Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Joint Command Lisbon.gif
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Joint Command Lisbon.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiProject Awards Rolecall
To check whether all of our members are still interested, we have blanked the members list, if you still wish to take part please add your name back on the list.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Though I'm not an admin I've left a statement on the ArbCom request. In other news I thought you might want to see this. If this case gets accepted I'm going to ask for a neutral and uninvolved admin to mediate because clearly he is neither of those things. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
We have been in tougher situations Al. We are here to put things right that once went wrong. Perhaps we need Dr. Sam Beckett to correct this one. Sorry I have just been watching too much Quantum Leap lately... :)
I'd like that. I wonder how far this crusade will go. How are admins that mock people for their opinions be legitemate candidates to enforce civility? I hope they are having a good belly laugh. Shows how seriously they take the matter.
I really do not want to defend myself. Whenever I do that people accuse me of drama. I be damned if I defend. I be damned if I don't defend.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi White Cat, thank you for Christmas greetings! I hope your holidays went well and that you have a great year. --Kyoko17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Two redirects up for deletion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You and I made the same edit nearly the same second? That is rare. And I randomly noticed it too, I mean the vandalism. -- Catchi? 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Have you considered taking some of the redirected articles that you are fond of, putting them into your userspace, repairing them, and then putting them back? No one can object to you putting up a repaired version of an article that meets all relevant guidelines. Simply shouting "TTN IS BAD!" doesn't help anything ... it just helps edit wars happen. Point redirects like we were talking about in your last ANI report don't help either. Unless, of course, your goal is to eventually derail TTN so that Wikipedia can be full of bad articles that are mainly plot summaries.Kww (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Articles are not written in userspaces. Stubs are not banned. We do not expect articles to be in featured quality when placed on mainspace. As you point out improving article quality involves expanding them, not blanking. This isn't a matter of good and evil. Articles that are mainly plot summaries are 1/3rd complete. That leaves the reception and production sections. -- Catchi? 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you think sandboxes and userspace pages are for? I didn't use the word "expanding", by the way. I said "repairing." Stripping the plot summary down to a paragraph, and then adding all the awards the episode has been nominated for, real life impact, things like that. And, if it never has been nominated for an award and has had no real-life impact, leaving it as a line or two in a "List of" article.Kww (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sandboxes are there to experiment. For example how to use images. Userpace is there to help you manage articles you care about and to communicate. You are neither expected nor required to have any content in your userspace to write articles. Otherwise stub articles would be banned. They aren't.
Certainly an episode or movie that received no award is not automatically non-notable. There are plenty of movies that received no Oscar awards. Having an article on every movie made does not seem to be a problem on my end. Wikipedia is not paper. Just like how we do not exclusively have articles on physics theories that won the Nobel prize we do not expect nor require every movie article to have an award. Wining prizes has not a whole lot to do with notability but instead about the reception the particular movie received. Also, just because something has real-life impact or won an award does not make it notable.
You seem to be confusing the concept of notability. You seem to be seeking a universal notability which would be a mistake.
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Welsper and his demon-angel Blue Lance.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Welsper and his demon-angel Blue Lance.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sigel (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Sigel (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Satoko Yamano (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Satoko Yamano (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shohei Yoshida (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Shohei Yoshida (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Toraichi Tamiya (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Toraichi Tamiya (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Otaki Aoyama (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Otaki Aoyama (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shiho Sakakibara (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Shiho Sakakibara (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Keiichi Morisato (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Keiichi Morisato (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hild (Oh My Goddess Manga).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Hild (Oh My Goddess Manga).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x17.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x17.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x15.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x15.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x07.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x07.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x22.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x22.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess 1x12.0.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess 1x12.0.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yggdrasil (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Yggdrasil (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Troubador (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Troubador (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Keiichi Morisato.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Keiichi Morisato.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 12.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 12.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 11.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 11.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 10.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 10.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Belldandy and Holy Bell.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Belldandy and Holy Bell.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sentaro Kawanishi (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Sentaro Kawanishi (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chihiro Fujimi (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Chihiro Fujimi (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Megumi Morisato (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Megumi Morisato (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chrono, Ere, Ex (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Chrono, Ere, Ex (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gan-chan (Adventures of Mini-Goddess).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Gan-chan (Adventures of Mini-Goddess).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ru Fe Morgan (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Ru Fe Morgan (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Celestin (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Celestin (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Almighty (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:The Almighty (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lind (Oh My Goddess! manga).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Lind (Oh My Goddess! manga).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hijiri (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Hijiri (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Senbee (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Senbee (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Goddess Relief Office.gif)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Goddess Relief Office.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Koshan (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Koshan (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sayoko Mishima (Oh My Goddess!).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Sayoko Mishima (Oh My Goddess!).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nekomi Institute of Technology.jpg)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Nekomi Institute of Technology.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 3.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 3.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 2.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot 2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Wargames Computer Screenshot.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Arbitration workshop is not a discussion page. Please place your general comment elsewhere not in the main section. Not even arbitrators place comments there. -- Catchi? 13:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Really? There seems to be a whole lot of discussion going on there. Is this another of your official comments? I've edited that page 74 times, so I think I know what's appropriate. My comment even seems to have prodded you to focus on that section. In fact, I somewhat agree with you that a lot of the proposals are unsupported by evidence. --Jack Merridew13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
The sections are divided among arbitrators, involved parties and outside parties. It has been a tradition to keep it that way. I haven't heard of anyone 'disobeying' the tradition to date. Was merely trying to help better organize. -- Catchi? 13:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The format of the workshop has changed since the prior case. I feel that as long as things are clear, my comment is fine; removing it not yours to do. The case does need to focus on actual evidence. I offer the suggestion that you reword the end of your comment to "…presented have no evidentiary basis."
The format of the workshop still reads those three headings. Feel free to alter it/reword it as you see fit.
I typically copy threads to the talk pages of everyone involved on the thread. As you suggest I will stop. I normally do not check other peoples talk pages for responses.
If you check earlier edits of mine to the workshop page (w/edit summaries including the word tidy), you will see that I have made a variety of edits to the overall format of the page.
If I leave a note, I have my preferences set to automatically add pages to my watchlist, so I'll see a reply. I have 2,459 pages on the list at the moment, and I often cut things. --Jack Merridew14:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Kurdistan Workers' Party flag
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You should re-apply for adminship, since you appear to be a good editor who would do the job right. You were close in the last vote and you're an admin on Wikimedia commons (which is good to establish your credibility).
Some of the links in your userpage appear broken. In the TOC, none of these work:
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Asking for administrative intervention concering User:TTN is outside of the purview of WP:AN and WP:ANI. You are both involved in the arbitration case which is still on going. Wait for the ArbCom to decide on something.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Last time I checked the presence of an RfAr is not a license for disruption. TTN is being disruptive in the absence of consensus on the matter which is exactly the point of the RfAr.
I find this culture of people going out of their way to prevent any kind of review to TTNs behavior. Any post to ANI about TTN is immediately attacked and rendered useless within minutes which adds to the disruption.
It belongs to the talk page. My GOD I cannot even move discussion to the talk page... You know, just forget it. I won't even try discussing this. I surrender to your revert-waring skills as I clearly can't compete. -- Catchi? 19:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Always good to see the skills are recognized. Seriously, though, the General Discussion section belongs there. Perhaps what they're discussing belongs on the talk page, but in that case you should have just moved the discussion, not the whole section. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. I suppose I have misjudged you. I am just so sick of revert wars. Why don't you do what you suggested? -- Catchi? 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yay! I owe you an apology. This episode thing has been way too intense :( -- Catchi? 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of Starfleet ship classes
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has nominated List of Starfleet ship classes, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Indian women artists, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Replaceable fair use Image:Kikuchi_Masami.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:Kikuchi_Masami.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Template:Ja-0 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Naohiro19 revertvandal (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me? -- Catchi? 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess Logo.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:United Federation of Planets flag.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:United Federation of Planets flag.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wargames View at NORAD.png
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Wargames View at NORAD.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Template:List of computer viruses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Afsouth-logo.gif
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Afsouth-logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Oh My Goddess Manga cover.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess Manga cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Arbitrators are capable of handling checkusers. As this is arbitration related on a complicated case, I don't want to spread the disruption in any way. -- Catchi? 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Proving Ground (ENT episode).jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Proving Ground (ENT episode).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, I don't mean to bug you too much but what happened? I haven't logged in for a while and the link on my userpage to CVU is broken! Thanks! --MADISON (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Essjay had booted me off the group and started a CVN. Since then I avoided it. Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit is still out there. -- Catchi? 14:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Typical behaviour
How much do you know me to make that assertion? Have we met? -- Catchi? 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you name some? After if it is "typical", it shouldn't be hard to give examples. I do not consider myself to be remotely abrasive so I would like to know what area to work on. -- Catchi? 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
OTOH, wouldn't you agree that you have kind of a controversial history? Granted, some if it dates back to your Cool Cat days, but I see a similar attitude at play in the way you've been crusading against Jack Merridew for quite some time now. Or maybe it's my own POV. User:Dorftrottel 00:12, February 20, 2008
Umm... Feel free to double check on that. I feel the contrary is happening. I do not particularly feel like a controversial individual. If my analysis on Jack Merridew is correct, Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Diyarbakir would have been wiki-stalking (WP:HA) me continuously for the past three years. -- Catchi? 00:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll follow the development of that. If half of it turns out to be true, I owe you an apology. User:Dorftrottel 00:30, February 20, 2008
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Template:Userpagebox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You really don't need to notify me like that. If it needs to go, just speedy delete them :). -- Catchi? 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you nominating every orphaned template for speedy deletion? If so why? -- Catchi? 23:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Seemingly that would be "yes" and "that's a very good question", respectively. In the cause of "cleaning up old data" we're creating further "data" in the form of an equal number of talk-page discussion, and absorbing large amounts of people's time. Not much time per person, granted, but integrated over the whole wiki, a good chunk. Here, "speedy" is a complete misnomer; the not-very-lightweight process involved is really much more in the style of a highly speculative "prod", which really just serves to remove the requirement for any actual deletion rationale beyond "it's orphaned, so hey, maybe it might also be 'deprecated'". Alai (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm tagging templates that seem to no longer be of value to the project. There's no real need to keep old templates around; in fact, a lot of them seem to be test templates or templates from when users were new and unknowing. I'm (trying) to avoid templates that are substituted or are part of a larger series. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
What purpose does it serve to seek them out and get them deleted? Deleting them wastes more server resources and admin time. So I would recommend leaving them alone as they do get deleted (slowly) over time. Instead of tagging them one by one, how about compiling a list and let people process that. This would save you time as well. -- Catchi? 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a list; as you can see from my contributions, I do letters of the alphabet at a time. Some of the templates I've been tagging are years old. And, I don't mind the work, and I usually end up deleting the templates myself when seven days has elapsed (no admin time wasted). Also, I try not to waste server resources as much as possible (one small step: not using an annoying image alongside my user notifications). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Unless there is a problem with the templates, 'deleting' them does cause problems. For example you generate an extra log that wastes server hard drive space. Of course the amount of waste is trivial at best. I really think you should leave the matter to its natural course. We have greater backlog on copyrighted images with possible legal implications. -- Catchi? 13:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Oop, forgot one thing. The script I use automatically notifies the original creator of the template that is being tagged. I don't check who it is, and unfortunately, getting a list of pages that a user was the creator of isn't particularly easy to do. So, unfortunately, you may get a few more messages. I apologize for any inconvenience. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would probably get hundreds of messages. If you take a look at my talk page, it has been dominated bu bot talk and that does become inconvenient over time. "You have got a message" pops up and it turns out to be a bot... -- Catchi? 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom /evidence page for episodes is a bit too long and editing it has been rather difficult. I am somewhat panicking because the voting on the arbitration case has started and I feel the late evidence I provided may be overlooked. The sections on the evidence I collected that I would like arbcom to take a closer look are:
Aside from these I feel the combative mentality (comradeship) exhibited by some of the users has not been addressed. This is more evident in sub pages of the arbitration case itself such as the talk page of the proposed decision. Any time something is said about one of them they all defend each other 'to the bitter end'.
I am very concerned because after the first arbitration case the disruption continued. I do not want to deal with 2 more months of disruption just like the past case. As it stands I feel the passed remedies will not be adequate in resolving the dispute. Despite the temporary injunction by arbcom, people have continued to mass remove material. Alas on 'video game' related articles and not 'television'.
Let me clarify, I would like to avoid misunderstandings as much as possible. While it would seem that we are hopelessly at odds about some issues, I'd like to limit that, and not have it bleed over to any time we interact on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Computer/Scepbot
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments1 person in discussion
If your bot uses the pywikipedia framework, you might want to change the following code in redirect.py:
# watch out for redirect loops
if secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == secondRedir.sectionFreeTitle() \
or secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == redir.sectionFreeTitle():
continue
to:
# watch out for redirect loops
if secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == secondRedir.sectionFreeTitle() \
or secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == redir.sectionFreeTitle():
content=secondTargetPage.get()
secondTargetPage.put("{{db-r1}}"+content, "Tagging for speedy deletion")
Hmm. I would like to do that but I also want to keep the bot in sync with SVN. Also CSD#R4 would be better criteria me thinks (alas that was created today by me). I'll tell this on #pywikipediabot -- Catchi? 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
"<Filnik|away> White_Cat: tell Will that he has an old version of redirect.py and if he will send me a patch suitable for the new version I'll consider it (and apply if correct)"
So if you can do that, we all would benefit from this. :)
I really don't know. You could test on a private wiki, perhaps wikia. -- Catchi? 23:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying Wikiquote, by looping an already double-redirect, then running the script on it. I'm trying to find out where the error is being thrown, though... Will(talk)23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
You accuse me of pointyness? Maybe I tried the talk page of multiple arbitrators and they failed to respond in a satisfactory manner? -- Catchi? 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't know if you have or not, but the point stands. The page makes it clear that you should use the talk page. Just because your proposals haven't found any traction doesn't mean you should try to force them into use. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am not forcing anyone to do anything. For example if they gave me a single rational explanation why they are completely ignoring the evidence I provided - that would be a satisfactory response.
I will cease responding to you or anybody on this any more because I know people are waiting in a long queue seeking a mere excuse to block me over the most trivial error (this isn't an accusation directed at you, they know who they are). I will not give them the satisfaction. To put it mildly, I am very frustrated.
Very well. I understand you may be frustrated about your evidence not being seen, as I went over Krill's talk to see an example, but it seems to me that Krill at least has acknowledged it. Just because they don't accept it doesn't mean they're ignoring you. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well?
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Catchi? 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As I've told you before, I've looked at the material you've presented, and do not believe that modifying the proposed decision will be in the best interests of the project. Neither, apparently, do any of my colleagues. Kirill04:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
We seem to be having difficulty communicating... Would you prefer IRC?
Would you find it in the spirit of the passed arbitration remedies if people carry out the edit behaviour they had on television-related articles (what this case handled) to video game related articles? That is what is happening to a degree due to the wording of the remedy with an emphasis on "television". Video game related articles are typically not television related. This is only one of the issues I feel arbcom failed to address.
Is meatpuppetary not an issue? Granted arbcom is passing the "Fait accompli" thing, yet again... I presented evidence of editors are acting as a group on hundreds of articles. Surely this is not the preferred way of editing per "Fait accompli"... So why can't arbcom pass a ruling to limit or discourage any more such behaviour?
There are 10 headers on the evidence I presented. All I ask is a rational explanation why none of it is not used on the /Proposed decisions? I never expected all of them to make it to /Proposed decisions.
The bulk of your evidence is simply irrelevant to the matter at hand. This case concerns the broad question of editorial conflict over the disposition of certain articles; if you have private conflicts with certain other editors involved in the matter, you should pursue the dispute resolution process in that specific regard, rather than expecting those issues to be handled as a side effect of an unrelated case.
The rest of it is no different, in essence, from that presented by the various other parties. We're already well aware that there are two groups of editors fighting over the issue here. The current remedies remain, in my opinion, the most appropriate method to deal with the editorial conflict at this juncture. If the conflict spreads or otherwise increases, we can deal with the matter then; but I see no need to try and predict where someone might try to take it in advance. Kirill05:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I find it strange that arbitration committee is willingly overlooking problematic behaviour. Is the desire for me to file more arbitration cases? I can do that if you like. I already filed two arbitration cases on Davenbelle, I can file a third one no sweat. I can file a video game rfar as well, fyi it has already spread. Evidence to this end has been presented and that is not just by me. I can file an rfar over meatpuppetry issue. Is this what arbcom wants? More workload? -- Catchi? 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
yardım
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
selamlar cat,
senden bir ricam olacak, ben benim vikide Şablon:Metakutu yu çalıştıramadım. Bu şablon Fransızların Modèle:Début des onglets [4] şablonu. #if fonksiyonu görünüyor, tablo oluşuyor ama yarım yamalak.Burda görüldüğü gibi
şunu belirtim Türkçe vikiden css ve js dosyalarını yükledim, ama benim serverda ekstsnsin dosyası boş bununla bi ilgisi var mı ve ya sürümle. Ne yapmam gerekiyor
Wikinin kurulumu bilmedigim bir konu size nasil yardimci olabilecegimi tam bilmiyorum. -- Catchi? 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Re Well?
Latest comment: 16 years ago19 comments1 person in discussion
I want to clarify the following 3 sections before focusing on others. -- Catchi? 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
edit point a
As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Catchi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is a lack of attention from the ArbCom White Cat. I personally had gone through all the evidence you submitted and i am still believing that i only could have accepted it if it were the basis of a separate case though i find it partially quite unconvincing (in most of its parts as it is presented now) as a proof of anything. However, i am still open to hear about any further or new solid evidence. There would probably be a few elements worth checking but my 'common sense' tells me it should be separated from this case. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Okay. I'll 'walk' you through what I meant with my evidence. Its 2:45AM3:25AM and I have an intercontinental travel tomorrow so this will probably be unsatisfactory today. I will post something more detailed tomorrow.
Some history. Firstly please familiarize yourself with these usernames
Coolcat -> Cool Cat -> White Cat
I have changed my username twice to date
Davenbelle - Moby Dick - Diyarbakir.
Davenbelle and Moby Dick had made identical/similar edits and have been treated like the same person.
Moby Dick and Diyarbakir are checkuser confirmed to be the same person. Both have been banned indefinitely.
Stereotek - Karl Meier
Stereotek has changed his username to Karl Meier. I have not been in dispute with this person for the most part. I hardly ever hear from him.
Fadix
User has been banned by arbcom on the 'Armenia-Azerbaijan' arbitration case.
I have spent a good part of my wikipedia's various dispute resolution processes such as collecting evidence for arbcom. To date I have been involved with four arbitration cases of which two were episode/character related. As it appears, on all four of them I have been dealing with one person that got banned several times.
First one was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek lasting between 24 July 2005 and 5 October 2005. If you take a glance at passed remedies you'll see "Efforts by Davenbelle and Stereotek to monitor Coolcat" which diplomatically addressed the harassment issue. The issue did not settle with the closure of the case. It lasted till 7 December 2005 (two more months) as visible at /mentorship and /mentorship talk
The peace and quiet was only temporary. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick particularly take a look at "Prior behavior by Davenbelle" and "Moby Dick has harassed other editors" Arbcom has again held a more diplomatic tone. This again did not end there. Moby Dick went to inactivity.
I did not really have much peace and quiet. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir shows examples of the kind of nonsense I wasted my time with. Diyarbakir focused on Turkey and Kurd related articles in a manner which is the exact extreme opposite of my edits. Finally Diyarbakir and Moby Dick was indefinately blocked by the community on Early May 2007 with the checkuser evidence. I genuinely thought my harassment days that started on spring 2005 have finaly reached an end.
Now I know a Jack Merridew has seriously started editing wikipedia just a few days after Moby Dick's ban. Unlike Diyarbakir, Jack Merridew focuses on fiction related articles again in a manner which is the exact extreme opposite of my edits. He has removed nearly all of my contribution to Oh My Goddess! related articles. He went out of his way to participate in any related discussion in a manner only to remove content including discussions on templates.
I am not sure how receptive the wikipedia community is on the matter of this notorious stalker in the light of this thread. Each year I file a new case and spend 3 months on thwarting Davenbelle's new account. Jack Merridew would be his 4th account.
Based on the evidence I provided, is there anything unconvincing on the identity of Jack Merridew? I am rather tired of filing case after another and request much much more severe remedies to get this guy (Davenbelle) off my tail. No one should be required to sacrifice 2-3 months per year on stalkers.
This is relevant to the case because it involves tv episode related articles and a disruptive party.
I get two things out of the above... You and your case and the E&C one. If you really believe in your evidence then you don't have to waste more than a few minutes of your time posting the above as a new RfA case unless you have to gather more evidence; which necessarily has to be really solid. Also, there's no CU findings for arbitrators' guidance. Again, the evidence as it seems now is unconvincing to me and concentrates more on you and your alleged wiki-stalkers. You may argue that the two cases are related and I would not disagree but as I see it in a whole I strongly believe they are partially if not minimally related because if you ask the majority of the involved parties they would tell you that they got a problem with an edit pattern and not with a stalker sock/meatpuppeter, etc...
If you decide to file a case and if your present evidence has a chance to be treated as a proof of any violation then obviously and simply the decision enforcement on the subject would override the original one. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Consider these:
"For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior, they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." (#Identity).
CheckUser results show Jack Merridew edits from IPs compatible with the Davenbelle's location. An hence compatible with the location of Moby Dick.
Edits
Diyarbakir has edited until 10 April. He stopped editing on the 10th.
On 11 April Jack registered and started editing and has done so until 19 April. He stop editing on the 19th. Jack focused this entire contribution between 11 April and 19 April on various non-profit organizations operating in Bali.
Diyarbakir made edits on 23rd of April.
Diyarbakir was blocked in 26 April for being a sockpuppet.
On 2 May Moby Dick was also blocked indefinitely.
Jack Merridew resumed editing on 8 May, 6 days after Moby Dick's block. From 8 May to 25 June (nearly 2 months) he made 48 edits most focusing on Indonesia related articles. [5]
On July 2007 Jack Merridew made 881 edits almost entirely focusing (attacking) on fiction related articles as if someone switched off his interest to non-profit organizations in Indonesia. [6]
As you seem to agree the two cases are related to a degree. Jack Merridew of course did not ONLY stalk me but also edited other fiction related articles in a problematic way. I cannot however understand why arbitration committee is going to disregard users other related disruptive behavior. Arbcom is a dispute "resolution process" and the dispute concerns Episode and Character related articles. There exists an alleged sockpuppet harassing one of the editors editing episode and character related articles. By basic logic it is very related if you ask me. So long as the issue surrounding Jack Merridew is not addressed, the episode and character dispute will not be resolved. Arbcom isn't supposed to be a bureaucracy.
Point one - You already state that ArbCom is a dispute "resolution process". The thing is the ArbCom hasn't seen any dispute resolution process followed by you to sort out the alleged stalking and sock/meatpuppetry. With no RfC and no CU request, the ArbCom cannot rely on just a user's analysis. It doesn't require an arbitrator to agree that the two cases are related for your evidence to be addressed. That's why, at the absence of CU, at least solid evidence is required. That is for the weight of the evidence.
The other point... This is not bureaucracy but common practice. Also, as a common practice and sense, cases are referred to on a historical and eventual basis. In other words, your case dates back to years ago and has evolved under different circumstances than those of episodes and characters case. Your case involved 2 or 3 users while this case involve many more users. Your case involves stalking and sockpuppetry according to you. The community sees the whole as two different things and i haven't seen any change regarding that. They just happened to interfer somewhere and the only existing relationship between them is you. The community may then refer to two different ArbCom desicions for convenience using referentials. Your case appears to be more complicated than the E&C since you believe it has taken a long time to be fixed. It does not mean that we cannot sort it out through the ArbCom. We are here for that reason but cases cannot take longer times. Your case can be addressed separately. We cannot keep the status quo for a huge number of articles because of a problem that can be separately resolved. The community cannot accept that White Cat.
The degree of relationship between the two cases is relative of course. So add to that the lack of solid evidence and a CU finding. This gives you two broken eggs. I have suggested how you can keep them for later on instead of losing them all now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have linked you to the checkuser material twice (once on /evidence and once here). For the the third time, please click here. That is a report by a checkuser. User:Moby Dick's IP is still indef blocked. So, Moby Dick by very nature of computer science and our blocking system has to change his IP to make edits. Under that assumption Moby and Jack will not have indentical IPs.
I will not engage in any forms of dispute resolution process - particularly something as dysfunctional and useless as an RfC. I kindly ask you to never again mention 'RfC' to me because I am to, put it mildy, sick and tired of engaging in the dispute resolution processes for the past THREE YEARS. I have used each step including RfC multiple times. I feel it is jawdroppingly obvious that this is him. What kind of evidence would you classify as "concrete" or "solid"? I may be able to provide it if I know what you are looking for. I do not know what exactly is you want me to provide. I do believe Moby Dick has a learning curve so he will not give me any obvious evidence like he accidentally did in the past. For example User:Diyarbakir pretended being a Kurd born in Diyarbakir. He added a category:Kurdistan to many articles strictly to bait me (per RFCU evidnece). One of his major mistakes was editing as Moby Dick in march which made checkuser a possibility.
I think what i meant by the above is that a "complicated long-time case that needs more digging cannot impede, even unintentionally, the smooth running of Wikipedia. Your case can be better dealt with separately for referential and historical reasons plus convenience and Wikipedia standards and common practice while giving the main case a chance to go sorted out on time without delays. There are many editors out there waiting for things getting to normal." As you see, you can still disregard my 'Point one'. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I see what you are getting at, but see my comment on part c. While things should run smoothly, rushing an arbcom case is more problematic. If the passed remedies are not effective in resolving the dispute more community/arbcom will be spent on the continuation cases. This happened with the first RfAr case on episode articles for example. So rushing it may not be smoothing the process. -- Catchi? 02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You may be probably right but we are talking about 'part a' here which can be better dealt with separately for referential and historical reasons plus convenience and Wikipedia standards and common practice while... -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Right. I am inclined to do as you ask and file a separate case simply for the convenience alone. I just am skeptical what good will it do (per section c). I guess what I am asking is assuming my assessment is right - that Jack Merridew and Davenbelle are the same person - what remedies can arbitration committee enact so that I do not deal with Davenbelle any more? Blocking him indefinitely doesn't appear like an effective measure. -- Catchi? 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not asking White Cat and it is not only for convenience. I am explaining to you what is appropriate and reasonable and why. So let me explain it to you again that the answer to your last question can only be answered through a separate case if needed otherwise everyone is under the radar of the ArbCom and the people who help at the ArbEnforc. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I guess I did not express myself well enough. I was inquiring on what arbcom can do as in what are the limits of the committee. Can arbcom take any action beyond indef blocking this user? I do not want to spend another 3 weeks on an arbitration case if arbcom lacks the authority to do anything. -- Catchi? 23:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Can arbcom take any action beyond indef blocking this user?. Well, yes. It can be a ban and i am referring to any user who would exhaust the community patience, not necessarily this user because we still don't know. ArbCom can only indef block user accounts and its socks or meatpuppets after verifications of facts, a thing that also the Community can do without involving the ArbCom. We are not the police White Cat. The maximum the ArbCom can do is to ban someone. Now, before even indef blocking or banning anyone, we must analyze the evidence and to do so we need to hear it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
And he can pick a new identity in less than a week. In best case scenario arbcom can ban this what I believe is an indef blocked user that is somehow still editing. You do see where I am getting at I hope... In other words I will have to put up with harassment unless I leave wikipedia and hide in a bunker assuming a fetal position. :P
I am fully aware that arbcom is not the police, particularly not the Indonesian police. I just am not convinced what arbcom can do to actually prevent this person Davenbelle from further harassment.
You don't have to hide in a bunker. But just don't shoot. There is RfAr out there and its doors are open. We will verify your allegations and decide. If we find out that what you say is right then the harasser will be banned. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I patiently waited, collected evidence and got Moby Dick banned. That was the product of 2 years of patience until 2 May 2007. I was almost completely alone during the entire time.
We are in March 5th so it has been about 10 months this blocked user continued editing despite the ban - assuming if I am right of course. I am very skeptical that arbcom can offer a real solution. :/
I am somewhat saddened with your statement that my evidence concentrates more on me and my alleged wiki-stalkers. That is not true or at least was not the intention.
#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry) demonstrates that at least these four users act as a group to dominate a particular discussion. Not just issues concerning me but on other incidents as well. There are numerous examples of such participation. Also if someone files a complaint against either one of them or if one of them files a complaint against someone standing in their way, other three are quick to come to assist. Consider the case here for example or look at the workshop of this rfar. Granted not all four show up all the time as it is more of a combination of three people than four. This is more visible with the evidence. This was not addressed at all.
The statement that there are two groups of users fighting each other is not right. The diplomatic tone on arbcom remedies imply as if the inclusionists and deletionists united in fronts. There are multiple groups of people writing articles on unrelated fictional topics and a single group of users trying to purge it in a systematic manner. There are other unrelated deletionists groups who operate more reasonably.
For example, I focus on various anime (mostly Oh My Goddess!) and Star Trek. I have a dispute with a group of users (TTN - Ned Scott - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - ?) on Oh My Goddess! and Star Trek related articles. If the same group purges or attempts to purge "Hannah Montana" (random pick) related articles, the same people will be in dispute with a separate group of people writing Hannah Montana related articles. Me and people writing "Hannah Montana" do not work together against the deletionist group while deletionist group works together against separate groups of editors who actually write articles.
They cannot yet meet the resistance they are faced by people editing more popular TV shows so they pick on the smaller ones: User talk:TTN/Archive 8#WP:FICT isn't working. In other words they dominate the episode/character related discussion. This is an "imposed consensus" by them. This isn't what real consensus supposed to be.
Is that all you have to say on this? The way you put it is very insensitive and infuriating. Is this the way we prefer our users to edit? Work in groups and dominate discussions? -- Catchi? 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It was not my intention at all. We cannot stop anyone from having deletionist or inclusionist tendencies. Plus i don't agree with the assertion that they avoid popular TV shows because of resistance there. That's not a solid assumption. If there are no canvassing or any other poor behaviour habits, then all what I can understand is that you just disagree with each other. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
You may disagree with it but in TTN's words:
“
Now they only have any sort of "power" over the big series like Harry Potter due to numbers, but things like that will always go slowly due to numbers anyways. I'm just sticking with picking off smaller ones, and then trying to tackle larger ones every once and a while. Once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones.
”
When I talk about "they" I don't refer to any random deletionist but to this group of users.
Someone having over 750 common edits with another is clear indication of canvassing especially if the edit behavior is anything but coincidental and instead identical. Two RC patrollers editing the same article is one thing and two users backing each other on the blanking of hundereds of pages is another. On my evidence page on the issue (#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry)) I show examples of these users collectively revert waring on multiple occasions. On Won't Get Fooled Again (Farscape episode) or Out of Their Minds for example all four (TTN - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - Ned Scott) users have edited the article in a similar/identical manner.
If you divide the total distinct pages edited by both user X and TTN then divide it by the total number of distinct pages edited by X and then multiply it by 100 (percentage of the edits matching) you get the below values:
%26.77 of edits by Jack Merridew are to pages that TTN also edited
%15.35 of edits by Eusebeus are to pages that TTN also edited
%4.42 of edits by Ned Scott are to pages that TTN also edited
I have already stated that this evidence is not solid. Even if we disregard that aspect, the numbers above appear to be normal since the same figures can be found within any group of users working on the same WikiProject or set of articles. That is an element that the mathematical model used above doesn't take into account.
I confirm to you officially that all the above mentioned users are unrelated to each other. They are not the same user. No evidence of canvassing trend. As for meatpuppetry, there's no evidence of an exhibit of recruitment or canvassing. And I am sure if there would be any in the future, you'll find many admins dealing with it on the spot.
Again, they share the same interests as you (editing these articles) but they only share their POV between themselves. This is not an exception to this area you edit, it is a common fact around Wikipedia. What the ArbCom can do is to judge inadequate behavior. This is what we do.
Your quote re TTN...Now they only have any sort of "power" over the big series like Harry Potter due to numbers, but things like that will always go slowly due to numbers anyways. I'm just sticking with picking off smaller ones, and then trying to tackle larger ones every once and a while. Once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones.
Let me get this straight so because Wandalstouring is asking you to help write a set of articles that is enough for you to completely disregard the evidence I provided? You are right that the numbers merely imply canvassing/meatpuppetary and they need to be accompanied by diffs showing evidence of canvassing which has been provided. I seriously doubt there any four users that you have voted in an identical manner on xfds (on articles all four of you have no edits) on multiple occasions.
Have you checked the "Extended Evidence (TTN - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - Ned Scott: 60)" expandable evidence? These are 60 pages all four of the users have edited. I listed all of them for fairness and transparency of my evidence. Not every case of the 60 pages is valid. It is possible for four people to coincidentally edit same pages. For example all four of them editing each others talk page isn't exactly surprising. However all four of them editing Out of Their Minds in an identical manner isn't normal. Or consider True Colors (That's So Raven). These are just two examples of the many.
You said: "they share the same interests as you (editing these articles) but they only share their POV between themselves". Is that not the definition of canvassing or even stealth canvassing? Is the notification of a biased (campaigning against fiction related articles in general) and/or partisan (votestacking on xfds concerning topics of fiction) group of people in a secret (via email for example) manner not problematic in any way? Are you claiming that these people do not in any way communicate on/off wiki and yet coincidentally show up on hundereds of pages just hours to days after each other? These people collectively revert war and vote on hundereds of pages. Of which on all cases they collectively remove/blank/redirectify articles. They are not collectively writing articles at all. You want me to provide hundereds of diffs? If you check the actual articles they edit and the way they edit you can see that they are not mere coincidences. Canvassing and particularly stealth canvassing is not easy to document.
"They share their POV between themselves" is an analogy with your case White Cat. From their POV they may think that "You share your POV with users who agree with you." We are talking here about deletionist and inclusionist tendencies and I've already explained to you that We cannot stop anyone from having such tendencies unless it is disruptive. It is common to find different camps at different topics and it is not necessarily a bad thing. We only deal with behaviour and the Fait accompli refers to this point and one of the remedies deals with it; all parties remain instructed and warned. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
This isn't a matter of deletionist tendencies. This is four or more self-righteous people dominating/canvassing discussions and votes together. "Fait accompli" is common sense. It has been passed many times by arbcom. What is the sanction if a group of users violate it? Certainly the TTN group as violated that many times. -- Catchi? 23:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The remedies on the case focus on Episode and Character articles on television. The original case was filed concerning all Episode and Character related articles weather they are related to television or not. There are many non-tv characters such as the ones on video games, comics and stories. As it stands the arbitration injunction has only served to shift the dispute from television episodes to video game related articles due to its focus on "television". So the intended resolution by the arbitration committee is already tested and is not working.
This is probably a good point though i see no relationship whatsoever to Jack Merridew and you so that it would require another case to be filed. After all, any motion can change that to cover a wider, probably infected, scope whenever it is necessary. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Of course you can't. This section 'c' is related to the general issue and not a spesific user. Every 3rd level (===) section of my /evidence has an indeppendent logic and rationale. I do not want to file an arbitration case on video game related articles. Just how many cases do you want or expect me to file so that arbcom will look into it? An arbitrator restricted this to 'television' not the people filing it. The dispute had never been restricted to television articles. So I cannot understand why remedies are restricted to television. -- Catchi? 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course you can't.
Of course it can be done if it would be deemed necessary.
Just how many cases do you want or expect me to file so that arbcom will look into it?
White Cat, you haven't filed any case related to E&C yet.
So I cannot understand why remedies are restricted to television.
This is the locus of the dispute... The dispute centers on the existence of articles regarding individual episodes and characters from television series, and is part of a broader disagreement regarding the interpretation of notability guidelines with reference to fictional and popular culture topics and one of the proposed remedies is that all parties instructed and warned. Please read this carefully: They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Anyone can file a clarification request and if problems spread further and becomes an issue that the community could not solve then a motion to the present case can be easily passed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
An arbitration case is a very stressful, complicated and time consuming process. Filing an arbitration case is like suicide regardless how merited your case may be. For example it can very easily ruin an on going RfA and any future ones. I sincerely hope you understand what filing an arbitration case leads to for some users. I do not want to file cases for the sake of filing them. For example filing the RfAr on Davenbelle and etc was the greatest mistake I have made on wikipedia. I have been through hell ever since. So I am not very enthusiastic about bringing something in front of arbcom. I do not know what else I could have done back then, but the arbitration case did not help me at all. Neither did the second one given I am prompted to file a third one. I seriously doubt a 3rd arbitration case will do me any good given the overall dismissive-looking attitude of some arbitrators. I am telling you this in an empathic manner. It isn't like I care about a reputation (nor have one - well a very negative one). If Jack were indefinitely blocked today he would be back editing in a few days. In a month or less he would be back to the harassment campaign only he'd be just more discrete so the fourth case would be much harder for me to file. What can arbcom do? For all practice purposes? because if I am right blocking Davenbelle serves no purpose.
Reasonable people like me can understand what you are saying here in words without a second thought on it. When arbitration committee said "halt all activity" a number of users have already tried very hard to trick the system. They have to a degree succeeded. I hence feel arbitration committee should be more explicit in the remedy. Arbcom looking at something "unfavorably" may not be enough for an administer to take action against a user engaging in behavior sanctioned him from on "television" related articles. We have seen examples of this before on other complex cases.
I am talking about E&C here. I am talking about a motion if deemed necessary in the future, be it tomorrow or after years depending on the situation and the state of the disputes. You are talking about another arbitration case and you are talking about your prior cases. Again, we are dealing with "two eggs." -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't quite understand the omelet-like egg metaphor - and you got me quite hungry actualy. Right E&C... So why can't we avoid explicitly restricting this to "television" related articles and define the scope as "fiction related articles" in general? This dispute at no point was restricted to "television" related articles. People have already edited non-television related yet fiction-related articles. I can list many examples even before this arbitration case started. -- Catchi? 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
White Cat, you are experienced enough to understand why we have motions in Wikipedia arbitration process. Also, if you are an observer of the Arbitration process, at least recently, you will notice how smoothly we can amend prior decisions everythime it is deemed necessary (a recent infamous example). General sanctions can be added or lifted when necessary. However, the ArbCom role is not solely restricted to sanctionary measures and you are experienced enough to know that guidence is also part of its role. We have to maintain this balanced approach and manage it optimally. We still believe users' general attitudes and habits to be reformed. This is contrary to the rushing you referred to above. After all, you agree that rushing is not good. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Look, I just don't want a rehash of this dispute on say video game related articles. The first rfar on episodes and characters was quite disappointing. This one is somewhat reasonable and not entirely satisfactory to me as it stands. I am very concerned about the continuation of this disruptive behavior as I have been dealing with this issue for over a year now. It is quite tiring to deal with a dispute 24/7 for a year. -- Catchi? 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I also feel they are more than inadequate in resolving the dispute in question. -- Catchi? 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
For example, if TTN asks another user to nominate an article or series of article for deletion via email or even talk page he can effectively ride around the restrictions he got. Or if he gets a new account... Any user is free to continue edit pattern that TTN made. Arbcom only singled out and sanctioned TTN but his edit pattern is shared by many others. This issue as it stands is not addressed at all. People should not go out and mass xfd or redirectify entire topics. They can initiate a general discussion involving the general community and not a deletionist group and perhaps reach to a compromise/consensus. This is not done. -- Catchi? 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Or consider a slight topic change [7][8]. These are dated 25 February, 8 days after Kirill posted to /Proposed decisions. Or 22 days after the 3 February temporary injunction. -- Catchi? 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You say that Arbcom only singled out and sanctioned TTN and then you ask me to consider two slight topic changes by TTN?!
if TTN asks another user to nominate an article or series of article for deletion via email or even talk page he can effectively ride around the restrictions he got. Well, TTN would even make phone calls if he wants to but that is still just an assumption White Cat. Indeed, it is irrelevant because what is important is keeping order inside the house. We can't stop anyone from canvassing via emails but we can stop disruption at AfDs. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
He could even go to the neighbor if he is desperate enough... Thats no the point. I would like to see a general sanction against the way TTN edited. You know... something in the line of "don't go mass afd/redirectifiy every fiction related articles without prior consensus to do so" or "seek community-wide consensus before taking any kind of mass action".
Also note the articles in question were exempt from the arbitration injunction as they are video-game related. TTN could have legally redirectified any one of those. I am merely showing the shift that has already happened... Arbcom remedies are out of sync with whats currently happening.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Associação Académica de Coimbra is a Portuguese multisports club with several teams which compete in many top sports leagues and championships of Portugal, ranging from rugby union to volleyball to athletics. As far as I known, sports teams names are never translated in English see Deportivo de La Coruña, Mladost sports teams, Djurgardens IF and Real Madrid. Please, restore the teams' names and redirects to the previous versions in Portuguese or simply to a shorter form of the Portuguese name like Academica Coimbra or so. Yodaki (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, why are you asking me this? -- Catchi? 15:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, I'm a moderate user of wikipedia. My Opus for this site has to be the article I wrote on Cobden, Ontario. This is my home town and I did a lot of research into it's history and everything so that I could make a good article on it. I have received a lot of comments from people in my town about the article and a lot of them have told me they learned things that they didn't know before. Recently a user named Bearcat has merged a lot of stub articles into the article about their region. I'm not sure what the policy is on this. Most of the articles were about very unnotible places (mclarens settlement being the best example). But I'm a little unclear on why he seems to insist on merging cobden aswell. The article was over 10,000 words long. I know that there doesn't need to be articles on everything on earth but, and I realize I may be the minority on this, it seems like towns should have their own articles. I mean.... people may want information about them and it was hard for me to find it all. Now the information is all broken up and scattered across the whitewater region article.
Anyways, the reason I'm bothering you with this is because you seem like you would probably know a little more about wikipolicy than me and I saw you get involved before. I guess you could say I'm asking for your help and opinion. And my main question is this: Are towns not worthy, ever, of their own article?
Thank you. I see that things are getting a little heated. I certainly hope that this can get sorted out. I'm afraid to pop my head in as, being the main contributor to the article, I may seem to have an obvious bias.--Matt D (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Soru
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Eğer Türk değilsen, neden ana dili gibi Türkçe konuşuyorsun? Özür dilerim, sadece Türk olduğum için böyle şeyler ilgimi çekiyor... Türkçem kötü ise kötülüğün sebebi Türkçe ana dilim olmadığı için - ben Londra'da doğdum ve şu anda orada yaşıyorum. Siz nerelisiniz? Onur (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Internette kisisel bilgi vermeme taraftariyim o yuzden malesef sorunuzu yanitsiz birakacagim. -- Catchi? 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
That was an inappropriate edit. Selected galleries with informative captions should not be "moved" to Commons (where they probably came from in the first place), least of all without raising the matter first. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
This is common practice. This is why commons exists. It was not moved from commons because I created the commons page. I do not have to extensively discuss weather or not I can make edits. I'd find the suggestion of such a thing very disturbing. -- Catchi? 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not common practice, and is a bad edit. Someone else very rightly reverted it. Selected galleries as part of articles are a legitimate part of articles, including FAs. I know you hate discussing your actions, but this was completely out of line. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I do not hate discussing my edits. I do not wish to discuss this edit. I am completely uninterested what happens to the article. Do as you please. What more do you wish me to say? -- Catchi? 16:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fine. You may find this FA nomination, where the issue was discussed, worth reading to see why a shoot-on-sight attitude to galleries is not correct. You are probably aware the WP:Galleries was A) never accepted by the community and B) referred to stand-alone galleries, not those in articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I was going to use this to illustrate the possible move of images from Mohamed picture depiction to commons as a compromise to settle the dispute. This whole thing demonstrated how naive I was to think such a thing. I suppose I got what I deserved. -- Catchi? 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The bot fixes double redirects (redirects that link to redirects). Bot does this task in a mindless manner following data at Special:Doubleredirects. From what I can see that is exactly what the bot did. I do not completely understand your query. -- Catchi? 17:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you didn't find this note clear, I left my question here.
I don't think we have interacted before. FWIW, I prefer it for my correspondents refrain from pasting my comments back on my talk page. IMO, if my correspondents wants to respond on my talk page, rather than on their talk page, and they want to let future readers read my original query, they can just link to my edit, as I have done here. Geo Swan (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
zh.wikinews
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, until recently http://www.wikinews.org/ had only 6 wikis listed. I have boosted that number to 10 wikis adding pt, sv, ja and zh wikis to the circle. I second guessed "条目" to be the word for "articles" in Chinese. Is this correct? Also does the Chinese on the page display correctly? -- Catchi? 00:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.
When I talk too little people don't understand, when I talk too much people don't pay attention. I seem to not comprehend the balance. I was wondering if you could trim it for me only leaving back what you feel is the most relevant. Is this possible? Thanks. -- Catchi? 13:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Likelihood of a pass
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Mathmaticaly speaking there are 15 arbitrators 1 inactive 4 voted oppose 2 votes support. So 15-1-4-2=8 arbitrators are left to vote. To have a net 4 support I need the support vote of 6 more (4 of them to negate the opposition) arbitrators and get no opposition. Feels like a lost cause. So I cannot go to arbcom. Processes like WP:SSP and WP:RFCU will not work on complex cases like this one if my past experience in them is any indication. Such cases are generally declined. I do not believe Sam Blacketer is aware of the realities of the ground with his statement on the RFAR case. If I had "divisive administrative actions" why the heck would I even waste time filing a case? What would be your recommendation from here on? -- Catchi? 23:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If the case is rejected then it is not the end of the world for you as an editor. Administrators have been empowered, through most of the recently closed cases and I am sure if X harasses Y, Y edit warred tediously, X attacks personally Y, etc they would be there. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
The following is meant to be constructive criticism. I would like to see something gets done about it. Eventualism suggests this problem will eventually explode if nothing gets done about it. I had been able to identify such time bombs in a timely manner before so I think I have a rational logic below. I am just pointing out my observation based on my recent experience and hope some or all of these issues are fixed. I am not trying to insult anyone or anything. Merely pointing out things on how it looks on my end.
I think Arbcom is becoming less of a dispute resolution process and more of a bureaucratic and incompetent body that exists only to glance at content disputes. And even then, in such disputes arbcom's rulings typically fails to resolve anything, just mere requotations of our policies and common sense which people do not follow before, during and after the arbitraton case. We have seen this in Episodes and characters 1 RFAR. Arbcom will almost never touch user disputes. Arbcom is meant to look at those not content related issues.
The slow speed of how arbcom operates when matter concerns a user dispute is also an issue of interest. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories gets accepted just two days after it was filed on 17 March despite being a content related dispute. On the other hand my case has been dangling since 13 March or in other words 8 days ago and looks like it will not get accepted. About a week ago arbcom was almost out of cases all new ones were being declined and existing ones were promptly closed just hours apart from each other (alas 01:02, 14 Mar, - 21:12, 13 Mar - 22:46, 12 Mar). I have never seen Template:ArbComOpenTasksthis empty. I am really skeptical on how much attention every individual arbitrator gave to each of the cases. If the real issue is that arbcom is unable to handle the workload the number of arbtrators can be doubled.
Some arbitrators go out of their way to ignore me or at least give such an impression. Arbitrators like Kirill Lokshin or FloNight or FT2 will not respond to my inquiries on their talk page. FloNight won't respond to me on IRC for the past 2 months (or more). FT2 will almost always ignore anything I post to him on IRC. On very rare occasions FT2 did respond to me pointing out he was busy and he would look into the case in "a few days" but that "few days" had never come to date. A new arbitration case or matter seems to always have priority over me. Yet he is quick to respond to comments by anyone else it seems.
Whats more, Arbcom is taking the advice of a person that regularly trolls me on IRC (Sceptre). This is not exactly building my confidence towards arbcom and instead is obliterating any traces of such confidence that is left.
I believe I am not the only person that has lost faith in processes like dispute resolution and specifically arbcom. In any community where there is a lack of confidence in peaceful ways to resolve problems, people resort to violence in small manageable groups. I can give many real world examples but that would be a mere distraction. On an encyclopedia that translates as disruptive activity. We have seen many examples of mob editing not just in the issue of character and episode RfAr. I see the same issue on many other disputes. The reason arbcom is dealing with more and more disputes is because fewer and fewer people have confidence on the unbearable speed and uselessness of the dispute resolution processes with every passing day. This is destroying the project called wikipedia.
The emptiness of ArbComOpenTasks is relative. It can be a positive sign of a hard working ArbCom. Take it at face value.
I am not familiar with administering via IRC. I've only been there twice if I am correct.
A couple of arbitrators have been willing to look further into the matter. There are certainly many administrators out there who can help better (confirm or not the results of CU, block disrupters, etc...). If I were you, I'd concentrate on my work and if I 'do' believe that I am being harassed deliberately (attacked, reverted most of the time, etc...) I'd report it. Just don't report every single misunderstanding as a Wikipedia policy violation. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
WP:LOTD
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
If possible please not April 1. How about 23rd of April? :) -- Catchi? 15:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Robot
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello
Your robot on Persian Wikipedia makes Arabic edit summaries instead of Persian Ones. For example could you change this edit summary "(روبوت: تصليح تحويلة مزدوجة)" to this one "(ربات: بهبود صفحههای بازگردانی)".
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
"Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" are not the same thing. They should be separate articles. Please explain why the article on cosmetics is consistently being redirected to a different article about a related but separate topic (ie. the specialty of PRS). Jwri7474 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I do not understand. What seems to be the mater? Can you give some links? -- Catchi? 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" are not the same thing. They should be separate articles. Please explain why the article on cosmetics is consistently being redirected to a different article about a related but separate topic (ie. the specialty of PRS). Jwri7474 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I do not understand. What seems to be the mater? Can you give some links? -- Catchi? 23:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are some examples of the current representative bodies for "cosmetic surgery":
Even without fellowship training in cosmetics, many specialties teach cosmetics as part of their standard residency training program (example Otolaryngology and Maxillofacial surgery Board certification exams have a substantial component devoted to cosmetics 15-30%)
There are many medical/surgical specialties that utilise cosmetic surgical techniques and procedures and are equally licensed to provide such procedures, not only the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery". Redirecting the entire article to the Plastic surgery article suggests a certain POV that only Plastic surgeons can provide cosmetic procedures to the public and this is not true. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I do not understand why you are telling me all this. Which article/edit are we talking about that is in dispute? The details of the topic in question is your expertise so I will take your word for it. -- Catchi? 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I posted the information on your talk page because you commented on my page, so I thought you were interested in helping with the situation. Sorry, if there was any confusion. The article I'm speaking about is the "Cosmetic surgery" article which now has been redirected to "Plastic surgery".Jwri7474 (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am holding back on interwiki linking on wikisource until all my bot flag requests on all my accounts on wikisource concludes. Also scanning an entire wiki is costly. If you could list the spesific articles I can deal with them individually. It would be more efficient. :) -- Catchi? 10:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay so these are all translations from English right? What are each of these items? -- Catchi? 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
These are mostly original texts in Ancient Greek that have been translated into other languages. The translations are in other Wikisources. For example, s:el:Κλειώ is the first part of the Histories (Herodotus) written by Herodotus and translated into English by George Rawlinson and into French by Pierre Henri Larcher. The transwikis point to these tranlations. A reader who has opened the English translation at s:History of Herodotus/Book 1 would find it convenient to find a transwiki link to the original Greek text.
In the meantime I added interwiki links to the Greek texts of the Old Testament that point to the corresponding Hebrew texts. For example, s:el:Γένεσις now has a transwiki link pointing to s:he:בראשית ניקוד. Running interwiki.py on these pages will add interwiki links to Old Testament texts in many other languages. All the Greek old testament texts can be found in the category s:el:Category:Παλαιά Διαθήκη. Andreas (T)21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Could you also run python interwiki.py -cat:Παλαιά Διαθήκη? this would add interwiki to Hebrew Tanakh pages and Hebrew interwikis to Old Testament pages. Andreas (T)22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Bible translations are a mess. I was explicitly instructed not to run an interwiki code for that. -- Catchi? 19:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I was the author of most of these articles. I was wondering what is going on... :/ -- Catchi? 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Jack M decided that my correction of TTN's mistaken redirection of the major characters of AMG into the list article was disruptive and against some mythical consensus. I'm asleep so I'm giving others some time to respond. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I see. Since I have a COI I will wait for a while before getting involved. Good night and good luck. -- Catchi? 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
April
Question
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I am sorry I was offline for the most part of the past 48 hours. Could you explain what is this about? Granted the spirit of April 1 is gone but I would like to know. -- Catchi? 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Err, yes. Sorry about that, I hadn't noticed you had two statements in different sections. I was, of course, referring the the long one. :-) — Coren(talk)22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I cannot reduce it any more. It is mostly responses which wont be read if placed to the talk page. And I believe this is about WP:RFAR and not WP:RFA. -- Catchi? 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You may refer to them in the main text, but unless you manage to trim it down to below (or at least near to) 500 words, I'll have no choice but to move things around myself. I'm sure you'd rather make that selection yourself. — Coren(talk)23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have been very patient with arbcom and every wikipedia process. Agonizing me further on this issue concerning Davenbelle will only serve to upset me. Arbcom is mostly ignoring what I tell them on their own talk page. This is the only place I hope they'll pay attention to me. So please leave me some slack here. -- Catchi? 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That was... throughly edited. You may want to maintain a summary of your position in addition to the link, however. The point of keeping the statement short is to avoid "tl;dr", which is not good for anyone. — Coren(talk)00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
If only people made me not feel ignored things would be simpler. This comment/rant isn't aimed at you as clearly you are paying attention to my comments (at a minimum you are counting the number of words). :) -- Catchi? 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem, right now, is that you're taking things way to personal. I would suggest you let sleeping dogs lie; you've been vindicated in your suspicions of JM, and there is little more that can be done, Arbs or otherwise. — Coren(talk)00:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
When people start not responding to you at all for months while talking to other people things get personal. When arbitrators act this way it is particularly unpleasant. This contributed more to my frustration than every other factor combined. If people (arbitrators or not) wish to ignore me they should show the courtesy of informing me of such an action. It is Davenbelles 6th account so... -- Catchi? 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Resurrected discussion from February
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I just wanted to point out a follow up. :) -- Catchi? 10:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Look at that. Seems I was partly wrong, so apologies as far as Merridew is concerned. Doesn't however change my attitude towards no-holds-barred fiction inclusionists. Dorftrottel (troll) 11:00, April 2, 2008
I beg your pardon? -- Catchi? 11:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What does "Doesn't however change my attitude towards no-holds-barred fiction inclusionists" intended to mean? -- Catchi? 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It means that I think e.g. that by far most episode articles are not articles in any encyclopedic way and for a complete and utter lack of available acceptable sources never can be and should therefore be wiped from mainspace. In other words, that content-wise I still agree with Merridew and believe that he did less harm to Wikipedia than the ridiculous clowns and trolls who advocate shit like allowing "articles" e.g. on fictional characters based solely on primary sources. But the sockpuppeting was clearly bad. Dorftrottel (complain) 14:00, April 2, 2008
I guess you are considering me a clown and a troll then. -- Catchi? 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? What original research? You stated "ridiculous clowns and trolls who advocate shit like allowing "articles" e.g. on fictional characters based solely on primary sources" that scope includes me. Why are you so hostile? -- Catchi? 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hostile? I simply have strong opinions on certain content-related issues. This is caused mainly by two things: 1. The people who are against any encyclopedic standards are in the majority, and 2. those people are gaming the system like crazy. Like you and others do when you talk weird about some deletionist conspiracy when it's in fact the inclusionists who managed to adjust policies and guidelines and information channels to suit their ends. Now, you revived our conversation, could we now end it again? I see practically no common ground, except we both believe what we are doing is in the project's best interest. But that may not be enough. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 17:14, April 2, 2008
Hello White Cat. So I learn that Jack Merridew really was the sockpuppet you suspected him of being. Please accept my apologies for for my now unwarranted comments that mischaracterised your accusation. I wholeheartedly endorse Dorftrottel's comments above, however, concerning fiction articles and the value of Jack's contributions. Getting rid of this fancrufty rubbish was good work and I am sorry that he has behaved in a way that prevents him from making further useful contributions. Eusebeus (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Checkuser request
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
All 6 accounts of Davenbelle had been blocked indefinitely here on en.wikipedia. Per the commons discussion on Jack Merridew you have commented on, do you think you can run checks to verify? Mind you that commons:User:Moby Dick's entire contribution on commons was wasting community time. There also seems to be activity in meta... You have checkuser access on all 3 wikis (I think) so you are the best candidate dealing with this issue. -- Catchi? 12:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I will try to make some time to evaluate this as soon as practical. However I note that the case is closed already. What, specifically, are you asking me to do? What is it you want verified, and why? (what justification is there for each specific check you ask for, that is) Please also keep in mind what you were told by multiple people on IRC regarding this. ++Lar: t/c12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Per past contribution of commons:User:Moby Dick to commons I am not really comfortable at what is going on. For instance he made a big fuss about being called Davenbelle. That was pretty much all his past contribution. About 1 year ago this was is response to an administrative warning.
I'll take it under advisement. The user is now saying they are going to try to turn over a new leaf. That's a good thing. Some advice to you, I'd stay away from anything to do with them. Let others handle it, avoid any direct communication, please. ++Lar: t/c16:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
If you do not preform this check now you will not be able to do it later as checkuser logs will expire. I am very tired of that happening. I want a verification on who I am dealing with. Is it Jack Merridew? Or an Impostor of Jack Merridew. If it is the latter (impostor) urgent action may be necesary. In this complex case we have Jack Merridew and someone stalking Jack Merridew. I'd prefer to avoid bureaucracy through an out-of-the book check rather than an overly complicated formal one. Such a formal request would stress out all parties and I would really want to avoid dealing with it.
I am very involved in commons and I will not start a hide and seek game there. I also will make no effort in any way to make Jack Merridew's life miserable there. That is not my style. The lack of confidence I get from you is rather disappointing. Have more faith in me.
I said I would look into the matter and decide if a check is warranted. Please do not try to chivvy me, that won't work. Again, I point out that the en:wp RFCU has been closed as completed. Perhaps you might place the supporting material you have presented at the Meta crosswiki request page for wider notice, if you feel you're not getting satisfaction. ++Lar: t/c19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
This request is an interwiki one. en:wp RFCU has little to do with it process-wise. I am not asking for satisfaction, just verification. :P Please notify me with what you come up with even if you decline my request. Basically just post something on my talk page. -- Catchi? 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Just prod me so I know its ready. I have a very very busy week ahead of me so please leave me some slack just this once. :) -- Catchi? 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
technically inconclusive that Jack Meridew is either of these (CU cannot prove innocence). However based on findings, and other factors, I adjudge it quite Unlikely
Oh That was a newly discovered bug. :) -- Catchi? 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Barnstars and ClickA
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, I was the person requesting the rename of various barnstar images. Seems like the rename caused you a few problems. Sorry about that. It seems like template use was causing the issue.[12] I have manually fixed it for you.[13] -- Catchi?21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
If my software engineering instincts are right, bot tried a find and replace and ended up replacing every instance of "Barnstar.png" with "Original Barnstar.png". Avoiding things like this is exactly why I requested the rename. Poorly named images will be problematic in many ways. -- Catchi? 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I beg your pardon? -- Catchi? 20:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Bot misbehaving
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Please adjust the double redirect fix code and/or stop that function on the Hindi Wikipedia. It is making many errors. Here for example, after a less than helpful user had added #REDIRECT to the top of a legitimate page, your bot came and redirected it to an unrelated page, and mashed up the text that was there. Your bot should always recognize when there is text in a redirect and probably not automatically consider it a double redirect to fix. These types of things shown in this edit are things that should probably be fixed across all languages your bot is run. Thanks for running the bot though. - TaxmanTalk14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I do want to note that the bot acts as Special:Doubleredirects (or in your case hi:Special:Doubleredirects) directs it. The bot assumes that the redirectification was properly done (mostly as a page move leftover).
There is no easy way to check for such user errors or vandalism. After all, people may remove all content and leave a redirect for example among other things.
In this case at least, since the words redirect were just added to the top, it shouldn't be too hard to recognize that as vandalism. And specifically in this case no target was even given. I wasn't aware of those Special pages, and still don't know much about their inner workings. Perhaps it is something that needs to be fixed in them, I don't know. But thanks for looking into it. - TaxmanTalk14:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, [14] the page in question (vandalized version) was treated like a legitemate redirect by Mediawiki. So if I were to fix this it would break the recognition of other valid redirects. You may want to file this to bugzilla since Mediawiki treats it as a valid redirect so should my bot.
By the way hi:Special:Doubleredirects contains a self redirect that needs to be fixed. My bot cannot since a human should decide weather it should be redirected to some other page or deleted.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Awesome user page. We are having a little discussion at the CVU talk page (link) Our membership has grown since formed in 2005. I proposed that it's time to let CVU members, who don't do vandal fighting, go. Also, out of the concern some editors brought up to the CVU talk page, I proposed to allow users to have a page to post concerns about the behavior of a CVU member when it's not appropriate such as: using abusive language with other editors or biting newbies. Whoever engages in this type of behavior should be let go. Some users feel that because it's not an official WP entity, it's pointless and all it would just be a bureaucracy. Others feel we are NOTHING at WP and thus, there is no need for it. I believe you felt that we are somebody and have a mindset which sets us apart from regular editors. I also believe that as membership grows and some members engage in behaving inappropriately (as it appears they have already) while displaying the CVU label, the community at Wikipedia will look at us as a nuisance and will be frown upon. What do you think? If you think it's time to raise the bar and do without those users who do vandal fighting and are giving CVU a bad name come to vote for Do (something, like the new desk page and rules or whatever). If you think like others it's a waste of time, then don't bother. Jrod2 (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_0.GIF listed for deletion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please move such images to commons before seeking their deletion. -- Catchi? 09:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Archer_with_Porthos.jpg)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Archer_with_Porthos.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Forgotten (ENT episode).jpg)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:The Forgotten (ENT episode).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Move of two templates
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Would you please bring WP:CUC to the attention of user:Stavros1. a) He had started to upload to the Commons but seems to have reverted. b) He gets a lot of stick from me, if someone else could confirm the importance, it would help. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh I was developing that page, it isn't complete yet. I actually need help in getting it completed. Do you think you can help out? I can then bring it to that persons and general communities attention. -- Catchi? 11:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you prepare two templates encouraging people to upload to the Commons. Use one to put on the talk pages of WikiProjects that use photographs, eg. all those listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Geographical/Europe for a start! Use the other to put on the user talk pages of people who have been uploading images here. But I am not sure how one identifies such people! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
The emphasis of the CUC should be on getting people to do their new uploads to the Commons. Moving existing stuff there is less important. Look at Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr see how they have stressed the Commons! Go ahead, be bold, propose changes to Wikipedia:Upload to stress the Commons. For example, you could change "my own work" into a link to an intermediate page which has a big link to the Commons upload and a small link to the Wikipedia upload. They seem to have done that already!
Regarding transferring existing images, as you can see from the comments below there is plenty of scope for improving Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. If you do so and when you copy over your paragraph about freedom of panorama, please explain how it is possible that an image might be OK in a Wikipedia but would not be allowed on the Commons because of freedom of panorama laws. I don't see the difference. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons is more of a "How to" guide. It is also outdated: "If you have used a different name, go to all articles that use the image and change them". That is no longer necesary since we have Commonsdelinker for that.
The idea behind CUC is to get multiple people working collaboratively to mass move images to commons by paying attention to issues like "freedom of panorama" and "derivative works". CUC is intended to be launched on many wikis so the text on CUC should be brief allowing it to be more easily translated to many languages.
Things I have left out include the importance of "file history", possible use of bots to assist with this task, complications of some laws such as the Eiffel tower being copyrighted at night and being copyright free during the day.
It wasnt uploading directly to commons but copying from wikipedia to commons. I cannot remember the exact problem as it was some time ago Ive an idea I tried to followed some instructions. --palmiped | Talk 13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think the conversion may have accidental. I do not recall exactly why I made it a PNG. PNG crush would probably reduce the file size. Looking over it's use, I do not believe that fair-use image really adds to the article. -- Catchi? 08:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who to go to, so can you send this to the people in charge?
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry I didn't contact you about this, I was hoping to catch you on IRC. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts and I'm more than happy to discuss your concerns either here or privately. Ryan Postlethwaite03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Discuss what exactly? My opinion had been most consistent on this matter for the past three years. You did not even bother notifying me of this. What am I supposed to make out of this?
Will I be accused of disruption if I file an RFAR against him? Although the conclusion of the last one was rather solid: [15]. Will I be accused of disruption for getting stalked by him? He has developed many very cunning ways over the years...
In no way will I make any effort whatsoever to avoid him. In no way will I agree on anything concerning Davenbelle. I will not be inconvenienced the slightest bit for Davenbelle anymore. If there is anyone that will be inconvenienced will be Davenbelle. In addition the entire community will need to baby sit his current account (Jack Merridew) and all possible sockpuppets. Community seeking to unblock him should do so knowing this. Enough is enough.
I am not the one accused of stalking someone for three years. Stop treating me like a criminal. I am required to notify all non-indef blocked parties in any arbitration case or clarification. -- Catchi? 13:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
New Project
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thats a speedy deletion criteria? Why the martial law? -- Catchi? 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless you are willing to discuss in the light of speedy deletion criteria, I plan to recreate that redirect (I may get it undeleted). It is quite a pain to type "Stereotek"... -- Catchi? 16:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said to hbdragon88 above, there should be nothing but cases (and administrative pages like completed requests) as subpages of the main requests page. I remind you that no arbitrator has agreed with your renaming suggestion, for a variety of different reasons. --bainer (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have not heard a single word in relation to the speedy deletion criteria from you. I care not what arbitrators has to say. I have not proposed this to them and I do not intend to. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -- Catchi? 04:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Bot flag on vec
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I suppose this is your home wiki. Please apply for bot status on vec.wiki here: vec:Wikipedia:Bot/Elezsion. Cheers! LV (admin on vec) --LV~El me diga, sior 19:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
For your kindness in notifying me, I owe you an explanation.
Firstly I apologize for running the bot without requesting a flag. Although it is rather embarrassing to admit it, despite having my list. I had completely forgotten about requesting a bot flag on a number of wikis (all entries with a NR next to them).
As for the other point, I name my bot "WOPR" temporarily until I learn the word for "Computer" on the local wiki. In the case of vec wiki that was an error in my copy paste. I overlooked "vec" on my list.
All right, I saw that after a few minutes you correctd WOPR to Computer, so that's not a problem. But I am a bot owner myself, and I don't think it's a good idea to use all those different names, it's not suprising that you do errors like that. I really can't imagine how you can manage such a large number of accounts working this way... :-( Bye. LV~El me diga, sior 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I try to honor every individual local language in my own way. You are right maintaining such different names especialy for languages that use non-latin characters is not easy but it had been my personal style for bot names. :) -- Catchi? 16:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Bot request at ko.wikisource
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Air (tv) logo (lesser whitespace).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Air (tv) logo (lesser whitespace).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
WP:ANI
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
With a trivial amount of compromise you can avoid a revert war. But you are running the show with an iron fist. Tells a lot about how ani discussions go. I will stop reverting the second you restore my comment and remove the discussion templates. -- Catchi? 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it. Three editors have told you to either drop it or take it to DRV. Stop edit warring and do so. Nakon01:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I will not going to take it to Drv. And I will revert that page back. You could save me and everyone a lot of time if you just restored my comment. -- Catchi? 01:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Point? What point am I illustrating? Do not throw random policies and guidelines at me. I am far to experienced for that. -- Catchi? 01:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't throw account age into the ring. Your actions are clearly disruptive and need to stop. I'd advise you to listen to this edit by Daniel. Nakon01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
How ironic. You are accusing me of being elitist indirectly because I complain about arbcom eliteicism. -- Catchi? 02:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not. I merely said I was experienced. You interpreted that on your own. -- Catchi? 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The heck?
Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
Who do you heck do you think you are characterizing my concerns and comments as trolling? Even actual legal court decisions can be criticized. Why can't arbocom? And this isn't even tied to any decisions by arbcom on a dispute. -- Catchi? 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Because they've made their point clear and your comments are to effect of "well screw them, I deny they can control the way RfAr works". What you seem to forget is all the RfAr pages are designed for the community to interact with the Committee, not the other way around, and as such Committee have control over the format and composition of all pages in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/* and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/*. Daniel (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
WC/CC...you're being disruptive and three arb clerks have, in various words, told you to chill out. So do so. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have taken this issue with the foundation itself including Jimbo. I will drop this issue when I feel comfortable with the result. You can count on that. Arbitration clerks are not divine entities. I will not be patronized. -- Catchi? 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Naive in the sense I still believe foundation would listen to what I have to say? Ignorant as in I see a cultural problem others want to hide under the carpet? -- Catchi? 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
How ironic. You are attempting to rebuff my attempt to criticize wikipedia by linking to external criticism of wikipedia by Stephan Colbert. -- Catchi? 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Why should I be "uncalm"? I am the one merely proposing minor changes to arbcom. People are going out of their way to attack me for it. It is them who should be calm. -- Catchi? 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, misrepresenting the facts. It was disagreed with by arbitrators and clerks, and you're going out of your way to threaten to make edits which will disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. You even link to the essay policy when doing so regarding the mediation restriction. Daniel (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
What essay is that? -- Catchi? 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Right, that is what the ridiculous arbcom remedy bans me from though. -- Catchi? 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The respected members of the Arbitration Committee i) believe mediating "require[s] skill and the trust of the community", ii) believe you "[have] unsuccessfully attempted to mediate a number of contested articles" ... "where he had a strong POV", and iii) have therefore "prohibited [you] from holding [yourself] out as a mediator or attempting to serve as a mediator of any dispute". These respected and elected representatives of the community do not believe you have the necessary qualities or community support to be a mediator, and have banned you from doing so to prevent further disruption. You cannot ignore an arbitration decision just because you disagree with its ratio. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh really? Will you block me for mediating? What makes you think I haven't mediated many disputes via a sockpuppet account? -- Catchi? 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I am doing the exact opposite. Trying to pull arbcom out of a hole. -- Catchi? 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment by FT2
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There seem to be a couple of matters you are fighting on today at least - a RFAR redirect issue, and the removal of the prohibition on mediating for others. Unfortunately both of those seem to be problematic. The Arbitration Committee generally manages its own subpages, and there doesn't seem to be consensus either by Arbitrators, or arbcom clerks, or even by the community, to treat those differently than they are being treated. And the mediation issue, was considered by appeal very recently, and whilst questions were raised as to whether a lesser restriction might help, in the end, no arbitrator was willing to say the restriction should be removed as recently as March 2008. Wider communal consensus on both just says no interest in more discussion, best I can tell.
The communal concern in the mediation issue seems to be that you are still prone to arguement rather than discussion, and unfortunately that seems to be the case. On the other hand you are under considerable stress and are likely snapping at many things in part for that reason too. (Others have done so as well, not just you, I should add.) The concern I have is that these topics may be going nowhere in which case eventually your continuing pushing at them will just be seen as a problem by others.
I'm not sure what to suggest, but accepting what is, rather than consistently reacting to it, is probably going to be part of it. Easy for me to say, I know; I dont feel under pressure of the circumstances you've described. So I am wary of saying a lot because Im not sure I can be a help here, sadly. FT2(Talk | email)03:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I dislike my activity to be classified as "fighting". I am not confronting - hardly arguing. I am not even being treated seriously... My efforts have been declared as trolling though. That sure surprised me. Please avoid such language.
Clarification. Issues I discussed today:
Possible restructuring of arbcom's main page WP:RFAR into two sub pages
This discussion was closed, the admin deleting the page refuses to discuss this out of process deletion.
I am not binded by any rule arbitrators aren't.
FYI I relayed to arbcom over my intention to ignore their decision completely.
It doesn't qualify as an ultimatum as I am not proposing anything. Also an ultimatum to mediate would be an oxymoron.
I do not believe arbitrators seriously discussed my appeal. If they have, I see no evidence of it. I think arbitrators do not have the slightest clue what those restrictions are doing to me - to a person who would rather die than mediate something on this project. Arbitrators have succeeded in disgusting me away from mediation. Let there be no mistake about it.
It is simply offensive to every value I believe in such as honesty and fairness that arbcom and the community is willing to consider unblock/unban of trolls, vandals and other disruptive users (I am not even referencing to the Jack Merridew case) and yet go out of their way to ignore my appeal. How many edits does the indef blocked MARMOT get? MARMOT being a person who wrote vandalism bots, abused MediaWiki vulnerabilities to vandalize among other issues. He was unblocked and given a second chance, twice. Me being a good user (relative to MARMOT at least) have been given no such chances. What have I done to deserved to be treated so poorly?
Then there is the matter of how would people punish me for successfully mediating... Seriously, would you block me? Even if the Mediation fails to resolve the dispute... Would you block me? Even if I were to be blocked for how long would it be? Based on what? Arbcom remedy doesn't even talk about blocking.
Do you have any idea how much crap I need to deal with due to the expired remedies? Do you? Do you have any idea how useless arbcom has been so far? I have been bringing issues to arbcom since 2005. Not only do I need to hand feed arbitrators evidence and etc but I also have to deal with their poor judgment which only affects me. I am condemned to many things as a result.
Even a one week newbie knows I will never be granted admin tools.
Why? because I have been infront of arbcom at least four times now. In all cases Davenbelle was of course involved. A 5th case was avoided which is why the arbcom is still dealing with this.
I am completely banned from editing Kurdish or Armenian related articles even if the article isn't controversial.
I want to point out a good deal of these articles are hijacked by lobbyists. CAMERA people were merely careless, they aren't the only one. The Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration case is a tool only useful to lobbyists. Regular inexperienced users can be sanctioned. Experienced paid/unpaid staff of lobbies can change accounts faster than you can change underwear.
No one has been taking be seriously since the first arbitration case. People always assume bad faith and mistreat me. They constantly accuse me of a hidden agenda. They call me paranoid even in the light of Christal clear evidence.
I am in a position where I cannot loose anything.
I am on a dynamic IP range. I know the inner workings of the community and MediaWiki to avoid any kind of block. I have obeyed any block to dat voluntarily even if I could easily avoid them. This isn't intended as a threat btw. It isn't like there is anything the community can take away from me.
I will not compromise from my personal values on honesty and fairness even if it incriminates me. So getting another account is out of the question for me. Dishonesty works better in the mechanics of our wiki-society. Under the guise of "privacy" you and I know how many sanctioned people returned editing. They become less disruptive so as to stay under the radar - but what was the point of the sanction?
I already know from experience that the arbitration committee is anything but helpful. This isn't intended to be an insult. Just an observation from experience. So I know my expectations.
I am willing to listen others as much as they are willing to listen to me. You are obviously willing to listen to me which is why I am willing to listen to you as a person. I consider you different from rest of the arbitrators per your initiative to talk to me.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
You're under stressful times here, and you're getting nowhere fast. I think, however, the main problem is you're approaching things from the wrong angle, and with the wrong attitude. What is it that you need done? I will undertake my best attempts to help, so long as what you need is fair and warranted.
I made a few minor suggestions (creation of a redirect, minor restructuring of rfar) and I have been almost crucified for it. I do not know. I do need the redirect to more easily link to the case.
As it stands, I probably will be forced to link to the Davenbelle for the next 47 years if my past 3 years is any indication. I wil hand feed the community more evidence and links to past cases (which are less than fun to type). I do not expect this dispute to be resolved for decades. If I turn out to be wrong... Well I suppose that is a good thing.
I also need to be able to follow discussions on ArbCom. I spend a good deal of my time editing from a shared GPRS connection which has a speed close to a shared 56k (its slightly less). It's sluggish as is. As much as I find arbcom to be completely useless when dealing with disputes, the incompetent wikipedia will not move a yoctometer to help me and delegate the dispute to arbcom like it did the past 3 years.
I intend to file an rfar case on Jack Merridew. I know there is a clarification but the overly complex long term nature of the case that seems to be a better way to address the problem. You being a clerk can probably make the transition better than I. Please make this transition. A clarification has a very high chance of disappearing for inactivity per my past experience.
I seemingly need to demonstrate mediation (a field of science I have no interest to) in order to abolish an arbcom remedy. Since arbcom has shown complete apathy on the matter, I have to do this all by my self. Fun thing is I am only interested in the removal of this non-expiring remedy. Currently the remedy only serves to help trolls. I am open to suggestions on getting this remedy off my back.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Your bot, Computer, made an edit to a redirect that I had created saying that it was "Fixing double redirect". However, I am unable to figure out what it actually changed! The diff is here. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think you should do the usual talk on the request page. From the three active voters 2 voted against because of the fact that in name computer there is no -bot part in. Carsrac (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have posted a remark there. -- Catchi? 19:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
June
Mystified by bot with javanese articles
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments1 person in discussion
Sorry to do this - but what exactly is the bot doing with WP EN Indonesian articles and WP Jav articles? Apologies if my inability to see what it happening is blindingly obvious to you SatuSuro04:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am sorry, can you give me a link to the issue? You seem to be upset but I do not see what this is about. -- Catchi? 12:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nah not upset in the slightest - the bot is adding accents to javanese place name links on indonesian articles in english wikipedia and it seemed so odd i was gonna try to work out why - if it makes somebody happy - who cares ? - it just seemed quite odd for a while - so really in the end a false alalm - i think - its just when i was trying to learn javanese i cannot remember accents in the western alphabet for javanese words - thats all -cheers - if it fits thats ok - SatuSuro13:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hmm... Can you link me to one these changes. I think I may know why... -- Catchi? 13:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks a lot for such a full explanation - it is good that you are able to give such an explanation
I realised long ago such a process occurred - it just seemed odd when i saw the bot putting accents in where i didnt think they were needed - as for offering to get the bot to do things - I dont trust mechanised processes on some areas of what i call cat tagging - where there are issues where I believe an actual looking at the category and or the derivative sub categories is useful.
So as much as some areas might benefit from the level of bot work - the one that I am currently doing has a three fold purpose - I am actually looking to see what cats the NZ project has - as a way of checking against what I have tagged in the Australian and Indonesian projects - and trying to see where there might be benefits to any of the projects in any direction - if mechanised, things can get missed and or misinterpreted :) - however I can see where a bot could do it more efficiently and thoroughly - a lot depends on my memory and capacity to make the correlations - in 1974 I remember meeting a man who used to sit in front of slides of cells from dead children to look for patterns - I realise now we have pattern recognition software that far out does the human capacity to work at that level of checking :) SatuSuro01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Categories are machine generated lists. Bots will be more effective in dealing with them. For example I can tag all talk pages of artiles in a spesific category with a "wikiproject" template. -- Catchi? 18:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sora (Air TV).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Sora (Air TV).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Misuzu Kamio (Air game).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Misuzu Kamio (Air game).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Your bot...
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Would you agree to withdraw the nomination and "historicify" the wikiproject as a "bad idea". I think this would work better. Otherwise what I tried back then will end up reappearing with a new name. There are many examples of such historic "bad ideas" in the past. See pages tagged with {{historical}} for a few examples. -- Catchi? 11:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Turkish Air Forces.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake15113:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
AfD nomination of Brion Vibber
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, could you please make your bot in ru.wp to use REDIRECT instead of localized version «перенаправление» (edit example). Everybody is using REDIRECT in our Wikipedia, and localized version is simply confusing users. —AlexSm21:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I asked a developer to fix this and he said he "committed" it. The issue should be resolved. -- Catchi? 13:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, I strongly request that you make such a statement in user space, if possible. There's a real danger that rehashing individual grievances within the RFC would fracture the process and undo any chance of reform. With respect, DurovaCharge!17:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I had a three year experience with arbcom. I think I have an idea on what is broken. I do not intend to rant, there is plenty of that. -- Catchi? 18:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You have three years; I have two and a half. We've both seen where the bodies are buried (I could probably even find Jimmy Hoffa by now). Please be very judicious about the direction you take this. Hope you see and respect this. Best, DurovaCharge!18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, do you think you can move it back, trim if you have to but that post belongs to the actual original page. Feel free to modify it. RFC talk pages are generally used to discuss material related to the actual RFC page and not related to the actual topic discussed on the RFC page. Much like noticeboard talk pages. -- Catchi? 11:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
July
FYI
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
See this. Not a major thing, no action need be taken (it already has), just something to file away in your mental filing cabinet. BOZ (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
bot flag on sk.wiki
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Dear user White Cat, i've noticed that on your userpage you have a list of countries that u're "not sure" if u want to visit them. Assuming that the list was compiled on the basis of personal and general safety to the tourist, i want to recommend to you to drop at least 4 of the 12 countries that are listed there
The countries that i'm talking about are Israel, Cuba, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
these countries are recommended by me to be dropped because i know for a fact on at least two of them, that these countries are not dangerous for tourists and are actually very pleasent to be toured. Please consider my recommendation --Oren neu dag (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but any religion besides Islam is prohibited in Saudi Arabia. If you want to perform your religion's rituals, you must do it in your own home in complete privacy (that is allowed), or you'll be considered as a moral corruptor. Siúnrá (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I placed these countries under "not sure to go" under the basis of my preference to travel not safety. I am not saying I wont go there, all I am saying is they are not high on priority in my list to go. For example if there is a wikimania in one of those countries, I would go without a second thought. -- Catchi? 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Before you posted this here I identified and resolved the problem. Problem was related to calibration of the bot's username (bot's username recently changed on some wikis). While a block of the bot is no big deal, please do not block on the first sign of a problem - especially if the bot isn't doing something absurd. Block of the bot increases my workload. For example, your block has completely crashed all running interwiki processes. I was only interwiki linking my userpage and bot userpage (to make sure everything worked). -- Catchi? 04:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess OVA DVD Vol 2 Cover.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess OVA DVD Vol 2 Cover.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Adventures of Mini-Goddess - DVD 3.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Adventures of Mini-Goddess - DVD 3.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess DVD cover.jpg)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess DVD cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 01 (region 1).png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess TV DVD Vol 01 (region 1).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oh My Goddess Logo.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Oh My Goddess Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Request for help
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi White Cat,
I would like to know whether you would be interested to help with administration at WP:ANIME, as we will be reassessing all of the articles within the Wikiproject's scope for a few items, this will follow the same format as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008. (See WP:ANIME/ASSESS#Assessment drive for initial discussions—I have asked another editor to create the sub-pages for us.) I am aware that you are not on the best of terms with some of the editors there, but hope that you will consider helping anyway (Personally, I have deep respect for you—and I am asking as I believe you could provide valuable help).
You could also consider helping at peer review, or A class assessment (To be implimented shortly), or if you are up for hard work, at the cleanup task force.
The above link is no longer valid because the page was deleted. Basically what happened was that the bot found a page containing "{{db-r1}}<br>#REDIRECT [[Target]]" and changed it to the same text without the line break. (I use <br> here to show where a line break character existed, not a literal <br> HTML tag.) Since this only happens on pages that your bot has already tagged for speedy deletion, it's going to be a problem finding a diff link that won't disappear within minutes! --Russ(talk)15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
It may have removed an invisible char. I can't really investigate as you also point out the page is deleted... -- Catchi? 08:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's one that won't disappear (I hope): [17]. Note that the bot first added the {{db-r1}} and then 12 seconds later made a second edit removing a single character. This pattern seems to occur whenever the bot finds a self-linked redirect. (On a separate note, I query whether it is desirable to tag these for speedy deletion without first warning the person who created the redirect, since many of these self-links, like this one, are just typos that can easily be corrected.) --Russ(talk)16:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Self redirects are a navigation hazard. It is best to remove them on sight. If necesary the proper redirect can be recreated. As for the bug I have pointed it out to the devs. -- Catchi? 17:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
August
Bot use on zh-classical.wikipedia
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry, I did request a bot flag some time ago. I checked and noticed that you had removed it without saying a word. It would have been better to move the request to the correct page. In addition it is advisable to put an English explanation of the process to zh:維基大典:會館.
Per your request I have placed by bot flag request for that wiki a second time. I hope I did everything correctly.
I am still waiting to hear about this urgent issue... -- Catchi? 15:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This bot is moving pages incorrectly. Specifically, it is not able to correctly handle Featured Picture nominations that include more than one picture. Often featured picture nominations include several images. Some are edits to the original and some are just related images to assist in discussion. Just because an image is present in a featured image discussion doesn't mean the featured image page should be named after that image. This page, for example, was moved incorrectly twice due to 2 other featured pictures being included for comparison. Kaldari (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Right. I will have two passes. First to take care of all the bulk workload and second pass to deal with special cases like the one you mentioned. Most pages will not have issues. Everything was under control. A block was an overreaction. -- Catchi? 15:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible for me to continue working? -- Catchi? 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I started writing a notification to you immediately after I blocked your bot. Your bot was causing problems and I blocked it immediately to prevent it from reeking more havok. Your response to my block, however, was absolutely unacceptable. It demonstrated both a lack of good faith (assuming that I was not going to explain my block) and incivility. I hope you will consider changing your attitude, lest you want to acquire the same reputation as BetaCommand. Bot operators (of which I am one) should be willing to respond to problem with their bot in a civil manner, otherwise they should not be running bots, however helpful they may be. Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Your definition of havoc is interesting. One wrong edit which wasn't completely incorrect (the nomination would have the wrong filename as a title for a short period of time - no big deal). You question my good faith? In other words you are accusing me of wrecking the project... How civil is that... It is also highly uncivil of you to mention of Betacommand in such a manner. I do not care the slightest bit if you are a bot user.
It is my responsibility to cleanup after my bot. You chose to block the bot on sight after first wrong edit. You didn't choose to notify me first. That is very wrong.
Look. I do not care if you like me or hate me. Can you please unblock my bot so I can continue working. -- Catchi? 15:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Featured picture candidates with multiple images are not a "special case". About half of featured picture candidate pages include more than one image. How do you intend to determine which of the numerous pages you are moving will need to be fixed? Also how do you intend to delete all of the unneccessary redirects your bot is creating if you aren't an admin? Also it is common to include previous featured pictures for comparison. How will your bot handle the name conflicts in such a situation? Kaldari (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
My bot uses input from an SQL query. The criteria for it is that the "name of the page" = "the filename of the promoted image". Failed nominations shouldn't be even edited. There is a mistake there somewhere (obviously). I will invest and correct this (obviously). I could have done so without a block.
In the meanwhile I see no reason why my bot should stay blocked from other tasks it deals with such as double redirects.
If you will agree to not run the FPC job until my concerns have been addressed, I will be more than happy to unblock your bot. As I'm sure you know, many bot operators like to run their bots unsupervised, so it is often necessary to block bots rather than simply relying on notifying the operator. Thanks for your understanding. Kaldari (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
White Cat, I know you mean well, but as an FPC regular it's alarming to see this many name changes pop up on my watchlist on the basis of a brief discussion that appeared to be DOA back in April. I don't particularly see the need for this bot, since anyone who knows the filename of a featured picture can access the candidacy quite easily through the image page. Commons needs to structure candidacies around filenames because they're a multilingual project. English Wikipedia is more likely to promote an alternate version, and sometimes delists and replaces improved file versions of the same image.
Firstly, it is not alarming. Please do not panic. :)
Okay so this feature has many benefits. The title names currently used by FPC nominations are unable to deal with multiple featured pictures for the same topic. For example if we had 20 different featured pictures on any specific topic (an easy possibility in the next 10 years) unique nomination pages would help a lot.
Due to the poor system I cannot make out how "Love or duty" developed. How the process progressed should be better linked. I'd recommend a system like FAC where there is a central page that links to old nominations (visible in article talk pages). Image talk pages are underused and this could be such a good usage. But all this is a seperate issue of course.
A second benefit is that this feature would make it possible to more easily link to successful nominations from other wikis - particularly commons.
Would you raise these points at FPC talk for discussion please? The FPC regulars don't seem to have been aware that your bot was in the works. I noticed it only because I have a lot of FP credits and some old candidacies popped up on the watchlist. A white cat might be a very good thing, but when one pounces out of the shadows the natural reaction is to duck. ;) Best regards, DurovaCharge!16:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, while I do not want to rush things, how long should I wait before returning to my bot? I would like to think not a whole lot of people would care about nomination pagenames. I certainly do not aside from the functional issue. -- Catchi? 15:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikinews Bot Renamed
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry for telling you that I've tried without success to rename your bot Tarakilishi on sw:wiki as you had requested. Maybe, it's due to the Japanese characters; maybe, it's due to some reservation of a "global account". I'm afraid I'm not computer-savvy enough to help you. Let me know (on my sw:talk page) if you have some ideas how to remedy this. Arigato! --Baba Tabita41.223.57.34 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Dear White Cat...I saw your comment on the American films by decade tfd, and I would support the mass rename. You would probably need a bot to do them all since there are 110 or so that need to be moved, a list of them can be found on this template. Have fun! LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am a bot operator. I also have BAG approval to deal with this. However I don't want to start a revert war. Do you think you can mention this idea on the tfd? -- Catchi? 22:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Will do. Oh, and so you don't have to copy the text in two places, keep the conversation here, and just place the aformentioned {{Talkback}} template on my talk page. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 22:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Any progress? -- Catchi? 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, I haven't been watching. I am doing a lot of things. You can check the tfd yourself to see what is happening. I am trying to get a few things renamed too. This is a long tedious process. LA(If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 18:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Bot at Slovene Wikiquote
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi White Cat. I recently put up your template proposal to see how it went down. I like the fact it improves on the markup and doesn't use all that HTML. I think there's a slight problem though because of the table class used, which results in it sticking out a bit on some pages (i.e. Muhammad) instead of positioning itself below the other images/templates. You'd probably be better at fixing the problem than me so I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Regards, ITAQALLAH20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
That is semi intentional. Muhammad navbox can also be modified so it has the same width. The intention here is to make good use of width as otherwise the template gains too much height. -- Catchi? 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:GAP_Region.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:GAP_Region.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ocean is Theory sandbox
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:US 1stlt.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry about that. "Various sources" is sourced, how silly of me. If I tagged one with a proper source, then I must have been on a roll tagging all the unsourced ones. In the meantime I've placed the proper tag on it, since it is already on the commons. --Nobunaga24 (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
NowCommons: Image:US 1stlt.gif
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Image:US 1stlt.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Ar 1stlt.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Ar 1stlt.gif]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Errant bot edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Yes. Such double redirects are infrequently created due to vandalism.
Testacea links to Amoeba. If Amoeba were to be converted into a redirect article Testacea would start pointing at a redirect. This is what we call a double redirect. In general double redirects are created by good faith page moves.
If you take a look at the two diffs ([18], [19]) you can see that the article Amoeba was converted to a redirect twice (two consecutive vandalism by User:79.74.121.54).
The double redirect created by the above vandalism somehow made its way to Special:Doubleredirects, the mediawiki generated list of double redirects. This happens very rarely. Once or twice a year I believe.
So the problem is not with the bot but instead with the vandal. Bots are not smart like humans to differentiate vandalism with legit content.
You do realize that my userbox uses the same free logo as yours (I mimicked yours), and has the official colors of the Google chrome logo right? -- Catchi? 18:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you lied saying something like "redirect to pre-existing template (or userbox)" while making my template page a redirect to yours. Second, the moment I checked your template and went to the history, I noticed someone had added a non-free logo, currently used in the Google Chrome page, so I removed (I didn't check history before reverting your immature redirect edit). So you must've checked the your current template but never checked your own history page as to why I said, "yours has a non-free logo". So.. how much of a newbie are you? --staka (T) 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I did not lie. I created the userbox about 20 minutes before you. I had taken the time to figure out the colors on the Official Google Chrome logo and applied them to the template. I am quite new to the site. I am still learning things. There is no reason to make a big deal out of it.
Your tone is quite hostile. I suggest a quick adjustment.
Image copyright problem with Image:Kurdistan Workers Party flag (current).gif
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Kurdistan Workers Party flag (current).gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Shivamurthy Sharanaru, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.
If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jordan Timmins (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
October
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Afsouth-logo.gif)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Afsouth-logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the late response
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Cat, you had asked me a few months ago if I would be able to help with getting "out of universe" info on some anime related articles. At the time I was very busy and was not logging in to Wikipedia, so I did not get your message until recently, sorry about that. Anyway the answer is an emphatic yes. However in spite of having an account for awhile now I am actually not that experienced of an editor. I have of course read WP:EDIT, WP:COPYEDIT and quite a few other pages on the behind the scenes workings of Wikipedia, but I have not put much of that info into practice, and of course there are some aspects of editing that I have not yet found information on. For example I have noticed that many anime related pages could be greatly improved by including information from the official site of the series. Unfortunately many of the official sites have no English version and I don’t know what the community’s stance on referencing non English sources on English Wiki pages is. Also if I were to add my translations of quotes and/or production info would that be considered “Original Research” (Edit: I found the answer to this myself at WP:NONENG so no need to worry about it)? If you could give me some advice and/or tips on these and any other issues that come up I would really appreciate it. Also please let me know what specific articles you currently are looking for Japanese speakers to help with and I will be more than happy to lend a hand ( are you still working on Oh My Goddess!?). ThanksColincbn (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Osakana1.gif)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠ Thanks for uploading Image:Osakana1.gif. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Goddess Family Club cover.jpg)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠ Thanks for uploading Image:Goddess Family Club 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Serial Experiments Lain DVD Vol 01.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Serial Experiments Lain DVD Vol 01.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Serial Experiments Lain DVD Vol 02.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Serial Experiments Lain DVD Vol 02.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Serial Experiments Lain DVD Vol 03.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Serial Experiments Lain DVD Vol 03.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Serial Experiments Lain DVD Vol 04.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Serial Experiments Lain DVD Vol 04.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
You got email
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
My response and the only comment I will make on the matter is utter disappointment at arbcom. The ban was placed by the community, not arbcom. It would be strange for arbcom to lift a ban arbcom did not even went as far as endorsing. Arbcom did not even accept the Jack Merridew arbcom case as "he was already community blocked". The user has been indef banned like three times and you are willing to lift that. It hasn't even been a year. I do want to remind arbcom that they went out of their way to even talk about lifting my three-year-old mediation ban. To an untrained eye (my eye) it seems like arbcom only and only rewards extremely poor conduct such has harassment going on for years. -- Catchi? 07:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
While I do not normally expect prompt responses, I'd welcome a response before arbcom decides on the matter. -- Catchi? 18:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Since arbcom is not willing to be the solution to this problem and insists on being the source it, I have brought this matter into Jimbo's attention. I do not know if he will get involved. I hope he does. I am tired of dealing with this issue which will soon celebrate its fifth anniversary as of 12 May 2009. -- Catchi? 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
White Cat, I'll listen to Jimbo's thoughts, of course. But if he can edit without bother you, then I think we should let him come back. Jack Merridew will be under editing restrictions that will keep him completely away from you and from commenting about you. One or more experienced users will be monitoring his contributions to make sure that he is not bothering you in any way. I made the restrictions strict in this way because of the problems that you had in the past. I think we should give it a chance to work, truly. FloNight♥♥♥22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
We already tried that in commons. That didn't quite stop him. After his ban from en.wikipedia his first few edits on commons were stalking which has seemingly stopped. He doesn't make any edits there anymore.
This user had no useful contributions. He dedicated his time in removing my work. Weather it is Turkey related topics, or weather it is Anime related topics or any other topics I care about like mass removing episode and character articles. His ban here has not lasted half a year. Has it been quarter of a year?
Arbcom wasn't willing to lift my mediation ban. Why is arbcom removing Jack Merridew's ban? Is he more worthy to the community than I? I really want to know.
I demand arbcom to document their reasoning in detail. Why am I even having this conversation with arbcom? Jack Merridew is a sanctioned troll and sockpuppeter. He was convicted multiple times in harassing multiple users - of which at least three times by arbcom. He had absolutely no useful contribution for the past few years aside from an edit pattern that closely resembles User:TTN who IIRC was banned by arbcom for his edit pattern.
I still do want to know why arbcom isn't willing to lift my mediation ban yet is considering lifting Jack Merridews indef ban. After all he was the very reason I got that ban. He interfered with every mediation attempt I made. -- Catchi? 04:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You may want to review the evidence and rephrase that statement. Arbcom did a poor job back then. I want all the relevant evidence reviewed.
My prohibition from mediating was passed 4 to 3 #Coolcat prohibited from mediating and four workshop sections were linked to the rationale. I'll give you a snapshot
#Mediation and opposition: Links to this diff where Jack Merridew (aka Davenbelle) did not even let me adjust section depths. This is evidence of Davenbelle stalking. I had no vested interest in the article Javier Solana yet Davenbelle followed me to that article and completely disrupted my mediation attempt with his constant revert waring even over the most minor issue documented in this paragraph.
#Coolcat's mediation efforts at Greco-Turkish relations: Revert war by Davenbelle over my format edits. I tried to use a color scheme and Jack Merridew (aka Davenbelle) revert wared to remove it. He later revert wared over a typo fix I had. To date he made one and only one edit to the article. Clearly his interest was not the article in question but instead was my involvement.
Fadix got a one year ban on 11 April 2007 which was extended until 25 February 2009 due to the abusive use of sockpuppets. The only relevance this has to my case is that this is was one of the three guys that interfered with my mediation attempt.
In conclusion Jack Merridew (aka Davenbelle) has interfered with each and every one of my mediation attempts even on articles he made no contribution at all (Javier Solana). The "separate issue" isn't as separate as it seems to be. The evidence speaks for itself. All arbcom needs to do is look at it.
You know, let me tell you what is going to happen.
Arbcom will lift the ban of Jack Merridew. We certainly need more people like him on the project.
Arbcom will not actually discuss my mediation ban. We certainly do not want anyone like me on the project the slightest bit of courtesy.
Jimbo will not even get involved. Imagine helping out in a complicated - yet not so complicated case. I can understand his reasoning. Sure. I respect what he is doing. But if arbcom is this incompetent and unwilling to be the solution who else can I go to?
Arbcom is very predictable with their incompetence. So I am sure all three things I stated above will become a reality.
Now tell me, why should I or anyone even care about obeying any policy or guideline?
Evidently arbcom will never enact any long term sanctions. At most arbcom would blocks for something like three months...
Arbcom will go out of their way to incompetently ignore any and all relevant evidence even when the case is a slam dunk. All arbcom needed to do was read the evidence - which arbcom did not even glance at. The community (non-arbcom) banned Jack Merridew forever. And once that was over arbcom is going out of it's way to allow the freak back and by doing so arbcom overrules the community ban probably for the first time in wiki history (we aren't talking about a ban by a single user but by multiple users). Arbcom is only and only helping once side of the dispute and that side clearly was never me. Not in 2005, not in 2006, not in 2007 and of course not in 2008. The fact that I am listing four years says something, doesn't it?
The sad part of it all is that this isn't the first time. I had to deal with the nonsense by MARMOT spoofing IPs and all. Brion has a report on it. I'll let you find it but I know you will not even look at it so there really is no point in me presenting a link. MARMOT too was given a second chance and he used it to make my day miserable. For that he was later unblocked. Fortunately he left the community or else I am sure arbcom would go out of their way to help MARMOT continue to be the source of annoyance.
You know, I am not sure why arbcom is committing this illogical and disruptive behavior. Why is it that arbcom is so unwilling to be a part of a solution and going out of it's way to be the very source of the problem? I do not know what motivates arbcom to act this irrationally.
Maybe what prompted this nonsense is me trying to help arbcom with the CSI thing. Clearly, arbcom doesn't need any help as they do just fine in ignoring presented evidence.
On an unrelated note, I would recommend arbcommers to comment on the WP:VPP#A wiki equavalent of CSI (developing idea) thread. The proposal should be shaped to meet the needs of arbcom above everything else after all. -- Catchi? 07:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Forget about it. Arbcom doesn't care about evidence. What good would it do if the evidence is collected by impartial parties if arbcom is going to ignore it. -- Catchi? 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
November
Image copyright problem with Image:Turkish Gendarmerie.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Turkish Gendarmerie.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi White Cat - good to meet you in Egypt, so long after you helped me out with my user page.
I was thinking how badly we (at Appropedia) need someone with formatting skills, for Appropedia:Main Page tests. I'd really appreciate any help if you're able:
fixing up the columns to make them more level (the announcements on the left drop down for some reason) and/or
rearranging the entire page - basically we'd appreciate any ideas on what will look better.
Hi, can you copy to your or my userspace on this site? I'd be glad to work on it from there. -- Catchi? 22:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:250px-UFP-Seal.gif)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:250px-UFP-Seal.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Scout image
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I see no evidence that BSA rank insignia is under a free license. Old uploads of mine were deleted for being unfree. -- Catchi? 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course I am. I see no detailed description on the image description talk page. Unless proven otherwise all images are copyrighted. A link or an OTRS template would be more than sufficient. I am not doubting what you are saying but evidence supporting it shouldn't be too hard to find I think. -- Catchi? 21:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
My post implies there is a lack of evidence that the image is free, hence "all rights reserved" unless the evidence contrary to it is provided. I can technically tag it for "deletion in 7 days" as a copyvio, but I am nicer than that. I am going to notify uploaders in bulk once I am done processing a number of freely licensed images. -- Catchi? 21:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Media Inspection Team
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
So, I see you're tagging media as having been inspected by the Media Inspection Team.
I'm a bit concerned that you haven't involved any outside editors or discussed your project with any existing Wikiproject relating to media copyrights, nor brought up your project on WP:CP, WP:NFCC, or the Village Pump. I'm also troubled that you're using templates like User:White Cat/Copyrightreview which seem to imply a privileged class of users ('Inspectors') who can make final calls on the copyrights status of images and other media.
Based on the comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Inspection Team, it appears that at its first (very limited) introduction to the community, this project met with some serious pushback. I would strongly, strongly, urge you to cease further templating under your project's aegis until there's been time for the community to review your proposal and make (where appropriate) suggestions.
Wikipedia has a large body of experienced editors, policies, procedures, and templates all designed to respond to copyright concerns. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with those, and make use of the existing tools before engineering new ones. If there are errors or omissions in our existing practices, feel free to make suggestions in the appropriate places. Please don't try to create a new, parallel system for managing copyright problems; it's an unnecessary effort for you, and confusing for everyone else. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia has a large body so please do not lock me out from everything I am doing. What do you want me to do leave the project? I suggest you give me a break and stop treating me like a new user. Are you monitoring my every edit? -- Catchi? 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
As for VP, last time I used it you stated "If you didn't want people to critique your proposal, then why did you put it on the Village Pump?". This time I do not see a need for any critique or discussion. I merely desire to work on my own identifying which image(s) need attention and which ones (in my view) are ready to be moved to commons. Anybody is welcome to join the effort. -- Catchi? 22:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm not trying to get you to leave. I'm not following your edits; I only have your talk page watchlisted and saw the comment above about Scouts insignia.
I'm concerned that you're presenting your evaluations in a way that implies you have some special authority and expertise. I'm also worried that you're making errors — this image isn't problematic, despite your tag.
Take it to the Pump, if you want to get a sense of how the community feels your approach is working. I'm asking you to stop using your own tags and system until there's a consensus that your approach is acceptable to the community at large.
Image:01 Claire Ruth grave.JPG may very well be copyrighted. It is a sculpture. Image description isn't clear about it's status. It was probably made after 1976 as thats when the person in question died.
In general the community does not give my ideas a fair test before reaching conclusions and throwing accusations. This has been the case in the past years. If the idea gains popularity, it will be migrated to the wikipedia namespace. If not I'll probably get bored and leave it alone after a while and it will be forgotten forever.
That would be well and good if you weren't pretending to have special authority and expertise which you lack. Use the existing processes and templates and try being open with our existing copyright experts and projects. You might be surprised at how well open, non-confrontational discussion works. Your proposal may well be accepted in some form.
Inventing a title for yourself and applying official-looking templates without community sanction isn't acceptable. I'm glad that you've stopped for the momment, and that I don't have to raise the issue at AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to raise it on ANI or directly at arbcom. I care not. Feel free to block me for it. I still wouldn't care. I am not into discussions at all anymore. To date I achieved nothing by discussing things beforehand and all I got back was a complete waste of my time. Of course that statement is self conflicting given this is indeed a discussion.
That is an appalling attitude. And I would second the suggestion that what you do is not a good idea without community approval. Refdoc (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I merely stopped for the day and may or may not resume tomorrow depending on my mood. I am going to work as I see fit on this site now on. Please leave me alone.
I certainly will not. I could replace the usergroup from "inspector" to "scumbag" if you like. -- Catchi? 22:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Several freely licensed images
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! I appreciate the concern... This is my dad's company, the files are copyrighted under the Convenience Valet name and are free to be used for anything other than promotional use. I actually took these pictures in his company's studio. The file name is the item number that we use to identify the products we sell. Bmedick (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Recorded debates and discussions
Candidates and the community,
Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email
There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.
The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.
It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.
"You stated it was +650 when it was 629 words (according to MS Word). Thats 3,620 characters including spaces spaces. -- Catchi? 04:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Also why did you even blank it? Bishzilla was kindly warned, I wasn't given that courtesy. -- Catchi? 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
My word counting software said 651, but either way its over 400, and Bishzilla's was more questionable since it was a gif, and it was initiated by another user. At any rate, just trim it and put it back, or link to something in your userspace.--Tznkai (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
You do not count the invisible words like the one in links that are not shown to the reader. :)
Giving me the courtesy of a warning before blanking wouldn't hurt you know. I created a sub page as I am not going to compromise from the meaning over a mere 129 words.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, fellow candidate! Just so you know, in an effort to announce our candidacies and raise further awareness of the election, I have created the template {{ACE2008Candidate}}, which I would invite you to place on your user and user talk pages. The template is designed to direct users to your Questions and Discussion pages, as well as to further information about the election. Best of luck in the election! Hersfold(t/a/c)16:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Candidacy
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
I think you already know the ways in which I respect you, even if we may diagree about certain things at times.
That said, your candidate statement seems more than somewhat combative.
Do you intend to succeed in this candidacy? Or is this merely reaching for a soapbox with which to express your discontent?
My candidacy statement was not intended to be "combative". It is more of a challenge towards the community. Us as a community is facing a crisis as the only workingWP:DR process (RFAR) is slowly but surely is becoming no more helpful than RFCs. I think it is important to admit a problem before attempting to fix it. My discontent is sadly from experience. Rather than sulking and complaining, I want to proactively seek a solution. My candidacy is intended to be just that. I may not necessarily win a seat on arbcom and I would be satisfied if I can just get people talking over this real problem.
Let me explain, I have been involved with a total of five rfars to date. All five involved the same user. Let me give a short chronology (see that link too).
My first case was against three users and Davenbelle was one of them. (2005 case). Arbcom barely gave a slap in the wrist.
My second case was against a single user:Moby Dick, a Davenbelle sockpuppet. (2006 case). Finally a real slap in the wrist but still nothing serious.
In 2007 a User:Diyarbakir was blocked indefinitely for being a Moby Dick (Davenbelle) sockpuppet after I proven that he was stalking in an identical manner.
My third rfar was against a group of people - the infamous "Episode & Character dispute" where two groups of users revert warred to redirectify or restore articles. Among the users was Jack merridew who redirectified the majority of anime articles I contributed to. Jack Merridew later turned out to be a Davenbelle sockpuppet although I did not know that during the case. (2007 case). What's most frustrating with this arbcom case was Arbcom made no ruling to really discourage mass redirectication or restoring of the articles. Barely gave a warning. Overall the entire case was a waste of everyones time. It failed to resolve the dispute or even hint a solution.
My fourth rfar was against a group of people - the infamous "Episode & Character dispute" for a second time. Among the users was Jack Merridew, a Davenbelle sockpuppet. Unlike the 2007 case, this one wasn't a complete waste of time. (2008 case). During the case I (coincidentally) realized that Jack Merridew was infact Davenbelle. I quickly collected evidence to prove this. Arbcom rejected the evidence stating this was irrelevant to the Episode & Character dispute. Evidence suggested otherwise. For example contribution of User:TTN (who was banned for 6 months) and Jack Merridew was parallel.%26.77 or 750 out of 2802 edits by Jack Merridew were to pages that TTN also edited. Ultimately I was prompted to file a new case in regards to Jack Merridew.
My fifth case was against User:Jack Merridew, a Davenbelle sockpuppet. Despite all the evidence I provided, arbcom rejected even hearing the case. Later on I managed to get a community sanction on him on 31 Mar. There was an unblock discussion on 5 May for Jack Merridew and he was unblocked briefly as a result. At this point he engaged in minor stalking in Wikimedia commons and on meta.
After roughly 6 months after the community ban discussion (31 March) and 5 months after the unban discussion (5 May) arbcom is discussing weather or not to unban Jack Merridew. Mind that arbcom did absolutely nothing to ban him in the first place. The only times Davenbelle was banned was due to community sanctions rather than as a result of arbcom hearings which supposed to be the last step.
All this material above is a brief summary over a single user who has dedicated most of his time on the site to merely make my life miserable. So it should be a slam dunk case. The fact that it isn't says a lot about the current state of inadequacy of the DR process. Of course my dealings with Davenbelle is a mere example. There are countless other examples where arbcom was less than helpful.
So your hope is to see the "top level" of WP:DR act with more teeth than continually doing what you see as wrist-slapping? (I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just don't want to mischaracterise your words.)
And based upon that, did you see the SV/FM/etc. case, and if so, what are your thoughts on it in light of the above? - jc3719:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
It is less about arbcom having teeth and more about arbcom playing a more active role in resolving disputes. If I had my way I'd focus on the following...
Most of the time it feels like arbcom ignores everything you say to them, so there is a serious lack of communication. Other people stated this too. Its frustrating to us "good users" (users who are here to write an encyclopedia) to be ignored by the committee we are supposed to trust most. The feeling of desertion when you are having a tough time certainly doesn't help.
We expect the victims of disagreements to present evidence to arbcom. That is problematic in more ways than I care to count. I'd like to see more community involvement in arbcom cases. Of course arbcom would pay attention to these outside evidence from uninvolved people.
Also as I see it arbcomers are typically people who rarely takes risks or get really involved in disputes which really isn't a bad thing for an average user to do. It lets you keep a cleen reputation. But because of this all arbitrators tend to "think alike". If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking. IMHO a good arbitrator should have a history where he or she has gotten his or her nose dirty from time to time. If you can't taste the problem, how do you expect to find a solution? Right?
Although a minor point, the page structure of arbcom tends to be hard to navigate. I mean if I post a case there, all I should care about is monitoring my case not all of the twelve cases. Also appeals should really have a separate page. I know there had been some failed experimentation on this but I can't shake out the feeling that it's broken.
I am not sure what are you referencing with "SV/FM/etc" remark. A link would be helpful.
Oh that thing... I'll provide my quick analysis. I am reading that document backwards (bottom to top). I can go through a greater amount of detail if you like but I really do not want to cause a ruckus (somehow). My analysis below will be based on the page you linked. Nothing here is an accusation and I may not be always "politically correct".
For starters, evidently that case had taken way too long. But that really is pointing the obvious.
"Contentiousness and demoralization" section talks about a problem rather discretely. Often people imply a kind of alliance between "wiki friends" where otherwise uninvolved people join a dispute strictly to advocate a friend. I observed this on the dispute concerning Jack Merridew (Davenbelle). The group of editors that are trying to mass redirectify/merge Episode and Character related articles came to the aid of Jack Merridew and defended what he was doing and did their best to convince others that Jack Merridew was in fact not Davenbelle... This did not work as I kept my cool (relatively) and collected indisputable evidence. I think my CSI idea would prevent such "allied assaults" or at least decrease the effectiveness of such meatpuppetry. I strongly believe people should't need to forge alliances to discuss matters. Well meaning people can always discuss and come up to a common agreement. Of course that is if one side isn't merely nagging the other or is only interested in pushing a certain point of view. In such cases WP:DR should be able to resolve the problem. Experience editors should do their best not to escalate matters.
"Viridae" section implies Viridae had stalked JzG a bit. Viridae should probably made better use of WP:AN, though I admit WP:AN is often less than helpful. One thing is certain, no one likes to be pursued. People shouldn't be made to feel like they are being pursued.
"SlimVirgin" has a lot of subsections.
B: Attempts to invade peoples privacy, no mater the rationale behind it, should not be AT ALL tolerated even slightly. If people want to reveal their own personal info, they can do so on their on userpage. I can understand why anyone could easily become paranoid over such continuous attempts.
E: I don't think arbcom should have bothered with this. Really... A talk page reminder on when "this is a minor link" should be used would have sufficed. People aren't required or expected to follow Help:Minor edit. It's advisable to follow it but nothing worth loosing sleep over. This probably adds to SlimVirgin's stress level.
"JzG" The user is your typical overly stressed wikipedian it seems. Now thats of course not an excuse to violate NPA on a "frequent" basis. I think there is way too much text and sections addressing the users conduct there. B through E ramble about the same thing. It could have been presented in a less cryptic simple way. That way it wouldn't add to JzG's stress level.
"FeloniousMonk" This user seems to be using admin tools on articles he has a conflict of interest. A very bad practice. Again there are way too many sections talking about the same thing.
"Cla68" This users story seems to be a complicated case. Behaviour described in the E.2 subsection is out of the question. No one should even think of publishing personal information of editors. Respecting other peoples privacy is the absolute minimum respect I expect and require people to show each other. As for other points. It would be better for a group of people to expose deception rather than individual users. I do not know if applies to this case but some people tend to be annoying just enough to bother people but not enough to warrant a ban. Such conduct in my view should not be tolerated. Thats just gaming the system.
I hope my response was satisfactory. I merely spoke what I thought. I haven't analyzed the evidence in great detail as you merely asked me for my thoughts. You are welcome to move this thread to the arbcom election "Questions to the candidate" section. I'd be more than happy to answer any more questions.
As for me, I suppose that I had (naively) thought that these would be more simple questions, but in hindsight, under the circumstances, I can see how they were a bit more complex than I intended. So my apologies for that.
I consider your responses to be "clarifications", so there really is no "wrong" answer. Thank you for spending a fair amount of time answering. I appreciate it.
If I might be as so bold as to offer a suggestion...
And just as you noted above, this may not be "PC" advice or comments, but I sincerely hope it helps.
While I understand your concerns over past actions, and feel that that probably does give you some added insight to the process, using those examples to the exclusion of all others may give others the impression that this could merely be someone looking for redress of past injuries. And while I do think that it is a little of that, I think it's likely quite a bit less than how you're currently comporting yourself.
And while I don't know how that "plays" for other "vote"rs, for me, I cringe whenever I see candidate statements talking about "redress", or suggesting that a body of volunteers who're likely attempting to do the best, that they should be considered in any way "screwups" or "worthless". (I'm not suggesting you have, I'm just making a broader declaration.) Though I'll admit that seeing such comments usually makes my choice easier through selective elimination. (Well that, and the fact that the seemingly successful strategy seems to be to vote for those you prefer, and vote against everyone else.)
One last thing, and it's kinda blunt, so my apologies in advance, but not sure how else to say it succinctly. There are currently 7 seats open. Because of that, I think you may stand a fair chance. But if it was fewer, I'm not so certain. It may honestly depend on if there are further candidates.
Of course, this is merely one editor's opinion (mine), so of course, feel free to accept it (or dismiss it) with the grain of salt it deserves.
Anyway, you've got more people to "impress", and more questions to answer, so I'll try to avoid taking up more of your time. I sincerely hope this helps. - jc3709:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
With your permission, I am now moving a copy of this thread to the "questions to the candidate" section. Feel free to ask any question you like. -- Catchi? 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ah! My Goddess The Movie (Poster).png)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Ah! My Goddess The Movie (Poster).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh My Goddess! articles
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You do realize Jack Merridew had butchered off most of the pages right? And you do know who Jack Merridew is right? Just checking. -- Catchi? 06:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but no, he didn't butcher most of those articles, he did some seriously needed clean up, and I personally applaud his tackling the hideous creation of individual articles for every episode of the series (which, FYI, the anime and manga project also frowns on and would have done as well). I don't see a single article he actually "butchered" or a bad edit there. Now, the project will continue the appropriate and much needed clean up of those articles, to get them into much better shape and in-line with both the project guidelines and Wikipedia's overall guidelines and policies. Please do not start reverting these efforts, as you did with trying to undo the image replacement on the main article. Per our guidelines, we use the image of the primary work, not one people personally prefer. The film poster might be appropriate on the film article, but not the main. However, considering it is cropped, overly large, and has an invalid source, I don't think it should be used there either. The manga is the primary work, and as such a cover of a volume of it is the most appropriate image. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 07:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Jack Merridew was banned indefinitely for harassment for like four times. I was referring to that. His edits were merely there to annoy me.
I kindly ask you to use the movie poster instead of the manga cover. The manga cover is from 1988 while the movie is from 2000. Movies typically have better quality.
Aside from that I do not hope to edit the articles in question at all. Judging your reaction to my most basic edit, I will assume that you would not want me to edit them but please reconsider the movie poster thing. Also please copy the thread to my talk page so that I do not have to hunt your response.
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Note that it was tagged (aggressively) for speed deletion. I removed that and tagged the article as in construction until you can make the table look, well, like an actual table! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh thanks. This will take some time as the information does not seem to be organized anywhere. I welcome any help. :) -- Catchi? 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've just noticed that there's already a table in the article Piracy in Somalia. It may or may not be complete but it seems to be thoroughly referenced. So it's not clear that List of ships captured by Somali pirates is really needed, unless you decide to spin-off the existing table in Piracy in Somalia. I would also suggest that the title be changed to something along the lines of "ships captured by pirates off the coast of Somalia" (as it's often unclear who the pirates are, especially if one goes up the hierarchy). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I renamed the page as you requested. I also moved some of the contents of the list on Piracy in Somalia. Feel free to take a look. -- Catchi? 03:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Chill Bill
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Agressive CSD noms can be considered disruptive. Chill a little okay. Thanks. -- Catchi? 22:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I've only tagged a few articles. Most of them got deleted. The ones that were not deleted, all good and well. The Sysops has the final say. So whats the problem. I will never take part in any CSD Nom again now OK. I obviously am a fool. Ponty Pirate (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
All I was asking for you to weight the articles potential before tagging it. There is no reason to explode like that... -- Catchi? 23:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Admins do not have the ability to delete accounts, not that I am one. Since you say you wont be able to sleep, would you mind helping me out with the article List of ships captured by pirates off the coast of Somalia and then decide if you are going to leave the project or not afterwards? -- Catchi? 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, you modified the ship names earlier on... I was wondering if you could do it again. A lot of entries were added since your last edit. -- Catchi? 09:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Image source problem with Image:TR ARMY Insignia 1.gif
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Image Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading Image:TR ARMY Insignia 1.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have been involved with four arbitration cases plus an ongoing case. In all cases I was an "involved party". -- Catchi? 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I feel arbcom is broken and needs some fresh blood. Among the things that are broken is...
...an overal lack of communication & slow response rate,
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
I can't think of a single case where arbcom had done an exceptionally well job within the past three years. Arbcom performance had been mediocre at best.
I strongly feel arbcom had done an exceptionally poor job in handling various cases.
Among the ones I observed closely was the three year old ongoing case concerning a stalker. I feel remedies discussed today should have been passed three years ago at the first case.
I also feel the two "episode and character" case had been exeptionaly inadequate in resolving the actual dispute. Arbcom has went out of their way to ignore some of the objections raised.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
If Privacy Policy allows it nothing should be kept confidential. It may be better to keep some evidence confidential during an ongoing investigation but once the case is over the evidence should be made public. Otherwise the community will slowly loose their confidence in arbcom. -- Catchi? 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think users should vote for you?
This is a question everyone will have a different answer. I sincerely believe the reader should be deciding this alone. -- Catchi? 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Image tagging for Image:TR ARMY Insignia 1.gif
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:TR ARMY Insignia 1.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I noticed your voting guide (not sure what to call these). Feel free to ask me questions. Granted a successful pass at my candidacy appears unlikely but I am more than happy in answering questions. -- Catchi? 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, first thank you for approaching me as you have, that itself impresses me. My guide is a little out of date at this moment and I have actually already voted against your candidacy. It is apparent it is not likely to pass but I am happy to re-consider my vote given that, compared to some of the other candidates, I do not know you so well. I could have asked some questions, but for all candidates I was not entirely sure what to ask to be honest, but I have thought of a few now so I might ask them shortly. Camaron | Chris(talk)19:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh that's all right. Please do notify me on my talk page so I can give the most prompt response. I do not generally keep a watchlist as it gets overcrowded almost instantly. -- Catchi? 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Your example
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am not sure I understand... I also do not see where I ignored consensus. I haven't recreated the template in question or anything. I am not asking you to support me or anything, I just want the rationale to make sense. -- Catchi? 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't combative at all. I was not ignoring consensus. When you see the same thing get nominated for deletion a third time it gets to you. Thats all there is to it. -- Catchi? 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello there
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I know it has been a while. I thought you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to review User:Jack Merridew's ban. I know RFARs are in general unpleasant to even look at but this one is a light reading than your typical rfar. I am pointing this out to you as you were involved back then. -- Catchi? 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I just read the whole thing and to be honest I don't think there's much I can do here. It looks like Casliber is going to be an arb from January which is a good thing. If Merridew really does stay away from you as promised and the conditions are enforced through the ArbCom and not depending on how Moreschi feels about it then I think you're fighting a lost battle to keep him away from EnWiki completely. Pixelface has already said pretty much what I would have said so I'd just be repeating him anyway. Casliber looks like he understands the issue with Moreschi so hopefully there won't be any problems. If it turns out that Moreschi is not being fair to you or not enforcing the injunction against Merridew seeking contact with you in any way then I'll be happy to back you up but unfortunately as it looks now I think I'd be hurting your chances of a working arrangement more that improving them by commenting. I think you have a better chance getting Moreschi removed as mentor/enforcer if he doesn't comply with the arbs decision than you do stopping this completely. Like I said, if it doesn't work out then I'll be happy to help you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh I was merely giving you a head's up of the situation. :) Last thing I want to do is get you stressed over something like this. Thanks for the offer though. -- Catchi? 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
link on your arbcom statement
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your interest. At this stage although archived the idea itself is still a developing one. It seems very few people pay any attention to WP:VPP, so I hope to resurrect the idea in the near future in some other median (not sure which median is the best). A number of the people voting seems to like at least some of my ideas even though they have voted oppose so my idea may have a chance unlike my candidacy. -- Catchi? 09:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"What exactly is the openness value of making evidence public after the case is over and after someone has been sanctioned on the basis of evidence they have yet to see"
I am going to answer to this if you don't mind. You very rarely you run into situations in dealing with a real trouble maker who calculates each step and attempts to manipulate people and evidence. This kind of disruption goes on for years and is hard to prove as the disruptive user finds or fabricates excuses for each of the questionable actions. While this may be hard to believe but I had to deal with such a disruptive user. For that you can take a look at: User:White Cat/RFAR/graph.
There is also the matter that some evidence cannot be published due to the privacy policy.
You also seem to confuse my stance. I am for discretely collecting evidence in advance before an arbcom case starts NOT during the official course of the case. Everyone deserves the right to see what they are being accused with the supporting evidence.
Point taken about pre-case evidence collection, I misunderstood you on that. However I still disagree with your position on secret evidence. In my view, any evidence that can't be disclosed to the person it is being used against (for whatever reason) can't be used at all. Thanks for clarifying though. Cynical (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
You seem to be changing your viewpoint on an edit by edit basis. You also seem to be quick into jumping into conclusions. Neither are good traits... -- Catchi? 01:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon?
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I was a commons admin for over a year. It is really unpleasant when people link to your own userspace as a rationale to oppose your candidacy you know... -- Catchi? 01:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I apologise that you found the link unpleasant. However, that in itself is indicative that you are an inappropriate candidate. ArbCom members experience intense scrutiny which means that people will point out things they have said and published on a public access website, so they need to have some emotional stability and confidence in what they have published. I find it rather questionable that you keep a public record of your RfA attempts. There's being honest, and there's ringing a bell to draw people's attention to your failures. However, while researching into you, I found you have a deep commitment to the wiki project and are a valuable contributor, so there's much about you to like and admire. Working in areas of nationality (as with working in BLP areas) does lead to conflict, so I am not surprised that you have gotten into scraps; however, people will judge you on how you deal with conflicts, and the community are uncomfortable with the way you have handled yourself in the past. This message you have sent me is an example of the sort of thing that doesn't inspire confidence in your maturity and ability to judge which issues are worth fighting over, and which should just be ignored. I wish you well with your future Wiki contributions, and I hope you take something of value from this ArbCom election process. Regards SilkTork *YES!10:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't complaining about your vote as an oppose. I wasn't demanding a support vote with my post to your talk page either. My post was more philosophical in nature actually. It is just that the page you linked to is something I feel should be good practice. Linking to your own history (failiures and successes alike) is what I would think is the honest thing to do.
I guess I am confused. Some people accuse me of trying to hide my past (which I make no attempt to do so I think) and there are some who complain about me not concealing my past... I am merely trying to figure out what the best honest practice is.
I respect honesty and openness (as may be seen by my own userpage in which I give information about myself, my real name, workplace and family, etc) so I lean toward you for being honest, and I warm to you for trying to figure out the best honest practice. Being honest is giving people information when they ask for it. Being honest is not trying to cover up mistakes, etc. But being honest doesn't involve pointing out all mistakes. It just means not attempting to evade scrutiny of these matters. People don't always need or want to know things. Situation: You are in your car and the parking meter is out of time. A traffic warden walks past. You call the warden back to point out you are in error. The warden now has to give you a ticket, when really all the warden wanted to do was finish his shift. Sometimes there is a social value in not drawing attention to something. People do not want to know how many RfAs you have failed. They want to know what you are like now. But if someone does ask, then you can tell them honestly. At the time they ask. And to the person who asked.
I understand your anxiety and uncertainty. When you do what you think is your best, and people do not support you at a RfA for reasons you do not fully grasp, then doubts about your own judgement come in. This happened to me when I failed my first RfA. It feels good to get the support and validation of the community, as that gives you confidence that you are doing the right thing. I would be quite happy to keep in touch with you and to talk things over now and again.
Have you given any thought to withdrawing your nomination from the ArbCom election? I'm not sure what benefit either you or the community are deriving from your continued presence there. A withdrawl on your own terms might be advisable. Regards SilkTork *YES!12:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'd be more than happy to discuss various matters with you. Feel free to initiate a discussion on any topic you see fit. ;)
I do not intend to withdraw my nomination. Indeed it would take well over 400 support votes to change the tide in the % and I know that is not going to happen but I think my open nomination may generate a few useful discussions such as this one.
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi White Cat ;-) The main Merridew motion now passes. I want to let you know that the users that volunteer to mentor are Casliber, Jayvdb, Lar, and Moreschi. If you have concerns about anything related to Merridew, you can also contact me or Newyorkbrad, or make a request at AE or by email to the ArbCom-l, or contact one of the mentors. Our primary need is to find users that can work well with Merridew. Additionally in this instance, we need to include some users that you feel comfortable contacting if you have a concern. I think we have achieved this balance with this group of users. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥18:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for keeping me posted. Jayvdb is a person I can comfortably talk to even though we had significant differences of opinions in the past. I had no interaction with Casliber before so I cannot comment on that. I'd rather not as the other two mentors (particularly Moreschi) for help. I feel the situation needs a 5th mentor so that any decision among mentors do not end up with a tie. I have no person in mind...
I have been trying to contact you on IRC over a completely separate matter for some time. I did even email the Arbcom-l mailing list over it. Do you think we can talk about it?
Hmmmm. I don't think that they will be voting on issues so a tie vote is not so much a problem. They will not be final decision makers as much as monitors. We mostly want enough people to watch him adequately and give advice. FloNight♥♥♥23:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Lar bowed out. Jayvdb, Casliber, and Moreschi are the 3 mentors. Odd number now, okay? I instructed them to inform the Committee if they are going to be absent for an extended period of time so we can find a replacement.
Orphaned non-free media (Image:US retaliates russian nuclear strike.PNG)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:US retaliates russian nuclear strike.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, sorry that one must have slipped. Someone else has already fixed it. Thank you for notifying me. -- Catchi? 19:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No need or consensus for mass changing of {{warship}} to {{ship}}
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There was absolutely no need for the bot run to change {{warship}} to {{ship}}. Because {{warship}} is a redirect to {{ship}}, its invocation is the same as an an invocation of {{ship}}. Regardless of the template chosen, the presentation to the reader is the same, which puts these edits in the realm of the trivial and, thus, makes them unnecessary. Further, when the option of mass replacement of {{warship}} with {{ship}} was brought up here on the discussion page of WikiProject Ships there was no consensus for this sort of change. The case could actually be made that there was, in fact, more of a consensus that this should not be done than the other way. All that your bot run has accomplished, in my view, is a clogging of my watchlist with trivial edits that have no net benefit for the readers, the ones for whom we are building this encyclopedia. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
The total amount of change was several articles. Someone else made the change before me. I merely finished the job. Would you like me to convert {{ship}} back to {{warship}}? I can do that. If not, what is the issue? -- Catchi? 19:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Firs of all I'd like to thank you for your help in improving this article. It seems like you also update List of ships attacked by Somali pirates that are still captive which has in turn prompted me to award you a barnstar which I will in the next section.
I was wondering if you'd like to help me move information from the IMO pdfs to the article. They have a database of ships attacked by pirates.
WC, thank you very much for the barnstar. Also, dittos for your work in table-izing the list of attacks from Piracy in Somalia to a separate page. Where is the International Maritime Organization's database? I've browsed the site several times but I'm unfamiliar with it. I would definitely be willing to help. Switzpaw (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
This was posted on the article talk page by someone else ;) You may want to start with September as it is almost finished.
I have added a coordinate box on the template. It seems with IMO we have a very large database for coordinates making this a standard info. Existing use of coord template needs updating on both the articles.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, I seem to have edit conflicted you and may have reverted things without wanting to do so. Take a look: [21]. I was merely trying to remove {{coord}} uses and adding lname parameters. Feel free to revert as you see fit. -- Catchi? 19:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Re edit conflict: Just noticed that. I don't have time to go through and fix it now -- I will later tonight when I re-do the seconds portion of the coordinates. While I'm at it, I'll check the existing ones because I think the template may be transposing minutes and seconds with the lat_m and lat_s parameters. Switzpaw (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yea. BTW you forgot to add the lname parameter last time. Don't forget it. :P -- Catchi? 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Some of these may be relevant, some not, will leave that up to you. These are also good pages to look for some other historical and relevant information/findings. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'll review this after toolserver decides to work again. It seems broken. -- Catchi? 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to follow up a bit more: The current "Scientology" Arbitration case which is currently open is the fourth such case (relating to Scientology). For previous cases, see this prudent info provided by Durova:
Several of the named parties in this arbitration were also named parties in the COFS arbitration. I initiated this case and the COFS case but had nothing to do with the Terryeo or AI arbitrations.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Jossi, thanks for your quick response.
I noticed your username is actually mentioned on the past arbcom case. User:Anynobodyaccused you of past involvement on a now ancient discussion. Was that related to Scientology? DO you recall what that was about?
I am merely trying to have a general idea on how everyone fits in the picture.
White Cat: if you want to do this unsolicited job of gathering evidence for that case, go do it. But please spare me in getting me involved in your investigation. And please do not cross-post. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)03:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am merely conducting a Q and A before going through the contribs of all involved. I'll of course get to the "truth" anyways as the evidence will support it. But I'd rather not go through all your contribution if you can establish the above encounter to be a mere coincidence.
Your replies to my questions may help point me in the right direction. For example it may point me at the underlying breaking point of the dispute even if you weren't involved with it. I am more curious of the interaction between involved parties from the first case and everyone else.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.
On your statement you said you'll "openly admit that Scientology may have originally drawn me to Wikipedia as a motivation to edit". Care to elaborate on that?
You mention a dispute on Wikinews. While that has no official bearing on wikipedia, I'd like to hear more about that. It seems the blocks were temporary or at least are no longer in effect.
Bravehartbear suggests "Scientology slanted editors came out because drastic changes were done" in the Scientology article by you. How would you like to respond to that? Do you think you should be added as an involved party?
To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?
Hello, White Cat. I will gladly answer all of your questions, but am not sure of the best place to respond. Seeing as you are an independent investigator here, would you mind if I respond directly on your own user talk? ←Spidern→11:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
That would be fine. -- Catchi? 13:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you've done a great job on your "CSI" subpage, until you made each of the commentaries collapsible. In my opinion, doing so made the entire thing less readable, and a bit tedious to click "show" on every single section. ←Spidern→21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
That does bother me too but the threads are getting too long. -- Catchi? 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Something small
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I inadvertantly removed your comment regarding the Moreschi case on the RfArb page - I would like to state here it was unintentional. There's no beef on my behalf. Kind regards, Caulde17:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
No hard feelings :P.
Seriously though, I wouldn't have noticed had you not inform me. :)
Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.
On your statement you talk about your use of public internet hubs and not proxies. To what extend do you move around?
I am not asking for any private info but I want to have a general idea on the distances you travel giving me an idea of how many different IPs you would be using. This may help resolve weather or not the ips are public ones or not.
Another thing you state is that you use "computers in the Church of Scientology" yet on the next paragraph you state that you have never been to the "church of scientology san francisco". TO my untrained eye it seems the two statements are contradicting each other. Care to elaborate?
To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?
Hi Cat, sorry, I wasn't around to see your question. Here is an answer:
I am working from two locations, one on the East Coast, one on the West Coast. In between I am logging in from airports or internet cafes. When using wireless I am going through a VPN/SSL connection (or something like that, hub, proxy, maybe there are different names for this). The idea is that the wireless line can be hijacked and using a SSL connection helps preventing that.
During a normal week I am using 4-5 different internet lines. I guess that makes 4-5 IPs.
There are thousands of scientology groups in existence (7,500, per the latest publications). I assume most of them have internet. Some of them have wifi and I used it there. Others have computers for use, e.g. to watch the scientology video channel or to log in on other scientology sites. I used those too. Or I plugged in my notebook in a network outlet and used this line for internet, like in a hotel. This whole discussion is ridiculous, trying to tie editors to IP addresses will never work. And I haven't even tried (yet) editing on Wikipedia through my phone. As for the above statement: I have never been to the "Church of Scientology San Franscisco". That's what I meant. I know most Churches in Southern California, New Jersey, Florida and New York as well as Canada. But somehow I missed SF in my trips.
I think I am the cause for the Scientology dispute or at least created enough contrast so the "two sides" (pro/con) could be seen better. I am active as a Wikipedia editor since 2007 and before I showed up the motto was "happy adding of trash material" to the scientology-related articles and "happy ignoring of anything neutral or anything perceived positive". I registered for the purpose of improving the Wikipedia articles on Scientology. My point of critic was and is that primary sources are used instead of reliable sources and that "reliable sources" of the lowest possible quality are used and promoted (I dare say BECAUSE they contain negative material about scientology or related subjects), instead of looking for better material (which would be neutral and defensible). The mass removal of primary sources that happens in the articles right now is what I wanted in 2007. But then, as in Scientology, it again is done in a one-sided way. Dozens of primary sources (to scientology websites) were removed and the trash links to private hate sites kept, including to porn mags (example "Penthouse", which seems to be "ok" as long as the "content" is "anti-scientology").
You could say I am guilty of polarizing. My contributions were not worthless or a violation of Wikipedia policy. They were just unpopular because the majority of those who are hanging out in the article (or "watching over it", such as Cirt and AndroidCat) are anti-scientology editors. Their POV/COI problem has never been addressed and I cannot detect any willingness to look at at. Which - if not addressed - would make this Arbcom another farce and a guarantee for the next edit war. Shutterbug (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Shutterbug, I urge you to expend a like effort to this response (at least) on the arbitration page presenting evidence, i.e. show the one-sidedness. We are blindingly aware of it but others are not because they have only been schooled in anti-Scientology material and have no idea that another side exists. As least no idea in any "real" way - most will acknowledge that people are free to believe any (kooky) religion they care to so I guess this is validity of a sorts. For even the so-called neutral here, it is not criticism of Scientology vs. the real perceived worth of Scientology. It is criticism of Scientology vs a set of kooky beliefs that I guess we should tolerate. Only we can show how glaringly one-sided editors like Cirts are. So please put up some diffs. Also you really should put up diffs showing the legitimacy of you edits. Show how 20 of your edits were legitimate. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ross is entitled to make his case on talk pages. If he has edited his own pages then he should stop and I think he has. Ross is a distraction - nothing really to do with this arb. Ignore him and make your own case as I mention above. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Anything Pre-2006 is uninteresting for the purpose of my investigation. So I'll leave out anything before 2006. Even 2006 isn't very interesting. -- Catchi? 02:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay so User:Smeelgova has 1 edit only which was on 21 Feb 2007. The account itself was created on 11 September 2008. All that of course is confusing, I know. -- Catchi? 05:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find that's because when Smeelgova became Smee the edits were transferred over to the new account but sometimes some of the edits don't go and get "stuck" on the old account. I had the same problem when I renamed Sarah Ewart (talk·contribs) to Sarah (talk·contribs). Those 2006 edits shouldn't be there because my account was renamed in 2007. Also, when you get renamed you used to have to recreate the old account name to prevent impersonators registering it because the old name became available for registration again once the rename had been done (not sure if that's still the case or not). The Smeelgova account was probably re-registered in 2008 when Cirt or someone else realised it hadn't been recreated. I recently recreated Veritas (talk·contribs) and Strothra (talk·contribs) for people who were renamed when they left the project so those accounts can't be used to impersonate them. Look at the user creation log for Sarah Ewart [25]. It says the account was created on 25 September 2008, but the contributions log says the account made those 2006 edits some two years prior. It looks like the Smee/Smeelgova accounts are in a similar situation. HTH Sarah11:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah. I think I'll pass altering the table over this since the rename isn't that crutal as it is ancient history. -- Catchi? 15:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Fahrenheit451, "Curt Wilhelm VonSavage" was a pseudonym of Werner Erhard. He apparently used the name on a marriage license. In fact, Wikipedia had a (now deleted) redirect at Curt Wilhelm VonSavage and variations that were pointed at the Werner Erhard article. Interestingly enough they were created by Smee on 19 June 2006, so he was no doubt aware of the connection. Theres an RFD here: VonSavage RFDSarah12:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Repost of comment to Jayen466
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
White Cat, I thought that you would find this relevant:
"Jayen466, I read the above statement. You state some points that I find helpful, but you make some very colored remarks than lead me to question your interest in the scientology articles: You state that Stephen Kent is the most hostile scholar. Please show me that he is hostile and then show me that he is the most hostile. Factually, he publishes articles that the Office of Special Affairs does not like. You also divide editors into two camps, the scientologists and anti-scientologists. I think that is an over-simplification that obfuscates the variety of perspective editors of scientology articles have on the English language Wikipedia. Since you are relatively new to editing scientology articles, you may not be aware that there have been sincere attempts in the past of various editors to work with editors with differing perspectives on various scientology articles. This has had limited success after the last Arbcom when special rules were instituted on the scientology articles, but did not bring harmony to the editing process. I have my own views of why this did not occur and cannot occur. Over to you. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)"--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Your questions
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Regarding this, one clarification: there have been ten prior formal dispute resolution attempts between Cirt and Jossi. They're listed in the second section of my userspace evidence presentation. Regards, DurovaCharge!05:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
That is probably true but this was sort of like a cross-examination... I have been asking people a lot of questions - of which some I knew the answers. This is to get a sense of their perspective. I am supposed to explain their edit pattern after all. -- Catchi? 05:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:SP2-Military.png
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SP2-Military.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Fair use rationale for Image:Russia Nuking US, Start of WWIII.PNG
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Merry Christmas!
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
とある白い猫/Archive, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk)00:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I was wondering if we could have a discussion (perhaps an IRC) one concerning a few issues... particularly the edit trend TTN is trying to enforce. While his behavior is disruptive, he is not the only person making such edits. I'll go to greater detail once we have a level of privacy.
If you want to discuss something in private with me, sending an email is your best option. I rarely visit IRC and the chance of me visiting IRC during the holidays is even smaller. - Mgm|(talk)20:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I haven't gotten a reply from you yet. -- Catchi? 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Image reviews at FLC
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Thanks a million, although it is a bit of a letdown to have bothered you only to discover that all images are in fact correctly tagged/attributed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I created a {{Alumimg}} and will apply it to the list now. My check cannot determine the copyright status with 100% accuracy. All I can do is review the existing licensing and assume the person uploading it isn't lying (unless such a lie is obvious). -- Catchi? 22:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Kiss (magazine), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I must say that I'm surprised upon reading your user page, the article suggests it was started by someone "new". If you object to the prod, please try and develop the article to provide more information. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am not going to develop it myself. Someone who knows Japanese will be translating it from the ja version if you kindly allow it please. This takes time and does not happen overnight. -- Catchi? 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg)){kind=link}
_logo_(lesser_whitespace).png)){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg)){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo_(lesser_whitespace).png)){kind=link}
_logo_(lesser_whitespace).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo_(lesser_whitespace).png)){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[20]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Image:--ScoutsChris3.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
