User talk:😂/Archive4

DRV closure

Ahoy, hope you don't mind, but I fixed the amount of deleted archives in your closure. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have to take issue with your closure of the DRV for BJAODN. As an involved party to the matter, it does give rise to issues of WP:COI and it may not have been appropriate for you to close the DRV. This is particularly given your stated position of delete in the related AfD. Heck, as a strong keep supporter of the AfD relating to it's main page I would have abstained simply because of my participation in the AfD process, assuming I had known about the DRV given it was closed inside of 120 minutes without an opportunity for wide participation or a clear case of WP:SNOW. There were at lease three dissenting opinions lodged within the short time it was open. Thewinchester ^(talk) 10:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cloverleafing delete

I noticed that you deleted the Cloverleafing article, is there anyway that I can get the content from that page as I really need it. Flood of SYNs 00:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN deletion

I am requesting the edit histories of the deleted subpages of BJAODN, as well as the deleted subpages themselves. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, then I will request them from other admins. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The deleted pages involve transformative works, not derivative works. They were sporked from their original locations; thus, the edit histories are needed in order to document where the transformations came from. Furthermore, many of the jokes and other deleted nonsense may well be original works. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am no longer asking you, but I am asking other sysops. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

^demonBot2

Could your bot replace all instances of {{unreferencedarticle}} with {{unreferenced}}? The parameters should be compatible. I plan on taking unreferencedarticle to TfD as redundant to unreferenced, but it is used on a couple hundred pages. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

what the heck

I don't get why you closed the DRV on BJAODN on the same day it was started, out of process. I personally don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about BJAODN (although I recognize that others do), but nobody likes a gratuitous STFU. Give people their day in court. They might feel less poorly used. Herostratus 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• You're not getting the big picture. People need to express their grief over the loss of BJAODN. We are likely to lose a few contributors over this. Let's limit the damage. Herostratus 03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• You don't know what you're talking about, you are not qualified to address the care and feeding of a volunteer organization, and you should not be closing DRVs early, period. Herostratus 03:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Language of Interface Design

Please explain as to why was this article was deleted. Thanks

Deletion & restoration of Image:Timothy Ryan Richards.jpg

Hi ^demon! I wanted to take a moment to let you know that when you restored Image:Timothy Ryan Richards.jpg, you did so without restoring it to the page you deleted it from. I've restored it to that page, but I wanted to let you know about this issue. Also, I'd really like to find out what prompted the image's deletion in the first place. I know it was under WP:CSD#I7, but I don't understand how it qualified for deletion under I7. If you could please let me know, I'd greatly appreciate it. --Ssbohio 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about image

I see that you have deleted an image from Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. I have essentially zero experience with images and the rules about them, but I was under the impression that government created images were generally acceptable to use. The image on the page (which I did not upload, but relocated within the article) is a ubiquitous image in our state; it is, in short, the official logo of the state test mandated for all students in grades 3-11. How do we establish the propriety of using this image? Thanks in advance for your help. Unschool 23:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed typos

Just thought I'd let you know I fixed two typos in your CSD script. Naconkantari 04:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

MetsBot in regards to Commons Image Tagging

I just wanted to say how immensely helpful MetsBot has been in clearing out image backlogs for images that have been moved to the commons. I have *yet* to see it wrong on an image tag (unless it says X wasn't done, but it's been done since it was tagged), and it's so good, that if MetsBot says it's clear, I don't even question it, I just delete on sight. It's getting so good, that I almost thing you should have it run RFA and let it delete the images itself (although I know people think Adminbots are bad). Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I'd definitely have it run RFA but I think that people would be too paranoid to let it run as an admin. But that's OK :-) I recently added a feature so that MetsBot will recheck problem images two days after tagging to see if it the problems have been fixed, so that should help out too. —METS501 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Random note

We seem to have many similar biases, as I agree with your opinions and views on these matters. You're clearly a great person, and the world needs more non-judgmental people like you! hmwithtalk 17:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

AACo photo

The AACo photo you removed was an original photo taken by the staff and was used with exclusive permission from the organization. It was be appreciated if you would return it.

You removed a photo of the Arizona Association of Counties building. It was placed on the page by staff. If you could either replace it or tell us how to properly affix the photo (we're obviously wikipedia novices) we'd greatly appreciate it.

Why?HEY!

(deleted "Image:张智成 (Zhang Zhi Cheng or Z Chen).jpg": CSD I4: No license or No Source Information) Maybe somebody just forget it, and tomorrow will write a licence,..--Tamás Kádár 19:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Thank you for accepting our mediation request. I am somewhat new to the process and am unsure where to begin. Do we create a topic on the talk page or elsewhere? Please let me know if you have any questions to better understand the matter at hand. Thanks again. --Shamir1 20:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image

Can you please tell me why you deleted Image:ChelsiMissUSA.jpg? Your deleting notes were extremely vague and you appear to have ignored the discussion on the talk page. I would like an explanation as to why you thought the fair use claim was invalid. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks :) Would it be possible to add the "Rk" template to the image page?PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiGuard image deletion

Hey there, I see you recently deleted Image:WikiGuard.png. Considering it was in use on the WikiGuard article and also free, I'm not sure I understand the deletion. --Brad Beattie (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ananthabhadram_Kavya.jpg: A misundrstanding?

There has to be a misunderstanding here. The image was once maliciously tagged for Prod by User:NAHID, an editor who has been stalking me for quite some time now. It got deleted, and was restored by User:Anetode. I had provided probably the most detailed fair use rationale on Wikipedia for the image on its talk page when User:Zsinj tagged it for WP:CSD#17, the reason you deleted it for. Did you tag it again after it was restored? Was I notified? I don't think so. And, did anyone explain why my detailed explanation was no good as a rationale? The whole fiasco reminds me of the case you and I discussed and resolved earlier (see User talk:^demon/Archive3#Jayne mansfield images).

I am not a newbie (I already have worked significantly for two FAs and two GAs, started a wikiproject and has about 4,000 edits to my credit) and I don't go uploading non-free images left and right. I may be always wrong, but others could be wrong as well. A little checking out wouldn't do us any harm. It pains me very much to see how casually my honest hard work can go down the drain. Please, take a look at the case again, and, please, respond to my talk page. Aditya Kabir 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Post Script Well, I just have taken a look at the NPWatcher. Nice tool. But, I guess it's a bit too dumb to deal stuff case by case. I guess, the backlogs do warrant a vigorous use of these tools that depend on inhuman judgment. But, at times human innervation may become a real necessity. Right? Aditya Kabir 05:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One more question - can someone remove that fair use disputed tag? If it keeps hanging there another bot may take it to be a very suitable candidate to delete. If my reasoning on the talk page is no good, then I'm ready to withdraw this appeal. Aditya Kabir 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Post Script Sorry to bother you again. But, could you care to take a look at this image too - Image:Riya Calendar.jpg? Is it alright by WP criterion? I'm pretty confidant it is, and if not the articles could be enhanced to meet the need. Please, advise. Aditya Kabir 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Hi I would like to have an explanation on why you deleted the Image "Dr.Narayan Dutt Shrimali". I know it is in Fair Use, You atleast should have given an warning on the Talk page and some time for an Explanation. Your actions I feel are very RUDE and Arrogant. Please do not go about deleting all images in the Fair Use Category, I means VANDALISM !!!

Miranda Kerr

^demon, hi, I saw that you'd deleted Image:Miranda_Kerr.jpg as "invalid fair use."[1] However, I had put an elaborate explanation on the talkpage about why fair use was appropriate in this case. I was wondering if you had an opportunity to read it, and could you please reply on the discussion page giving your reasoning why you feel that it was insufficient? I would like to improve my understanding of fair-use claims, and having my entire argument simply deleted without explanation doesn't really help me to improve my knowledge of things. Thanks, Elonka 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting on a reply . . . --Elonka 17:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

Image:Afropunkvol1.jpeg. Can you explain why it was deleted? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are making a mistake with these deletions. As you are a rather new administrator, I would suggest you consult with other admins about these deletions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Screw you for deleting my wild cherry bark image before I had a chance to tag it. You're just a bit overzealous. jaknouse 00:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, ^demon. Thank you very much for your admin work in resolving the dispute concerning the Andrew Vachss & Honey photo. Could I ask you to put up the admin notice indicates your decision? I see the following at the bottom of the "dispute" template -- Closing administrator: if the decision is to Keep the image please put "Rk" (in double curly brackets) on the image page. Thanks again! -ZeroZ 02:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion of images?

What is going on? Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

These are all things that have been tagged for at least 7 days and are in the backlogs. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you slow down with these deletions. You are deleting images that have proper fair use tags, and there are comments piling up on your user page about your actions. Although I appreciate the effort of clearing the backlogs, I would argue that rather than delete the images that you check for fair use and add the fair use statement on these images who's use is obvious. Please reply here and not in my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of them aren't legit fairuse...but anyway. Just because they slap {{non-free album cover}} on it doesn't automatically indicate fairuse. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"They" are contributors, without which we would not have this project. Just slow down with these mass deletions, in particular book covers and CD covers that are used specifically to illustrate the article on the book or album in question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk:Blue_Prism

While the article is in AfD, the talk page should not be removed. I assume this was an oversight. - Tiswas^(t) 08:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Again? What’s going on?

I’ve already told you that you that using ^demonBot2 you have broken Template:LDS Temple list and Template:Infobox LDS Temple twice before (1st warning, 2nd warning), and you’ve done it again. I’ve undone your edits again.

Template:LDS Temple list:

(1st braking edit, 2nd braking edit, 3rd braking edit)

Template:Infobox LDS Temple:

(1st braking edit, 2nd braking edit, 3rd braking edit)

Since my first two messages to you, I’ve figured out that you are probably doing an automatic replacement because template:sq m had a deprecated tag on it, and I’ve removed it. Sq m is not equivalent to template:ft2 to m2. They have different parameters and different output. Template:ft-m also had the tag, and someone else removed it for the same reasons.

Even though it’s not your fault that the deprecated tag and the “equivalent” given was incorrect, I really think you need to check the results of your edits to templates, especially after unwittingly breaking the same templates three times.

If your bot has a “do not edit these templates” list, you might consider adding these two. Jaksmata 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Racist!

so sue me, I'm bored... EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Satanist, too! EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Main page screenshots as orphans

(Contd. from talk page archive User_talk:^demon/Archive3#Tagging of Main page screenshots as orphans)

All the images mentioned were in use only in the page Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots and nowhere else. Are such images considered orphan or not? I believe either all of them should be considered as orphans or none of them should be considered so. -- Paddu 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Are images used only in Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots considered orphans? If yes, why did you untag the images I mentioned which have always been used only in that page and nowhere else? -- Paddu 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! -- Paddu 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi, I have restored this image which you deleted. Neither the uploaded, nor anyone of the editors, were informed that the image was tagged. As such, there was no opportunity for a fair discussion.

After restoration, I have tagged the image for the problem it was listed earlier, so that a discussion can take place. You might want to take a look.

Btw, you gave a wrong justification for the deletion. CSD I5 was not applicable to it. --soum (0_o) 12:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sam Gilliam Image

Was tagged with full copyright information and watched. We were given NO WARNING to modify reasoning or rationale. Not cool. Why was it deleted? Perhaps the image was mistagged Speedy?? Please restore the image, so we can repair the usage trail. --Knulclunk 12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, as I did not get a warning, even though I was the uploader and I watch the Sam Gilliam page. I must have forgotten to watch the image. I have no record of the rationale that I used the first time (though as I recall, it seemed fairly solid) Oh well. Is there ant way I can view the deleted history as a non-admin? Or can you give me an extension to rewrite rationale? --Knulclunk 13:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want, I can restore it, you can pick an appropriate tag from that category, and we can move onward. -- That would be very helpful, thanks! --Knulclunk 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was checking the image restrictions and I need to get permission from Mr. Gilliam to use it. As that will take a while, go ahead and re-delete the image. I copied all of my rationale from it and will re-upload it when I have appropriate copyright info. Thanks for your help. --Knulclunk 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Meetup

Dear ^demon,

You have either attended or expressed interested in the previous NYC Meetup. I would like to invite you to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC -- Y not? 15:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Incredible Hulk image

Hi Chad. I see that you recently deleted Image:Incredible-hulk-20060221015639117.jpg because it had no fair use rationale. Since you say you don't restore deleted images 90% of the time, it seems pointless to ask to have the image restored. I'm sure that a suitable replacement can be found anyway.

However, I am concerned about the lack of notification. As near as I can tell, there was no notification within the affected article Hulk (comics) or its talk page about the image's non-compliance. Although this is not required, it seems to be common practice. Had the watchers of this page been notified, I am sure that someone would have written a decent fair use rationale. Is there any way to find out who tagged the image with the fair use warning? I would like to ask them (politely, of course) to put a note on the article's talk page or to use {{speedy-image-c}} next time. --GentlemanGhost 16:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, now that the image has been restored, I've determined that there were no notifications made at all: not to the uploader, not to the editors who uploaded new or modified versions of the image, and not to the target article. So, I have made a request (politely, I think) on pd_THOR's talk page to notify people in the future. --GentlemanGhost 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Incredible-hulk-20060221015639117.jpg

Just to let you know I've restored the above image and added a fair use rationale. At WP:COMICS we're going through adding the rationales as best we can, if the rationale isn't sufficient let me know what else needs adding. Probably should have come here first and talked it through, sorry, just figured WP:IAR, WP:BOLD. Hope that's okay. Hiding Talk 17:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting "Image:Chpsonic.jpg"

Why did you delete "Image:Chpsonic.jpg"?

Image:Simpsons writing team.jpg

Why did you delete this image? I know it had a fair use rationale and a source mentioned. --Maitch 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

image rights

Hello,

I am trying to get an image for a webpage. However, most of the images of that person are not public domain. I am currently talking to someone who owns a lot of images of that person but she is hesitant to turn images over to the public domain for instance. What is the most restrictive license that is acceptable to wikipedia?

--florkle 01:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Khinchin's theorem

Hello, can you, please, restore Khinchin's theorem, which you have (speedily) deleted? I have explained at the talk page, which you have also deleted, that while the title was likely to be wrong, the statement may well have been worth keeping, since it was completely correct. At the very least, we should have asked a probabilist for an opinion. You may also be interested to know that recently concern was expressed on WT:WPM that Probability theory is lacking in coverage, and deleting articles is not the best way to solve the problem! Incidentally, the content of the article (or the talk page) is not accessible even through my contributions! Thanks in advance. Arcfrk 02:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So what is 2^demon?

Geeky joke, I know, but I think your username is unique. Will ^(talk) 19:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, it could be i ;) Will ^(talk) 19:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I submitted a request for mediation, but I'm afraid I added it manually by mistake; is it too late to stop it damaging the bot? Sorry for this. Alexrexpvt 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Mediation Commitee Nomination

I understand that my nomination request is denied, but what does 'I am envoking my right to private reasoning on this vote (see this). For Committee members, see our private mailing list. Daniel 06:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)' mean, could i be told? -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 01:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It means that my justification for voting oppose was not recorded on-wiki. I explained by reasoning for voting oppose, and my reason for keeping the vote private, to my fellow members via our private mailing list. Daniel 05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bot

Um, deleting the fair use tags from what had been properly tagged images and then saying they had no license seems unfair. -N 01:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with your reasoning. I have posted at WP:ANI#Another_bot_mistagging_fair_use_images. Cheers. -N 01:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Drug Dealer Card Game

Why did you delete this article?

Removal of Pokémon image templates

I must say that I am disappointed with the way this TfD discussion was run. I'm almost certain that no attempt at notifying the appropriate project page about the discussion was made. Now, you're removing copyright tags from those images; those images are now in worse shape than they were in before you deleted all the templates. I must say I am suprised to have seen this happen. I think the only appropriate course to take right now is to restore those templates and have a do-over TfD, and this time to let the relevant people in on the discussion (by posting on the project's talk page or noticeboard about the discussion). --Brandon Dilbeck 02:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We weren't even notified, period. The only notice we got was not more than one hour ago, when User:Amarkov reported that all the image tags had been deleted. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

St. Catherine's College deleted images

Dear ^demon,

I recently posted images provided by St. Catherine's College, Oxford, but they were deleted a few days ago. I emailed the College to obtain permission and they have authorized their use, provided the College is credited. A copy of this correspondence is attached. I am not sure which Wikipedia license category is most appropriate, but since you were the admin who deleted them, I thought perhaps you would be the best person to ask! Please let me know if there is something else I need to do to meet Wikipedia's requirements. I appreciate your diligence regarding copyright.

My communication with the College regarding use of these images is attached below.

Best regards,

Bbacambridge

_______________________

Subject: [CATZ-RT #2294] Fwd: St. Catz online images Sender: <rt@catz-rt.stcatz.ox.ac.uk> RT-Ticket: CATZ-RT #2294 From: support@catz-rt.stcatz.ox.ac.uk Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:50:55 +0100

Hello again Brad,

Thank you for your email. As in my previous email the College is happy for you to use images taken from our main website www.stcatz.ox.ac.uk subject to a request that in an acknowledgements section, or something similar - perhaps the Licensing section each image-page - a phrase to the effect of "images of St Catherine's used with permission of the College" is included.

The exceptions - that is images that you cannot use - are a minority of photographs for which the original photographer has retained copyright: these are indicated by having 'copyright Townend' included in the relevant images as a text strip.

(NB: none of the images posted contain this text strip)

Best regards,

Jamie Keats

I.T. Manager St. Catherine's College Manor Road Oxford OX1 3UJ

facsimile: 01865 271 768 telephone: 01865 281 579

64.38.3.218 unblocked

64.38.3.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) resolves to advance.express.tc which indicates that it is an ISP proxy. Since you're a relatively new administrator, please remember to perform WHOIS, Reverse DNS lookup and DNSBL queries before blocking IP addresses in future. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your block on User:Reaper7

User talk:Nwwaew#I have a final warning might be of interest to you. Cheers! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Request

Since you were so helpful with the last request, I've come with another one. Image:Eskimo pie box.jpg was another Smithsonian image I uploaded a few moths ago. Again, I had fair use info with it. I think what happened is that WP depreciated the {{Smithsonian}} tag and all those images picked up AFD's. I actually have the copyright info for this one. Can you restore it, please? I'll fix it within 24 hours. Thanks! --Knulclunk 23:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Riya Calendar.jpg‎

Sorry to bother you earlier with kind of request for WP:3O. Can you take a look at the debate going on there? I guess I am running out of time there. Thanks for the attention you have given me already. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 06:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:DaniFilthFairUse.jpg

You deleted this after I gave a detailed fair use rationale, could you either restore the image, or show me what was wrong with the rationale.

≈ Maurauth ^{(nemesis~☆)} 14:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Why delete this image?

Image:Ashlerferlcrying.jpg was deleted by you under the grounds that it had an invalid fair use claim. In fact, that wasn't the issue originally posted at all. It was up for deletion because someone thought it could be replaced by a free image. And even that proposal was factually disputed as not being a reason for deletion in this case by a number of editors, yet all of this seems to have been ignored. The image was deleted for a reason not even related to the original disussion, without warning. Why was this? Wrad 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As the original uploader, I agree with Wrad. What was invalid about the fair use claim? hmwith 15:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide respond? hmwith 13:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

recent deletion review

We're usually in sympathy, so I am surprised you closed after a single day, I wouldn't mention it except you did, but perhaps the comment at the top of this page may have affected things? Just a rhetorical question. DGG 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of Template:Infoboxrequested

I have asked for a deletion review of Template:Infoboxrequested. Since you speedy-deleted it after a related TfD was closed, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:MEDCOM

I'm interested in becoming a Mediation Committee member and wanted to try out a mediation request to see if I'm up for the task. Would you mind if I took on one of the unassigned cases? -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops... I didn't see you were on a wikibreak; I'll post on Daniel's page. -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Your image deletions

Hello. Would you kindly restore these two images? I searched for days to find them and you've deleted the source. Was there some reason you could not ask me for whatever information you felt was missing before doing a speedy delete? Both were tagged fair use, on both the image description page and inline in the article Jeannette Piccard who owned the ballon pictured. I would have appreciated a heads up at the time rather than having to complain after the fact. -Susanlesch 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Image88-13377.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Image75-15326.jpg

What did I fail to understand?

I guess I have clearly failed to understand something here. Let me make a recap of what happened, so that you can tell what I did not understand.

• The deletion log for Image:Riya Calendar.jpg says you deleted it on charge of WP:CSD#I7.
• That piece of policy quotes WP:FUC and {{Replaceable fair use}}.
• That template quotes {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, which in turn presents an opportunity to explain its irreplaceability.
• That was appropriately done, and a discussion was happening at Image talk:Riya Calendar.jpg, where I presented my case, which was never out-argued.
• In fact three editors/admins quite experienced in image issues (User:Mecu, User:Anetode and User:Strangerer) agreed on notability of the image, with the first user having a slight disagreement on its fairness. But, his argument was quite effectively compromised by the argument of other two editors and I.
• More over, even before the tagger tagged the image I asked quite a few experienced editors to check the fairness of the image (including you), proposing that if it is found to be unfair I am ready to put a db-self tag to it. Only User:Anetode got back, and he did not find it unfair.
• The tagger was the only editor who summarily put out a verdict of unfairness without really explaining the reasoning.
• There is reason to believe that the tagger had malicious intentions in tagging the image, upon which I sought WP:3O from User:Yamla, User:Anetode and you. I already have discussed one of his earlier attempts to harass me, by tagging images uploaded by me, with you and other editors/admins.
• I asked for advise on your talk page regarding the image at least twice, which never came. But, surely a deletion decision came, without any hint of why the detailed argument on the image talk page was invalid.

The only reason for this I can understand is probably the backlog. While mass deletion may be highly required, the policies still seem to agree to take closer look at individual cases. I have been working on WP for about two years now, with 4,000 edits, 2 FAs, 2 GAs and 5 DYKs to my credit. It pains me a lot to see my hard work going down the drain so easily. All it takes is troll to follow me around who keeps slapping all kinds of tags to all my contributions. And, when I face that barrage with clear reasoning... well, suddenly, without a hint one image goes deleted.

Please, let me know where I went wrong. And, if I was not completely wrong, it is highly preferable to have the image along with the debate back. If I am completely wrong... well, go ahead with your good work. Thanks. Aditya Kabir 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that if there's critical description on some piece of visual art it is perfectly fair to display that piece of work to go with the description (as was on the Riya Sen article). I also was under the impression that an elaborate description of a work of art may be accompanied by a visual representation of the work in perfect fairness (as was on the Dabboo Ratnani article). And, I was under the impression that at least three editors/admins somewhat agreed to that point of view. Besides, there are plenty fair use image we are using on WP that has an argument in that line and in perfect accordance with the policies and guidelines. In fact the only problem I detected in the use of the im,age was inadequate sourcing. Aditya Kabir 06:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You restored not only the image, but also my faith in this tremendous project we call Wikipedia. Thanks again. You made my day (oh, I left a note on the image talk page as well). Aditya Kabir 07:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Can you simply tell me why have you delete my tennis images? Thanks. Xavier Martín 19:15, June 11 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God, how could you delete this image? You're destroying the internets! Commie bastard!

About Image:Ghoul.gif... considering ghouls are fictional/mythological, I have strong doubts about the image's ability to be replaced with a free-use image. It was deleted under I7, which isn't something reverse without asking the deleting admin (as opposed to something like a missing rationale, where I'd just undelete and provide one). Thoughts? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain deletion

Why were the two following images deleted?

Image:Alexander Archipenko's lithograph on paper 'Le Rendez-Vous des Quatre Formes'.jpg

Image:Alexander Archipenko's bronze sculpture 'Woman Combing Her Hair'.jpg

They are both from Smithsonian Institution websites, which are specifically permitted under Wikipedia policy.

Wmpearl 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why this image New World's A-Comin'.jpg keeps on getting deleted. Maybe I have mis-categorized it and you can assist me in correcting this. The copyright holder has granted me rights to use it on Wikipedia as it is part of his promotional archive.

Pokémon copyright templates

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pokémon copyright templates. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Raven's Apprentice^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 07:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jennifer Mee

Thanks for doing that...I had been trying to figure out how to get rid of that non-notable bio (just because you're in the news, doesn't make you worth having an article about you), and the redirect worked perfectly. Just hope the "We must have an article of every person in the news ever" crew doesn't notice. Regards, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Shh, they'll hear you! I am pleased that mergism is finally becoming popular, especially in the context of biographical articles. Of course if one were to find a source for some young person who has been hiccuping for even longer, then there would be no editorial reason to retain information about this person at all. --bainer (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Email, semi-urgent

Daniel 10:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thanks for your support and taking the time to pose an optional question in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Major Problems - Need advice on how to proceed

A serious problem has popped up that involves several hundred articles, many editors, and a vast number of incidents. The short of the long is that there are five editors involved. Myself, User:Epeefleche,User:Irishguy,User:Baseball Bugs, and User:Miss Mondegreen. The disputes have included a link I inserted to a blacksoxfan site at Shoeless Joe Jackson and a handful of other relevant pages, the widespread insertion of this link on as many as 120+ articles at one time, a sock case against me, an many intense discussions like this, this, and a banning incident. I appologize if i've left anything out but the whole thing gives me a headache. Epeefleche, Baseball bugs, and Irishguy have failed miserably at focusing on the content of the discussions. I have failed to behave calmly at all times; although I have been harassed unmercilessly by those three. Miss Mondegreen has been fairly level headed during the course of the events. She has agreed at times with both sides of the issue and simply wants to discuss the relevant topics. In the confusion and anger I have both knowlingly and unkowingly "violated" the 3RR. There are a number of detailed circumstances, but at this point I just want to resolve the issues. Here are the three or four major issues as I see it at this point.

• Behavior of Irishguy - As an admin, he has engaged in a debate with me over my edit style and the fact that I follow the guidelines set out in WP:EL. He has a serious WP:COI that is evident when you consider that he has a) removed content I entered b) accused me of being a sock c) banned me based on his assumptions without allowing due process d) a whole mess of other things. To me, this is the most important issue. Others may agree or disagree. He needs to have his behavior reviewed carefully. I think his status as an admin should be reviewed further.
• The discussion relevant to the inclusion of the fangraphs site. It is wildly confusing and since my short return (about two hours ago), I have really left it alone. That being said, as it stands now, I am under the impression that it should be removed from wikipedia. Any attempts to do so will surely be met with reversions and more WP:BITE. Keep in mind, I don't think it matters who removes the content, Baseball Bugs and Epeefleche will surely reinsert it.
• The discussion relevant to the inclusion of blacksoxfan. This is a site that I have admitted to knowing the owner. All I do is know the owner and that in and of itself does not create a COI. Although I am severly impaired at this point when it comes to remembering the specific order of events, I believe you can see the problem. Regardless of the fact that I added it and that someone interpreted that as a COI, it was defended by a number of people on the Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson page. Again, in the absence of a real discussion on the content, Irishguy removed it from a number of articles. Upon my return, I reinsterted it on the relevant articles and pointed to the SJJ talk page for discussion. He of course, reverted it again.

I just want this whole thing to stop. Aside from Irishguys behavior (and thus mine per my involvment), we need to refocus on the content and get personal opinions tossed out. I have a very clear and well supported stance on the two links being discussed. Miss Mondegreen does as well. I cannot say the same for the other parties involved. Before I notify anyone of this post, I want to give you some time to let this sink in. It's as bad as it can be. I will watch this page and hope we can respond here. My talk page is a haven for spam and bashing and not going to allow us to have a good discussion. Thanks for your time and I appologize for its length. //Tecmobowl 22:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Tecmobowl doesn't know the owner of the website. He is the owner of the website. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl‎. He is spamming in violation of WP:COI and WP:EL. When he is warned of this, he simply blanks his talk page and continues. He has used numerous usernames, various IPs, and even a TOR node to avoid detection. IrishGuy ^talk 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• There's an ongoing discussion at WikiProject baseball discussing four statistics sites and their usage. I'd like to see more people comment there--it's a limited number so far, and it would be great if it could be in a straw poll or anything but the enormous block of text that currently exists and is a little difficult to read, but this seems like a great start and I think that whatever decision they come to should be fine.
• However, while Tecmo removed "excess" statistics sites, those were only a part of his EL cleaning, while his edits were reverted in whole, suggesting there was a problem with everything he was doing. Epeefleche, the main editor who reverted Tecmo's edits has never responded to questions asked why he reverted the rest of the links, so I've left a note on his talk page asking him. Should you continue to clean EL sections Tecmo, I would personally advice you to explain your edits better. I know that you're doing mass editing, but if your edit summary can point to what in WP:EL says it's a bad link that would be a start. Or, if you're reverted, it would be a good idea to go to the talk page and leave a comment outlining the links removed and why, like I did here.
• I'd like to see all parties slow down. I try to AGF, but when something is reverted wholesale, instead of a partial revert so that vandalism isn't put back in, or so that a double link isn't put back in, I'm going to assume that you (this applies to more than one of you) looked at part of the edit, didn't bother to check and see if any of it was good because so-and-so did it and hit undo. I've also seen a lot of default undo edit summaries when the edits being undone clearly aren't vandalism.
• In re the blacksoxfan issue, Tecmo--I know that you think you don't have a COI, but other users think you do. Please accept that fact and step away from the article editing. Users with COI who think that something does belong on the article can still participate on the talk page, and you're welcome to do that. If you think that a link to the site belongs somewhere, mention it. The Shoeless Joe Jackson article is currently protected and discussion is supposed to be going on there. I am going to request mediation, since it seems that I cannot get a single comment about the site that isn't a comment about Tecmo, and the next step will probably be to file an Rfc about the site in general--to determine what is and is not appropriate. But I think that you should step away--I'm taking every step I can to get an answer about content, and hopefully the site will be judged that way, and your involvement at this point is inappropriate. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:26, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Date on your signature

I'm trying to get my signature just right, when I noticed that the date at the end of your signature is customised (its in italics). Now, I've been looking everywhere to find out how to customise the date which comes out automatically. Do you think you could tell me how to customise the signature date? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, and regards, Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 09:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks alot. I'll do what you said. Thanks again, Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 09:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfected: -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk _{dated 10:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)} Thanks alot. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk _{dated 10:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)}

You too. Regards, -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk _{dated 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)}

Grounds for deletion

Thanks for the welcome back! Are you sure user -> article space is grounds for deletion? I thought it was just the other way around. Thanks. DrKiernan 10:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hello. I have a quick question. Do you think my userboxes about how I feel on politics should be removed, or do you think I should remove them. I have gotten a complaint that my political userboxes should be removed. This user is also a democrat.

Thankyou,

Politics rule 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Univac-model.jpg

Hey, Chad, could you restore Image:Univac-model.jpg, which you speedied? I never got a chance to see the speedy tag and can add licensing information for this image. Thanks. Robert K S 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I did what I could. Robert K S 21:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dirty (game)

Why would you delete this page because of it being "blatant advertising" ? Its blatantly not! If you find that blantant advertising, then you must think every game page is blatant advertising, because its basically the same. Provide me with a reason as to why this should be deleted or i am prepared to restore it.

By the way, sorry if i sound mad, i just spent alot of time on that page and i want to know why it was just deleted, and not at the least proposed for deletion. Thanks for your reply (when it comes) D.Mather 18:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i see what you mean, but it is notable from other Q2 mods. In it, unlike other Q2 games, you can climb walls with no ladders, and do flips etc.. you can also wield akimbo, and it has a completely different weapon set. Btw, this isnt my game, so its not a "look at my game" page. so could this be restored, now that ive given you some explanation? ThanksD.Mather 17:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

That was a surprise, especially because I've just broken the 3RR on John Wayne. Sorry. But I did have good reason. DrKiernan 17:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A humble plea

Hello.

I just noticed on AN that you blocked a user for "tendentious editing".

I know this isn't the first time that someone's been blocked with TE cited as the reason, but I would still request that you refrain from citing essays as the supporting reason for blocks. An essay is, in no way, a part of wikipedia's policy. "TE" is therefore not a blockable offense. Granted, TE does contain elements which are covered by other policies/guidelines. However, it would be far better to cite those policies, rather than citing an essay.

It may seem a minute difference to you, but the appearance of neutrality and fairness certainly matters. And if a user is complaining about possible admin abuse, then blocking them based on a non-policy certainly doesn't help to assuage people's fears.

In short, I'm not saying the block was bad. I'm just saying that citing an essay to support a block is always a bad idea. Bladestorm 17:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied from ANI by Daniel at 07:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)) He didn't cite it (i.e. as per WP:TE); he linked it. Big difference. El_C 17:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

True, and in any case, tendentious editing is a subset of disruptive editing, a widely accepted guideline the violation of which is grounds for blocking. I think linking the essay was just an attempt to be specific about the subtype of disruptiveness involved. For what it's worth, 2 unblock requests by Fourdee have since been declined, the second by me. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with both El C and MastCell above. Daniel 07:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:^demon/CSD AutoReason

Hey ^demon, I don't know if you have User talk:^demon/CSD AutoReason, so I'm letting you know I posted a note there. Cheers, Iamunknown 04:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tecmobowl/links

Please take a quick look at that sub-page. Is that not a violation of the wikipedia rules WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK? In the interest of full disclosure, when I got a load of that whopper I created User:Baseball Bugs/Links as a semi-joke. I could easily rename its title to "Users I'm watching", which I would think is fair. And he should do likewise, yes? Baseball Bugs 20:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park

Hi there. I was browsing Category:Photographs and I noticed that the image had been deleted from Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park. The deletion log entry is here. I realised that the image should have had licensing information, but from the sound of it, that is an image that could easily be acceptable under fair-use if someone wrote a fair-use rationale. Would you consider undeleting the image, or should I try and find an alternative copy and upload it under fair use? Carcharoth 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for the other image from that article. Deletion log is here. Thanks. Carcharoth 21:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to nag, but I see you are around. I wonder if you have had time to look at this yet? No rush, obviously, but just checking you haven't missed this. Carcharoth 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring them. I've added fair-use tags and rationales. Would you have time to double-check what I've put is OK. I can't put a source, as I didn't upload the pictures, but I suspect they were taken from the Smithsonian collection (see the image histories), as the previous tag was the now deleted {{Smithsonian}}. Carcharoth 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I thought I'd give you this barnstar for your impressive I have been noticing edits in numerous articles. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy Mediation

Since one of the group that is working to present its POV, User:FatherTree (see diff: [[2]]) continues to knowingly make false accusations of my being a sockpuppet, I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time? DPeterson^talk 01:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Note

With respect to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion_pool, Sj (talk · contribs) is wheel warring to get it undeleted again, for instance here. Just a heads-up. >Radiant< 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

my 6/4 mediation request

Thanks for clean-up! Tony 13:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR

I have determined User:Mariam83 should be blocked for massive editwarring. At first I closed it as only warning, after which I found a much earlier warning for 3RR. Therefore it was too lenient and I believe a 48h block is needed. Can you do the job for me (I'm not an adminstrator)? Evilclown93_(talk) 14:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Already  Confirmeddone. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

script bug report

Please see this edit for a recent bug report. DES ^(talk) 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jp01.jpg

Thanks for taking care of Image:Jp01.jpg. I wasn't sure the best way to handle it. You may want to add {{rk}} to the image description page when you choose to keep contested images. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

IE6

Hey, thanks for the note about the autoreason issue with IE6, but I'm one of those super smug Mac owners who deleted Internet Explorer (because you can do that on a Mac!) and use either Firefox or Safari to edit. Great tool by the way! The Rambling Man 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request deleted?

Hello, I see you cleaned up "13:26, April 29, 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Soviet occupation of Romania" (CSD G6: Housekeeping)". If possible, could that be undeleted and marked as an archived discussion. I had it bookmarked for reference and only now had time to go back to do some planned work, and it was gone. Thanks!
P.S. This is the only mediation/arbitration/etc. request I have on my watchlist (participated in) that's actually been deleted, all the others are still there for reference after their conclusion, whatever that was. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass Endorsements of Deletion...is vandalism?

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dirty (game) Undeletion request.... deleted?

Hi, i made a request a while ago for Dirty (game) to be undeleted , with proper explanation as to why it is unique from other Quake 2 mods, and it seems that my request has been... deleted, without reply. Any help? D.Mather 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aintitcool.com screenshot.png

Hi. Could you please restore Image:Aintitcool.com screenshot.png? It wasn't actually orphaned when you deleted it, it was used in the article Ain't It Cool News. Compare the history page to the deletion log for proof. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) - Thank you! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

fair use rationale "legitimacy"

Since you don't think my rationales are legitimate (subjective on your part), tell me specifically what you think is legitimate so you will stop reverting me. Chris 02:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

see WP:NCCWP:FUC and WP:FURG also note that non-free images can only be used in the mainspace. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Please note [3]--Sefringle^Talk 04:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

You deleted several images recently according as ORFU:

• Image:Chicken Invaders 3 Xmas star map.JPG
• Image:Chicken Invaders 3 Xmas.JPG
• Image:Chicken Invaders 3 Xmas Medals.JPG

Please note that all those images are in use in the article Chicken Invaders. Please be careful before deleting ORFU images; check if they are in fact, actually orphaned.

Cheers! --122.162.74.22 (Please reply on User talk:Shreshth91) 14:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --122.162.74.22 15:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

There are two ways of doing this. We can either just redo the redirect (I'm a very persistent guy) and blocks and anger will happen or we can go through a legitimate deletion review which I didn't get. Kingjeff 15:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with your claim at a fair deletion review. Kingjeff 15:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with your newest claim. Am I not allowed to respond to claims against me? Kingjeff 16:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I misreading any policy. Actually I think my interpretation is the correct one. Kingjeff 16:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Hornetman16

Isn't reposting his userpage without attributing him as the creator and showing all the page versions where it was created a violation of GFDL? I thought the full page history needed to be viewable for it to be GFDL compliant. --Deskana (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel sorry for him too, but it's hard to feel sorry for him when I try giving him a bit of information about Wikipedia and he asked me for proof. I think he'll end up indefblocked too, and I can't say my heart will bleed. --Deskana (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

DELETION GONE MAD

Think what you will about Billy Joel, but claiming the images you're deleting are unused is a bit unfair. Tristanb 04:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi

Hi, can you suggest the proper avenue for resolving the ongoing disputes regarding this page? It has been the subject of an edit war, involving allegations of past and ongoing criminal activity and uncited, potentially libelous statements. The page is protected through tomorrow and then the fighting will start again. More details are contained on Talk:Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi. I have no connection with either side in this fight but was drawn into the discussion while removing egregious content from the article that violated WP:LIBEL. Thanks. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Clouds Psyche.jpg

Hi. Could you please restore Image:Clouds Psyche.jpg? It wasn't actually orphaned when you deleted it. It was used in the article Final Fantasy VII. Compare the history page to the deletion log for proof.Kazu-kun 19:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!Kazu-kun 19:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Two orphaned images

You recently deleted two images that were tagged as orphaned. That much is true, but they had not been tagged the prescribed seven days (see [[4]]. Due to the recent change in wikipedia policy - rather the change in enforcement, I have had a large number of images tagged and am currently working dilegently to un-orphan them, but it takes time.
Image:If We Fall in Love Tonight.jpg
Image:Human (album).jpg
You'll also note there is no source - also in the process of changing due to new enforcement. Please reinstate these images so that I may make the needed updates. Thank you. (Sampm 04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Please Help

Dear demon, I am trying to establish a page for Scottish magazine Forgotten Worlds. This magazine is professionally classified by review body Tangent. Tangent is A PROFESSIONAL science ficiton review board. This was made explicit in the article, as well as a link provided for proof.

I have fulfilled the requirement mentioned previously by providing proof for the existence of this page. There is now no reason for it to be deleted. But is has been deleted again, even though I fulfilled the requirement.

Can you help?

Woomfy

Questions for the Wikipedia Signpost

Hi! My name is Ral315, and I'm the editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, a weekly newspaper on the English Wikipedia. I'm sending out an optional questionnaire that I hope you'll respond to. These questions will be published in next week's issue, and hopefully translated into many languages and copied to the Meta-Wiki prior to the election. (So, if you speak multiple languages, it'd be fantastic, though certainly not required, if you'd be willing to translate your answers into any languages you speak fluently.)

There's no word limit on any of these questions, but I suggest that brevity (maybe about 300-400 words per answer) is best. If at all possible, answers should be submitted by 16:00 UTC on Monday, June 25 (though late responses will also be accepted).

I'm posting these to your talk pages because they don't really fit well on question pages (since many will repeat questions you've already answered). You can reply to me by e-mail, or at my English Wikipedia, English Wikinews or Meta talk pages.

Thanks again for answering these, and good luck in the elections.

Sincerely, Ral315

---

1. Do you have any other usernames or pseudonyms?

1. What current or former user rights or positions do you have, and on which projects? (i.e. administrator, bureaucrat, arbitrator, developer, steward, board member, etc.)

1. Outside of Wikipedia, what do you do for a living?

1. What languages do you speak?

1. Why do you want to join the Board? What qualities do you feel you can bring to the Board?

1. About how much time do you think you'll put into the role?

1. Ideally, where do you see the Wikimedia Foundation in 5 years?

1. As a board member, how will you ensure a balance between openness and necessary privacy in board matters?

1. Recent discussion has centered around the Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. How do you feel the Wikimedia brands should be used, or changed?

1. Wikimedia projects in developing nations are growing in popularity, but still lag far behind the more popular projects. What steps would you suggest to improve the quality, readership, and number of editors on smaller wikis?

1. What do you feel should be done to increase participation on non-Wikipedia projects?

1. As a board member, what strategies would you consider to raise money for the Foundation?

1. What else do you want to say to voters? (This is a good place to answer a question specific to your candidacy that you think should be answered)

Image deletion

Hi ^demon; I recommend you don't delete images from here as NowCommons when they are not in a category or article on commons. I could blame this on you being unaware of that rule, but when the message by my bot says it, that excuse isn't as valid anymore :-) —METS501 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem :-) —METS501 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Orphaned" image

I'm fairly new so I might not be interpreting [5] correctly, but it looks like you deleted this image because it was orphaned, but it was actually being used in the article Jennie. Why did you think it was orphaned? Is there a way you can restore Image:JennieLP.jpg? ConoscoTutto 15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete pages.

Hello. Please do not delete Dynamically Distributed Democracy. If you do not find this page interesting that is okay, but many Wiki pages link to it as well as many pages outside the Wiki community including many pages on Delicious.

Image:Lemonysnicketgrave.PNG

You deleted this because it was "unused and not free", but in fact, it was being used in the article for Lemony Snicket.--CyberGhostface 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Lemonysnicketgrave.PNG. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CyberGhostface 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You could just have asked someone at WP:AN, you don't need deletion review for simple mistakes. Prodego ^talk 21:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck

on the election. Bearian 02:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I second. Good luck! Brianga 04:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:DarkYugiToei1.PNG

That image WAS being used. See: Yugi_Mutou

Better yet, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yugi_Mutou&diff=140335710&oldid=140153071

And http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yugi_Mutou&diff=140983856&oldid=140335710

(The deletion was on "20:16, 24 June 2007")

The image WILL be reuploaded.

WhisperToMe 00:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I see - I added the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yugi_Mutou&diff=138672910&oldid=137759386 AFTER the bot tagged the image as unused, but I forgot to remove the tag! WhisperToMe 00:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Board elections

meta:Board_elections/2007/Candidates/^demon/questions#Wikipedia_Quality

Good answer. I hope there would be more people like you. Good luck! Rjgodoy 06:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Image salt

^demon, I noticed you transcluded Image:CP MEMBER.PNG into Wikipedia:Protected titles/Twinkle. I don't think it worked. You added it at 10:59, and now it exists after being uploaded at 11:02. Just fyi, I didn't realize that cascading protection did not work for images.  :\ --Iamunknown 16:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Two possibilities, 1: the image page's cache was not purged after it was added, or 2: you have to include the image for cascading protection to work, not just transclude. Prodego ^talk 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 London car bombs AfD

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2007 London car bombs. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Cat ^chi? 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned image deletion

Is there some reason you are deleting orphaned fairuse images before the seven days are up? I see no change to WP:CSD#I5, and yet you have deleted Category:Orphaned_fairuse_images_as_of_24_June_2007, Category:Orphaned_fairuse_images_as_of_25_June_2007, and Category:Orphaned_fairuse_images_as_of_26_June_2007 and I assume all the images in those categories. What gives? DHowell 20:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: your reply

WP:FUC also says "An image that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing fair-use defence that satisfies all 10 criteria. For an image that was uploaded before 2006-07-13, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days. An image on which fair use is claimed that is used in no article (Criterion 7) may be deleted seven days after notification."

Were all the images you deleted uploaded after 2006-07-13? What about the last sentence that gives seven days for images that fail #7? The seven day is also repeated in Category:Orphaned fairuse images and Template:Orphaned fairuse not replaced. Don't you think you ought to have gotten consensus before deleting thousands of images under a novel interpretation of policy? Will you restore any images that were uploaded before 2006-07-13, which clearly must be given 7 days, not 48 hours per the above policy? I also noticed from your talk pages that some images were deleted without checking if they were used in a page, which indicates to me that you may have simply indiscriminately deleted all tagged images, rather than properly checking; given the speed at which these images were deleted, I'd say this is likely. Please note that mass out-of-process deletions are what got Betacommand stripped of his admin powers. DHowell 22:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

DHowell, check your facts, and please dont say libel statements about me. If your going to quote arbcom case and use it to support your POV please read it first, and get your facts straight otherwise shut up. WP:NFCC trumps CSD. NFCC Was set by the foundation, CSD was not. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What "libel statements"? If my statements are libelous than you had better prepare your libel case against the ArbCom, because I am merely reporting their findings of fact, particlarly (1) and (2.1); and their remedy. And please get your facts straight. WP:NFCC was not set by the foundation, you are mistaking it for the Foundation licensing policy. And NFCC also says "An image on which fair use is claimed that is used in no article (Criterion 7) may be deleted seven days after notification." DHowell 02:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr.^demon

I would just like to cheer you on for the Wikimedia Board Election!!! Good luck! Hope ya win! The Phoenix Enforcer 23:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with Mediation [[6]]

User:Sarner and User:Shotwell keep deleting an item added to the section of Additional items to be mediated that Peterson added. I support that addition. Furthermore, the addition is nearly identical to the first item in that section. I appears that Sarner is deleting it since he and mercer are the subjects of the question regarding their COI and financial interests in the dispute. If you could intervene it might calm things down and facilitate the mediation process. JonesRD_talk 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why delete Shirley Tilghman image?

What was the reason for deleting Tilghman.S-03DA-low.jpg? It was originally obtained from the Princeton University public relations office and permission to reproduce was explicitly given.

As an aside, the replacement image came from exactly the same source. I have no particular vested interest in the image, I just want to know why it was deleted, thanks.WBcoleman 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ōsaka and Saga

Why did you remove the category from the Ōsaka and Saga prefectural templates? I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't foster contribution"...and anyway the list doesn't look right with those two missing.Manmaru 06:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletionist rogue (:simmer:)

hey can you tell me why the User_ig-0 template was deleted? I understand the reason you gave for deleting the Category but what has it to do with the template? Thanks -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop button for the bot

Hello,

I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one with affection to big red emergency stop buttons. I really like how they're put up at all ski lifts in Austria. I've also set up a big red button for a bot, though it doesn't have a picture.

– b_jonas 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OTRS protection message needs link to Wikipedia:OTRS

Please see Wikipedia talk:OTRS#OTRS protection message needs link to this page. —Keenan Pepper 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

On that note, can the article be recreated as a stub and semi-protected now? Daniel 05:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:F3_3.JPG

File:F3 3.JPG was deleted for lacking a fair use rational. According to the templates in place (or at least my interpretation at the time), the fair use rational was supposed to be placed on the talk page of the image. You will find Image_talk:F3_3.JPG has a fair use rational, which was accepted as good by the admin who initially checked the image for a rational when it was uploaded. If it is restored I'd be more than happy to change it to the new format. -sHARD 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Diablo Swing Orchestra

It seems to me that the award mentioned is a claim of significance, so i have removed the speedy delete tag. DES ^(talk) 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Someone else might have a different view, and what an AfD would do is a different matter altogether. DES ^(talk) 00:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning User:PatPeter/Wikipedia:WikiProject Source to Short

I am aware that a discussion came about about my prototype WikiProjects but user Durova gave me a second chance, as would the rest of Wikipedia. If you want to eradicate my ideas for my WikiProjects then allow me to give feedback, instead of doing things behind my back and in the shadows. -PatPeter 21:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:J.P.Lon/Userboxes/Interest-Economics

Hi Chad, I reverted your removal of the user category from User:J.P.Lon/Userboxes/Interest-Economics. Though I agree that this needs to be done to most userboxes (especially ones with questionable/bogus categorisations ... e.g., one that states something like "N'Sync rocks!" and categorises users into Category:Wikipedians interested in music), this is a case where the userbox itself makes an explicit claim of interest in the subject: "This user is interested in economics." Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you also please take a look at Category:Wikipedians with IBS? I can't figure out why Koncorde's userpage shows up in that category, which is otherwise eligible for speedy deletion per CSD C1 (including the 4-day requirement, see [7]). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Miyavi miyavizm cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Miyavi miyavizm cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:Image:MP Arcade Logo.jpg

This image became orphaned because someone removed it from the article without an explanation. I placed it back in the article yet your comment in the deletion log claims it wasn't being used. This image is the logo of the game the article is based on & is needed. SNS 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe next time

Sorry nor you and I didn't get elected in the board election...but I am glad that we had the opportunity to try. Maybe next time. :) DragonFire1024 06:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

account

hi, do i have the right to delete this acccount? if i do, i wish to do so. I would appreciate if you could assist asap. thanks. ephix 23:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Simplified sig

Hi ^demon. I saw the coding for your sig and tried to condense it. This should cut about 30 – 45 characters of code:

'''<font color="red">^</font>[[User:^demon|<font color="black">demon</font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:^demon|<font color="red">[omg plz]</font>]]</sup> <i style="font-size:10px;">{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}, {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</i>

Of course, it is entirely your decision if you want to make the change. :-) —« ANIMUM » 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It saves character usage. :-) —« ANIMUM » 04:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete history of Image:Minimo WinCE.png

The screenshot became orphaned because it displayed an outdated version of the software. I have updated the image to display the latest version, and I also want all of its edit history restored. --tyomitch 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Preserving old revisions of extant pages is required to comply with GFDL. Your reluctance to retain due attribution to the past contributors to the image description page is a violation of GFDL. --tyomitch 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator abuse

Hello - the CSD policy for attack pages says "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile")." Can you explain to me how this is satisfied by Administrator abuse? Maybe it fits your definition of "attack page" but apparently not the policy's... personally I don't feel like I'm being attacked in any way by that article :-D ugen64 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the page did not meet the literal terms of the CSD, and that there weree people strongly expressing policy-based views on each side, I think that an early clsoe here was not at all appropriate. Please re-open this discussion. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Howdy. I'd like to mention that I thought you made a reasonable call. Usually on Wikipedia nobody says anything until they're biting your head off for making a mistake; I just wanted to thank you for a job well done. While Process Is Important, it's worth remembering that Process Isn't Everything. Our rules are a trellis, not a straitjacket—a framework to encourage responsible and orderly growth, not to strangle it.

I'm always gobsmacked by the amount of time and effort spent to try to restore these three-sentence non-articles. Just tell A.Z. to write his essays in User: or Wikipedia: space, and move on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah but this didn't purport to be an essay about Wikipedia, but an article about a phenomenon common to various on-line groups and communities. I am going to see if I can find some useful sources, and if I can I will recreate this, in article space. DES ^(talk) 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That would certainly be a much better use of your time than having a pissing match on DRV, yes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There would be no "pissing match" if people would refrain from speedy-delting things that don't meet the speedy deletion criteria, and would refrain fron early closing of debates where there is singnificant disagreement. That almost always causes more problems than it averts. Frankly i am tempted to revet the clsoing, althouhg i probably won't, because I commented in the discussion. But the early clsoe was way out of line, IMO. Indeed it might arguably be called "administrator abuse", ironcally enough. DES ^(talk) 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted, I am not reversing my closure, please take this debate elsewhere, I'm not interested. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

I just realized that you deleted Image:53logo.JPG. It was being used in the Fifth Third Field (Toledo) article. Could it please be reinstated? A logo is allowed to be used in this situation. See WP:LOGO. Thanks.  hmwith  talk 15:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree, please let me know.  hmwith  talk 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of logo used under fair use

I'm a little confused about why you deleted Image:53logo.JPG under CSD I5 (orphaned fair-use image) when it was being actively used in an article (Fifth Third Field (Toledo)), in accordance with WP:LOGO, and was not orphaned. I'm not sure if I've misunderstood the situation - I don't know much about images, and I know fair use is complicated - or if this was an error. I won't undelete it without your consent, as I'm not confident in my knowledge of image use policy. Walton^One 12:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi. Could you please comment on the unblock request posted by User:Aim Here, whom you blocked last night, for the benefit of whatever admin reviews the request. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 17:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you do not comment in the next day or so, I am unblocking the user. I cannot find a single example of him "trolling" on WP:ANI, so maybe if you comment and provide a few diffs and explain where the trolling occurred (or even a brief summary of the conflict's history that I am unfortunately unaware of) that would be very helpful. Thanks, ugen64 05:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mykinda.jpg

Hi, you deleted this image as being unused and non free...well, it's being used here, and there was no notice (as far as I know) that it was going to be deleted posted anywhere. If you could consider un-deleting (and tagging with a no-fair-use-rationale tag if you wish), it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Giggy _U^CP 22:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been uploaded again (under a different name). Giggy _U^CP 22:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted bad image link

When you deleted the image link to a deleted image from the Anna Ohura article, you also took out the image field of the infobox template. I've seen many people do this in the past and I don't really understand why since leaving the field in doesn't hurt anything as far as I can see. So is this just an ease of editing thing since you can just highlight the whole line of text instead of having to stop at the = sign? Just curious, Dismas|^(talk) 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

I'm not sure if you saw my last post - it was archived without comment, so I'll repeat it here. I'm a little confused about why you deleted Image:53logo.JPG under CSD I5 (orphaned fair-use image) when it was being actively used in an article (Fifth Third Field (Toledo)), in accordance with WP:LOGO, and was not orphaned. I'm not sure if I've misunderstood the situation - I don't know much about images, and I know fair use is complicated - or if this was an error. I won't undelete it without your consent, as I'm not confident in my knowledge of image use policy. Walton^One 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Robot Wars articles

Hi - I see you deleted List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK) and the rest of it. It was only a matter of time! Just a note though, I created that page originally by merging loads of NN robot articles together - as you probably noticed - in order to try and prevent loads of fanboy trivia clogging up AfD. So while I completely agree it wasn't really needed - as you'll see from its talk page - it might be worth keeping an eye on Category:Robot Wars, Category:Robot Wars competitors, and the contributions of User:CBFan and User:Izzy259 for a while. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 11:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical

Greets, I have removed the historical tag you applied to WP:CEM. Take a gander at my talkpage, it appears there is still interest and perhaps an impending CEM case. What are you thoughts?

Cheers! Navou 05:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. If there's still activity then it can keep going. It had just appeared to me to be dead. All the best, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oscar2.jpg

you deleted this image while i was in the process of providing rationale and justification for its use.--emerson7 | Talk 16:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have listed the image at WP:FUR. Its use violates NFCC#1, NFCC#2, and NFCC#8. Cheers. -N 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Need your expert help!

Hello! I hope you are feeling great! Anyway, I would like to have your expert help with regards to a template. For further information, please view this page. I hope that you will be able to fix this minor problem, so as to achieve greater consistency in this project. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't know much about template conditionals :( ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ateam.jpg

I am confused by your reason for deleting Image:Ateam.jpg. You stated that it was unsed, yet I found out it had been deleted becuase it's no longer visible in the Infobox on the The A-Team page. As an entertainment image, these are usually allowable under fair-use. Since the image was in use at the time you deleted it, you should have given due notice to the article talk page before speedying the image, and allowed someone to correct the fair-use rationale. Please consider saving us both time by restoring the image. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Games Workshop photos of Games Workshop miniatures

As you recently reviewed some of these, you may be interested to know that I have started a discussion at WP:FUR#22 July 2007 about the whether Games Workshop photos of Games Workshop miniatures are "replaceable" fair-use images or not. Cheers --Pak21 18:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Atease3.jpg

I am curious about your deletion of this image under WP:CSD#I5, as this image was used in the article At Ease and seems to have been there for over a year. — The Storm Surfer 22:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Free and non-free images

Greetings. There have been several cases lately where your interpretation (and possibly copyright law) has differed from mine. (I'm an admin who deals a lot with copyright issues, and I created the {{replaceable fair use}} template.) Most of these cases involve photographs of copyrighted subjects, such as the Oscar statue and game figurines. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Fair use review. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your image deletion

Hi ^demon, can you explain why you deleted File:NASTARKidRacing2.JPG despite the fact that the deletion was contested, and without responding to the specific points I raised on its page? You said "Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago", yet you made no attempts to engage in discussion regarding its status. 12:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You say the image is easy to replace. I spent a long time looking and wasn't able to find a single one. I wrote the organization, and they were kind enough to send me this one. All their images are copyrighted, and they have to be released by the competitor. This is a promotional image released by the organization, and FU has a specific provision for promotional images. If you can suggest a way to get a free replacement, please do. Otherwise, please undelete, and please engage in discussion on the image's talk page, instead of just deleting. Crum375 13:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Obsolete NC images for deletion

Obsolete NC images without rationales such as Image:Captain norton.png, Image:Norton_commander.png and Image:Norton_Commander_5.0.png are not needed in article, because modern NC 5.51 for DOS image with rationale already added and modern NC 2.01 for Windows image with rationale already added are enough to illustrate Norton Commander in DOS and Windows versions. Wikinger 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson's Retired Number

I found this in the deletion log of an image I uploaded.

12:53, 23 July 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Jackie Robinson Retired Cut.PNG" (Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago.)

Now, I did not recieve any kind of warning. I'd like to know what just happened behind my back while people claim that I was informed when I wasn't. -- Silent Wind of Doom 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you weren't notified. The bots always notify, so I've gotten in the habit of not even checking behind anymore. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

I'm not sure if you saw my last post - it was archived without comment, so I'll repeat it here. I'm a little confused about why you deleted Image:53logo.JPG under CSD I5 (orphaned fair-use image) when it was being actively used in an article (Fifth Third Field (Toledo)), in accordance with WP:LOGO, and was not orphaned. I'm not sure if I've misunderstood the situation - I don't know much about images, and I know fair use is complicated - or if this was an error. I won't undelete it without your consent, as I'm not confident in my knowledge of image use policy. Walton^One 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrongful Deletion of the File:Henry O. Studley Tool Chest Open.jpg

I have been away from wikipedia for a while, and I just noticed that the image for the Henry O Studley article that I uploaded was deleted by you. I was enquiring as to why it was deleted, as it was properly documented with the source and the licensing info, as it is a fair use image. I am fairly sure I complied with all the wikipedia rules regarding images.

If it can be restored by you please do so. If not please send me a message on my talk page explaining what I failed to do to make the image an acceptable wikipedia image. It is my understanding that all works done by the federal government fall under the fair use license.

Thanks for any reply. CoolMike 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd include a link to the article for your reference. I realize it was probably a while ago that the image got deleted.

Henry O Studley

Thanks

Sorry about my somewhat angry tone earlyer... I have since discovered that the issue is a little thornier than I had thought. The image was from the smithsonian institution, which is funded by the US federal government. They have a long copywrite notice here: copywright notice The image that I want to re-upload is here: [8]. Maybee you can help me make sence of this. According to the SI web site I should be able to use it as wikipedia is a non-profit, educational web site. I gather that there is some conflicting policies from the Smithsonian Institution about this sort of thing. Check out that wikilink for info. It seems to me like the image is good to be used in wikipedia, but I figured I'd ask your opinion and read up on the wikipedia policies a little more before uploading any more images from the smithsonian. CoolMike 00:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The only issue is that our downstream mirrors (such as Answers.com) do not necessarily support the "non-profit" model, which means this image cannot necessarily be distributed to them. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some contradictions on the wikipedia policy regarding the use of "Fair Use" images. See wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content (towards the end of the page) and wikipedia:non-free content (the section entitled "Down stream content". In my opinion the article in question warrents the use of a fair-use image becuase there is no other easily available public domain image. I have looked around pretty extensively for a picture of Henry O. Studley, or his tool chest that is public domain, and I was unable to find any. The tool chest is currently in the possession of a private and annonymous collector, and so it is unlikely that a free use image is going to turn up any time soon. Henry O. Studley him is deceased. This leads to a quandry, as there are only fair use images for the article. These images would add a great deal to the article. Also they are not expressely forbidden by the wikipedia policies. Is there any due process for appealing a speedy deletion? The more I read about wikipedia policy the more dissatisfied I become with the contradictory and ambiguous nature of the policies. A simple vote or something would be much more satisfying to me than trolling through some of these really porely worded guideline pages. Thanks for your feedback by the way CoolMike 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please respond CoolMike 21:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Restored. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Is there anything I can do / should do to make the copyright/licensing notices more complete? Any suggestions would be much appreciated. It appears the old template for licensing from the smithsonian institution has been removed. CoolMike 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Garykarr.jpg

could you point me to the nomination for this image for speedy delete? --emerson7 | Talk 14:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no nomination page, it was nominated directly on its image page. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Signpost Report

Thanks for pointing this out. I'll put it into next week's edition. I'll just use the online edition because even if you sent me the scan, I can't link to it! Thanks. enochlau (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

Can you please undelete the images mentioned here so that I can add some fair use rationale? -- Prod-You 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

You have been added as a party to the arbcom for violating the Foundations non-discrimination policy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi ^demon, I was wondering how you applied formatting to the timestamp portion of your signature. Please reply on my talk page, thanks! east.718 20:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured out how to do it. east.718 at 21:50, July 25, 2007

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Is anything progressing with this mediation? A user has placed a request on WP:RPP to have the protection removed from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but as it was protected with the statement "until med case is solved" I am hesitant to remove protection. If, however, nothing is to come from the mediation, I would like to remove protection from this article (it has been two months). Since you're listed as the one heading this case, I figured you'd know. - auburnpilot talk 23:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I haven't thought about the case in days. If I wasn't up to my ears in this whole ArbCom mess, I'd go look at it now. Perhaps you can ping User:Daniel to see if it can get reassigned and/or closed. I'm just not focused on it right now, sorry. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ^demon. I left Daniel a note.[9] - auburnpilot talk 00:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Iran1980s.jpg

Thank you for providing administrative services to Wikipedia. The image you deleted, Image:Iran1980s.jpg was being worked on by the graphics lab in an effort to produce an image which conforms to wikipedia policy. We realize that Image:Iran1980s.jpg did not conform to policy, but nonetheless it was one of the source images for this effort, and it may have been vital to our success. We ask that you check in the future if an image is linked to by the graphics lab, or if it has the {{glhangon}} tag before deleting it. Thanks, --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I did read your red notice at the top of your talk page, we at the graphics lab are not claiming fair use, only that we were "in use" of the image for our project. As soon as an alternative was finished, the image in question was to be proposed for deletion, and the {{glhangon}} (if used) would have been removed as well as the link from the graphics lab. Thanks, --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

As you may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, and others, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word. If, on the other hand, you are not interested in the slightest, feel free to delete this.   — The Storm Surfer 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

hey!

hey man this is michael trying to contact with u :P add me on msn m_inpinar@hotmail.com and my myspace is www.myspace.com/mcjstyle , see ya soon ;)

If you want to personally contact him, you want Special:Emailuser/^demon. That is the easiest way. If you don't mind a public method, you can directly talk here. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:L 011bec8fd12af8295eb93cb84205d342.jpg

You deleted this image on June 12th I believe. Can you please restore it as it is for a page of a band who i am aquainted with. i dont believe it has any copyright. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Pink Blue Thing (talk • contribs).

It has copyright just by the fact that someone made it. Also, if you are aquainted with the subject, you should consider reading the WP:COI policy. Also, it would help to provide a more meaningful name for the image. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

newspaper reporter seeking info

Chad, I'm a freelance writer doing on a feature article for the Washington Post Sunday Magazine related to Wikipedia and the mediation of posted content. Would like to reach you by phone. Can you forward a reach number? I can be contacted at teamsport15@aol.com. Will forward my phone number is you prefer. Just give me a private email address to send it to. Thanks, Tom D.

To privately email, you most likely want Special:Emailuser/^demon. That's the easiest way. Alternatively, you may leave your message here, directly. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Chad, I emailed TWP to confirm this. See the CC-ed email in your inbox (in case you missed my IRC message). Cheers, Daniel 12:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nexopia screenshot.png

Why was this image deleted? The image was used and released with permission by the site owner, Timo Ewalds, for use here on Wikipedia. Timo owns Nexopia and is able to extend that permission. Charles 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If so, you need to state this along with proof, such as them stating it on their website. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Doctor42.jpg

Why was this image deleted when it was being used on the 42 (Doctor Who) page. The reason that it is not free is unjustified because the image that replaced it is not free either. Why wasn't that image deleted?--Brinstar 08:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Restored, sorry. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Mediation Committee Barnstar
		I award ^demon the Mediation Committee Barnstar as an expression of thanks for all his hard work during his time as both an active mediator and as the Chair. Your service is greatly appreciated by all of us on the Committee, and I'm confident by mediation participants as well, as you picked up the Committee during a down-time and turned it into an energetic beast, making my job so much easier. So, thanks for all your efforts, and I feel proud to have served both under and following you. Cheers, Daniel 11:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Atease3.jpg

I am curious about your deletion of this image under WP:CSD#I5, as this image was used in the article At Ease and seems to have been there for over a year. — The Storm Surfer

Sorry, I hit the wrong button, I meant to hit I4, because it lacked a source. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I really wish more people would remember to provide sources for copyrighted images. Also, thank you for updating the log so this question won't come up again in the future. — The Storm Surfer 14:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK), List of Robot Wars Contestants (Non-UK) and The Video Games

OK, these articles articles aren't up to full standards, BUT YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR TO DELETE THEM! They are highly needed and if there was a way, I would probably block you from destroying any more Robot Wars articles. I'm not the one to blame and tell off people on Wikipedia, but you should be ashamed. Some Guy (Izzy259) 12:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For the first two, they were deleted for being non-notable. Minor partipants, as well as Non-UK partipitants, can easily be mentioned on a main list or the main article. As for The Video Games, I cannot find an article by that name that was deleted. If you want to contest the deletion of an article, please go to DRV. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

Can you please undelete the images mentioned here so that I can add some fair use rationale? -- Prod-You 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am reposting this as I did not hear anything back on this. -- Prod-You 18:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Fair use rationale added. -- Prod-You 21:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BIONICLE - Image Deletion

I'd just like to know why you're deleting a shit load of the BIONICLE-related images when they -all- have fair use rationale. An example being Image:Avak.jpg. We went through a lot of trouble fighting to keep them up in the first place, and then creating fair use rationale - and I didn't even do much of that, because I was fed up with trying to keep them up. I don't want Drakhan's work to have been for nothing. --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

They need several things - A fair use rational, a source, and to be used. That image was used, and had a fair use rational, but was deleted under I4: It did not have a source. It was tagged for more than 7 days, in which time someone could have fixed it. It's not hard to say where it came from. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Darkthrone

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Darkthrone, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Argyriou (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Contested as 'absured' by Prolog (talk · contribs), for the record. Daniel→♦ 07:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Terra nova ship.jpg

OK,

Um what's CSD#14 which was cited as criteria to delete this image? The Terra Nova sailed from 1910-1913 so the picture is in the public domain. Thanks Andeggs 08:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming you mean CSD I4: You want to read the CSD page, you are looking at criteria Image 4. In this case, it says: Lack of licensing information. Images in category "Images with unknown source", "Images with unknown copyright status", or "Images with no copyright tag" that have been in the category for more than seven days, and which still lack the necessary information, regardless of when uploaded. Note, users sometimes specify their source in the upload summary, so be sure to check the circumstances of the image. If you know the source of the image, we can undelete the image, and you can provide the source. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

List of city nicknames

You seem to have deleted the List of city nicknames article in violation of the deletion policy. Contrary to your claim, the deletion discussion didn't result in consensus to delete the article. Please restore it. · Naive cynic · 09:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted at a second AfD nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of city nicknames (2nd nomination)). The result on that nomination was delete. If you want to contest the deletion, please see deletion review. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I haven't noticed it has been nominated again. Please ignore my request. · Naive cynic · 11:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Three images in Category:Replaceable fair use to be decided after 29 July 2007

You asked me to review the three remaining tagged images in the above category. Here's the result.

• Image:Basketball front.jpg: the objector, User:BrownHornet21, correctly argues that the image is promotional, but doesn't understand the distinction between free and non-free, and he says so. It is used on the James Goldstein article simply to show what he looks like, thus is definitely replaceable fair use. Moreover according to our article he is known for his enthusiasm for using courtside seats and to attend about 95% of Lakers and Clippers home games, which makes it really a doddle for a Los Angeles resident to get a picture of him. Just take a decent camera with a telephoto lens to one of the games, identify him and snap away all through the game.

• Image:LaszlonagyU.jpg: the objector points out that the subject is very old. I think we can afford to hold off on this, though technically it is deletable.

• Image:Voyagercrew.jpg: this is not replaceable on Star Trek: Voyager. The program is no longer in production and, in any case, I think it unlikely that there would be free images illustrating the cast in that way. Use on Starfleet uniforms is debatable but it doesn't make any difference to the deletion case for the image. --Tony Sidaway 15:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is placed on permanent legal threat parole. Pfagerburg is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Kebron is banned from Wikipedia for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just curious

Why did you just delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/127.0.0.1? I was in the middle of reading it off WP:BJAODN from the April Fools '06 collection. 136.159.225.175 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect. The original page is still located at User:Jaranda/Requests for adminship/127.0.0.1 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

CSD reason menu

Reminder to change A3- "no content" to "no meaningful content". -- John Reaves 20:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bin laden 12 27a.jpg

Hi, I noticed you recently removed a fair-use disputed tag from this image, with the comment that the rationale in question was sufficient. However, it said the problem was that the image in question did not have fair use rationales for all articles it was included on. It has a rationale for 9/11 but not for Osama Bin Laden. I was just wondering if I'm just not understanding the fair use requirements properly here, or if this was an oversight. --Haemo 05:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oversight sorry. Feel free to do whatever you need to the image, retag if need be. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

Chad, what is the reason behind deleting the two images Image:Kattandakudi massacre1.jpg and Image:Kattankudi.jpg? I had given a fair use rational as far as I can remember. I was not informed of any licensing issues of the image by anyone. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither image has a source. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Chad I think I forgot to put the source, I'll do that. Could you restore the image. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the source, and removed the no source tag please check whether this satisfies the requirements. Thanks again NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 07:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV notification

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:SacredHeartPioneers.png. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. fuzzy510 03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC) ^{Signature fixed by Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot)}

Paul Ernst

Hello, ^demon, could you please delete an edit of mine? I want to move Paul Ernst (disambiguation) back to Paul Ernst, because it was a mistake to move it. But I cannot do that, because I edited the redirect . I thank you!--walkee^talkee 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --walkee^talkee 13:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

newspaper reporting seeking to contact Demon

I'm a freelance writer from Baltimore, MD doing a story for the Washington Post Sunday Magazine on Wikipedia. Would like to talk with you, preferably by phone. Please contact me via my private email address: teamsport15@aol.com. Thanks, T. Dunkel

This has already been taken care of above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Przyszowice massacre tombstone.jpg

I see that you removed the tags from this... I was just about to delete it. Is there anywhere we can take this for a centralized discussion of whether this is fair use? It seems silly to have this copyrighted image when the only unique thing about it is this ribbon from the memorial... The article isn't on the tombstone or even the memorial, it's on the massacre. I think a free image of the tombstone would be perfectly adequate--it's not like the ribbon adds anything to the picture. Calliopejen1 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to delete it instead, by all means go ahead. I was on the fence about it myself, and erred on the side of keeping it. So if you think it should be deleted, go for it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

quick question

I'm a new admin and still learning the ropes.... I saw yesterday a page somewhere that explained how to add tags to archive the talk page for an image when you delete it. Can you point me to that page or just explain what the tags are, so I can delete that memorial image? Thanks, Calliopejen1 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I also just realized that I probably shouldn't delete this image because I added a comment on the talk page. Is this correct? Calliopejen1 04:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If an image is deleted, the talkpage can be deleted too, unless it's an image on commons, of course. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing images from articles

Hi, I'd like to politely request that when you delete images, you also remove them from articles using them. Red image links are ugly, and red image links with a template below saying "the above image has been tagged for speedy deletion" are even uglier. Thank you! -- Schneelocke 11:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've missed them. I guess I was going too fast for Twinkle to orphan them. I'll slow down a bit. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Gilbert Shelton.GIF

I wonder why you deleted Image:Gilbert_Shelton.GIF without bothering to reply to my arguments. Now the article on Gilbert Shelton has to go without a portrait of Gilbert Shelton. Maikel 10:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not my job to respond to arguments. It's my job to read the tags, the arguments, and the rationales, then make a decision. This is what I did, and the decision was that the image would be deleted. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Being an admin is no license for arrogance. Maikel 09:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not arrogance, that's an admins job. There are so many images etc being nominated for deletion, the admins can't respond to every one. And also, the responses often end up getting deleted anyway, so there isn't much point. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe the talk page shouldn't get deleted then, so that people can read them!

I simply can't understand how deleting the only image of Gilbert Sheldon, which was used to illustrate the article on Gilbert Shelton, has improved Wikipedia. I mean, I made the effort to get permission to use that image from the copyright holder in order to be abele to illustrate the article, so if that image gets deleted, and without any replacement, I think it would be common courtesy to let me know why it was necessary to do so.

When I delete something from an article I always make the effort to leave a short note on the disscussion page. That's just due process. Maikel 12:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sportspeople by nickname

Could you cite a couple of examples of the entries that you thought "could be considered borderline libel"? I looked through the list and didn't notice any of that sort. Deor 01:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving the real names out, because it's a deleted page and I don't want to make a bad BLP situation worse, but here's the nicknames:

• "The Unabomber" - comparing someone to a well-known terrorist.
• "Buddha" - comparing someone to a religious figure.
• "E-Rod" (by haters) - Promotes a nickname used in a derogatory fashion anyway.

Those are ones that stood out, especially the first one. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the last one was inappropriate in the list, mainly because it's not widely used (although mildly disparaging nicknames, like "Doctor Strangeglove" for Dick Stuart, are something of a tradition in baseball). The other two, however, have appeared widely in print and broadcast media without any objection that I'm aware of—"Buddha" tends to be a nickname applied to any athlete with a somewhat rotund physique; it has nothing to do with religion. If no one else does so, I'll probably take this to DRV in a day or two, seeking a relist. Thanks for your response. Deor 01:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

image:Kaiaphas.jpg

Hi, you deleted Kaiaphas.jpg This image was taken from the Official Ancient Website - http://www.ancientband.com, who are the copyright holders and the official source of the image, and the image was released into public domain by them in 1998. Here is the link to the image itself on the official site http://www.ancientband.com/biella4.html Can you restore it please? Todesfee 04:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted as having an invalid fair use rational - this most likely means you uploaded it as fair use, when it was in fact public domain. You are free to re-upload with the correct licensing template, as long as you link to somewhere on the bands site where it explains that it is in the public domain. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, i will do that, and i'll ask you to check if i did everything right so it doesn't get deleted again....Todesfee 19:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i am trying to upload the image again but i can't seem to find the template for the public domain release, could you please help me with that? Here is the link to the gallery page of the site, where it says that the images have been released into the public domain : http://www.ancientband.com/ancient_gallery.html Thank you.

Todesfee 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your request

I have a question pending for you on the request page. Please take a look when you can respond there as this is currently only partially complete. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Microsoft-Staff-1978.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Please note that I am requesting the undeletion of this image for use in History of Microsoft only, as per the rationale. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. As Storm Surfer said, asking you first would have probably saved the trouble of setting up a DRV to begin with. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

For Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition and all subcats I will request deletion review as there were more Keeps than Deletes unless you make a valid counterpoint - this request uis per rules for Deletion Review Mikebar 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Numbers don't matter, but take it up with User:After-Midnight, as he closed it, not I. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Delirious logo.png

I'm not quite sure why you thought this was unused. It was in use at Delirious?. Please undelete. The Evil Spartan 18:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The Evil Spartan 18:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rule reminder

About speedies: see my post here, it applies to you too. Please be more careful in the future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of sportspeople by nickname. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Deor 02:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg

Why did you delete Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg at this time. You stated that the image was deleted because it was not used. But it was being used in two separate talk pages to try to address the reason it was replaced. There were notes in the file that the image had been replaced with one of poorer qualitity and the reason for replacing the image had been requested. So far there has been no response to my request. I would like to replace the poor quality image with the image you deleted. The deleted image has a complete fair use statement where as the replacement image does not. Would you consider undeleteding the image so that it can be used. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Press

A journalist from the Washington Post Sunday Magazine was interested in talking with you, but was having difficulty contacting you. Raul654 12:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I know. I felt a weird vibe as he was a journalist and attempting to contact me via an AOL e-mail address, so User:Daniel e-mailed the publication for me to confirm, but we never received a reply from them. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He's a free-lancer. Most of them use their own personal email addresses. Raul654 13:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I must've missed that part of it, I'll e-mail him in a bit. Sorry for getting you involved. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

hey mr!

hey there, this is purley about getting in contact with u. who am i? email\msn me - gorant87@msn.com

wanna actually see who i am.. www.myspace.com/babyash87

what im after..your email :) im voting for u. goodluck. x

To email, use the page Special:Emailuser/^demon. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot)

Restore city_plaza.jpg

Please restore city_plaza.jpg, it is a fair use image as stated at the source web site www.cityplaza.ca: "Photographs are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License. Photographs may not be distributed or used in any form unless this source is cited and the copyright holders BITNETS Inc. and the URL of this document http://www.cityplaza.ca receive appropriate attribution."

Why...

Hi Demon

I am atrades from the UK and just recently started getting invloved with wikipedia but been spending loads of time on AboutUs,org I have just recently been viewing your nomination for the board and I was intrested in your views, hope you dont mind.

I have just fought for the keeping of John Smeaton Baggage handler and I was wondering what your thoughts are on this.

Atrades

Recent deletion of Category:Wikipedians who scuba dive

I have undone this recent deletion by your bot ^demon. I ask you to discuss this deletion at the category talk page.

Awards

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award ^demon the Editor's Barnstar for his exellent and hard work at XfD's Marlith T/C 23:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Hillery

Hi, Patrick Hillery is still alive, so the image is not legitimate fair use. —Angr 10:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)õ

My mistake. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted images

Hi there, it appears you deleted Image:Nightshade 3.gif and Image:Jetpac.gif as being unused, when they were in fact used in Nightshade (video game) and Jetpac respectively. Could you please undelete these? Cheers, Miremare 16:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Userpage deletion

I noticed that Adrak, who had vandalised me quite some time ago, had his userpage deleted by you beacuse of WP:NOT but I now see it is agian being used for this purpose. Maybe you would have a look to see if you agree and take any necessary action as appropriate. Cheers. ww2censor 16:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you remove images so quickly?

Hi, I was deleting images from the same category at the same time as you, and found that you had just beaten me to it when I was about to remove an image from a page before deleting it. I then looked at your contributions, and found that you manage to remove several images from articles every minute. Are you using some special tool? If so, can I use it too? I find that removing images from articles really slows me down when I'm working my way through a category of images ready for deletion. By the way, I use User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js for tagging images, but although I'm not fully familiar with it yet, I don't think there's anything in it that helps to orphan an image that you're about to delete. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:TWINKLE, it deletes and orphans an image with one click. All the best, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. ElinorD (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Really just a token, considering the sheer amount of work you've done, but...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		To ^demon for all his phenomenal hard work deleting crappy images, despite the backlash he suffers for it everyday. Keep doing what you do, it makes life a lot easier for the rest of us ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 14:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Committee chair

Hello, I found your page while viewing the Mediation page. I had a few questions before putting in a request for mediation. I wanted to make sure I would be able to, as I am not either party of the dispute. Also, the dispute has run on not only 1 article's talk page, but 2- as well as spilling over onto several members' talk pages. I know I am only giving you general information, but does this seem to be grounds for a mediation? -Fall Of Darkness 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Provided it's a content dispute and not a behavioral dispute, of course Mediation can help. If you go over to WP:RFM, that page can guide you on getting some help from an active mediator (I'm not currently active, by the way :-)). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it started as content dispute, and then turned into behavioral. Thank you for your help though! I did not realize that you were not active at this time- the link on the bottom of the page brought me to your talk page, so you might want to look into that :-). Thanks again! -Fall Of Darkness 13:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD Close

Thanks for closing this AFD. I was planning on grasping the third rail tonight and closing it in the same direction. Your close summary was less incendiary than mine would have been. GRBerry 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the support, although I fear a very very very messy DRV. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid

I can see no basis for a consensus on this issue. I count 59 who wanted it deleted, and 45 who wanted it kept. Please elaborate how you arrived at the conclusion that a deletion was determined, aside from your own judgment on the issue. --Leifern 19:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Random comment - and that's including Merge votes and similar ones as Delete votes. Without merge votes included, I counted 46 keeps and 52 deletes. I realize that numbers don't dictate the AfD process, but while your decision was loosely policy-based, so were the majority of the Keep votes (as well as most of the Delete votes).

In any case, though I disagree with your decision, I appreciate that you took the initiative to close a messy AfD.

--xDanielx^Talk 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see the AfD, my comments are there, and the follow-up by User:Hemlock Martinis better explains exactly what I was thinking. As far as "own judgment" on the issue, I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck one way or the other about the article, which is why I closed the debate. I'm well aware that both sides of the debate were probably trying to get an "impartial" admin (ie: one who has an opinion but hasn't stated it) to close the debate and swing it their way. It happens with every controversial AfD such as this, and nobody can deny it. I decided to read the debate, and close it, before any "impartial" admin could come in and pass judgment. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Except you didn't just "close" the debate, you also deleted the article despite the votes being roughly equal to one another. I fail to see how that makes sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I was hoping for an admin who would actually try to read consensus, since this was a wiki last time I checked. "This debate has raised some very interesting points, all of which are valid" = "Therefore I deleted it"? Makes no sense at all. IronDuke 00:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Demon, neither the closing argument nor the rantings here make any sense. --Leifern 01:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping up to the plate on this one. For the record, I think you got the policy issues about right - Hemlock Martinis' longer explanation is very much what I was thinking (albeit he put it much more elegantly than me) when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid. -- ChrisO 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already merged the content of the deleted article into Human rights in China, where the research can copyediting can continue. Now that this is hopefully behind us, I would encourage editors to give a helping hand to merge all other "Allegations of XXXX apartheid" into other more relevant articles based on the same arguments presented at the close. Proposals have been posted in each one of these articles. I intend to effectuate these merges, in the coming days pending discussion at these talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue can be discussed places other than my talk. I'm not commenting on it anymore, so posting here is useless. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am inviting you and others to help with other similar disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to praise your courageous attempt to summarise the debate for the above. I think it was a messy and acrimonious debate, and it was a refreshing surprise to find an admin who actually believes in policy as a matter of conviction, rather than one who limply attempts to find a lame consensus at the expense of policies and guidelines. Ohconfucius 09:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Restore Image:Middlesbrough_crest.png

You stated when deleting the image that it was an unused non-free image, when it was in fact being used, on the Middlesbrough F.C. article and that of the Middlesbrough F.C. Reserves and Academy. For fair use it represents the logo of a company (Middlesbrough Football Club), obtained from club website, at low resolution, no non-copyright version available, used for informational purposes, and its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it is the primary means of identifying the subject of this article. I would request that you please restore the image. Thanks. --Simmo676 20:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C.

Much the same as the above comment, i would like to borrow his reasoning but in regards to the crest of Arsenal F.C., it was being used - On the main Arsenal F.C. page. I was just passing through and noticed the red link at the top of the page. thanks Woodym555 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Motion seconded. And to add, pretty much every professional Football club article, from every league, has the crest. Why single out 1 or 2 from the hundreds? Please restore. Ryecatcher773 02:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Third the above. Why was it deleted? The image was in use on the Arsenal F.C. article. Yes, it is unfree, but all other football logos are allowed with fair use rationales. Please see WP:LOGO. Dave101→talk  09:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Allegations of Chinese apartheid. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifern (talk • contribs)

I think you should take a look at this - Leifern is using it as a platform to take shots at you. -- ChrisO 08:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Restoring unanswered archived post

Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg

Why did you delete Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg at this time. You stated that the image was deleted because it was not used. But it was being used in two separate talk pages to try to address the reason it was replaced. There were notes in the file that the image had been replaced with one of poorer qualitity and the reason for replacing the image had been requested. So far there has been no response to my request. I would like to replace the poor quality image with the image you deleted. The deleted image has a complete fair use statement where as the replacement image does not. Would you consider undeleteding the image so that it can be used. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The preceeding post was archived without a reply. It is being reposted prior to filing a formal complaint about a Rogue Admin abusing his power. Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's not in use in mainspace, it's considered orphaned and can be deleted. Please read WP:CSD#I5. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But does that rule apply when there is a current discussion in place regarding an image that had been replaced with another image?

My intent is to replace the poor quality image with the image you deleted. Your deletion makes that impossible. The point remains that the image file was referenced as to the deletion of its usage and the intent to reuse it. Your action is no different than the specificly prohibited action of deleting an image listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion prior to reaching a final decision. Additionally you have continued to ignore the request to undelete the image. Why? Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also quoting from the article you referenced: "Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article" This exception would likewise apply when there is a discussion in place regarding the usage of an image. Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of using a fair use image involves using a low quality image. Replacing a low quality with a high quality one prevents it from being fair use. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We are still talking about low res images. But there is a difference between supper low res and screen quality low res. Maybe you think the following image is of adaquate quality for Wikipedia. I would like your opinion on that.

I would still link to replace the above image with the only you deleted. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The low-res one is fine. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:HMAS Armidale.jpg

I had disputed the claim that File:HMAS Armidale.jpg was replacable on the image's talk page and there was no response. On what grounds did you delete this image? --Nick Dowling 08:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The image needs a detailed rationale for *each* article it is used on. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not mentioned in the warning message placed on my talk page (the instruction being "On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all" - which I did). Moreover, simply deleting the image without first discussing how the fair use rationale and use of the photo needed to be amended seems to be anything but an assumption of good faith. The only other time an image I uploaded has been tagged as potentially being replaceable it was saved from the chopping block after the relevant admin took the time to discuss the image's use with me. --Nick Dowling 11:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of user cats

In reference to your progressive deletion of user cats- what, if any, reason would be good enough to defend a cat here? As many discussion have concluded, simply being interested in a subject is not correlated with knowing anything about it. I bring this up not to be (necessarily) disagreeable, but to speed up what seems to be inevitable. For that matter I don't see the relevance in 90% of user cats. In Category:Wikipedians there are 18 subcats. It seems like these at least lend themselves to collaboration:

• Category:Wikipedians by location
• Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration
• Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status

Possibly

• Category:Wikipedians by access to sources

and some subcats in

• Category:Wikipedians by education and
• Category:Wikipedians by skill

I mean really let's be serious here! It seems like it would be easier/quicker to start at the top instead of the bottom. As surely you have noticed the arguments from one to the other don't differ greatly in content or participants. So I believe it would not require that much effort. Unless of course you feel that there would be more resistance at the top b/c more people would get involved. That could potentially stop the whole thing.............(Sampm 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Image mistake

Hello! You deleted six images as "non-free and unused" that were in fact being used in articles, and all had fair use rationales. None had any kind of deletion template, except for the fact that they had all just been reduced to fair use size and needed their old revisions deleted. I think what must have happened was that you perhaps went to delete the old revisions, and got mixed up (since I see you've been doing a lot of image cleanup).

The images in question are Image:AyakashiSM.JPG, Image:Ann-hu.JPG, Image:Ail-hu.JPG, Image:Makaiju.JPG, Image:Sailor moon us deleted violent pic.jpg, and Image:Sailor moon us title.jpg. Because this all strikes me as pretty clearly a mistake, I've restored them all to save time; please don't construe this as my trying to undermine your action, though. If you meant to do it, we can come up with a different plan of action.

If you need help checking any of the other images you gone through, I'd be happy to lend a hand.

Thanks, Masamage ♫ 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That was the case, thanks for clearing this issue up for me. It was my first time in that backlog, so I wasn't 100% sure how to go about it. Thanks again. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. ^_^ Thank you! --Masamage ♫ 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians by physiological condition DRV

Hi,

I have just closed this DRV, overturning the deletion of all the categories except "Deceased Wikipedians", as consensus demonstrated that the conditions of the living were fundamentally different (and more open to collaboration) than those of the dead, and that the "Deceased Wikipedians" category had unduly distorted the discussion. The diseases of the living will need to be relisted at CfD. I could do this procedurally, but I thought you might make a more compelling nomination (as the original CfD nominator) than I would be able to. If you would rather not relist yourself, just let me know. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'll renominate in the immediate future. I seem to have made a bit of a bad name for myself on UCFD, as I've been nominating quite a bit of stuff for deletion that people are very very passionate about keeping. If you wish to renominate it procedurally, I have no issues though. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Christianity Explored

You speedy deleted this under WP:CSD#G4, recreation of previously deleted content. The previous deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity Explored) in 2005, focused on the advertising nature of the article, and when asked to indicate what about the very short article made it an ad, one editor said: "The only information to speak of is "It is similar to the Alpha Course" and a link, that is what makes it an ad (Link to a site advertising a product, without substantial content): the page lacks sufficient context to be a stub: other courses similar to Alpha can of course be discussed in Alpha Course. It may be true that Christianity Explored is significant, but the reader would not know and be able to verify that from reading the article and its links." That comment seems to sum up the views of those who favored deletion in 2005 pretty well. I don't think that the version just deleted fits that description. The more recent version contains several sentences of description of the course, and gives a significantly better explanation of what it is and why it might be notable. i don't think it is "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted." as WP:CSD has it. Please consider undelting this, or do you think the matter ought to be reviewed on DRV? I know it has been discussed on ANI in the context of MattCrypto's undeletion. DES ^(talk) 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggested the articles associated with the now deleted The Good Book Company and Tim Thornborough articles be deleted as they were being posted at Wikipedia to advertise for the company. This was one of those articles and it was speedy deleted by an admin when I posted the dab-4 notice upon learning that this was a recreation of deleted content when beginning the process of proposing an AfD. I think at this point since the article has been deleted three times that the proper way to deal with this is to post it at DRV if someone really thinks that there is notable/verifiable content worth saving: and since the other two articles associated with this one were also deleted, note of those two articles deletion debates should be made. --Nondistinguished 05:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christianity Explored. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - this isn't what CSD G4 is for, full stop. and, Nondistinguished... "upon learning this was a recreation of deleted content"? You learned no such thing, could not have as you are not an admin, and it's become quite apparent that it's untrue anyway. Random832 11:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Threats

You recently posted the following message on my talk page:

Today I came across several edit summaries by you that fail to assume good faith and are potentially personal attacks as well. Edit summaries such as this, this and this are not tolerated. Please consider this your first and only warning. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not take kindly to threats, especially pseudonymous ones, and I do not let them affect my behaviour. This is the only communication you will receive from me.

For the purposes of this response only, I will assume that you are acting in good faith.

You are correct that I have concluded that at least one of the contributors to the so-called discussion on Talk:Commonwealth Realm is not acting in good faith (and possibly more -- most of the "supporters" have never appeared in that forum before). It does happen you know. If you had reviewed the actual behaviour of the individual in question, you would have seen that I have reasonable grounds for doing so. You would also have seen that other people in the discussion who formerly assumed they were dealing with an honest actor have increasingly come to my point of view.

Dealing with the undemocratic and the intolerant who exploit the assumption of good faith to their own ends is a classic problem of tolerance. The first step is to recognise that that is what you are dealing with. The next is to call it out for what it is. I accept that once or twice I have been intemperate in doing so. However I stand by the substance of the charge. --Chris Bennett 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. --Chris Bennett 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just silly

OK, so the previous image I asked you to undelete had been unused in a period up to deletion. However deleting Image:EVA01 in Tokyo.jpg by CSD I5 is just silly, as the last revision of Evangelion (mecha) before ImageRemovalBot comes along has the image in use. That edit is dated 2007-08-01, while the image was deleted on 2007-08-06. What's going on? --Pekaje 21:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it just occurred to me that you might be going through the backlog at Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old (since I'm pretty sure this image was listed there). If that is the case, please note that only revisions should be deleted, as the image will still be in use somewhere. Even if that is not the case, I think I'll just go add a more explicit warning so nobody will make that mistake. --Pekaje 22:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That was it, I replied below about the same issue. Thanks. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now, if you could just undelete all those deletions, I will see what I can do to restore them to the articles they were removed from. I'm afraid ImageRemovalBot has compounded the mess quite a bit ... --Pekaje 12:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I restored the one you mentioned. I'll dig through my logs later and get them. I *think* it was only about 30 or so. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that the images are still not undeleted. I feel this is really a situation that should have been taken care of immediately, to prevent further damage (like people re-uploading the high-res version, or the removal of broken links to make it near impossible to restore). I see in the log that it's just one burst of deletions from 15:04, August 6, 2007 to 15:11, August 6, 2007, so it should be easy to find and fix. You don't have to handle the deletion of non-compliant revisions if you don't want to, but they must be undeleted soon! --Pekaje 11:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Sorry for taking so long, I only have internet at work at the moment (laptop is in for repairs), so it takes me a bit of time to get to things like this. They're restored now, sorry for the mishap. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed Image:Edrposter.jpg. Other than that, I have (rather painstakingly) restored them to all the articles I could find a reference for. A fair bit of them were missing rationales, which I felt necessary to correct, so it took longer than I had thought. So this little incident probably prevented a lot of images from being deleted eventually, but please try not to make this kind of mistake again, OK? ;-) --Pekaje 18:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, having introduced ^demon to this category without fully explaining its function, I feel somewhat guilty. Pekaje, you could have asked me! :) ~ Riana ⁂ 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh ... And here I was feeling kinda guilty for making the category easy to empty, but not putting up more explicit instructions in the first place! Well, hopefully it won't happen again any time soon, what with the more detailed instructions and big fat warning banner. Would you mind undeleting the above mentioned image, so I can close this matter? --Pekaje 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology and explanation

I erred in my judgment that the AFD for Allegations of Chinese apartheid was closed early, and I'd like to offer my apology for that mistake. I still think that your determination was wrong and misguided, but I have every reason to believe it was made in good faith. Finally, my comment that you are someone "who takes curious pride in deleting rather than creating things on Wikipedia" was an unnecessary editorial comment. It was an honest observation but could have been construed as an attempt to poison the well against your decision, and that was not my intent. So you have my apologies for that as well. --Leifern 03:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Sorry if I came across as out-of-process either. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Note about bugzilla

You mentioned in Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007 that the way to get bugs fixed was to vote for them in bugzilla. Voting isn't used to determine priority or anything else in our bugzilla, but rather as a sort of watchlist for the bugs (see this comment for example). Although the only comments about this that a brief search found were a bit old, I didn't see anything refuting it, so I assume it's still true. Just letting you know. --Sopoforic 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar

When I saw "Rouge admins" on your user page, I became a little worried. Now, I understand that it is only for fun. Anyway, User:Ragib fully protected the article Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and took Wikibreak. Please remove the protection. I want to add important information on the article. Thank you. RS2007 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really deal with page protection/unprotections. The people at WP:RFPP are better equipped to help you. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dogcow.png

Can you restore Image:Dogcow.png? You deleted it under CSD I5 (unused fair-use), but it was present in an article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian bagpipe players

On 21/06, you deleted the above category, as well as Category:Wikipedian bagpipe players-1/2/3/4 as WP:CSD#C1, however I don't think the categories were empty - My userpage on this date [10] puts me in 2 of these categories.

Could you please restore the categories? Cheers, Davidprior 12:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You were not in that category, nor have you been for some time. The category was removed from the userbox. The category emptied, and was deleted. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi, ^demon, since I got involved with image work, I've been regularly getting messages asking why I deleted a particular image. I've usually managed to sort it out fairly amicably. I have a very nasty vomiting bug at the moment, and will be either completely absent or just making a very small number of edits a day for a while. If you look at my user page and my talk page, you'll see that I've asked people to take their queries to you or Howcheng or Quadell. I probably should have asked your permission first, but I'm feeling a bit wobbly and just want to go straight back to bed. If you're busy, or have any reason to feel that this request is unwelcome, please feel absolutely free to remove your name from my two pages. I won't be offended at all. I do make mistakes, though I think they're more in image tagging than in image deletion, especially when I'm working too fast. So if you are asked about it, please feel free to undo any action of mine if you think you should. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummm

I couldn't help noticing that you redeleted a page that is involved in an Arbitration case that revolves around allegations of a wheel war - in this case, the deletion and undeletion of BJAODN pages. You might find it better to wait until Arbcom finishes its arbitration to see whether or not it's the right thing to do. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Favorites.PNG

2007-07-30T03:09:02 ^demon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Favorites.PNG" (Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago.) I added the fair use rationale per policy to that image, and noted it in Talk for Bookmarks (computers). The original uploader was unresponsive, but I saw the need for the image, and wrote a necessary and sufficient (per policy) rationale, not an "extensive" (non-policy) one. Since editors can debate and defend (per policy) content added by other editors, I added the rationale to bring this image into compliance. %5Edemon failed to notify ME, the author of the rationale, of any defect remaining in the rationale, so this image was not deleted per policy. Please restore the image, as its removal destroys a valid example of the subject of the article. I would have requested this before, but I received no notice in my watchlist that the image was deleted(this flaw in WP should be corrected). --Lexein 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kaiaphas.jpg

Hi, i have fixed the license and the description for this image, can you please check if everything is right and let me know if i can put it back into the article?

thank you

Todesfee 13:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Black Widow (woman)

Hi, last month you deleted Black Widow (woman) as an expired Prod. Perhaps you would userfy it to me, please, so that I can see what can be done with the article? BlueValour 01:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate for mediation?

As chair of the mediation committee, I wonder whether you can advise me whether a WP:RFM is the appropriate course of action in the following dispute? I edit a number of British geographical articles, and a recurring, if trivial sounding, dispute is on the use of flags for the constituent countries of the UK. Although it's not an issue I have any particular views on, the edit wars that result can be highly disruptive, and I've tried e.g. with a MedCab session in May to get the discussion moved to one central place. Although both parties agreed with that MedCab, the result isn't really being respected, and when I submitted a second MedCab request last week, it was suggested that a more formal means of mediation would be appropriate.

Although at root, this is a content dispute, it's one that I think will go on and on indefinitely, and unfortunately I don't think an RFM will affect that. What I'm hoping might be possible from an RFM is that the dispute can be kept in just one place and that a template (which already exist) can be used to transclude the prevailing opinion into all of the individual articles. I.e. the issue I'm wanting mediation is not what the articles should say (the content dispute), but rather where and how the discussion should continue. And I'm not sure whether that's something that is legitimately within the scope of an RFM. I wonder whether you can advise?

As I say, my interest is not in how the underlying flag dispute is settled; it's in minimising the disruption across Wikipedia whilst it is discussed, and perhaps eventually resolved.

— ras52 11:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am no longer the chair. Please see User:Daniel. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (You might want to change the bottom of WP:RFM/GUIDE which still links to you as chair.) — ras52 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(Was passing through and thought I'd post a little note; sorry for the intrusion) references to the MedCom's Chair have been replaced with Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Chair Username, which should avoid further confusion. Apologies for the mix-up! Anthøny ん 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted

I wanted to see the wikipedia article about Sieges Even, and i saw that it was deleted by you. I belive this article should be restored. This is a notble band, being one of the most importent progressive metal bands in the world. I came from the USSR and currently live in Israel, i dont know German, and yet even i know them and how legendery they are in the genre. If you are not interested in the genre you might not know them, but those who are interested in the genre know. I'll tell you the truth, i'm not such a fan of their music. I like mostly Russian rock, and from the west i like Pink Floyd. Nevertheless, even i know how legendery they are considered to be. Even if the article is low-level now, thats why wikipedia is a free-edit. Editors will come and improve it. M.V.E.i. 20:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was written in a way that it did not assert any significance in terms of notability. ^demon 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Winamp2.PNG

In reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Winamp2.PNG (Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago.)

1. Reinstate the image.

2. This was an off-policy deletion. I am the uploader, and received no notification via User_talk:Lexein, Email Special:Emailuser/Lexein, and no discussion on Talk:Winamp , or Image_talk:Winamp2.PNG(of course I can't check that page, since it was deleted). CSD I7 reads: Bad fair use template - image tagged as fair use with a template that is patently irrelevant to the actual image, like game-screenshot on a photo of a celebrity. Please notify uploader ON THEIR TALK PAGE using /{/{subst:badfairuse|image name including prefix|tag that was on the image/}/}.

3. I previously gave you the benefit of the doubt, since I added a rationale to another uploader's image. Now I believe you REPEATEDLY DELIBERATELY FAIL TO NOTIFY UPLOADERS.

4. Stop putting uploaders through hoops because you can't be bothered to notify them.

5. 48 HOURS is a ridiculous deadline. Where is _that_ stated as policy? (found it)

--Lexein 00:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Winamp2.PNG - Second Request

I reiterate points 1-4 above --Lexein 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Fine...whatev.
2. I assume the tagger always notifies the uploader. I see so many done by bots (as they do the majority) that I assume notifications have been given. There isn't the time to check each one, as the backlogs are too immense for that level of detail checking on every image.
3. Please AGF. It is not my job (as the deleting admin) to notify anyone, simply to carry out the deletion. Please see point 2 as well.
4. Once again, it is the taggers responsibility to notify, not the deleting admin. See points 2 and 3.

From now on, please bug the tagger of the image, not me. Regards, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

...

I have been labelled...

...THE DESTROYER OF FUN!  :-). ~ Wikihermit 00:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned on IRC :-P ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Image:RoyLaughing.gif

Hi, you deleted this image citing WP:CSD#I7, but Roy Conrad had died several years ago; a replaceable image would seem hard to come by. Could you consider undeleting it, please? Thank you. --Kjoonlee 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Friendly chat

Demon, how you doing? I would like to know if you could reconsider and unblock User:YoSoyGuapo, so that the person may have his account back. I know that he was "Hot-Headed", but who hasn't been Hot-Headed in the begining of there experience with Wiki? I have mediated with him [11] and he has agreed to oberve our ways, see: [12]. He has requested that his original user name be returned and I believe that we can give a chance with the unstanding that if violates the agreement, he will be banned. I would like you to do it since you, with all the right in the world, blocked him. Tony the Marine 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No issues here, he can be unblocked. To be perfectly honest, I don't remember blocking him even. I take your word for it though. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just something for that project of yours.

commons:Category:Historical film as animated gif

Hope it comes in handy. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Loser :-P ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I need advice or assistance

I tagged Image:1927Chickendance.jpg as disputed, and the uploader keeps removing the tag without adjusting the rationale or even leaving an edit summary. I'm not sure what to do. Can you help at all? Jay32183 01:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I really would rather not get involved. As a general warning, you've both broken the 3 revert rule within the last 24 hour period. I'd just caution you to not keep endlessly reverting, as you could face a block from a more block-willing administrator. WP:ANI might be able to help you with your general problem though. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of File:TAM A350.JPG

Hiya Demon,

Could please explain to me the rationale for deleting that image. I'm assuming it failed some fair use criteria, but the rationale was there, so I don't know why it was CSD'ed. Thanks!--Dali-Llama 01:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Demon, I would appreciate a reply. Mentioning an "invalid fair use rationale" as a CSD means that part of my argument is wrong. If it percolates to other images I've uploaded, I'd like to know.--Dali-Llama 23:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It didn't mention rationales for each article it was used in. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So, I gave a rationale for the use in an article (TAM Linhas Aéreas), for which I gave a rationale. Then someone else came in and used it in a different article (I think it was "List of Flag Carriers" or something), but didn't provide a rationale. So you deleted a picture which had a perfectly good fair use rationale, although someone else improperly used it later. That doesn't seem wrong to you? How about removing the image from the article it didn't have a rationale for? I'm sorry, but this a bad, bad deletion. And if it was according to policy, it's a asinine policy.--Dali-Llama 04:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your rationale didn't mention the article, so I had no clue which it was to apply to. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the UNBLOCK

So you reckon I should be able to my original user name Nokian70? I won't mind changing it to comply with the rules if necessary, but naturally would love to keep it if possible. Please advise. Thanks again Nokian70 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokian70 (talk • contribs) 14:22, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

From Within

Variety says that Jake Weber was cast in the film. Do you have a reliable source saying that this has changed? IMDb does not count as it is user-submitted and does not meet reliable source criteria for future films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I had an OTRS ticket from someone connected to the movie on it. I believe I cited it in my summary. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion Review of Talk:Neapolitan Wikipedia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talk:Neapolitan Wikipedia. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Neapolitan Wikipedia

WP:WEB item 3 says "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". wikimedia is both notable and independent of any neapolitans. period. WP:WEB covers assertions of notability by websites, so SCD A7 is null. Even if not, SCD is most definitely superceded by AfD rules. `'Míkka 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't play logical word games here: WP:WEB one of notability guideline on Wikipedia. Association with wikimedia is clearly stated in the very first sentence. `'Míkka 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, now somebody else can get called ignorant, idiot, irresponsible and a sicko and have his comments labelled "most stupid". Or maybe you'll be lucky enough to have a classic like "Your brains are wildly twisted" conferred upon you. At least he had the decency to reply to you. He completely ignored my attempts to discuss it with him. <sigh> -- But|seriously|folks  22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Nash recreated

You previously CSDed Patrick Nash. It is likely a different Patrick Nash than we will create this week for our WP:CHICOTW. Let me know if it becomes a problem in the next few days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User Concern

Sorry for the abruptness of this message, but I would like to know if you could compare IP addresses of two users for me. If you can, the users are..

Backwardsisgood

KitT.Kat-TTC

I am a mini-moderator on a forum and need to know if these IPs match each other due to an issue we are having. Please let me know via my Talk Page. Thanks!

--Schmoofy 01:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not have checkuser, sorry. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 05:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You tirelessly work towards the improvement of Wikipedia and ensuring that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are enforced. In particular, your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akatsuki members was brave and intelligent. You applied the rules of Wikipedia and treated the discussion as such, instead of a vote. Good work!!! We need more people like you around. Vassyana 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• What the heck are you talking about? Don't you know he's a third rate admin? :) --Durin 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If defending basic quality control is third-rate, downgrade me too. :D Vassyana 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Me too. Except, I'm not an admin. They stuck me down in Steerage. --Durin 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion decision for "List of Akatsuki Members"

I don't understand it, I'd like to hear your comments on the Keeps that were well-founded. You seemed to ignore them. - The Norse 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Symphony No. 3 (Gorecki)

I noticed you deleted three .ogg files from this page under speedy criterion I7 (invalid fair use claim). What was the disputed claim? This article passed FA status less than a week ago, and no one had any problems with the fair use rationale. Chubbles 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the uploader does not appear to have been notified: the uploader was Ceoil, and I do not see a warning in the last month of that user's talk page history. Chubbles 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

All 3 were tagged with:

"Violates WP:NFCC #8 because there is no commentary on this particular excerpt. Also violates NFCC#3a as well as its own tag because Image:Górecki Symphony no 3 movement 1.ogg and Image:Górecki Symphony no 3 movement 2.ogg are from the same recording of the same symphony"

These concerns were not addressed during the 7 day period, and they were legitimate, so I deleted. In addition, I am sorry if the uploader wasn't notified, you might want to talk to User:Angr about that, as he tagged the ogg files. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"No third party sources for Akatsuki"

Ummm...

"# Keep Notable per this magazine. Incidentally, I have yet to not see this magazine in a supermarket - I am just be limited to supermarkets in the continental US, though.KrytenKoro —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrytenKoro (talk • contribs) 04:11, August 29, 2007 (UTC)"

I gave a link to a third-party source that covered Naruto. It specifically portrays it in out-of-universe form, and is both highly visible and easily verifiable. Aren't you supposed to listen to everyone's arguments in such a controversial AfD, and not just stereotype the side you disagree with?KrytenKoro 01:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Also relevant is

"Keep - Naruto, which I had never heard of, is in the top 10 of Wikipedia pages visited for August. It has consistently been in the top 100 for several months (all those I checked). This indicates to me that it is an extraordinarily popular topic. An article on any work of fiction would be expected to include information about characters and organizations in the story. However, when that, and the other information in the article, gets to be too long it has been our standard practice to 'split out' sections into separate articles. I do not agree that those 'sub articles' inherit no 'notability' from the primary topic... given that they are just parts of that primary article which have been re-located for page size reasons. Otherwise, we are encouraging people to place the exact same info back into the 'Naruto' article (and doing likewise for all fictional topics) to 'protect' it from deletion. Wikipedia is not paper. We have room to create sub-articles to help in logically organizing a topic... and we shouldn't re-imagine our deletion procedures to dissuade users from following those good article organization practices. If this info were in the Naruto article it would be kept. Possibly rewritten for clarity, brevity, and significance but absolutely and unquestionably kept. Not keeping it when it has been split out accomplishes nothing except undermining good article design. --CBD 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)"

Wrong deletion

You deleted the cat Wikipedians Nice to Newcomers. That was a wrong call, the cat is at the same level as the participants of the kindness campaign or other similar cats, it defines participants in the campaign Please do not bite the newcomers. Please don't delete it again Vanished user 11:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Being nice to newcomers is implied. We're expected to be nice to newcomers, in fact Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers requires us to be so. Category:Wikipedians Nice to Newcomers is utterly redundant, and implies that anyone not in that category is therefore mean to newcomers. Not the message to send to new users. This category should be deleted. --Durin 13:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming not reading, that is your opinion (wrongly based by the way) that is like to assume that Wikipedians not in the kindness campaign are not kind or Wikipedians not in the fight against vandalism support vandalism. Wrong assumption doesn't grant deletion. The category stays.

Furthermore, the category may point newcomers to Wikipedians who are more receptive and used to their common mistakes.

"When to use categories : Categories help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called." this also applies, a newcomer willing to get some sympathetic ear after been bitten, will go to the category to find a Wikipedian who knows what a newcomer may suffer through misunderstanding and who can explain them what is going on. You very well know that not all Wikipedians are equal. The category stays. Vanished user 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, all wikipedia editors in good standing ARE equal. That's the essential philosophy behind Wikipedia. Nobody, not Jimbo, bureaucrats, arbcom members, administrators or checkusers are any higher on the hierarchy than the first time editor making their first good faith edit. --Durin 14:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Take this elsewhere. I honestly don't care enough about the stupid category to waste my talkpage on it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How about responding to the topics above then as long as you're not caring about this one? - The Norse 16:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Second reguest

Demon, how you doing? I would like to know if you could reconsider and unblock User:YoSoyGuapo, so that the person may have his account back. I know that he was "Hot-Headed", but who hasn't been Hot-Headed in the begining of there experience with Wiki? I have mediated with him [13] and he has agreed to oberve our ways, see: [14]. He has requested that his original user name be returned and I believe that we can give a chance with the unstanding that if violates the agreement, he will be banned. I would like you to do it since you, with all the right in the world, blocked him. Tony the Marine 19:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:AnotherVersionofthePast.jpg

I noticed that you deleted Image:AnotherVersionofthePast.jpg since it was not free and not being used, and you rightly deleted it. Unfortuantely I didn't realize that the image was unused and pending deletion, so I didn't place it back into the article it was intended for. As far as I can tell, the image was taken out of Chronology of the Year Zero alternate reality game without any discussion. I would like to put the image back there, so I was hoping you could undelete the image for me. I appreciate your help. Drewcifer 09:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't undelete, no longer an admin. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks anyways. Drewcifer 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hey, regarding your post to WP:AN - I'm with you on the "We fight too much", and partway there on the "Admins are elitist bastards" (though I'd preface it with "A handful of..." and leave out the "bastards"). Mostly, I'm curious as to what you had in mind to fix the issues you listed. MastCell ^Talk 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Górecki Symphony no 3

• Górecki Symphony no 3 movement 1.ogg
• Górecki Symphony no 3 movement 2.ogg
• Górecki Symphony no 3 movement 3.ogg

Please explain your reason for speedily deletion. All three are discussed extensively in Symphony No. 3 (Górecki). Are FU files now explicitly disallowed. This is the second request. Ceoil 17:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To explain: I want to try for the main page with this article, and I think it would be incomplete with out samples. Ceoil 17:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

All restored, sorry for the confusion. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

T1 in userspace / User:SteveSims/Userboxes/Pimp

Hi, I saw that you - once again - used CSD:T1 for a userbox in userspace. I thought that it had been abundantly clear that T1 does not apply to userspace (see [15] [16]). I kindly request that you restore the deleted userbox and let the MfD discussion run it's course, though I can only wonder if you intentionally deleted this box using CSD:T1 to cause wikidrama. 84.145.234.170 14:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what namespace the page is in. Any page being transcluded it being a template, and userspace is no exception. People need to stop assuming that userspace is some safe haven to say whatever they want, because it's not. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll chalk that one down as "FUCK POLICY" as the CSD#T1 - if you would care to read them - explicitly contradict you. Anyway, I've listed the page on DRV. You would just have had to wait a freaking day or two more and all this wikidrama could have been avoided. A normal MfD closure I don't mind. But this "LOL, it's userspace and T1 doesn't cover it, but I have the bit and you don't *speedy delete*" gets me riled up like hell. Or did you want to make a point 84.145.234.170 14:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate drama on enwiki, and I think you accusing me of making this deletion simply to stir it up is showing a lack of faith on your part. Sure, I may be contentious and I may do things people don't like, doesn't mean I do them to stir stuff up. My primary and only objective on Wikipedia is to assist in the creation of a free-content encyclopedia. If something does not exist to augment that cause, then it serves no place on Wikipedia. A obviously divisive userbox such as this is clearly something that should be removed. As userboxes are templates (regardless of namespace), they can therefore qualify for CSD T1. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what I should assume about you. I know you have been an administrator long enough to know the policies. I also know your stance on userboxes. I'd assume that you know how the attempts to widen the scope of T1 failed. I also know that you have witnessed the heated debates about userboxes a long while ago, and the wikidrama that ensued after speedy deletion occurred. So you should know that the view T1 = everywhere is, at the very least, very strongly contested (read the CSD#T1 and the links I gave you), and you know that speedy deleting userboxes causes wikidrama, and you should have seen that there was a 50/50 chance that the box would get deleted in a few days once the MfD ran its course. And still you chose to speedy delete the box. What am I supposed to assume? I'll AFG here and believe that you simply did not care that speedy deleting an userbox that might have gotten deleted a couple of days later ANYWAY would cause wikidrama. Or what else should I think? 84.145.234.170 14:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's just let the DRV (and subsequent re-MfD?) run their courses. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's let the DRV run it's course. I'm sorry I got riled up like that, userboxes (and the application of T1 on userspace) are an EXTREMELY sore topic for me, (one of the reasons I attempted to leave wikipedia behind me, but everytime I look something up I have the bad habit of checking up the DRVs and MfDs too *sigh*) 84.145.234.170 15:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

T1 and Userspace

Hi,

It is correct that userboxes were not userfied to "circumvent T1" -- they were userfied to circumvent conflict. The essence of my position, and those opposed to your speedy, is that T1 is a very contentious criterion, with a troubled history. It's application within to template space is likely to be subject to more disputes than usual (and by disputes, I mean disputes among regular, knowledgeable editors, not the clueless feedback we get from newbies over every deletion we make.) It's application outside of template is unneeded -- any userbox that should be deleted under T1 would be deletable as G3 or G10 in userspace. The use of T1 in userspace is a provocative act, and is likely to reignite the "userbox war" -- it should be avoided for that reason alone. It is for this reason that T1 is specifically, by its own terms inapplicable to userspace.

Substantively, the box wasn't clearly speediable under any criteria at all. I'm not sure if you're an American, but -- as the MfD highlighted -- there is a dialect-disjunction with the word "pimp," which is (regrettably) used by many in America to refer to a certain ostentatious lifestyle, only very remotely associated with prostitution and/or illegal activity. It is true that the box is unclear; and for this reason, I would favor its ultimate deletion, but this matter is much too complicated to fit under any speedy criterion.

Finally, there is the matter of timing. On a fourth day -- so close to a consensus close -- speedy deleting just ignited a new fire. If GRBerry hadn't speedily undeleted, a new MfD would have been necessary, too much time having elapsed. Just give the issue the 24 hours needed for settlement, rather than speedying and adding a possible 120 hours to the wiki-drama. Irrespective of the box's merit, that is a pragmatic calculus every drama-hating editor should respect.

Sorry to trouble you, but you had questioned my comment at the DRV, and I wanted to clarify. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

From Within

"Phedon Papamichael is set to direct "From Within," an independently financed thriller that will star Thomas Dekker ("Heroes"), Elizabeth Rice, Adam Goldberg and Jake Weber." Please do not remove verifiable information. IMDb is user-submitted and fails to be a reliable source -- it has even listed Aunt May as Carnage for Spider-Man 3 at one point. Unfortunately, a complaint from someone is not a verifiable source. If you have a verifiable citation that says he is not involved with the film, feel free to provide it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

re: OTRS ticket #1076845

Demon, the user page in OTRS ticket #1076845 has been recreated once again, with the copyright violations still intact. I removed the copyrighted text, but isn't there a more permanent solution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klumcup (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user reposting the copyright violation for 24 hours and deleted the page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Demon / Persian Poet Gal: Unfortunately, the same person is back, with a new user account and the same old copyright violations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Limitedlincolns

He's nothing if not persistent! Klumcup 02:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Old Talk:Lizzie Grubman content

There is a pending request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review to restore the Old Talk:Lizzie Grubman content that you deleted. Please let me know whether you plan to restore the page so that I can close out that Lizzie Grubman request #2 at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review (and regain some control over that page). Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation committee re Novak Djokovic

Hi, demon! I'm writing in response to your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Novak Đoković, which I'm reproducing here: Comment: I echo Daniel's rejection, and I must add that I reject it with prejudice against re-requesting. This has been requested 3 times within 24 hours, and rejected every time. There is no consensus for a page move, and trying to force mediation will not change it--as mediation works on consensus as well. Redirects are cheap, so I see no reason why this should be continually debated again. Iff there seems to be a wider consensus for a move and perhaps for mediation, then I wouldn't be opposed to a case being reconsidered, but at this present time, please do not post it again

I think you have misunderstood the issue (or perhaps it wasn't well stated in the RfM, which didn't come from me). The idea is not to remove the redirect, but to reverse its direction so that Novak Djokovic is the article, per WP:NAME, and Novak Đoković is the redirect. Consequently, "redirects are cheap" isn't a relevant argument.

Also, I don't really understand the last part of your comment. If there is a consensus for a move, no mediation is needed, right? :-) --Tkynerd 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I retracted my comments. And I wasn't specifying which site the article should stay at, and which should redirect it, I was speaking more generally. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that. Best, --Tkynerd 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:LionelBarrymore.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:LionelBarrymore.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on Mediation comments

At Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Novak Đoković, you said the proposal had been submitted three times in 24 hours, but it was only submitted once by me, and only once total to my knowledge.

There seemed to have been a bot error earlier. The notice that mediation had been denied was posted to my and everyone else's Talk page three times, for example, before being cleaned up by the users and an admin. Perhaps the same happened to the Mediation Committee, in which case the request was not proposed three times, only reported three times.

If that is not the case, can you please clarify? Right now your reproach seems awfully unfair. -- Yano 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests#Template:Unreferenced bot request

Did you get a chance to address this Wikipedia:Bot requests#Template:Unreferenced bot request? I was expecting to see some impact in Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and have not yet so just checking in. Jeepday (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons image request

When you deleted the image InnerSolarSystem-en.png, it disappeared from the page Definition of planet. If you could explain how to re-link to the image from the commons, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Serendi^podous 14:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 15:33 18 September 2007 (GMT).

BurjDubaiHeight.png unblock request

I noticed that you blocked my ability to upload this image. After these discussions with Riana, I have made some modifications to the image that should reduce the similarity that so concerned the complainant on the OTRS ticket. Please could you remove the block so I can upload the new image. Note that I have also asked Riana to unblock the upload, but it appears Riana is offline despite what statusbot says :-). Thank you. Astronaut 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Riana has done it. Thanks all the same. Astronaut 22:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed

I was very disappointed to see your assumption of bad faith and insulting behavior on the Mzoli's deletion discussion.--Jimbo Wales 19:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I was merely pointing out that some users seem to place a higher importance on your edits over any others. Had this article not been authored by you, my speedy deletion never would have been overturned. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is true. Pointing out the bleeding obvious is hardly an assumption of bad faith. Moreschi ^Talk 19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Jimbo is not the end-all be-all he has been made in some circles and simply pointing that out is far from Bad Faith. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I get the feeling that Jimbo would love to be able to edit normally. Just because others over-react when he is around, doesn't mean we should as well. Carcharoth 12:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that your speedy would not have been overturned if it hadnt been Jimbo creating the article is an appalling statement. Is it that you think we have too much coverage of Africa already, or perhaps that we shouldnt really cover the continent at all? It was so obviously not a speedy and it would have been equally wrong for you to have speedied the article regardless of who created it. Your judgement that it was a crpapy article makes me seriously question your judgement, especuially as an admin who engsages in speedy deletions of articles that you dont like fopr whatever reason. Those who oppose countering systemic bias seriously depress me, and I totally agree with Jimbo that your bad faith insults were inappropriate, SqueakBox 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to dispute that the speedy deletion would never have been overturned. The article was in fact recreated, and that would have been an easier option than getting the speedy deletion overturned. I was considering recreating the article before someone else got there first. But surely you are missing the point that speedy deletions often are overturned on request. If there is a reasonable objection made to a speedy, the best option is to undelete and take to a full deletion discussion. Speedy deletions are not sacrosanct when only notability is at sake, and admins do not WP:OWN their deletions. Carcharoth 12:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. I've nominated it (under 17th September) at WP:DYK. See Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on September 17. I hope the people over there can be objective (either way) when they see the name Jimbo Wales. Carcharoth 12:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Midway Airport Runway 4R (Brett B. Despain).jpg

Hi demon. Can you please delete [Image:Midway Airport Runway 4R (Brett B. Despain).jpg]. The author had requested it be deleted as he is going to sell it. I saw you deleted it yesterday, but I re-uploaded it because I thought it was deleted for a different reason. I checked my email today and saw he wrote me telling me he wanted it off so when you have a chance can you delete the image for me. Thanks alot! Sox23 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If the image is GFDLed, then we have no reason to delete it. Did the user tell you when you uploaded it that he was releasing it under the GFDL or CC-by-SA? If so, then he can't take that back. FCYTravis 00:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the GNU liscense and has already been deleted by Demon before. Sox23 00:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That license is, as far as I understand, not revocable. He can sell it, but he also cannot prevent free copying and redistribution of the existing, low-res photo, if he did release the photo under the GFDL already. FCYTravis 00:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, I have already found a replacement picture for the article, so it really doesn't matter if this one gets deleted...Sox23 14:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

MfD comments

You do realise my comments on this MfD were intended as humorous? Both you and Riana seem to have taken them somewhat too seriously - [17] [18]. I wasn't trying to make editcount a big issue; it was a comment intended to lighten the mood in a somewhat contentious MfD (in which, incidentally, I didn't have a strong opinion). Walton^One 09:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Category move

As you have updated the graph at Template:Notability progress in the past I thought you should know that the categories are being moved.

Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance from July 2007 will go to Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from July 2007

Hope this helps,

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:57 23 September 2007 (GMT).

Black falcon is updating when the current move is complete. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17 23 September 2007 (GMT).

I had to drop this some time ago due to lack of time. Glad Black Falcon was able to take it up. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:DOT

It seems you deleted all of the templates in WP:DOT, both the ones that were currently marked and the ones that were ready for deletion. There's supposed to be a fourteen day period in between the tagging and the deletion to ensure sufficient time for any possible unknown substitutions or transclusions to be noticed. While it seems illogical to undelete the templates simply to re-delete them, please just be careful with these templates in the future. I know that they all qualify for WP:CSD#G6, and frankly, I could delete all of them under that criterion myself if I wanted to, however, the agreement on WP:TFD was to give a waiting period. I assume this was a simple misunderstanding; if not, please let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, won't happen again. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:BurjDubaiHeight.png

Hey ... I noticed when I went to salt something else that Image:BurjDubaiHeight.png was transcluded in Wikipedia:Protected titles/Twinkle. I have removed it because the image exists. (Salting an image doesn't stop an admin from uploading it and, in fact, an admin attempting to upload it won't so much as get a warning that it is salted ... this is one huge problem with completely getting rid of the old method of salting - someone acting in good faith never realizes that they shouldn't upload the image. But I digress.) Anyway, I saw where you had deleted it as a copyvio based on an OTRS ticket and the admin who uploaded it claims GFDL. I don't have access to OTRS and don't really care one way or the other ... I simply removed it from the protected titles list because it exists. If it is still a copyvio, you may wish to delete it and/or take it up with the uploader. --B 04:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hold up ... the uploader isn't even an admin? That's distressing that the new method of salting doesn't stop a non-admin uploader. What's the point? --B 04:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgot that salting doesn't affect uploading, just the editing of the image description page. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For having the guts to enforce policy even if the creator was Jimmy Wales I award you this barnstar. We need more people like you and less people who care more about their status on Wikipedia than policy which is what adminship was created to uphold. No one is above the project - no matter who they are. EconomicsGuy 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bring back my sandbox please....

You deleted my sandbox, User:WikiDon-Sandbox, I might have named it wrong. Maybe it should have been User:WikiDon/Sandbox, please recover my text, and put it in a sandbox for me. WikiDon 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I also deleted it for several BLP issues brought to my attention via OTRS. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I get the contents of my sandbox back? Please? WikiDon

No. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that: "No, because they are gone." Or: "No, because I don't want to." WikiDon

No, because it contains BLP issues. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen, that was a SANDBOX, lots of users have sandbox's. I did NOT, repeat NOT create the article, Kimberly Hunt, someone else did. I was trying to make it a worth while article in MY SANDBOX. 1) You just come along and delete things without asking. 2) You delete things in a sandbox where a credible user is trying to CLEAN UP and FIX it. 3) You don't even look at the article itself. 4) You are RUDE, very rude in your deletions and answers to questions. 5) There was information in there, about her grandfather who is DEAD that I would like back. 6) Try asking sometimes. 7) Try being nice and comprehensive in answering questions. Why are you so rude? Can I have that info back please? WikiDon 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

^demon, I understand that there are issues with WP:BLP, and that there are cases for OTRS to handle, but WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF still apply, and override any content issues. While the section on her grandfather is painfully off topic, I can't see any malicious intent with it, and I don't see why not to give him his own words back, assuming they never show up here again. Prodego ^talk 00:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You say "DONE", but then, within less than one minute you deleted it again with another rule.

• 1. 11:37, 26 September 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:WikiDon-Sandbox" ‎ (CSD R1: Redirect to non-existent page)
  2. 11:37, 26 September 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs) restored "User:WikiDon-Sandbox" ‎ (29 revision(s) restored)

You are just messing with me. Please put the text in here: User talk:WikiDon/sandbox Please? WikiDon 18:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not, it's been at User:WikiDon/Sandbox ever since I said I was done... ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Here's the logs:

• 11:37, 26 September 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:WikiDon-Sandbox" ‎ (CSD R1: Redirect to non-existent page) (Restore)
• 11:37, 26 September 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs | block) moved User:WikiDon-Sandbox to User:WikiDon/Sandbox ‎ (revert)
• 11:37, 26 September 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs | block) restored "User:WikiDon-Sandbox" ‎ (29 revision(s) restored)

Hope that clears it up. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU...!!! WikiDon

PS: Can you put the deleted comments (if any) from User talk:WikiDon-Sandbox into > User talk:WikiDon/Sandbox. Thanks. WikiDon 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There was only one, and it's related to the OTRS request, but wouldn't be needed for a sandbox article development. I'm leaving that deleted. {{subst:User:^demon/sig}}

What is OTRS? The reason that I ask is, there was a vandal edit war going on when I wasn't looking:

1. (cur) (last) 16:07, 17 September 2007 Gscshoyru (Talk | contribs) m (7,618 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 71.136.77.226; Rv, not yours. using TW) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 16:06, 17 September 2007 71.136.77.226 (Talk) (7,661 bytes) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 16:05, 17 September 2007 Gscshoyru (Talk | contribs) m (7,618 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 71.136.77.226 identified as vandalism to last revision by Niaz bd. using TW) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 16:05, 17 September 2007 71.136.77.226 (Talk) (5,483 bytes) (Undid revision 158443251 by Niaz bd (talk)) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 06:49, 17 September 2007 Niaz bd (Talk | contribs) m (7,618 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 71.136.77.226 identified as vandalism to last revision by WikiDon. using TW) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 04:17, 17 September 2007 71.136.77.226 (Talk) (5,483 bytes) (undo)

And, on the last edit, the IP address left this note: "WikiDon, Please read your discussion page", but I didn't see anything on my regular talk page, so they must have left it at User talk:WikiDon-Sandbox, if you just want to paste the text either here, or my regular talk page, that would be fine also. WikiDon 19:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not repost the content here or restore it, but the jist of it was that the subject of the article has issues with her personal life (husband, kids, that kind of thing) being published on Wikipedia. The reason I got involved is because I had a complaint come in to the Wikimedia Foundation's e-mail system (which we handle via the OTRS software package). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, that you could have said something from the very beginning that you received a message. A little communication up front goes a long way to avoid more down the line. I never knew why it was gone, it was just gone. Next time, say "hey, btw, dyk" to a person. WikiDon 20:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Demon did tell you that, I also deleted it for several BLP issues brought to my attention via OTRS. OTRS is a known group and saying OTRS is normally enough. OTRS handles the e-mail issues that occur with our articles. Weather that is copyright violation concerns or BLP, or false information brought to our attention by the subject or on their behalf. β^_command 20:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is best to assume that you are talking to someone who knows nothing, and that you are listening to someone who knows everything. There was some miscommunication, and a page in which style and notability guidelines were violated more then BLP, was treated a bit overzealously. The response was overly defensive, and the whole thing went downhill. Time to let this die. Prodego ^talk 23:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Press Inquiry

Hi ^demon,

I'm writing a little feature for my newspaper about the Mzoli's Meats debate, and was hoping to get a comment from you about that subject. Please drop me an email (see embedded comment) if you have a chance.

Hello, I'm just renewing my request here, as I'd very much like to present a balanced picture of the above situation, and to do so I still need a perspective from an informed dissenter. I would most certainly appreciate your insights, and thanks again for your time. HarpooneerX 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been taken care of. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And here is an article. -- Jreferee t/c 02:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Ryusuke Mita deleted

You deleted a picture of ryūsuke mita's self portraitMomomai 05:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Daisy Wallace 25 september 2007

Yes, and? If you'll read my disclaimer at the top, I can't do much more if that's the only information you give me. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Aleksander Stavre Drenova

Hi. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think links should not be removed from articles that have been speedied for copyvio. If anything, the copyvio may actually validate the link (it usually means that the subject is notable), and a redlink is not a real problem for this project. Dahn 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I used Twinkle to delete the article in question, I'm sorry for removing all those redlinks. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted all of them. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. Dahn 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Harlem academy

i was just wondering why my page was deleted so speedily. I had been in contact with the person who flagged my page and had posted the contention code. I also had an adoption tag while i was trying to make good faith revisions to bring the page up to wiki standards. So why a complete deletion less than 24hrs after the flag? No discussion allowed here? This is an elementary school's user page - it's intended to be for their use to research and create articles. I know that other schools have such pages and wanted to know how our page differs from theirs - what we can do to fix it. Please help me to understand what i need to do!

Harlemacademy 14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Template

Hi. What happened to the Template Astronomy_portal_daily_picture? All I see is the log entry, when you deleted it, and giving as cause 'CSD G6'. I can not for the life of me understand why this is falling under this reason. I was using it often and did not see any discussion about deleting/merging/moving it. What am I missing? Thanks! Awolf002 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me the exact page I deleted? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Template:Astronomy portal daily picture. I use it conjunction with subst: so nothing links to it, normally. Awolf002 18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I plan to undelete this template, today, if there is no objection. Awolf002 13:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, sorry for the misunderstanding. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been mentioned by the press

[19] Congratulations :) Melsaran (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article in one of the biggest (the biggest?) German news magazines: Spiegel Online. Herzlichen Glückwunsch :)--82.171.179.3 16:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew those stories were coming, but thank you :-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think you should make a happy face about this. This whole story doesn't paint you in a positive light. Imho instead of virtually 'patting yourself on your shoulder', you should think a bit more about the main principles of Wikipedia. Moving to immediate deletion of a new stubb so fast certainly doesn't encourage users to contribute. I know we shall assume good faith here, but it's a bit difficult in this case. 89.182.15.209 13:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it showed that some people (such as myself) are willing to go through great odds to ensure quality content. If this discourages people from contributing, well they shouldn't be posting useless cruft anyway. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• pat* I would have do the same to send it to AFD. SYSS Mouse 18:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Quality control and lots of deletions are necessary but you appear to have targeted this article because it was written by Jimbo Wales and because it was about a third world subject, ie Africa, making it one of the worst judgements I have ever seen on wikipedia, a poor judgement followed up with blatant trolling towards those of us who opoosed your judgement, SqueakBox 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm sick and tired of everyone making this argument. I would've done the same if JohnnyVandal01 was writing about a place in NYC. I don't care that it was Jimbo, and I don't care that the article was from Africa. Continuing to accuse me of that long after the debate is over is getting tired, and I ask you to stop. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read about this. While I certainly agree that Some people should excuse themselves from the project and find a new hobby, that doesn't mean you. Give yourself a barnstar. --Kbdank71 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to keep this thread open do expect crticism, the above Kbdank71 comment looks like trolling to me, SqueakBox 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think he did the right thing. --Kbdank71 20:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I only see one person trolling this page. I've dropped the subject, and I kindly ask you to do the same. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you delete copyright image ,

Hi Demon , can you remove this image it came from here ,- bottom of page- ^{© 2007 The Avataric Samrajya of Adidam Pty Ltd, as trustee for The Avataric Samrajya of Adidam (Is-Da-Happen). All rights reserved. Perpetual copyright claimed.}) Adidam is very firm on copyright , thanks , if you think it should remain please explain why this is .

[20] image address --Scribe5 10:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UCFD

I realise that it may be a pain, but would you comment on each of the subcats? I'm waiting for AMBot to tag the cats, and there's a possibility that a few of these may see some "lively" discussion. Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 14:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. (And it looks like you may have missed the hypochondriacs : ) - jc37 14:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. (Going to it now too). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Undelete an image

Can you undelete Image:Sing A Long by Pete Seeger album cover.jpg? You deleted it because it wasn't used in an article, but it was used in an article. It was there in April [21], and then the link was deleted in August [22] because it had been deleted by you in July, and there were no intervening edits. - Peregrine Fisher 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats

Hi, ^demon. I see that you and WJBscribe (talk · contribs) blanked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats, but I don't quite understand why. The presence of some bad-faith comments on that page doesn't seem a sufficient reason for hiding its contents from casual visitors. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking allows for a page to be blanked for reasons such as invasion of privacy, libel and emotional distress — but I don't see any of those reasons applying to the Mzoli's AfD. In general, I don't think it's a good idea to blank Wikipedia process pages, especially when they've gained media attention: to the casual viewer, it will appear as if we're trying to hide dirty laundry.

Other folks are also asking about the blanking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats, and you may wish to comment there. If there's something about this that you'd rather not discuss on-wiki, you can email me via the "email this user" link on my user page. However, unless there's more here than meets the eye, it looks to me as if there's not a lot of support for this courtesy blanking, and you might want to reconsider it. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Karen Strassman

Why was this article deleted? The deletion log says "blatant advertising", but there was no advertising on the page, at very least not "blatant" and worthy for speedy deletion. Karen Strassman is notable for many roles in anime and video games. --EmperorBrandon 15:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that does not look like a G11 to me either. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The content said that she was a voice actor, had a really long filmography, and then a trivia that she speaks French. If that's not a resume I don't know what is. I'm not saying she's not notable, I'm just saying that *in that form*, the article needed a full rewrite. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't dispute that the trivia is unnecessary, but a list of roles is pretty common for actor entries. I always thought it was pretty important, too. Why were all the links to the article removed? --EmperorBrandon 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In which case, the article would qualify for A1, because saying "So and so is an actor" then providing a list of roles is hardly an encyclopedia article. Either way, it was going. Secondly, that was because I had forgotten to uncheck "remove backlinks" before finishing the deletion, my mistake. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty common for voice actor entries. Not saying that's a good thing, but it tends to be hard to find verifiable biographical information on some, since some of them prefer voice acting because of the anonymity it provides. Since the deleting links was a mistake, it's not problem if I restore them, right? --EmperorBrandon 19:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, go ahead. :-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I can understand that interpretation, though not an interpretation I would make. Fair enough for me. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions

Please don't do image deletions blindly! You have deleted at least one image (Image:Dibenzylideneacetone.PNG) without even checking if it's availible on Commons. Conscious 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I must've missed the PNG/png. Dunno how... ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted without acknowledgement of dispute

Image:Trixie and Dean Koontz.jpg was tagged with {{di-replaceable fair use}}. I responded by adding {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} with a detailed explanation of why I felt this assessment to be in error. You subsequently deleted the image with the following edit summary:

Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago.

I would appreciate an explanation of why you failed even to acknowledge this dispute or my explanation. I am concerned that this evidence that the {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} template is meaningless, used only to mislead editors into believing falsely that they may dispute the formally unremovable {{di-replaceable fair use}} placed not by lawyers but just by other editors. I have raised this possibility at Template talk:Di-replaceable fair use disputed#Dispute rejected, where you might want to comment as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It means that the issues with the image in question are disputed, and the administrator reviewing the image should take them into consideration, not a blanket statement that "because someone disagrees, it will be kept." It is not my job to engage in discussion over the appropriateness of an image, nor bicker about whether it is fairuse. I simply find the image, read the arguments in favor of deletion or retention (if there are any) and then make a decision. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your summary for the deletion suggests that you did not even read the don't-delete rationale. I do not assume that the presence of a {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} necessarily means to keep an image, but there should be some accounting for whether disputes are even considered when executing a deletion request. Since the dispute rationale is deleted along with the image, this information is known only to administrators and cannot be reviewed by the community for appropriateness, which conflicts with the Wikipedia idea of resolving disputes publically. Should I interpret your argument above to mean that administrators deleting images are not expected to show they even considered counterarguments, and may delete tagged images with impunity, regardless of any dispute? This is certainly what the result feels like. In fact, the whole system seems to be, as I suggested above, primarily designed to expediently rid the community of images that any editor can tag, without regard to counterarguments. I'd like to see evidence to the contrary. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I read and considered the arguments. However, I don't have time in the day to type out a detailed deletion summary each time. I use shorthand to help specify the policy it was deleted under, not the specific rationale for deletion for that image. When in doubt, I can go back and explain, but taking the time to write that out isn't feasible, considering the dozens (sometimes hundreds) of images I tend to review in a day. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

dleted page for Johnny Wu

Hi there, I was the one originally posted for Johnny Wu's profile (ok, mine) but I know that I wasn't following the guidelines correctly so am right now trying to learn how to post, can that post be deleted and be re-created a new one instead that has all the needed info as requested by wiki? or should it be 'activated' again and be re-edited to fit the criteria? Thanks

Johnny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdifilm (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request on one of your blocks

^demon, your input would be appreciated on the unblock request at User talk:Bill Ayer. Inasmuch as "single-purpose account" by itself generally would not support an indefinite block without a warning, it might be helpful to the reviewing admin if you could provide some additional comments. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ls_coverspecial.jpg has been uploaded by a member of the Heraldo Filipino

Hi, good day! Please undelete the "Image:Ls_coverspecial.jpg", as it is uploaded by a member of the student newspaper concerned (Heraldo Filipino), and thus has been legitimately uploaded. Thank you. THE IMPERIOUS DORK 04:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily legitimize it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 04:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Totalitarian scum

You are so typical of totalitarian scum. [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.137.190 (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil at all times on Wikipedia, and refrain from making personal attacks. Doing so, especially in an extreme or abusive manner, can result in your editing privileges being revoked, which will mean you cannot edit Wikipedia. If you require any assistance on Wikipedia matters, please feel free to contact myself or another user - but please do so in a civil and friendly manner. Kind regards, Anthøny ん 19:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but...

This Wikipedian has been mentioned by the press by a media organization. The mention is in: David Sarno (30 September 2007). "Wikipedia wars erupt". Los Angeles Times.

...I have to ask; How's it feel to be infamus? ;u) --Is this fact...? 06:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I already knew about it, thanks. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Look here: [24] there it is! Auroranorth 11:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion reason script

Pascal.Tesson suggested your script, and I have to say it rocks! It almost makes me want to delete more! Cheers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you liked it :-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Total bow-downness. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome as well. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Clics

Hi there, my name is Eric,

I'm the inventor of what is called Clics and which established itself on the market. I didn't put the article on Wikipedia, when I came across it, I only edited it to bring the 'real history' and the evolving situation 'today'. Just like LEGO does.

I was glad and felt fortunate to have, through WIKIPEDIA, a way also to safeguard my Intellectual Property Rights. I'm the real inventor, others are not only raping my brainchild by commercializing an altered version, they also publicly claim to be the inventors themselves. An incorporated link shows the official issued patent bearing my name, Eric Parein!

I would appreciate to have the article restored. It's all facts, it's plain history!
It's no publicity; the original toy element is not even on the market.

Please, thanks for considering my request, Eric

"It's no publicity..." <- And that my friend is why I won't restore it ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. What should I alter to have it restored? Please advise, Eric

Additional.
What about the other words, the other products, the other brands?
What about inventions? Sax (also with litigation accounts edited, part of the history)
What about inventors? Adolphe Sax (also with litigation accounts edited, part of the history)
What about toy block or construction toy? Lego, Meccano, K'nex, ...
What about toys? Playmobil, Fisher Price, ...
What about products? Kellog, Coca-Cola, Ferrari shows all its models, ...

What about Happy Cube? This is publicity, I believe. Anyway not the truth about the product!
The product is not Dirk Laureyssens's invention. He stole it from Joseph From [25]. On his External Link [26], Laureyssens also claims to own some 150 patents... sorry, he has WRITTEN 150 patents, all were not issued or lapsed.

So, dear Wikipedian, encyclopedic content must be verifiable, my editing on Clics was just that. It is a word, a product, a toy, a toy block, a construction toy, an invention, from an inventor. Yes also a brand like all the others. Clics merits to have its place in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, which BTW I appreciate a lot! Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Parein (talk • contribs) 09:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Demon, please advise, Eric
--Eric Parein 17:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not undeleting it. Please stop requesting. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise. Over and out. Eric
--Eric Parein 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Links

Thanks for fixing the links at user:hmwith/links. I don't know how I missed that! нмŵוτнτ 17:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem :-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Shayetet 13

Why did you delete that article? There was stuff in there that wasn't on isayeret.com. And that site was listed as a reference. Yosy 22:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The majority *was* a copyvio. If not word-for-word, easily without original thought. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Chidiac

Hiya demon, its g'day from down under, hehehe.

Could you please please pretty please reverse your deletion on Anthony Chidiac article?. I did put a hangon on it, and was inviting all those who commented on the first article to see it. It had a discussion page and people were talking on it. Please give it a chance to be reviewed by the people who put scorn on it originally. Its now a complete re-write and a stub. Appreciate your help in getting this notable person in wiki. The first article was a train wreck and this one is just the facts. :0 Thanks and nope, I dont sell my soul to a demon :) rgds T--T3Smile 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Demon, I just read the article you're in and its cool! I got a giggle out of it! so it might just be that I have to surrender my soul to the demon after all, cuz he ate the wale ;) Looking forward to your thoughts on my humble request.

 Done. I've moved the article to proper capitalization and unprotected the correct title as well. Happy editing. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

what a legend!!!!.....hang on I have a badge for you.--T3Smile 19:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
		For recognising an article written by an indigineous person worthy of mention in wikipedia T3Smile 19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One more quick thing demon, Theres a few typos and one too many [['s in it. how can i unprotect, fix typos, and reprotect? or similar. I don't plan to add anymore than that. I love the fact that its protected though. I know thats why it became a train wreck before as a few other people added without verifying, and it became annoying at the end. Thoughts? --T3Smile 19:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Also, the article is *not* protected, I removed the protection that prevented it from being re-made at the proper title to allow editing there. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, kinda understand that..but this error comes up - This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option:

Wikipedia:Protected titles/Twinkle how do you fix that? And, what is the proces to get document protection, even for a short time? (For My Reference). Do I ask an admin for such or is there a quick and easy process? ta. --T3Smile 19:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, missed that. It's been fixed now! :-P Oh, and for page protections, check out WP:RFPP, it should help you. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Don't be silly. The page says on the top that people should respect others' privacy wishes. Plus blocking yourself theoretically could have caused collateral damage I think unless the wiki software changed again since I last checked, but that's just a mere technicality. So, I've unblocked you. Cowman109^Talk 01:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking yourself is childish man. I like you and all, but it had to be said. 1 != 2 01:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides, you forgot to warn yourself first. I think there's a template for that... --InkSplotch 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Copper Canyon Academy

I noticed that you have deleted it, because it was not worth to mention. But I have to disagree. It was used as a private prison in relationship with a very public Dr. Phil entertainment TV-show The hunt for Amanda where a young woman was manhunted across the United States, because her family due to religious causes did not want her to marry her boyfriend.

With the help of Dr. Phil the poor girl was imprisoned at the facility where they broke her down, so she like her older sister could function as nurses for their parents at home.

Covergaard 06:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

from Manishearth

Sorry about not licensing those audio files (on Marathi Language). I recorded them at home. I am a new user, and didn't realise the problem until I got the message from OrphanBot. I corrected my problem now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manishearth (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Laurel and Hardy Movie poster image deletion

Just making sure. You deleted Image:L&H Our Relations 1936.jpg way back in June with the comment CSD I5: Is unused and not free. However, the What links here page for that image doesn't work. There is something that used it, namely the page about movie in question Our Relations, but it's not listed in what links here. Any objection if I restore the poster? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. :-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That was fast, thanks! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm on-wiki right now, it's hard for me to miss a message :-P ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted in error ---> are you using a bot?

Image:CAPDhacker.png was deleted by you after the license was changed by me to pd-self. The original license template of fair use was an error on my part. Your summary states you deleted it because it was tagged as invalid fair use and uploader notified more than 48 hours ago. Do you personally review these before deleting or are you engaging in bot-like activity? Got bot flag? JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I'm not running illegal bots, and I'm prone to making mistakes just like anyone else. I'm not perfect. In addition, I have looked back at the image in question and it was most certainly not a public domain image. A cropped screenshot of a movie does not make it fall within your copyright. My deletion stands, unless you wish to take it to WP:DRV. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jerry, your change of license was reverted over a week before Chad deleted the image. Here is the relevant bit of the history:

15:46, August 19, 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:CAPDhacker.png" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago.)

01:12, August 10, 2007 (diff) . . Remember the dot (Talk | contribs | block) (282 bytes) (no, this is a derivative work of the movie A Clear and Present Danger)

00:56, August 10, 2007 (diff) . . Jerry (Talk | contribs | block) (148 bytes) (changed license to pd-self)

19:20, August 9, 2007 (diff) . . Remember the dot (Talk | contribs | block) (282 bytes) (fair use disputed)

I agree that you seem to have been a little hasty in presuming that a Bot was used - the deletion summary is actually totally compatible with human review. WjBscribe 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not a cropped screenshot of a movie still. As I had stated in the upload summary, I created it myself using mspaint, and it represented what I saw in the movie. It was used to illustrate the scene in the movie, as discussed in an article, without the image, the discussion is potentially difficult for readers to understand if they have not seen the movie. The person who reverted my license change should have left me a note on my talk page. Based on the information available to me, as a non-admin, (eg. not able to review edit summaries for deleted content), it looked like the image was deleted with my license still there, and therefore like the deleter did not read the edit summaries but rather reacted to a category list from the concern tag, hence my question (not accusation) about bot-like edits. Bringing up WP:AGF seems without merit. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

cornell univeristy logo

You speedy deleted it, but I really can't trouble shoot why it wasn't fairly used since that explanation is gone. COuld you possibly enlighten me so that I could get another one uploaded that falls within WP's fair use explanation? Please reply on my talk page. cOrneLlrOckEy 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting..... cOrneLlrOckEy 18:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what it was used on, since I didn't upload it. That is probably something that should have been checked before you deleted it. cOrneLlrOckEy 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Leona Lewis

Hi, regarding this edit, can you explain? The link you provided just takes me to a login page and I can't get any further to see the what it is. Thanks. ^anemone|_projectors 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It goes to OTRS, where I received a confidential e-mail informing me that the article was incorrect. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean all the realiable sources are incorrect too? Was the e-mail from a reliable source? ^anemone|_projectors 18:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was. And yes, any source that lists that name is incorrect. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But it can't be verified, I don't understand. ^anemone|_projectors 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I had a chat with Majorly about it :o) ^anemone|_projectors 21:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

early june deletion of many islamic art images

I'm not sure exactly why you were deleting so many of these images, but I just had to go back and restore about 20 (?) of them. One such image is Image:Safavid Dynasty, Horse and Groom, by Haydar Ali, early 16th century.jpg; many more can be seen in the painting gallery at the Islamic art article. None of them had tags for deletion, as far as I can see in the history, and all of them were marked with a source (maybe not the best one, but with a quick search of the museum's collections I could locate the piece). You never notified the uploader (nor did anyone else), and a ton of fantastic images, all dated about 1400-1600 AD (so obviously public domain) were deleted. Please be more careful next time before deleting images where the uploader (or any other user) could so easily fix the problem, and the image has never been tagged, and the uploader has never been notified. Calliopejen1 16:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those images had a tag at the time of deletion. I do not delete images all willy-nilly, only ones that have been tagged. In addition, it is not *my* job to notify anyone, that is the tagger's job. If you look at the *MANY MANY* images I delete constantly, you'll see that I simply do not have the time in the day to check to make sure *EVERY* uploader of *EVERY* image has been notified. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something in the restored history, there were no tags. I agree that it is not your job to notify, but when there were no tags as far as I can see, I'm not sure why they were deleted. Calliopejen1 18:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks very much for supporting my RfA. Unfortunately it wasn't a success, however, I appreciate your support all the same! —— Ryan (^talk/_contribs) 23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Harold A. Rogers

Could I please see the article Harold A. Rogers you deleted. You wrote that this was a CSD for blatant advertising but that article had been in existence for quite a while and I read it previously and don't recall that it was written as such.

At any rate, Harold A. Rogers is an important figure in Canadian history, ranked among the Greatest Canadians in the recent CBC tv show, founder of the largest all-Canadian service organisation, recipient of the Order of Canada and the Order of the British Empire, and first recipient of Ontario's Lamp of Learning award. He is deserving of an encyclopedic entry and if not worded to your satisfaction, an appropriate tag, note on the talk page, or an edit would have been a better action. A speedy deletion for "advertising" a man who has been dead over 13 years seems odd. Perhaps the version you saw had been vandalised and you forgot to check the history?

I also wonder why you removed the wikilinks to the article.

Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the articles in Category:Kin Canada were either blatant advertising, or a nearly-direct copyvio from their website. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. I believe you seriously overstepped the bounds of CSD. These articles could have even passed AfD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I just restored this article--I don't see this as blatant advertising in the least. This is a matter for AfD, not speedy deletion. Calliopejen1 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I would also like Kin Canada, Kin Canada Bursaries, and Telemiracle restored. It would be a trivial matter for me to re-write them from a google cache but prefer that the author-credit histories were intact. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see here. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnson City Cardinals

Can I ask why you speedy deleted the Johnson City Cardinals article when an article exists for every other professional baseball team in North America (including the independents)? Smashville 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a short, unreferenced article with no assertion of notability. Perfectly legitimate speedy deletion. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I highly disagree. That may have been the most out of process CSD I've ever seen...I'll be taking it to DRV. Smashville 20:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Go for it :-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's up. Don't take it personally...well, I guess you know that. Smashville 20:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the article asserts notability (rookie-league team under the St. Louis Cardinals, a MLB team). The level of notability can be debated at AfD, but that's not another matter. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored the article as a clear out-of-process deletion per WP:DP. ~ trialsanderrors 06:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Krewe of Muses

Demon, I used an image I'd gotten off a Google Image search. I uploaded it as kreweofmuses.jpg and asked for fair use consideration. I am not a member of this organization. A friend is however--and it was this friend who asked me to write the article. Nobody in the organization objected to its use; however, the original source was a weekly newspaper, so there probably is a copyright issue afterall. Should this friend send me an image? I'm not sure about how to get a release. Can you point me to this information?

WP:COPYREQ should have most of the information you'll need. I'm not really sure on specifics, I don't do much with *obtaining* permission. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Wilno

You closed this debate a few days ago. Could you comment on the revert war at Operation Wilno? See edit summaries in history and talk for arguments of both sides. I feel we need a third party to mediate, and you already have some background, so... thanks :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Image:Degrassismith.jpg

Hi, ^demon. I saw that you deleted Image:Degrassismith.jpg at 10:14 a.m. on October 30, and said that I, the uploader, had been notified. Well if you look at my talk page and talk page history, you'll see that is not the case.

Anyways, I thought it met all ten Non-free content criteria, so I would like to know what could possibly be done to restore the image. Does it need a different fair use or licence tag?

Thanks and regards, -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 20:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Restored, sorry. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Contesting speedy deletion of Image:MayorJohnWMorgan.jpg

What was the problem with this image? I am the one who wrote the fair use rationale recently, but was not notified. This image copyright is owned by a Canadian municipality, which ultimately is owned by the Canadian Crown, and the fair use was valid. Please restore it, and let me know what the problem is so I can fix it. There should not be any problem with this image being fair use, as there are no free images of this Canadian politician available. - Crockspot 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This image cannot be fixed with a better fair use rationale. Crown copyright images are considered nonfree, and as a matter of policy all photos of living people are considered to be replaceable. You can try requesting a free image from the mayor's office - see WP:COPYREQ. Calliopejen1 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I was using the "Canadian politician" template (can't tell you which one exactly, because the edit history is gone) which seemed to spell out exactly the situation this image was being used for. Is that template no longer stating a valid fair use rationale? If not, the template should be deleted as well. - Crockspot 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC) PS, it was just weeks ago that another admin tagged this image for deletion. I worked with them extensively, and satisfied them that there was a proper fair use rationale. I also had to track down the original uploader on another website, since he has not been active on Wikipedia for some time. Please point out the specific policy page where it is spelled out that this image has an improper fair use rationale. All I can find on deleting non-free images of living people are several essays, which do not hold any weight in policy. Also, since the uploader of the image is no longer active, and I was obviously actively editing the image page, it would have been nice to have been notified of the tagging of the image for deletion. - Crockspot 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE, under "Unacceptable images", says, "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." {{Canada-politician-photo}} explicitly says it needs to be used alongside a non-free use rationale, because it is a non-free image tag. The template is kept because the image is not ENTIRELY nonfree--noncommercial reuse is permitted, and it is helpful to specify this for downstream users--but it is a non-free image nonetheless by Wikipedia standards because it cannot be modified/used for commercial purposes. Calliopejen1 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As best as I remember, it met all ten criteria in WP:NONFREE. I may not have spelled it out on each of the ten points, but I can certainly do so. - Crockspot 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the criteria is that it not be replaceable. Because he is a living person, this is a replaceable photo. Calliopejen1 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it is not possible to have a fair use rationale on a photograph of a living person, period, right? Is this a firm and widely accepted interpretation of the policy, and do we expect to be able to enforce this policy wikipedia-wide? Why do we even bother tagging them for 48 hours? What could possibly happen in that 48 hours, short of the person no longer continuing to live, that would abort the deletion? Why have an unnecessary step in the process? - Crockspot 02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC) PS. What makes the photograph of three living persons in the section above this one restorable? I'm sorry if I'm being a pain, but the fair use rules have always been somewhat confusing to me, and what you are telling me is only confusing me more. - Crockspot 02:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, essentially. This is a firmly and widely accepted interpretation-- it appears as a specific example on WP:NONFREE. I would eliminate the 48-hour period myself, and have actually proposed doing so--I guess maybe the theory is that within that period you can advance evidence that the person is a recluse, or that particular photo is necessary to show a career-defining moment, etc. The three people above are a borderline case, because there they are in character for a TV show, which appears on the page about the TV show. They wouldn't appear in public all together, and certainly not dressed as their characters. So I think that that one is not replaceable, to show what the TV show characters look like. Calliopejen1 02:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, eventually I'll get the hang of all these image intricacies. Image policy is about the most convoluted and complicated of any topic I've run across on Wikipedia. - Crockspot 14:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediology

I'm retired; you woke me up from my nap. Since I am awake, I did leave a comment on the deletion debate; in short, my official position is, I have no official position. Please note that I am retired and that my talk page is a protected archive. I have been responding to queries when active Wikipedians bring them to my attention, but I won't be doing so in the future because I find even the briefest stint here tedious and painful. For future reference if you come acrosse a a pic that I uploaded fifty years ago under fair use tag, I have no idea where I got it from today. Happy editing! - JCarriker 22:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandy Szwarc

I unprotected it, because an OTRS e-mail indicates that the IP removing things was the article's subject. FCYTravis 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the OTRS e-mail, because I protected it *due* to the OTRS e-mail. Is there any reason why you think those claims should stay? Is there an encyclopedic relevance? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I already removed the guilt by association paragraph. Whether it should be deleted or not, I'm rather more conflicted. Which claims do you think should be further removed? FCYTravis 01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I was wanting to see the "Potential Bias" removed. It's largely speculative, as there are no direct signs of bias, just things that might contribute to it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Right - and if you looked at the article, that's what I removed. :) FCYTravis 01:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So, why did we unprotect? I was trying to keep stuff from being reintroduced. I'm getting confused :-P ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Coredesat told me to talk to you about the possibility of getting a ride to the Decemeber DC meetup. I reside in Richmond Va. --StevenL 20:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, and I'd be more than happy to. Since we'll potentially be discussing phone numbers and addresses, shoot me an e-mail (link's on the left, it's enabled) and we'll figure it out from there. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to sound like an airhead, but I can't find your email address. Is it possible you make its location more obvious for me? Thanks --StevenL 00:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant the "E-mail this user" link. You have to have a confirmed e-mail yourself as well. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ferny Grove SHS article

Main article: Ferny Grove State High School

Thanks for your help keeping the vandals at bay. I was trying but i didn't get time to visit it every day. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 01:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

About image deletion

Sir or madam, I notice that you have deleted the following images which were uploaded by me, even after I had added {{Non-free media rationale}}, would you please tell me what I had done wrong? Thank you!

[27] [28] [29] ^{Talk to ►} Kevin 14:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Merge progress/Part1

Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Merge progress/Part1, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen 00:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this thing. I went ahead and nuked it myself. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How do I nominate something for deletion?

Demon baby, I found a swathe of articles that are non notable, or should be merged. Check out commendable, Prairie Bayou, Old Friends Equine, Kona Gold, Finsceal Beo, English Channel (horse), A P Valentine. Checking through article such as Melbourne Cup shows winning horses, not ones that race at some track out yonder. You can't tell me a horse such as commendable is more notable than Anthony Chidiac. lol. Looking forward to your thoughts, and thanks for your help with giving the chidiac stub a go. I'm joining the deletionist club now, where do I sign up? T.--T3Smile 07:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC) - Blocked as sockpuppet. See SSP Achidiac -- Jreferee t/c 15:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To join the deletionist club, you need to read and memorize WP:DP, WP:CSD, WP:PROD and the various WP:XFD processes. Hehe. In all seriousness, I'll read over those later when I have some time (I'm about to head out the door right now) and give some advice then. Ciao. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User Page: Deletion Gestapo

Hi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gekritzl/Deletion_gestapo was on my USER SPACE, not on WIKI SPACE. You had not right to tag it for speedy deletion. Please restore. -- Geĸrίtz 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:USER and WP:OWN. You do not own your userspace. I had every legitimate right to remove the page as it met one or more of the CSD criteria. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't meet one or more - please see CSD G4, which you cited - "This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space". The talk page on Deletion Gestapo suggested moving it to user space, which I did. Thanks! Geĸrίtz 00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

However, if you see WP:USER, it mentions that having content of deleted articles is not ok. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How, then, do I realize the suggestion on the original talk page to move the article to a user subpage? It's not in WIKI space, so I have to ask, why do you care what's in my user subpage? Thanks again... Geĸrίtz 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to ask them why they'd suggest that. As for the page, I went ahead and restored it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Excellent. Take care. Geĸrίtz 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Akbar S. Ahmed

Initially surprised that no article on him existed, I was going to create a stub article on Professor Akbar S. Ahmed. However, I noticed that an article on this topic had been previously deleted per your handling of OTRS request 1069924. The article I envisioned creating would have been a straightforward biography. His name, position, published works, notable events & achievements. I was prompted to create an article after noticing that Ahmed has been mentioned by name in several articles. Please feel free to respond to me either on- or off-Wiki as to anything I should avoid in the article, or whether I should avoid its creation altogether. --Ssbohio 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is being handled off-wiki. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your close of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats

Absurd would be an understatement. I strongly encourage you to rethink your evaluation before mass deleting nearly 700 categories when there was so clearly consensus to keep. Your choice to close it as delete is absolutely inexplicable. Please do not waste our time by forcing us to depopulate 700 categories, delete them, and then have us go to DRV. - auburnpilot talk

It's almost like I don't need to say things any more... AuburnPilot says them for me. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Further, this may not be a vote, but when only 4 out of 29 contributors support deletion (one of which supported deletion in order to peeve the "frat boys and sorority sisters"), there is no rationale for deletion. - auburnpilot talk 05:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you are apparently out for the night, I've requested a review on AN/I. - auburnpilot talk 06:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll mirror what others have said. Please do not start depopulating or deleting until this is reviewed, as it will probably end up at DRV today. --- RockMFR 14:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Corey Taylor

Sorry it's taken me almost a month to notice this. Haven't been too terribly active lately. I noticed you deleted the image I uploaded for Corey Taylor stating that it had an "invalid fair-use rationale" and that the uploader had been notified "more than 48 hours ago". Now I don't doubt that the fair-use rationale was lacking at best, but I was never notified to the fact that it was to be deleted. Seems to me that no one was notified, actually. I just wanted to bring this to your attention. If I had actually been notified, I could have fixed the fair-use rationale and it wouldn't have to have been deleted. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 12:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I just finished combing the contributions of the user who originally tagged it, and it appears that no one was ever notified. I can undelete, if you'd like. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. User:Veesicle 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this prestigious Defender of the Wiki Barnstar because you have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs (2nd nomination)

Hi ^demon, just letting you know, I wrote over your close as I was in the middle of doing it anyway and got conflicted. Hope you don't mind, I'll revert if you'd prefer. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed. It's ok, as your close explains the situation much better than mine. Was just closing in case you had forgotten. :-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:^demonBot2

I would like to clone this bot, as it might go offline if you are not using it and it would get all of it done faster. With a clone, it would get all of it done. If you will allow me to clone it, I would prefer you to comment on it on my talk page. Dreamy ^§ 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm McGookin

Thank you for the AfD notification. Is there a way for me to view the subject's request for deletion, or at least have a summary of why the subject wanted the article deleted? I'm curious because previous versions of the article was originally created by the subject himself before they were speedily deleted; I authored the current article as a first stab at creating a new article and because I deemed the subject notable (I like Count Duckula cartoons :). --健次(derumi)^talk 07:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot divulge the contents of the e-mail, but the subject did say that he's requested before for it to be deleted. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I was under the impression that he was fine with my re-creating the article. Should I nominate it for speedy as the primary author? --健次(derumi)^talk 07:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, let AFD decide. He's borderline notable. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bots

Hello. If your bot was programmed with C# in Windows and you're ready to help me make my own bot for other wiki-projects please contact me. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No time, sorry. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment requested at WP:AN/I

Hi ^demon;

I am cross-posting this from GTBacchus' page; I am terribly sorry as that is impersonal, but it is the same questions. Yesterday I posted at WP:AN/I regarding an anonymous user who was/is constantly reverting changes made to templates in royal articles. An admin determined that the user was stalking/following my edits and blocked the user for 48 hours (first block). Consequently, a user I suspected who had the anonymous IP as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet is doing the exact same thing. I have seen your name around before (like GTBacchus; I am trying to draw attention to the matter) and saw that you have commented at WP:AN/I, so I was wondering if you could take a peek at the situation since there is a lot going on at WP:AN/I and it seems that it is being overlooked. As a "rouge" (red) admin, I am assuming that you are really an administrator. Thanks! Charles 01:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I'm trying to avoid being involved in wiki politics. It's pointless and time-wasting. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. Do you have a suggestion as to where I might post? I think this person should be banned. Maybe WP:AN/I isn't the best place. Charles 01:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AN/I is as good a place as any. You'll easily find a ban-happy crowd there, especially since Votes for banning was closed. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hey carrot-demon. You didn't address the assertion in my rfu-disputed tag here. Or at least I don't think you reflected that fact anywhere. -- Y not? 12:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry about the mix-up, must've missed seeing your dispute. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Union for Traditional Judaism

I protected the page because anonymous ips had repeatedly deleted material without explanation. Protecting the page forced discussion on the talk page. I have asked User:JoshuaZ to review the situation. Now that the Ips have explained their reasoning on the talk page, it is clearer that this is an edit dispute. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucinda Southworth

Hellow, why did you delete the image "Lucinda Southworth"?. There is no copy-vio as the image I got it from Stanford university website, which doesn’t even state anything about image copy vio. Can you retrieve it? Could you please tell what shall I do for re-uploading, if possible? Can I upload again as "my own work" category as I edited (reduced size, adjusted propo and given more brightness etc, image in photoshop)--Avinesh Jose 04:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the subject of the image (in this case, Lucinda herself) contacted OTRS and said she has not released the copyright to this and wishes for us to remove it. Legally, we are obligated to comply. Also, changing size and whatnot doesn't make it your own work, it would make it a derivative work, and thus subject to the same copyrights. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith T/C 05:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

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.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We've already gone to press for this week's issue, but responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to note that I did see your note on your candidate statement -- if you'd rather not answer these questions, can you confirm that for me? Ral315 » 07:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would rather not. Thanks anyway. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Spire movie

Honestly, I wondered how long it would take for that to get deleted. I thought it was cool, but I am biased because I find the building so interesting I searched for any related media. I loved your "Ok no. Fair use promotional video? How in the HELL will that aid in understanding of a subject? CSD criteria: G11 and I7". We need more nonBSers like you on Wikipedia. Happy admining. Chupper (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on locked page

This user has engaged in edit warring on a locked page ([30]) I recommend he be stripped of his adminship. Bensaccount (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation taken and dismissed, unless [31], [32], [33] be also sanctioned. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 23:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides what's your point recommendating on the user's talk page? Who is the intended target? What did you mean to accomplish? Were you serious? Should this be the appropiate page to recommend if you were actually serious? -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 23:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits

I notice this page was recently deleted. I spent quite some time on this page. I notice that someone else put on the actual rules (the UCP) breaching copyright. However, instead of removing the rules, the entire page was deleted. Could it please be reinstated (without the rules)? It is an article on an important set of rules that governs more than one trillion dollars of trade annually. Alan Davidson (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I am writing to you because your user name appears on the page. Are you the correct person to approach in this regard? If not can you tell me who? Alan Davidson 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete?

Would you object to my listing this page on MfD, since you have clearly stated that you will not be taking questions?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's up to you. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really, apparently. What is meant by this deletion summary?. Are you running or not? You're still listed as an active candidate.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No longer. Not wasting my time. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown

I've posted to WP:AN indicating this feature is now active (i tried it and it worked) - thought I'd let you know individually too since you expressed interest in it before.—Random832 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)