Orphaned non-free image File:Air TV DVD Vol 01.png
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Air TV DVD Vol 01.png. 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
May
Time template
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Well it turns out this page links to several other areas of the wiki so I am withdrawing my request that you ask for its deletion. Sorry to have bothered you. --Diannaa(Talk)19:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
It is not a bother but why are pages in my userpace a concern? Merely curious as to why. :) I do need that info should the said person decide to stalk me again. I stopped editing altogether because of the constant nagging by that person in combination with absolute and utter incompetence of ArbCom. He isn't stalking me anymore because I am not editing. -- Catchi? 20:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
User page rules call for materials on other editors to be disposed of once they are no longer actively needed, so it seemed to me that these old charts could now be discarded. However, since the Arbcom case links to them, it is probably better that they be retained as they tie in to that case; there is no other copy. --Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
The "rules" do not require me to request the deletion of pages in my suerspace the second I am done with them. Which rule are we talking about? As long as I do not use my userspace like a diary or blog it is more than welcome. Certainly offensive conduct that span multiple years such as stalking by the Jack Merridew person whom was also ruled to be stalking me (and banned from the site for over a year - though ruling was overturned before fully served through lots of wikilawyering).
Your post does not explain why you randomly decided to delete one and only one page under my userspace. Certainly userboxes as well as entire userpages are less useful that that chart that documents long term disruptive behaviour.
It is inappropriate for material that purports to be ac-evidence to reside in user space where a degree of user-ownership is allowed. Evidence should be submitted and allowed to become the property of teh "Holy Community". This was moved to user space to facilitate moar transclusion-games; it's spammed all over.
I am on a long term wiki vacation just because I feel like it. I may come back any time I desire. Go taunt someone else. I can submit evidence to arbcom in any shape or form I desire. I am perfectly allowed to submit evidence through email if I as much as desire which would make that evidence HIDDEN from the eyes of the community. I maintain that table in case Jack Merridew decides to stalk me again - which seems to be happening. The IP above seems to be from Indonesia compatible with Jack Merridew's location. -- Catchi? 14:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
June
Undeletion request notification
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This is to notify you that you are named in the above-linked SPI. I filed this further to your extensive history with Davenbelle/Merridew/Barong, but apologise in advance if this is simply a coincidence. Regards, AGK [•] 10:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
The heck? So let me get this straight, there are people following where I live despite not making any edits for over two years? How was my country of residence revealed? This needs to be explained first. How did you acquire this information of my whereabouts?
Secondly, please tell me why this guy (Davenbelle/Jack Merridew/Et all) is this critical to this project? I have been away from the project for two years and my inbox has countless examples of different people complaining about him emailing me to comment on RFCs and RFARs. Not a soul (not even arbitrators) was out there to even read the evidence I collected to prove that he indeed was stalking me through the use of sockpuppets. I was the VICTIM he was the AGGRESSOR. What is wrong with you people?
A fake apology is in essence fake. I am not amused.
Hi, I just read some of what is going on and I for one would like to apologize to you. I'm not sure why I feel I need to, but I do since I am a member of this community, also in good standing. I guess in part I feel embarrassed by all of this. I hope things get straightened out to your satisfactions. Oh, yea one more thing, I hope to see you around. Have a good day, --CrohnieGalTalk19:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I was feeling wiki lynched and feeling very uncomfortable. You cannot imagine the positive effect a simple two line post under such circumstances. -- Catchi? 19:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, actually I do. I hope I did make you feel a little better. I hate seeing this kind of stuff in the community that I am proud to be a member of, but I am also slowly starting to see too much of this negative stuff I think. The best advice I can give is for you to ignore it as best you can. To me it looks like someone is pulling strings via emails or something to all of a sudden get you involved in this mess. Just answer the questions they ask and ask the questions you need to even if it means going to an administrator via email to ask them. I am curious as to what triggered the spi report to begin with. I do have my own suspicion but that's all they are, suspicion. Have a good night, need to go for now. --CrohnieGalTalk19:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I am not sure what prompted the SPI, time and time again people forget to simply ask me if I am that person or not. Asking me first and then going SPI is still possible. This happened before with arbitration cases where I was the only other involved party whom wasn't worth notifying. :/ I too am curious how things went so wrong. -- Catchi? 19:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop
I am not a vandal. Stop calling me one. --VanishedUser99 14:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanishedUser99 (talk • contribs)
I do not know who you are and have no quarrel with you. I only care about the person stalking me (unless that is you) and the fact that I have been accused of being a vandal which I take great offense. -- Catchi? 15:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Block
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I am assuming it was a mistake since you immediately reverted it but I had to deal with the autoblocker. I'd like to kindly ask you to be more careful in the future. Also please delete the revisions in my talk page identifying my IP address to the general public. -- Catchi? 16:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Done Sincere apologies. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Also I want to keep this thread on both talk pages. -- Catchi? 17:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Copying the discussion on both places so it is archived properly in both talk page archives. Thanks for the deletion of personal info. -- Catchi? 19:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
My post at WP:SPI is connecting the evidence I have seen. Perhaps I was too fast on the trigger. It is of course possible that some troll is impersonating you via proxies. Also, as I joined the wiki long after all of the shite between you and Jack went down I am perhaps unaware of some other player involved who might be inclined to show up in a Jack-sock-tagging WP:SPA manner. As additional checkusers have now stated that you and SilentBlues are unrelated I will strike out my WP:DUCK assertion at WP:SPI. Ah, the pitfalls of the wiki.
I would suggest that you possibly tone down the rhetoric however. Perhaps acting in a more collected and collaborative manner you will find yourself more allies and fewer critics here on the wiki. Take care. N419BH20:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I wish it was that easy, over half a decade I have been forced to deal with this person time and time again as a result I get a little carried away when being forced to deal with him again because people (*COUGH* Arbcom *COUGH*) keep unblocking him. I apologize if you were hit by some of the flak but I was feeling wiki-lynched for the third or fourth time because of this individual. Not that I am trying to make excuses but just trying to elaborate on the reasons of my actions. Each time I have to present evidence trying to prove my innocence when in fact I am the victim. I will however take your advice from now on though I do not know how I can work in a collaborative manner after all that happened in the years accumulating to this day. -- Catchi? 20:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to express my agreement with N419BH. I do understand that you must find the situation frustrating, but remember that the people you are trying to persuade in the SPI are not the person who you reckon has been harassing you. I was never convinced by the sockpuppet case against you, which is why I closed the investigation without taking action against you. (The case has since been reopened, but that is another matter.) Frankly, I don't know whether the charges were justified or not, but in the absence of clear evidence I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, your angry and belligerent response to the investigation is far more likely to turn people against you than to win you support. I was once the subject of a sockpuppet investigation, which I thought (and still think) was completely malicious, and which had no basis. However, I did not express anger and indignation. Instead, I simply stated in two short sentences what I thought, and left it to others to judge the case. Naturally I would have returned and said more if the case had turned against me, but I believe that starting by expressing myself in a minimal way was more likely to succeed in conveying my view than being angry, and if you are subject to similar accusations in the future I suggest thinking very carefully about how to respond. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
My advice would be to bury the hatchet, and do that by moving User:White Cat/RFAR/graph to your own computer and off of public view. It's too likely to be seen as scorekeeping. If Jack does return to the behavior documented by that timeline you can always e-mail it to arbcom or publicly post it again. I don't think Jack's contacted you since his unban, so he's either being very careful, you haven't been around so he hasn't had the ability to contact you, or it's truly a stale issue that no longer applies present day. I truly do not know which one it is. I consider Jack a wikifriend, but I find his present behavior unacceptable. The guy has done a lot of good work but has a habit of getting himself in trouble. Right now he should be indef-blocked for his and the community's good. I am one to believe there are no truly bad apples here (except Grawp and 4chan raids...maybe a couple others, mostly in the WP:LTA category) and everyone has good work that they can do. Some of the stuff Jack's done in the past especially with regard to you are totally unacceptable. Some things he has done in the present (which have nothing to do with you) are also totally unacceptable. I do not think any editor should have their past hung over their head for all time. Doing that will destroy the wiki. For you, continuing to keep past matters in the present is likely to make you a target for trolls as has probably happened with this SilentBlues person. N419BH21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well to all of you talking to White Cat, I'd like to remind you of assuming good faith in a long term editor who is in fact is in good standing with the community. This whole thing had to be stressful with all the nasty history involved. Just my opinion, but I was so sad to see how this all got started and the rest of it. I'm very happy though that things finally got resolved. --CrohnieGalTalk12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Reply 2
Hey White Cat, I've made an additional comment at the SPI requesting it be closed. Thanks for your patience, and I apologize for my strongly worded evidence statement in that location. N419BH03:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
That is fine I think. I did a little digging myself I noticed these: [1] which trails to [2] (User:81.164.215.61) which trails to User:Access Denied. I think this is what is going on. I do not know who this person is but fair chance he may be User:Access Denied. Since he chose to vanish, there isn't much to discuss but this is what I think. -- Catchi? 03:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The IPs connected to Access Denied locate to Mexico City and Nevada, and his standard modus operadi doesn't seem to match up to this type of behavior. He'd have to either be in Brussels on vacation or that IP has to be an open proxy. I'd have a hard time believing it's AD based on those links and AD's known behavior. I of course could be wrong. It would be interesting to know whether that IP connected to SilentBlues is a proxy or not. The behavioral connection between the IP and SilentBlues is pretty easy to make though only the checkusers know whether it truly is SilentBlues for sure. N419BH03:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Or he may be visiting Brussels :p. I cannot be sure about anything without data from checkuser tools. Even if I had the data from the tools I do not know how conclusive IP data would be since it matches at least two users (one being me and other being Fram) as well as countless other Belgians... The ISP I use distributes the dynamic IPs to the entire Brussels region which is most of the population of Belgium probably. I think this will remain a mystery forever - at least until I preform lexical analysis through machine learning. -- Catchi? 09:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
July
ただいま。
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there. Any articles you want to work on? Mainly anime/manga but I am open to suggestions. -- Catchi? 09:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Well... Undead maybe :p I will finally have time for them wikis I think. Although my schedule is as always quite hectic. -- Catchi? 10:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Eh? I'd like to avoid wikibureaucracy of any kind even if it is for a good cause. More am looking to write articles without worrying about policy and procedures. -- Catchi? 18:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm one of those who believe that, at this point in the history of enwiki, most (but certainly not all) of the articles that should be written already have been. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Open tasks, looks like there's a large number of articles requiring attention in your preferred subject area there. N419BH18:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I may do that maybe. Sorry I cannot be much of help to you, though I thank you for the offer. :) -- Catchi? 09:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Links to userpsace
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Presumably Kirill edited those pages often enough to get on those reports. All those pages need to be blanked anyway, I've been putting it off for a while now. Franamax (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Ah OK. I was just confused. :) -- Catchi? 00:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Eventually yes. It will be a long process as so many wiki b'crats will need to be individually asked on many wikis. Merely reserving it in advance. -- Catchi?
Ok... would you mind not redirecting things in the meantime? It may make things very confusing for other users trying to communicate with you. It's also generally a lot easier for crats to do a rename without an account already in place, but I guess it's too late for that now. Hersfold(t/a/c)00:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I just moved my userpage. You can move it back if you like (I cannot do this myself anymore anyways). I moved it to limit confusion but I may be causing confusion unknowingly. -- Catchi? 00:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Caaaaaaaat
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Umm... Why is it that you are spending all your time finding low quality images? Wouldn't your time be better spent with more pressing issues? Merely curious. -- とある白い猫chi? 00:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Most of the time, I'm actually on the hunt for images with potential copyright issues; I usually just come across low-quality images incidentally, although sometimes I go on the hunt for them as a break from copyright-related stuff. IMHO, getting rid of or fixing copyright violations is a relatively pressing issue, and one that not many people are willing to take the time to work on (it can be tedious, and not very rewarding because it is such an overlooked area of the project). Also, I think I'm better at that than I am at working on the other, article-related, backlogs, and I'm also not real great at writing articles (although I hope to start fixing that soon!). –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I see. Mind you images (even copyrighted ones) aren't really deleted, just hidden for public so there isn't any benefit of getting them deleted. I merely want to explain the technical issues so you do not end up wasting your time. :) -- とある白い猫chi? 14:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
It is patent nonsense. I created the page in the past to sort out disambiguation issues that no longer exist. Please delete it. -- とある白い猫chi? 21:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Question (?)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
It looks perfect. Now while I did remove some of the optional parameters (since I doubt Mexico will ever join the African Union =D) this however isn't really necessary as long as a membership or pre-membership date is not provided. So it is perfect. :) Keep up the good work and let me know if you run into problems. -- とある白い猫chi? 08:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Templates
I need help in expanding the templates as well as creating more of them. I will be mentioning a series of short comings and problems I have. I didn't want to bore you off with this info until you had the free time :).
A small history lesson, I apologize if you know all this already. My understanding of the complicated history of EU is limited but... Three significant events lead to the formation of EU. (More info is at Treaties of the European Union#Ratified_treaties which has a nice chart.)
European Communities was formed in 1 July 1967 with Merger Treaty. The above treaties were amended and merged. This isn't currently represented in the template as I am unsure what the best way is to handle the complex relationship.
With 1993-11-1 with Maastricht Treaty the EU we know today came into existence.
What I want the template to do is all I should do is provide it a date and it should pull the relevant membership info. In the case of France, EU field should show "I6" or "Inner Six" when a date after 1952 but before 1967 (dates of the treaties mentioned in 1 & 2 above) is given. It should return "EC" or "European Communities" for dates between 1967 and 1993 and show "EU" or "European Union" for dates after 1993.
As for the actual template done so far:
I created some documentation for the template: {{Membership/Sub/T/doc}} which should give a general idea. The templates actual use is probably a lot simpler than it looks.
Do also take a look at {{Membership/France}}. For France's historic relation with European Union consider the line:
The reason why I have parameters like {{{EU|Show}}}, {{{EUsup|}}} is to allow people calling the template to pass values to the fields or hide the fields if needed.
The {{{EUorg|EU}}} determines what template will be called when the "EUmembership" needs to be shown. It actually calls {{Membership/Sub/Flag/EU}}. This is the EU we know as it came to existence/effect in 1993. The {{{EUpreorg|EU/I6}}} determines what template will be called for the "EUpremembership". It actually calls {{Membership/Sub/Flag/EU/I6}} in my work. As mentioned above the "European Communities" Pre-EU era isn't shown in this current template structure which is wrong. I6 ceased to exist (more or less) with the merger treaty I believe. The complication is that EU has two "pre-era"s. I was thinking of using a switch (somehow) but then waited to hear what you think. More detailed info of EU;s expansion is at Enlargement of the European Union#Detail.
The structure is a lot simpler for other organizations where membership is merely joining the organization and pre-membership is the time period where countries prepare for the membership.
The other issue is when countries leave organizations or end up getting suspended. For instance Fiji left the commonwealth after joining and then rejoined but has been suspended twice so far. Or France left NATO's military wing until recently. Such cases aren't handled either. Might I add the complicated membership of UN security council temporary membership where countries join for 2 years only multiple times with gaps.
One last thing I want to handle is the dates when countries came to existence or ceased to exist. If someone tries to pass the date 1950s to check the membership info for say Estonia they should be receiving a message saying the country did not exist as a sovereign country. Or if someone tries to link to Czechoslovakia by passing a date in 2000s they should get a warning that the country no longer exists. Likewise a NATO membership for 1930s (before NATO existed) or membership for organizations like Western Union, Warsaw Pact in 2010s should return an error as these organizations ceased to exist.
So these are the problems that require template coding. I'd like to know what you think. I want to maintain a one (or more) template structure as I think having all these relationships in one template would generate a template that is far far too complicated particularly when it needs to be updated.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Have you seen this discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Seriously? We are going to ban all unicode? This has been discussed before as I vividly remember username policy explicitly banning non-unicode before SUL. Anyways I will post something later today. I am simply too baffled by the weirdness of the proposal! :-D Thanks for letting me know. -- とある白い猫chi? 19:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Your bot@pl.wiki
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi!
As you were notified two years ago, "according to pl.wiki policy pl:Wikipedia:BOT#Bot_flag_removal your botflag has been removed due to inactivity during last 12 months. If you still want to use a bot on pl.wiki please reapply here: pl:Wikipedia:Boty/Zgłoszeniamasti<dyskusja> 19:24, 24 paź 2009 (CEST)"
You removed the video along with images. Can I ask why?
While I agree at the talk page to your assessment, perhaps you would consider my template proposal there for the images. I feel lots of images is a good way to illustrate the damage in the article while also feel they shouldn't over-clutter the article.
Lots of images may be a nice way to demonstrate the damage of the Hurricane however WP:LAYOUT#Images states "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can" "Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article". Afro (Talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I am sorry but did you actually check my proposal? I do not need to be reminded of guidelines and policies mid discussion as it is a very very poor way to continue a discussion. -- とある白い猫chi? 20:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Well to me it doesn't really solve the issue, I didn't remind you of you MOS to offend you, I quoted it because I feel they still apply to the proposal, in my mind you're still overwhelming a section with imagery and not spreading them evenly throughout the article. Afro (Talk) 20:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I am not offended. It is just that rationales entirely based on guidelines or policies for editorial decisions are very weak. I might argue for instance that since it says "images" videos would not be covered by the guideline but that would again be a very weak argument.
I feel the video should be in the article while other images - I do not have a preference on. I think it would be best if we separate the two issues.
Can we discuss on the article talk page so that the discussion is more people.
I have placed it back days ago and no one removed it. Since you insist on not engaging in a discussion on the talk page I will assume you do not have issues with the proposal. If you still do have an issue with it, please do post a comment to that end. --15:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. I wanted to help with the membership templates, but unfortunately, the documentation isn't easy enough. Could you please:
Write up a doc for creating(not using) the subtemplates(something like {{Infobox officeholder}}'s doc), with the sections for different organizations separated, and each parameter with a comment on its usage.
It is awesome! Thanks! :) Take a look at my userpage for my ribbon usage> :)
I have a problem though, I just added borders to User:とある白い猫/Ribbon which looks awful when I put these together in a group. Do you know a good way to make it so that if two bordered elelments are next to each other, border is hidden?
Feel free to use that ribbon template as you see fit. The black stars represent multiple awarding of the same barnstar. :) -- とある白い猫chi? 05:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not mirror conversations like this. I will not follow both locations, I'll only follow the original one, and when the same conversation happens in two places, it inevitably diverges into two no longer identical conversations. Sven ManguardWha?05:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fine we can keep it just here. :/ -- とある白い猫chi? 05:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Your request for rollback
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi とある白い猫. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY(TALK)06:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! -- とある白い猫chi? 06:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, from CLEF
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We have hit the limit yes, but that is a technical problem I hope to resolve in the upcoming days. I am busy with a few real world events but once those are resolved by Friday I'll be able to spend more time on redesigning the template structure (without changing how data is inputted) so transclusion limit problem is averted. Thank you for the updates on Interpol in doc. Interpol values actually need to be added to most of the templates as thankfully we now have the PDF of membership dates! I deserve no credit for the PDF as User:Guerillero found it. Also, welcome back :) -- とある白い猫chi?05:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
@trwiki
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, do you think you can revise your suggestion a little? It lacks "something" I just can't put my finger as to what. It feels like the essence of the news isn't there... Perhaps something like "The Italian Wikipedia goes on strike and hides all content in protest against the proposed Wiretapping Bill." but that also feels something is lacking... -- To Aru Shiroi Nekochi? 22:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It was put on the main page already. Then it was seemingly pulled. Not sure if anything will do will mater. -- A Certain White Catchi? 02:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Would you mind signing my guestbook? Of course, please take a look at my user page first. Thank you! 14:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Please leave a reply to this message on my talk page. Thank you.
FAR
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have nominated Turkey for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
November
License tagging for File:Ddpimages 8.71706826-600x387.jpg
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Döner murders
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The relation is based on articles such as the one on BBC. By no means do I claim to be an expert but there seems to be a connection somehow. It certainly doesn't fit the MO of the attacks but it is not like criminals will enforce their MO. The gun used seemingly matches the ones used in Döner murders. -- A Certain White Catchi? 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Non-free rationale for File:Osman SIRIN.png
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Non-free rationale for File:Osman ARSLAN.png
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Non-free rationale for File:Nuri OK.png
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Nuri OK.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
December
Renaming in huwiki
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The reason behind the block of your bot "タチコマ robot" was that the bot was inactive (did not make any edits) for more than one year. If you are planning to continue to run the bot, you will have to re-apply for an botflag at is:Wikipedia:Vélmenni. If your bot gets accepted then the block will be lifted. It is also worth mentioning that the bot policy on is.wiki has changed since last time.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
What were you trying to do here? Adding fact tags without making a specific comment in talk to explain your concern is bad form. Did you intend to remove a source and replace it with a tag? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time but please be more careful in future. --John (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The source is a general ref explaining that USAF uses these aircraft. It does in no way explain that USAF was using these aircraft during the actual incident which is the kind of source needed for the infobox. This is why the mentioned ref isn't helpful. Involved parties should be very well sourced particularly on articles that cover international incidents with political consequences. -- A Certain White Catchi? 06:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. It was very easy to find a better source for it being a USAF drone. You also added fact tags to the CIA and Iranian armed forces, although these facts were clearly and multiply referenced throughout the article. We all make mistakes but I would ask you again to be more careful in the future. As it stood, your edit looked almost like vandalism. --John (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Information referenced elsewhere in the article isn't very relevant unless there is a direct citation in the infobox on articles such as this one. The infobox did not have ref's. I would prefer sources beyond media to establish participants if possible given the importance of the information. I can always find "media" claiming CIA was involved in regards to practically anything involving Iran which is why I ask of this. Certainly some media is more credible than others but official sources claiming responsibility are even better. -- A Certain White Catchi? 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This page is a self redirect. Were you trying to redirect it to somewhere else? -- A Certain White Catchi? 03:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I meant to point the redirect to 1992-93 South Pacific cyclone Season and have redirected it off now. Thank you for bringing this redirect to my attention.Jason Rees (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Please follow your message on ksh-Wikipedia
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I left a message at your bot's talkpage [[3]] at ksh-wikipedia. Please follow the instructions. Otherwise you are not allowed to run your bot at this wikipedia. Regards --BBKurt (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
File mover
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have granted file mover rights to your account following either a request for those rights or a clear need for the ability to move files. For information on the file mover rights and under what circumstances it is okay to move files, see Wikipedia:File mover. If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
