study". Cell Phone Forensic Analysis Study available to US governmental agencies and law enforcement request only. 2007-02-28. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ "Airman Scholarship and Commissioning Program Selection List". List of selectees of the FY07 Airman Scholarship and Commissioning Program. 2007-07-12. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shell_Kinney/Archive_9&oldid=1078505262"