User talk:Butseriouslyfolks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Re: Swiss patent No. 532 261

Yeah it appears to be a direct translation of your PDF, I deleted it as such. Thanks for spotting it! (my German is soooo old...) -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreement to publish the translation as previously referenced in my contribution obtained from author and his employer on 2007-06-26, but I have decided not to publish this under the GFDL, since no modification of this publication would be reasonable or could be accepted.

"Sehr geehrter Panjasan, ich bedaure, dass ich Ihnen nicht schon früher Nachricht geben konnte, aber die Abklärung hat sich - obwohl eigentlich einfach - hingezogen. Inzwischen habe ich das Okay von ITAG und ich bin ebenfalls einverstanden. ITAG hat Rechte an dieser Publikation, weil sie mir ein Honorar bezahlt haben. Ihre Zustimmung ist an die Bedingung geknüpft, dass die Publikation, in welcher der Artikel erschienen ist, zitiert wird. Ich hoffe, es ist für Sie kein Problem dies sicherzustellen. Mit freundlichen Grüssen G. Buntz"

panjasan 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)paanjasan

Pagan Alliance

Fair enough. I found it with a speedy deletion tag which it didn't merit, so I tried to improve it rather than just deleting it. The Pagan Alliance main article needs to go as well then. Deb 17:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

admin

Hey. I was a bit reluctant to ask this at first since you're still a little new in a way, but after seeing your edits around I think you would be great admin material. If you wish, I'd gladly nominate you over at WP:RFA. Let me know of your decision. Wizardman 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll start it up and ask wmarsh if he still wishes to be a co-nom. If so he'll send you the link to continue, if not I will. We should be done by tomorrow. Wizardman 22:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He declined to co-nom, but you have his vote at least. Here's the link for it.

help requested

Can you please see here? You don't have to help and I hate drive-by work requests on my talk page as much as anybody, but this is your area of expertise and all :-) --W.marsh 17:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• YEah... I looked through his new articles in his last 500 edits and most are clean at a glance. But some started out as copyvios, and were mostly rewritten... others he seems to start with a source and change some words, e.g. Icadyptes salasi [1] from [2]. Very difficult cleanup job here. I'll copy this over to AN/I. --W.marsh 18:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

PUI

You had posted an inquiry on the main PUI page, note that PUI has reorganize to use per day pages. I'll move the one you posted. _→AzaToth 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Instructions is updated, and should be followed if possible. _→AzaToth 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with your script? _→AzaToth 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably. Quickimgdelete.js was changed today and yesterday to account for the change in PUI. Please force reload to bypass your browser's cache. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 22:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC) P.S., you would probably add User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js to your watchlist so you can see when I do updates. howcheng {chat} 22:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

James B. Hughes

Hey there! This article actually came from the backlog of Wikipedia:Articles for creation. My search didn't find that potential copyvio...care to share your secret *grin*! In any case, I have noted on the article talk that the user-submitted entry on the website where the potential copyvio exists has the same signature as was placed on the original AFC submission, which you can see here: [3]. I was really waffly on that article--kind of a collection of trivia, but as a member of the Ohio State Legislature and a publisher he meets notability criteria, so I opted to create. Thanks for contacting me about it!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Support your idea wholeheartedly, so I will email and if there is no reply in, say, 72 hours, I would have no problem supporting speedy deletion.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The author has replied to my email and commented as an IP on the article talk page. Do you think this is sufficient to deal with the potential copyright issue?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 09:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Forwarding is complete. Thank-you for all your attention and for educating me on the process for dealing with this sort of issue!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tiny things

Hi. Just wanted to mention 2 things.

1. Check out {{archive box}} ;)
2. I noticed you updated your signature recently, to something very bold. In case you hadn't seen them already, I just wanted to point out these discussions: wp:sig archive1, wp:sig archive3 (particularly the argumentation section), wp:sig current, and wp:vpr current. (Obviously, I'm not a fan of them ;) Though I must admit I do like the labelmaker resemblance... But I do find it most distracting when trying to scan down a page. Anyway, just thought I'd mention, whilst it was still new and fresh.

Thanks again. :) --Quiddity 02:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

Butseriouslyfolks I was recently nominated for adminship, and when I went to the page, I saw you were also nominated. I supported your nomination strongly - your work with me is proof you are dilegent, willing to listen to all viewpoints, and a good editor. Good luck on the admin nomination - you have my support, as I noted on that page. Also, have you looked at the Council House Fight since I completely rewrote it? I added an info box, additional sourcing, and I am curious to what you think of it now, since you saw it when it was first up, warts and all! I would appreciate feedback on the work I have done since then. I am trying to tie the 5 articles I wrote in that series into a body of work on the military history of the Republic of Texas. Again, since you saw the one article at the onset, I would appreciate your review of it now. Thanks! old windy bear 12:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA and my "oppose"

An editor involved with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Father Michael Goetz Secondary School and the subsequent deletion review has mildly chastised me for opposing your RfA without first discussing my concerns on your talk page. You can see my discussion with him on my talk page and on his (sorry for the split up discussion). I didn't think approaching you directly was appropriate (it might seem like coercion, implying that I won't oppose you if you withdraw your endorsement of the deletion). Honestly, I can't get too worked up about the loss of an article on one high school half way around the world but I care very much about consensus. It appears that we simply have a very fundamental difference about the deletion policy, consensus and on what grounds an admin can ignore opinions. I am certainly willing to talk if you think it is appropriate, either before or after your RfA runs its course (but not now because it is 12:40 a.m. in Chicago and I am going to bed). -- DS1953 ^talk 05:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to explain your position. From your answer, however, I believe that my own explanation was not clear, so I will try to do better, one step at a time. I apologize in advance for the length.

• (1) - Deletion policy requires that an article be kept unless there is a consensus to delete (WP:DEL).

• (2) - Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators instructs admins on how to implement the policy. It says, in part: Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment ... to determine when rough consensus has been reached. It continues, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. No one has claimed that any of the comments by either side were in bad faith.

• (3) - An essay, neither a policy nor a guideline, which includes among many sections, WP:ILIKEIT discusses arguments which "should generally be avoided." However, that essay also states:

remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some valid points in it. For example, if a person argues for why an article is WP:INTERESTING, and the arguments for "interesting" are also reasonable arguments for "encyclopedic", it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay.

Therefore, even the essay does not say that the arguments should be disregarded. The goal of the essay is to steer people in the direction of making more useful comments in discussions about articles.

• (4) - All of the comments at the AfD in issue essentially addressed the issue of notability. The 7 "keeps" essentially said the school was notable (a few of whom said all schools were notable) and the 6 "deletes" said that it was not. In all honesty, neither side contributed much specific commentary. No one raised issues in the AfD about the verifiability, neutral point of view or original research. You cited WP:V in your response to me, but that argument is, in my opinion, a red herring.

• (5) - The closer didn't even claim that there was a consensus to delete. He merely said that "Without encyclopedic content, this article is a clear violation of the very 1st pillar of Wikipedia." By implication, he was deciding what is encyclopedic and what is not, regardless of the consensus. In his explanation on Deletion Review, he did explain that he disregarded the "all schools are inherently notable" argument.

• (6) - You adhere to your position that the closer acted appropriately. You said in your response to me that "any assertion that WP:N was met could not have been accurate, however well-intentioned." In other words, you believe that an administrator can look at an article and decide that even though the consensus of the community is that the subject is notable, he is entitled, in his infinite wisdom, to decide that the community is wrong and that he has a better understanding of what is "encyclopedic" than those of us who labor without the mop.

I have no doubt that some, perhaps even many, people agree with you. That doesn't make it right. But if the community believes that an administrator should be free to delete any article based on his or her decision about the encyclopedic nature of the article, then lets get rid of the pretense that consensus matters, let's turn deletion review into a content review (since process doesn't matter) and let's stop pretending that adminship is "no big deal" and admit that admins are better than all the other users. But don't just ignore the policy or use an essay to trump policy.

I am not judging your future actions by this one DR. I am basing my opinion based on the fact that you have now stated three times (on DR, on your RfA and on my Talk page) that your view of the power of an administrator is fundamentally different on AfD than what I believe is proper. I believe you are a very good editor and likely would make an excellent administrator in most respects. But I will oppose any nominee who believes that an administrator is not bound by consensus {except in those limited situations where some specific policy (copyvio, NPOV, WP:BIO, etc...) gives him or her the right to overrule consensus). -- DS1953 ^talk 01:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I read your reply and I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that WP:N be thrown out. What I am saying is that the community should determine notability, not the admin. In some cases there are guidelines and in some cases (schools being a notable one) there has not even been enough consensus to form guidelines. Let's take one where some guidelines exists, WP:COMPANY. There are several criteria discussed in the guideline but the only concrete test is whether the company been the subject of secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject. Let's say that a very stubby article on a mid-sized company is put on AfD which cites two independent, reliable sources. Ten editors comment, all of whom are presumably familiar with WP:COMPANY and none of whom are sock puppets or new or IP users. Six of them review the article and say either "Notable company" or "meets WP:COMPANY" but with no further explanation. Two of the four others say "nn company", one says "nn private company, sales levels not known" and the last says "nn, fails WP:COMPANY guidelines". You seem to be saying that the six users who looked at the article, understood the WP:COMPANY guidelines and succinctly expressed their judgment should be disregarded because they have not explained HOW the company met the guideline, while the four who !voted to delete can be excused from any obligation to justify their reasoning. Therefore, an admin could reasonably view the resulting discussion as a consensus to delete. Please tell me you did not mean what you said. -- DS1953 ^talk 02:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But if you read the very next section following the section you linked to, it says the following: If appropriate sources cannot be found: ... For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days. It does not say "If appropriate sources cannot be found delete the article despite the consensus of the community to the contrary because they obviously do not understand the concept of notability." Nor does it say that if sources don't appear during the process, then delete. It says "the merits will be debated and deliberated". To me, that clearly reinforces that consensus controls.

I had honestly hoped that our discussion would lead me to the conclusion that you do understand and value consensus and that the perceived differences were due to how our views were communicated. However, the more we chat the more I understand that you clearly believe notability is an objective standard (i.e., "white is black") that an administrator can look at and understand better that a mere editor. To put it in personal terms, as someone who has four times the number of mainspace edits that you have and and has been an editor for more than four times as long, it is hard for me to accept that somehow bestowing the magic buttons on you makes you better suited than me or for any other editor to determine whether the subject of an article is notable. I am sorry, but the world is not black and white, it is full of greys. When you look at a grey and see "white" and I look at a grey and see "black", who are you to say that seven of "me" are wrong and six of "you" are right? Certainly not the deletion policy as it is written now.

I am sorry that we disagree on such a fundamental issue but I am happy that we have at least clarified that there is a gaping chasm between us and it is not merely semantics. I do wish you the best of luck with your RfA and hope that as an admin you will at least remember our discussion when you are faced with consensus that runs contrary to your personal opinion. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives

You sure have an itchy triger finger, I know the rules. Sometimes when I create an article I save it a couple times instead of hitting preview. IF you don't remove the speedy deletion I won't change it.

It is very difficult to suggest that this page constitutes a copyright violation. Copyrights protect only creative work, not the simple recitation of facts. The fact that a single declarative sentence is repeated does not violate copyright. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The article contained two sentences, as well as the membership roster of the organization (in a different format than the original text.) What little creative element that was present might have fixed by re-writing, although I maintain that no legally-cognizable element existed. As I say in your RfA on this subject, simple declarative sentences are not copyright-able, if they convey only facts, with no real creativity. I'm sure the sentence "George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States" has occurred in print a million times by now, but it is copyright-able by no one. In any event, the article was a clear CSD A7 -- resorting to a questionable copyvio claim was not the best choice. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No real worries. :) The copyright issue on which we continue to disagree is a narrow one (it would apply only to very short articles, often deletable under other criteria anyway.) Whenever you do become an admin, whether sooner or later, it's a good idea to put every appropriate CSD reason in your deletion log entry ("A1/A7/G11" is something a type fairly often every day, for nearly-incoherent company spam!) This way, the editor involved knows all of the problems he'll need to address if he recreates the article. Also, it makes it much easier to sustain the deletion at DRV if the applicability of one of the criteria comes under dispute.

As for the copyvio issue, all I can ask is that you remain aware that G12 deletions in cases where only one or two sentences might infringe are likely to be controversial. Think hard before you pull the trigger on them, and don't be afraid to consult others. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode review MFD

There's also a TfD for the tag we were using, and I was wondering if you could comment there as well: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 7#Template:Unreferenced episode. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks

You made a personal attack on me- you don't seem to understand that when you attack people and act in an uncivil manner, they are going to complain. It appears to me that I am notyour first victim. I suggest you look at your conduct.

You were the protaganist. If you want to act aggressively and rudely, thnen you should expect to make other people unhasppy.

As I have said, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Fitzpatrickjm 09:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fitzpatrickjm 09:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Orville W. Hagen

Please stop copying text from websites and adding it to articles as you did with Orville W. Hagen; it really doesn't help anything and in this case led to the deletion of the article. Now I'm having to track down the text before it was deleted so I can re-create it as it used to be. Weatherman90 21:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I simply tagged this article as a copyvio. I didn't add any text. -- But|seriously|folks  23:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that, I assume weatherman simply wants to recreate the thing. SGGH ^speak! 23:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion; I must have been in a hurry and I mis-read SGGH's posting.Weatherman90 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Easy now?

You familiar with pipe organs? And where do you think you'd stick a Tuba Magna? Actually, on second thoughts, better not! ;-) --Vox Humana 8' 03:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Who built it? How many speaking stops does it have? You may be interested to se Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell#The "Father Willis" organ. My mother is Director of Music there atm.--Vox Humana 8' 03:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

Wow, I'm so happy. Now what do I do with it? I've never had one before. :) Wikidemo 06:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA note

Hi. Thanks, I saw that, but don't think it's worth hashing out on the RFA page, since this only will attract more attention to something that is probably minor. My problem is that you've done so little work on articles, and the one where you've done the most is a bit problematic. Now, the subject is weird enough that it's probably not possible to write a decent article about him. In any case, I wish you well and it looks to me like you'll be given the mop in a few days. Bucketsofg 04:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll do fine as an editor I'm sure, and if you get the admin over objections, I'm sure you'll do just fine with that as well. I'm one of those that still believe that being an admin should be no big deal, just a few tools, and lots of editors should be admins without the monkey dance at RfA. The monkey dance is why I rarely vote at RfA, though I watch it. On the chances when I vote oppose, it is because, unfortunately, the monkey dance is the way RfA works. If other people have decided to make adminship a big deal that is the way I have to treat candidates until a better RfA system comes out.

To my oppose, you hashed out a rationale in response and not just an excuse. That shows you think. That's an important thing - I'm sure you'll do whichever way RfA goes. If it fails - write some more articles, research a few "citation neededs" in old articles and participate on talk pages so people can see you think. That'll get people to the next RfA like a magnet. SchmuckyTheCat

Beale Piano- unreasonable deletion of factual material

I object to your unreasonable and unfounded deletion of material fromn the article which I have created.

It appears you misunderstand the meaning of copyright! There is no copyright in facts! Also, you have alleged that I copied material from another copyright article. Some of the information you deleted did not appear in that article, and hence I refute the allegation.

Kindly refrain from this type of ativity in the future- it is apparent that this is not the first time you have engaged in this type of thing.

Fitzpatrickjm 06:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Kindly note that I have read your response. You acted capriciously in deleting sectionsd of the article. Your conduct was not and continues not to be "civil". I find it incredible that you now complain that my conduct was not "civil" in responding to your own hostile conduct! I suggest you look in a mirror before you make such accusations against other people.

Your proposed solution is not acceptable, in that you continue to allege infringement of copyright. I require that allegation to be retracted, and that you apologise for making an unfounded and improper allegation which could be regarded as being defamatory.

Fitzpatrickjm 07:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I note for the record that you have not given any response to my previous message.

Fitzpatrickjm 14:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, about a half hour later. [4] --Butseriouslyfolks 15:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How ignorant are you? I have withdrawn the article you complained about, made inquiries with the person whose copyright you have alleged I have infringed and confirmed that they do not consider there is any breach of copyright.

All of these facts are lost on you. Why? Theonly logical explanatin is utter ignorance and pigheadedness.

Kindly withdraw the allegation of infringement of copyright.

Fitzpatrickjm 08:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your conduct is inappropriate and in breach of Wikipedia guidelines. It could also be regarded as being mean. If you want to conduct yourself in that way, peple are going to describe you in the manner that you act. Look in the mirror, and your conduct is clearly meanm, and you are unrepentant in your ignorance.

If you can't take it then don't dish it out!

Fitzpatrickjm 09:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the article was reinstated after the allegation of infringement of copyright was made.

Fitzpatrickjm 12:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• And after it was rewritten. -- But|seriously|folks  15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for creating those stubs!

Thanks for creating those stubs and adding the material into various articles. This is a worthy series of edits. Do you think you could add the information at Great Lakes as well? Carcharoth 14:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take another at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5

Hi Butseriouslyfolks,

I appreciated your response to my questions at the nomination page and it's helped me to think about the issue. As a direct result, I've posted a new comment at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I think the article as I've redone it meets your objections, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look and reconsider, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! I've appreciated your being open-minded in the past.Noroton 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, now I'm confused. Do you disagree that Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough Consensus indicates that consensus trumps WP:N? My position is that well-sourced articles, which may not meet WP:N because the sources, while reliable, may not be multiple, independent, could still meet consensus in a deletion debate and therefore survive. I see no justification anywhere for overturning consensus simply based on notability concerns. Have I missed some rule or common practice? Please tell me, what do you disagree with in that? Noroton 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm confused. Perhaps we're just stating the same thing differently, but I think my way of stating it is clearer. I think it helps to simply consider WP:N and WP:V separately. You said:

I agree that WP:N does not trump consensus. I agree that if an article is sourced, "article shows subject is notable" !votes are perfectly valid and, if they constitute consensus, they prevail. This is so regardless of the quality or nature of the sources. If, however, there are no sources whatsoever, WP:N cannot be satisfied, no matter how many editors believe it is, because of the requirements of WP:V. Therefore, such a consensus could be overridden by WP:V. Do you understand my reasoning? If so, does it make any sense? -- But|seriously|folks 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noroton"

Notability requires multiple independent sources. WP:V doesn't, so an article can meet WP:V and not meet WP:N. Consensus in a deletion debate could keep such an article. (I think it might be possible to argue against this by quoting other Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc., but the one I'm relying on, WP:DGFA, seems to be the best, most direct source. You might say it's only implied that WP:N doesn't trump consensus, but I think the implication is very strong.)

If by "notability" we're only referring to the Wikipedia guideline, then the question isn't so much what people think about the sourcing as what the guideline thinks about the sourcing.

I agree with you that consensus can't save no-source articles (and this is something of an evolution of my thinking, bringing it a bit closer to yours).

Incidentally, here's another interesting case where a majority was overturned. I voted neither for nor against, and I'm not interested in commenting on it (and I've always got some sympathy in these cases) but just passing on the news. Noroton 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I took another look at your note "just to clarify" at the bottom of my last comment at the deletion review. I see what you mean. I removed anything that I couldn't footnote because, in this case, I thought it would make my case stronger. If someone added some of that information back, I'd just add a fact tag to it. My referring to your arguments only meant you had prompted me to clarify my own by referring to WP:V. Noroton 19:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Thank you, Butseriouslyfolks, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 23:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Obrigado, Butseriouslyfolks, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 23:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

Double !vote at R's RFA

I have struck your second/double support !vote at R's RFA. You are not permitted to !vote more than once. Apologies. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Sorry, unintentional. -- But|seriously|folks  03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Hey - no worries. Memory must have momentarily stalled there. Happens to the best of people. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles which lack sources

I have spent more than an hour reading past discussions on the topic of deleting articles solely because they lack sources. While there are clearly some strong proponents of your position, I cannot find anywhere your position has obtained consensus of the community. For example, there is much discussion in this rejected policy proposal (including the related talk page and talk page archive) and other places. If you have a particular source that supports your interpretation of policy, I would appreciate it if you would specifically point it out to me.

I agree that we collectively need to do a much better job citing sources in articles and I might even support a policy (to be implemented gradually) that would make lack of reliable sources (or at least external links to reliable sources) a deletion criteria. However, I do not believe that the community today interprets the deletion policy in that manner. You may be right and I may be wrong as to the interpretation of the policy, but until it is more clearly resolved, I strongly urge you to check with other more experienced admins before you start applying your policy to delete unsourced articles despite consensus that the article should be kept. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote a soon-to-be-admin, "my brain hurts". Now I have to do all the real work I should have been doing. Good luck with the tools. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Wow, you're an aspie? I had no clue! (I just saw your userbox.) Thanks for all your recent work with images, and congrats on your shiny new admin-flag. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done...

That's wonderful news, friend. I will hopefully begin seeing your wonderful work around wikipedia :-) Take care. Scarian^Talk 12:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on becoming an admin, Butseriouslyfolks! Cheers! Dekkappai 23:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Congradulations on becoming an admin! -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, your nomation was successful and you are now a sysop! (I can't believe someone beat me to congratulating you) --Deskana (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hurray! --Iamunknown 23:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay, congrats. You not only passed RfA, you broke the record for most support votes by one of my nominations. Wizardman 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations! Acalamari 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Butseriouslyfolks Congratulations! You will make an outstanding admin! Did you see that Stillstudying voted for you? I was proud of him, he is developing into a good editor, more civil, and he has always been willing to work. ANYWAY, congratulations again!old windy bear 00:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, congrats. You will do well as an admin! Politics rule 01:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Heh; you're welcome for the support! You're welcome for the {{administrator}} tag too! :) Acalamari 01:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Pedro |  Chat  08:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And from me - congratulations :) ck lostsword•T•C 08:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Now get to work on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, we have a backlog. :) Garion96 (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Now get to work!. Pascal.Tesson 09:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Now take a break! -- Hoary 10:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, dude. —Anas ^talk? 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations, be thoughtful and you'll be fine! Modernist 14:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Jmlk17 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I thought about it and thought about it and thought about it and then, just now, finally went over to the page to actually vote for you because, while we disagree most of the time we interact with each other, I've always found you pretty open-minded and your disagreements have been courteous (even better than civil) and you've helped me to refine my thinking more than once. And then I noticed I was too late. Well, I woulda supported you. Now that that's over with, would you please block all users from Connecticut except me? No need to rush: If you could do it by 6 p.m. Eastern time that would be more than sufficient. Thanks! Noroton 20:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on Image:Guy Goma.jpg. I've added more complete fair use rationale to the image page. And congratulations on becoming an admin, I think you'll do a great job. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA??

Oh god, I can't believe I missed your application. You'd have my vote, obviously. Anyway, welcome aboard and go delete copyvios, slacker! ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh!

Actually, I'm pretty sure I wrote that note before I went through the Fairfield County article hell. I believe at the time I was going through List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut hell. "Connecticut" was what came to mind. Carpetbombing the entire Northeastern U.S. would be another option. I find people can get my goat too easily (something to work on) but at least I calm down within about 12 hours.

Right now I'm causing trouble with one of my overlong (but not, I think, overheated) crusades, this one on overturning the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables. Appropriately enough, it's listed on July 14. You might not want to read the essay I turned my comment into, but I think there are some interesting points there about Wikipedia policy regarding closing admins. Again, I couldn't blame you or anybody for not wanting to delve into what amounts to an essay. Cheers! Noroton 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

Wield me! Wield me!

Congratulations on your successful RfA. Here's your mop and bucket. Use them wisely. :-) Festive regards, Húsönd 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Good job. :) ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your recent promotion. Regards, Peacent 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I echo my comrades, and congratulations on your promotion, which was well deserved! I followed you this morning, and would be honored to work with you - hollar if you need a second voice on something! old windy bear 14:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy my response to those who have commented on this user's blocking

(Posted also on individual talk pages) Thank you to Bishonen, LessHeard vanU, Hamster Sandwich, Lsi john, Butseriouslyfolks, Pascal.Tesson & Evilclown93 for taking an interest in this matter. I appreciate the views you have provided and understand them all to be in good faith. I detail the following comments for historical purposes:

1. For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way.
2. People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to Image:Daredevil46.jpg. DreamGuy placed a tag initially [5] on July 5th that said, This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen.

   I assume as a part of his admin role Evilclown93 removed that tag as detailed here.

   Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader.

   It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all).

   A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility! You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter.

   DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point Butseriouslyfolks removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at WP:FUR.

   I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing! My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method.

3. In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at WP:FUR - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, Let's discuss it first, please?. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at WP:FUR and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to Pascal.Tesson for his revision of the time line.
4. I note the comments above that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at WP:FUR.
5. I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning.

Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining. With best wishes --VS ^talk 02:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert R. Cargill

How can I plagarize myself? If I am Robert R. Cargill (email me at bob@bobcargill.com and I'll prove it), how can I be in violation of infringing on something I wrote? And why are you deleting and not waiting for the 'dispute' to register?

And who are you? Seriously.

-bob cargill IsraelXKV8R 07:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but seriously...

I believe your intentions are good, but I am now spending my time talking to you and not doing other things. (Granted, I'm sure you're a pleasure to speak with, but my page is gone and I'm talking to you instead of sleeping.

Again, read the pages. How can I plagerize myself. I followed the dispute guidelines, and you blanked me anyways. I mean, some little wiki patrol dude suggested I was a candidate for copyright infringement, I put the dispute tag, sent the email, and instead of waiting for the procedeure to run it's course, you got delete happy and nuked me. Seriously.

I'm following all of the procedeures that wiki has in place, and you deleted me (or wtf you call it - blanked?) anyways. Please put it back and let the administrator that got my email do his/her job instead of taking this into your own hands? Please?

As for notability, 'strongly discourage' does not equal copyright violation. You listed that as another reason, which is totally off topic.

Please?

-bobcargill IsraelXKV8R 07:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

thanx

wonderful. thanx. i sent the following email to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

- I am Bob Cargill. I authored both pages. I give permission to myself (and to you) to display the www.bobcargill.com material on Wikipedia. -

Thanx. -bc

seriously, when should i expect a response from an admin. and then, what's to keep another one of you wikicops from doing this all over again? IsraelXKV8R 07:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted the copyright on Robert Cargill

Thanx for your help. I posted the copyright. I even put an email if there are any questions.

Now what happens? Do you unblank the page or does an admin post something telling you not to blank anymore?

-bobcargill IsraelXKV8R 08:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I'm pissed!

you deleted my USER PAGE??? STOP IT!

I jumped through your flippin hoops on my page, but don't mess with my USER PAGE!

You didn't delete it last night, you did so this morning.

GET A LIFE. Go study for your wikipediaholic exam or something!!

IsraelXKV8R 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is...

you didn't touch my page last night. Did you just miss it? Or are you just being an ars? seriously, i don't want to get into a confrontation, but good grief! first you delete my page. you can obviiously see that i'm the same dude as on my own website. but that's not good enough. you then have to kill my user page. and why? because you are a wiki-cop and you have awards?

look, email me - bob@bobcargill.com or bobcargill@mac.com. please do. because you're making a hell of a lot of work for me, and it's not fun.

why can't YOU wait until it's resolved. why didn't YOU put the warning on my user page instead of just deleting it? huh? you blanked my page, but then DELETED my user page. did you miss it last night, or are you just being difficult?

IsraelXKV8R 17:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You should leave my award

It's meant to be funny, not vandalism. It's a badge of honor. I know you're just trying to do your job. I know that I am frustrated. I thought I'd use some humor to make the situation a little lighter. Delete it if you want, but i thought it was cool for both of us. IsraelXKV8R 17:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But in the mean time...

Glad you saw the humor in it. After a while, you'll want to repost it, (even if only for the Talladega Nights quote in it.) In fact, if you leave it, you can refer to it whenever someone else gets into a disagreement with you.

In the mean time, I'M going to write something to put back on MY USERPAGE. (Fear not, not the Robert R. Cargill page.) I do want to write something that I PERSONALLY wrote, - in the first person - to let others know who is actually making edits on Wiki. (I despise the anonymity of wiki. In my letter to Wiki this morning, complaining about this whole little disagreement, I mentioned that the anonymity of the internet is why more academics don't use Wiki or take it seriously. As a young(er) scholar, I'm trying to promote Wikipedia to the older generation. But this whole delete my page thing just makes me want to become an anti-wiki advocate. Look, I hate POV articles, especially ones that attack people. This is why I wanted to take my OWN info and put it on my OWN page. That way, with any edit I make, EVERYONE knows who made it. I'm not going to hide my objective scholarship from anyone. Ironically, by deleting my USERPAGE, you get rid of my personal resume, which does away with (some) my credibility when making changes.

So unless this gets resolved soon, I'm going to repost MY resume on MY page. Please don't mess with my USERPAGE (unless, of course, you're going to give me a cool award). 17:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Robert R. Cargill and OTRS

I can now confirm that the user is in a position to use the content of the website in question. Thanks for helping resolve this issue. Adambro 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Now what?

May I please put it back? Or will you do that? 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for the COI tag btw. That was sweet of you.

Good ness. Just promise me you won't hassle me as I try to sing the praises of Wikipedia to the academic world.

(I still think you should post the award...)

-bc

by the way, I left the COI tag there, as a badge of honor ;-) 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hikari Hayashibara

Thanks for your help with my mistaken template. An IP making a first edit changed her name to Kikari today and linked to some of her drawings. I misread the caption as Kiki and thought the IP was right (it was momo, curved line instead of straight--I've been away too long). Then I followed the Hikari Wikilink and found it redirected to lolicon, and thought the IP had created the entry and redirected it, and was just generally being trollish. I should have looked at the history of the article first, but didn't. After you deleted my speedy tag I was in the process of requesting a name change, but luckily I googled first and found that the name was Hikari after all. Then I really looked at the history and saw the article had been up for deletion, etc., etc. Too bad no one has added a word to the Hikari Hayashibara since. Anyway, thanks for the save. -Jmh123 02:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Challenge 2007 Contestant

Hi. I see you have deleted the majority of the articles of the contestants. I was wondering why you deleted them since there was clearly no conclusion reached to whether the articles should be deleted or not on one of the talk pages: [6]. You didn't even provide a final argument/reason for deleting the article on the discussion page or in the summary box. I just want to request to please restore the articles until a final verdict is reached. Thank You - Bhavesh.Chauhan 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your quick feeback. I'd be very happy if you could put all of them in subpages of my user page. I'm the only one who's working on all Top 14 contestants so it's all very hard to manage all of them at once, but I'll be sure to continue working on them to hopefully prove the significane for most, if not all of them. Thanks for your support Butseriouslyfolks =D - Bhavesh.Chauhan 05:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Allright. Thanks for all the help. It's really a relief to at least be able to continue working on the articles while they are in my subpages. Thanks again for your efforts and I wish you a merry week ahead. - Bhavesh.Chauhan 05:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tags on Image:April two and a half men.jpg

Thanks for cleaning up the missing-source tag on that image. I made a complete mess of that (I misunderstood the CSD text). Mark Chovain 07:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

copied images

yes, i uploaded them as mine, he took them but i figured he wouldnt object if i uploaded as if i took them. he is threatening all sorts of outlandish legal action against everyone, i removed tthe corresponding images off commons too. Fethroesforia 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Userfication"

Hi. I see you undid one of my speedies and "userfied" the page. I'd just like to point out that you've not actually userfied the page, because it's still in mainspace, at Bhavesh.Chauhan/Rimi Dhar. If it was userfied, it should be at User:Bhavesh.Chauhan/Rimi Dhar. As such I could technically delete it as a recreation of deleted content, but I think I can give you some time to sort this out, if you like. --Deskana (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, don't worry about it. The subpage feature is turned off in mainspace, so those were just articles with weird names. :-) --Deskana (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice one.

Methinks I'll leave it just like that. thanx. -bc

(i STILL think you should leave my award...) 09:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oobi.jpg

I considered untagging it, there's a kids show with hands with those eyeballs as its characters, and it's called Oobi. Don't know if that changes your mind. Carlossuarez46 07:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Seems like you thought of all the right things. I'm not sure that I'd recognize Oobi walking down the street. Now, Big Bird, on the other hand.... :-) Carlossuarez46 15:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of NYU in popular culture

Hello. I'm confused as to why this page was deleted. I created the page and no ((prod)) tag was ever added to the article - it was deleted without any edit forewarning such deletion. I would like this page to be reinstated as it contains a lot of information, none of which is found in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Please let me know asap, thanks! -- Noetic Sage 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That was FAST! Thanx.

Thanx for the help. That actually makes much more sense. That's a good edit.

I'm also going to write to Critical Thinker and Thesultan and tell them that enough is enough. They both know who I am, and I am putting my identity right yout there, so I'm a target.

Ya, some of Norman Golb's disciples like add negative comments to any news story that mentions the SDNHM and to do anonymous wikipedia editing on the SDNHM's page, because they feel that someone at the SDNHM edited Dr. Golb's page, causing it to be locked. So, the DSS page is where the battle is now taking place. So far, no one has messed with the Qumran page, which I believe is fair to all parties. It may only be a matter of time. (I HATE anonymity! It actually makes me dislike whoever is doing it. Anywho...) I haven't touched the DSS page yet, but if this crap keeps up, I'll begin editing there, and I never sleep ;-)

Thanx again for the help. IsraelXKV8R 03:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And how do you know Zahi Hawass?

That was good. I thought you said you only knew a little about archaeology. That was a serious name drop. He's in EVERY archaeological bit about Egypt. Methinks it's in his contract.

Kisses from Nic. IsraelXKV8R 03:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Toda Raba!

much thanx! 03:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well THAT didn't last long. Now what?

And why is this poo happening? How does someone fight this? And why is wiki such a hassle? 03:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for the support.

I appreciate it. -bc IsraelXKV8R 06:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Turn it off.

If you don't mind, please kill it. If they're gonna kill it anyways, all the more so to do it now, before I get attacked. Thnax. IsraelXKV8R 13:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Iraq Operations

There are currently 3 Different lists of Iraq Operations; Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operations(which is also somewhat POV), a chonological list and an alphabetical list. I have added a lot of operations to the alphabetical listing and have been updating it faithfully but I haven't updated the counter insurgency or the Chonological listing much. Before I do I recommend that we consider other methods. I figured out how to add a column sort function and added it to the Alphabetical listing. I recommend the other 2 articles be merged into the alphabetical listing and then we can rename the alphabetical listing to something more appropriate like Iraq Military Operations since 2003 perhaps. I added a blurb on the discussion page and recommended the merge for the chronological list and the counter insurgency operations page. You seem to do a lot with the Iraq war articles what do you think? --Langloisrg 15:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

File:Cat dude.jpeg

I found the "author" of the image, but before I could add it, it was deleted. So, now what template do I add? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you scroll to the bottom of the site, it says "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License" and on the bottom of the page the image is on, it states the same thing. I have contacted the website, but until then, I do believe the picture should be brought back, on good faith, under the "not sure" template. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I am having trouble with is that CC 2.5 is allowed, but CC 3.0 isn't and that confuses me. When I first uploaded the picture, I put it as "not sure" on the tag, but with the lolcat pictures as common as they are on the internet, it is really is impossible to tell who made which lolcat image. Which, I think should be allowed as a free image or as "author released". I am not trying to make excuses or end run around the rules, I am honestly trying to put a template on the image that works, I am just at a loss as to which one and am at a loss as to how to get permission from an author that could literally be anywhere. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Creative Commons aside for a moment, since most of these are released on sites like 4chan, among others, could it be possible to say that it is public domain, since it was released on a site like that. Most end up on sites like icanhascheezburger.com, but they start out on the "chan" sites. So, could public domain be claimed? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bugger....I can try and find a blank copy of the picture, but then I would have to find the author of the picture. I am out of ideas. I was honestly trying to get that picture in "legally" (by Wiki standards). Oh well. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, fair-use and I have always "butted heads", but I think I can find a picture of my cat with the same look and can use that. Thanks for your help though, I greatly appericate it. Take care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Todd Marshall dinosaur images

I've sent an email to the OTRS address you provided. It is entitled "Fw: Todd Marshall dinosaur images" and a list of images it applies to is at the bottom. Thank you! Sheep81 03:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Powerpoint clipart

The image tagged at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Vvcnvalogistics3full.jpg does not violate any Microsoft rules regarding use of Powerpoint clipart. The Microsoft rules are shown below.

The image contains minor things such as ship, symbol, or human icons, arrows. etc. Every graphics program includes things like these, from Photoshop, to low-end freeware art programs. Even word processing software has symbol fonts. It does not sell, license etc any product or service or have primary use of the media elements. It has no recognizable tie-in with any product or service or trademarks. It does not create obscene or scandalous works. None of these apply.

Others will not be able to extract the elements per se because it is a screenshot of a powerpoint slide not the slide itself. The only thing is this blurb from Mircosoft: "You must include a valid copyright notice on your products and services that include copies of the Media Elements."

To satisy them, I will include a blurb with the image: "Contains clipart from Microsoft Powerpoint- not for commercial use or resale, per Microsoft guidelines at http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint/HP030900871033.aspx, Copyright, Microsoft Corporation"

---

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint/HP030900871033.aspx

You may not sell, license or distribute copies of the Media Elements on a stand-alone basis or as part of any collection, product or service where the primary value of the product or service are the Media Elements. You may not use or distribute any of the Media Elements that include representations of identifiable individuals, governments, logos, initials, emblems, trademarks, or entities for any commercial purposes or to express or imply any endorsement or association with any product, service, entity, or activity. You may not create obscene or scandalous works, as defined by federal law at the time the work is created, using the Media Elements. You must indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys’ fees, that arise from or result from the use or distribution of Media Elements as modified by you. You must include a valid copyright notice on your products and services that include copies of the Media Elements. You may not permit third parties to distribute copies of the Media Elements except as part of your product or service.

03:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD Question

If an article is put up for AfD and later the creator wants the article deleted, can it be blanked and tagged {{db-blanked}}? -WarthogDemon 04:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, would it be okay in the case of Rodney burrell then? An apparent PR writer made it, protested it, and after making some uncivil comments wants it deleted along with his account saying his reputation is on the line. -WarthogDemon 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I too was thinking the whole thing was starting to get just plain pointless. -WarthogDemon 04:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:LukaP

Yes, that's a problem case. Since I tagged those images myself I didn't processed them on WP:PUI. I asked for a second opinion about this from someone, but got no response. My sentiment would actually be to delete (almost) all the images he uploaded. Except the ones where he really stated he made them himself. Garion96 (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:PUI#June_30. Garion96 (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Link gone by now. I deleted most of his images except the ones tagged as fair use or images stated (s)he made them self. Garion96 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Just read your message. Hope it helps. I also guess I was a little bit too harsh in my original post to him, I must have been dealing with a lot of copyright violations that day. :( Garion96 (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Imgaes

Thankyou very much for the forum link. Even though I honestly do check the copyright status of all images I post on this website I simply don’t know which tag to use. Once again thanks for the link - it will help. LukaP 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Thank you for clarifying such policies on images such as kelly bundy's and all,but didn't you for example tag the image: Al bundy couch pose2.jpg with the same tag even though info on that image are MUCH less than the ones i provided??or do u just have a habit of tagging my images only??Grandia01 16:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

Could you explain why you have deleted my images? Thanks. Mattythewhite 21:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you actually give evidence they were taken by other people? The York City related ones were mine. From what I can see, there was no proof for their deletion. Mattythewhite 21:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes that one, I admit. But not all of them. Such as Image:Anthony lloyd2.jpg and File:James lloyd.jpg. Nothing wrong with them. Mattythewhite 21:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think only the ones you have suspicions about should be deleted. And DSC-P72 mostly I think. Mattythewhite 22:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct, EOS D30 is used for some. Is it possible for deleted images to be re-generated? Mattythewhite 22:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I scanned the image. The image was taken by my mother on an old camera. I have her consent for its usage, or is it more comfplicated than that? Sorry, the St James Park image was taken by my brother who gave me the usage of the image too.. Mattythewhite 22:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Aahh.. so complicated! Shall leave for another time with those ones.. Mattythewhite 23:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

David mcgurk.jpg, Neal bishop.jpg, Craig farrell.jpg, David mcgurk2.jpg, Neal bishop2.jpg, Craig farrell2.jpg, Martyn woolford.jpg, Anthony lloyd.jpg, Thornley lloyd.jpg, Kassam oxford york.jpg, Clayton donaldson york.jpg, Darryn stamp.jpg, Donaldson penalty tolfrey.jpg, York post match.jpg, Anthony lloyd3.jpg, Darryn stamp2.jpg and I think possibly Kassam stadium.jpg, Adam griffin, Yemi odubade.jpg and Jim smith.jpg. Can't really remember by only looking at the file name.. Mattythewhite 23:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Donaldson stuart bishop.jpg, Chris hackett.jpg might have been mine. Mattythewhite 23:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe so, taken with EOS D30. Mattythewhite 23:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Mustn'e have been mine then. Wasn't too sure about that one. Mattythewhite 10:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

You're welcome. There may still be some outstanding problems; a number of images have been taken from this copyright website. Unfortunately the site doesn't credit the photographer. --Muchness 00:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

National Eating Disorders Association

I've been using Wikipedia for over two years and I feel from my experience that your speedy deletion of National Eating Disorders Association was totally unjustified. I realize that most of the article content came from the site but it is:

• 1. A nonprofit group.
• 2. The largest group of it's type in America (so they claim), created from the merger of two older eating disorder groups.
• 3. It was wikified (lots of links) and clearly had a stub tag so that people would know it was a little sparse.

I think the largest of anything in America is notable in and of itself, and that you should at least put it back and put a VFD tag on so others can have a chance to agree/disagree with your totally arbitrary action.

Tiki God 01:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Feel free to recreate the article from scratch" -Butseriouslyfolks

Yes, don't give me a chance to edit the article to make it right (like verifying the claims with another source, and altering the content to make it more original) just delete it completely so I have to do two times as much work. There's a difference between following the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

You may want to consider adding these to your user page.

This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive.

This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice.

Tiki God 02:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

I used to edit under the name User:Orangemonster2k1, but abandoned the name because of a user. Moved to this one, but the editor I abandoned my original username because of tracked me down. So, it was all for not. My question is, can I get the edit history and other information from the User:Orangemonster2k1 account transfered to my current username, User:Neutralhomer? I would appericate any help you can give. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, Thanks:) Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Hi. I really like your signature, however it is at the limit for signature length. Currently it is 'legal' however please do not make it any longer. For futher reading please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SIGNATURE . Thanks for your help in this matter. And well done on your RfA Djminisite - Talk | Sign 08:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

More image problems

Hello again. I've just noticed that a large number of images that Mattythewhite uploaded, including ones that he claims he took himself, were in fact taken from the *.rivals.net network of websites. For example, Image:Anthony lloyd2.jpg and Image:Anthony_lloyd3.jpg, which Mattythewhite claims he took upthread, are in fact taken from here and here. Some more randomly selected examples to illustrate the problem:

• Image:Stefan bailey.jpg from [7]
• Image:Paul wanless.jpg from [8]
• Image:Andy mcmillan.jpg from [9]
• Image:Janos_kovacs3.jpg from [10]
• Image:Darren craddock4.jpg from [11]
• Image:Darren barnard.jpg from [12]
• Image:Darren_dunning2.jpg from [13]

... and so on. You can google search for site:rivals.net "keywords" to locate more images from the site. Unless Mattythewhite can provide some kind of evidence that he's taking photos for the *.rivals.net websites, we need to consider the possibility that he has not taken any of these images. I thought it best to check in with you first, because chasing down sources for all these images and listing them at WP:PUI will take hours. --Muchness 15:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Tag Teams

Hi. I noticed that after the prod on List of Tag Teams expired, you put a redirect to Tag team. Do you think that is necessary? No other articles (with the exception of a few talk pages...your's now included) link to it. Isn't it better to get rid of it all together? It serves no purpose. Nikki311 05:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I am recreating the article that you just deleted. However, I am not copying from the website word for word. Cheers. Miranda 08:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning and happy editing! -- But|seriously|folks  08:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Miranda 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Double the Trouble

This article Double the Trouble was marked as spam; it did not appear to be spam so I removed and placed with a notability tag. Then looking at the history page I got concerned on what the appropriate thing to do is . . . can you take a look at it? -WarthogDemon 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, and no prob. :) -WarthogDemon 20:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Lotta Tags

Hey, don't worry about all the tags in my talk page. Like you said, at the time I uploaded them, I didn't thought that such a strict copyright policy was required, and it's hard to keep track of how many images I've uploaded. Thanks anyway, and I'll be sure to check if I can get permission for some of those. Peace. Thief12 15:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

I see I've been blocked from uploading images, but there is one image I would like to upload. From here. I've made a cropped version of the image and don't worry, it seems to be a totally legitimate image for upload. Thanks, Mattythewhite 15:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, I presumed it must have been some sort of a block.. But I've set up an account at Wikimedia and I've uploaded the image here. Is everything okay with it? Cheers, Mattythewhite 17:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wherebot

Yes, it looks like Wherebot is not working properly; lots of false positives with no link. --Haemo 05:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A bot?

I think you are tagging a number of images I have uploaded. Such as Image:HK2000.jpg, Image:HK2000_2.jpg, Image:HK2000_2.jpg. All of which have been granted rights to upload by the author exclusively as mentioned in the description, including the authors name. I am wondering if your bot is not recognizing the syntax? Benjwong 05:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi can you help me out on the instruction? I really don't know what they mean by contacting "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org"? Do I use my real actual email and someone forward the approved permission to <email address removed>. Is that what they mean? Benjwong 06:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at all the pics I uploaded by the same author/donator. It might be faster if I just replaced it with similar pics from flickr or wikimedia commons tomorrow. Benjwong 06:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What?

You are so disrespectful to Noelle. Wait until you want to buy her brand of ice cream. She won't let you. It's only for the chosen. - Paulus89 08:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why are you refusing speedy deletion of "Former Towns of RSK 1991-95" category? This category is against Wikipedia rules as it has no value and above all is offensive. Also the same category was created two times before that and both times was deleted. --No.13 09:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have explained how this category is unappropriate. It is nonsenical category with one goal and that is spreading nationalist propaganda of a certain member. This member also has several sockuppets and is involved in heavy diruptions all over Wikipedia. You can see several account this user has used: Inter-milano, Wermania, Benkovac, and couple of anon accounts here and here. It is possible that he or she has seeral more sockpuppets. As you can see his only goal is disruption. Despite this category being deleted two times he creates it again. It is time this user and his sockpuppets be stopped. --No.13 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I followed your advice and posted it on WP:ANI. --No.13 19:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No.13 is Deleting pictures and links on wikipedia which is against the rules. eg: Benkovac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.215.114 (talk • contribs)

I am not a sockpuppet or a sockpuppet holder. No.13 is committing slander about me. (LAz17 05:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).

OK, please take this dispute elsewhere, such as WP:ANI#Massive_disruption. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  05:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Berenice of Cilicia image

The image Image:Berenice cilicia.JPG had been tagged with a warning that it lacked source information for longer than seven days before I added the speedy deletion tag. You seem to have replaced the license with the {{pd-art}} tag but, correct me if I'm wrong, the PD-Art does not apply to three-dimensional works of art, as they usually require creative input to photograph. And a three-dimensional work of art is what this is (different angle, same statue here). I've tried to find where this statue (or the photo, as it's copyright might have expired anyway) came from but no luck so far. In the mean time however, I think it's probably better to delete it. Cheers. --Steerpike 01:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you like follow me?

Do you like follow me? The Rypcord. 02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you do that?

Why did you deny that speedy? It's not the actual Cover art it's a fan creation from the Web and isn't allowed on Wikipedia.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 20:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's listed here.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Non-free use rationale

I was confused at first about your speedy request on this one, but I understand it now. I'd take care of it but it's a bit complex and I don't want to butcher it. I've left it for somebody with more experience. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks  20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why I wanted to leave it for somebody else. Maybe the move's not complete yet? -- But|seriously|folks  21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it's fixed.  :-) -- But|seriously|folks  21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've got the double redirects fixed as well. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

email

would you send me your email address? mine is on my user page. IsraelXKV8R 01:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Hellmer

Don't quite follow on the Kurt Hellmer delete. I looked up a few of the WP entries for people cited in the literary agent entry, and the entry for Hellmer seems comparable to something like Harold Ober. Is it a matter of explicitly asserting notability in some fashion? I'd assumed that an agent, given the critical role of agents, was significant if they represented significant authors, and that this was an area usefully addressed and expanded in WP. Certainly Dürrenmatt was a significant author. Any clarification much appreciated. AtomikWeasel 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my page. As a more experienced WP person I’d appreciate it if you could give me your thoughts on this, and tell me if you think this rises to the appropriate level of notability to create an entry or not: I understand that notability is not inherited, if, for example, someone were someone notable’s secretary, assistant, or gardener, and with no claim independent of their employer for notability. It seems to me though that an agent might be a peculiar case in that an agent is important, and I would think notable, if they represent notable clients. Isn’t that the case as to how one would determine if an agent were an important/notable person in their field? So I suppose that’s one question I’d appreciate your thoughts on. As for the particulars for Hellmer, if indeed an agent’s notability is determined by their clients, as would appear to be the case for the WP entry on Harold Ober, I’ve managed to locate references on the web to Hellmer having represented John L Spivak, whose papers are collected at Syracuse University. The entry at Syracuse University’s library identifies Spivak himself as ‘an investigative reporter and author whom fellow muckraker Lincoln Steffens described as "the best of us," was most concerned with the problems of the working class and the spread of fascism and anti-Semitism in Europe and the United States from the 1920s through the 1940s.’ so I could use that as a cite for an author Hellmer represented, and which author is deemed significant. As for Dürrenmatt, I could provide a link to a play of Dürrenmatt’s, The Visit which lists Hellmer as his agent. If these are sufficient as to cites, at least to create an initial short entry, I suppose the core question is whether in the case of an agent notability is established by having been a sufficiently noteworthy agent that they represented noteworthy, significant figures. I'll accede to your more experienced judgement here. Any thoughts? AtomikWeasel 03:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:MNasland.jpg

As you can see on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images this is getty editorial image #73491119, taken by Jeff Vinnick. I thought providing that information would get it deleted as fast as possible. Do I have to db tag it to get it deleted? --Krm500 15:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

I believe that if you believe that this was a personal attack (the bit you removed), you are deluded. This amounts to nothing less than censorship. I agree that WP:CIVIL needs to be followed (even if I've crossed the line myself), but there is a fine line between policing that and censoring valid opinions from users. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to read my comments on TechnoFaye's talk page over the balacnce between policing WP policy and the right to free speech... and my concerns that cautions and blocks might being used in some instances to effectively shut people up. This next bit is not directed at you but at the project in general - I'm increasingly feeling like I'm stuck in North Korea. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments here. Your message showed just how ignorant you are of my issues with User:Abu badali. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

IMC logo orphaned

new smaller version was uploaded. I have direct authority for adding the image, and it now belongs to Wikipedia. JP419 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Helping Hand

Hello BSF - are you online to give me a quick thirdy party opinion on something? Pedro |  Chat  08:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you peruse User talk:Charineeimagebkk/Sandbox. Brief history. Article has been speedied six times. I have worked with this editor, WP:AGF and all that, to see if there is a case for the article within the 'pedia. I personally feel it's very borderline on WP:N although probably is verifiable. The image I have discussed on the users talk page, (uploaded pd-self which is not the case - possible WP:COI comes into it as well). Basically, with your new shiny mop do you think this meets criteria or should we advise the editor to drop it? (probably) If you levave a comment in their sandbox it would be handy. Thanks for any help. Pedro |  Chat  08:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Thanks so much for your time. It wasn't an issue of "ganging up" on the editor, but proving that as a community we will take time to consider, and will not make unilateral decisions - something that we have clearly done in this case. Thanks again ! Pedro |  Chat  08:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me out. Charineeimagebkk 08:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictures by Imre Solt regarding copyrights and Wikipedia

Butseriouslyfolks, You put this message on my talk page:

• Hi, these images can't stay. I reviewed the links you listed at Image talk:Villa on the Palm Jumeirah on 28 January 2007 Pict 3.jpg. When Public Domain was described to Imre Solt, it was specified as noncommercial. Noncommercial licenses are not sufficient for Wikipedia. Also, Imre's response ("You can use free") is too ambiguous to constitute proper license here. I suggest you review WP:COPYREQ for the most efficient way to obtain and confirm permission. Also, per WP:IUP, watermarked images are not permitted. -- But|seriously|folks 00:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found another post that might allow me to put his photos on Wikipedia. Please go to http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=474942&page=18 and look at Posts 350 and 352. Does this give anyone permission to put his pictures onto Wikipedia? And if it is allowed, would we be required to crop the watermark out of the photos? Thank you for taking time to help me solve this little dilemna. Leitmanp 02:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 04:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights/MikeGodwinSays

For some reason I thought it would be humorous to actually make the page. The title probably needs work though. -Nard 18:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos in Different Language Sites

Since you have been so kind to help me with the copyrights of photos, I hope you will be able to help me with something else. There are photos on a Malayalam site and I tried to put them on the English site. But, it did not work. The pictures can be found at http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/സാലിക്_(ചുങ്കം). I am trying to put them onto the English site: Salik (Road Toll). Is there a way to put photos that are used in one language into another? Leitmanp 02:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Kerry Shook...

I apologize. I thought the copyright deletion explanation was for the picture. I've been fighting fanatic deleters and vandals recently and I jumped the gun. Please understand that it was the desire to improve Wikipedia with which I acted. BURNyA 15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

CSB

Hm. Not yet— until it has approved bot status, I don't want to mess with another bot's output in case it breaks and goes berzerk or something.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to break you fun, but the trial run is over.  :-) I take it you agreed with the tagging CSB did? (Except that unfortunate but unavoidable PD source copy, of course) — Coren ^(talk) 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's baa-ack! (For a 2-day trial)  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Deacon

You have deleted my work. The source for this work is reliable but I have cut 'n pasted without, as I intended, editing down the article, as I was interrupted. I believe that I have failed to add the references/ tag.

Please could you restore the article, so that I may edit the text and add more (non-copyright) material. The message that the bot sent did not imply deletion, just a placement of a tag on the article.===Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your reply noted - Unhelpful. Your speed of action - Unhelpful. What risk is there of the University of Exeter taking a copyright action against WP within 24 hours of the alleged violation? I think the Institute of Cornish Studies has better things to do with their time. ===Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 08:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ask Mike

I'm aware that that page isn't suitable for asking questions, but I felt it was an effort by PalestineRemembered to do precisely that and only posted there to clarify what he was trying to do. Did you intend to respond to him? Kyaa the Catlord 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I misread that as you were responding to me. :P I'm a bit shellshocked right now. (I should know better than to go to such hotbeds of... politics!) Kyaa the Catlord 16:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Imre's Images (again)

I read through your response about Imre's Images and read through the links you included. I do not understand a lot of it. There is too much technical legal terms. Is there a more straightforward way for me to understand this? If I was able to contact Imre Solt, what would I need to ask him to make sure that I can use his images and put them on Wikipedia without them being deleted? Leitmanp 01:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)